Blythewood Online 691

Tag: Mayor Gregrey Ginyard

  • Judge OKs amended suit vs JWC

    JENKINSVILLE – Broad River Campground can amend the lawsuit it filed against the Jenkinsville Water Company to include new allegations and statements from witnesses, a judge has ruled.

    Sixth Circuit Judge Grace Gilchrest Knie also ruled in a separate order that campground lawsuits against the JWC, as well as board chairman Gregrey Ginyard and vice-chairman Joseph McBride, can be combined.

    Both lawsuits allege violations of the S.C. Unfair Trade Practices Act, or SCUTPA, according to Fairfield County court records. Orders combining and amending the suits were signed in late June.

    “The factual allegations in the SCUTPA cause of action against JWC are identical to the factual allegations against Ginyard and McBride,” the order combining the lawsuits states.

    “I find that the factual allegations the Plaintiff has asserted against JWC, Ginyard and McBride arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and that there are questions of law and fact common to all defendants that will arise in the action,” the order continues.

    At issue are claims that the JWC reneged on agreements to provide additional water service to the campground, which in recent years has seen an influx of workers at the V.C. Summer nuclear site.

    The campground’s suit claims the JWC wrongfully denied water service in 2014 despite a superfluous amount of water.

    Broad River Campground states in its suit that JWC is contractually obligated to provide additional water, citing a letter from the JWC as proof that a contract existed between the parties.

    According to the letter, the JWC stated it could commit to 8,050 gallons per day. The campground has said that even with the extra water, it falls below the 8,050-gallon threshold.

    “The water company will consider increasing our commitment, but only if that can be done without negatively impacting other customers of the water system,” the letter states.

    In legal documents, Ginyard individually and the JWC as a whole deny allegations in the suit. The JWC has also claimed in its filings that the letter doesn’t constitute a contract.

    “JWC denied and continues to deny that Exhibit 1 [the letter] is a valid and legally enforceable contract,” an affidavit previously filed by Ginyard states. “However, to the extent that Exhibit 1 is a valid and legally enforceable contract, JWC never breached it.”

    JWC’s answer to the litigation also states it lacks sufficient water capacity to meet the campground’s request.

    “Defendant pleads impossibility, impracticability, unconscionability, and an Act of God as Defendant does not have available water capacity to satisfy Plaintiff’s demand,” the answer states.

    The campground’s amended complaint inserted the word “willful” in numerous causes of action. It also included an affidavit from former JWC board member Lori Smith, who restates assertions made in the campground’s suit.

    Smith further stated in her affidavit that Ginyard pressured other board members to influence their votes.

    “If Mr. Ginyard wanted a vote to go a particular way he would call Board members and try to get them to vote his way,” the document states. “He intimidated members of the Board who were supporting the campground.”

    A Dec. 3 trial date is tentatively planned.

  • Former board member blasts JWC

    JENKINSVILLE – Jenkinsville Water Company leaders “willfully” provided false and misleading information about the water company’s ability to provide water service to its customers, according to documents filed in Broad River Campground’s ongoing lawsuit against the JWC.

    Also filed recently is a sworn affidavit from former JWC board member Lori Smith, who issued a blistering rebuke of the water company and its president, Gregrey Ginyard.

    “Mr. Ginyard did not hold up JWC’s part of the bargain with the Campground because he never allowed the Campground to use the full amount of water JWC agreed to provide contractually,” the affidavit states.

    A circuit judge is expected to rule soon on whether or not to accept amended litigation that says Ginyard and vice president Joseph McBride broke an agreement to provide water services to the Campground.

    In previous filings, the JWC said water is a finite resource that must be regulated. It has denied entering into a contract, saying what the campground considers a contract was actually a letter outlining water capacity.

    “JWC’s actions did not harm the public interests, as the Company acted prudently to ensure that the water would be conserved properly and would be available to other customers and potential customers,” the filing states. “The parties never had a meeting of the minds and never entered into a valid contract.”

    A campground attorney also filed a motion to consolidate the case with two related cases that name Ginyard and McBride individually.

    Circuit Judge Grace Knie took both motions under advisement. She also directed attorneys for the campground and JWC to prepare proposed orders within 10 days of an order she signed June 7.

    Campground attorney Glenn Bowens said in court documents that the amended complaint was necessary due to new information unearthed during discovery, court documents state.

    The amended complaint includes numerous new allegations.

    For example, court documents state the JWC denied water service in 2014 to additional campground sites despite having more than 76 million gallons of unused water capacity.

    The amended complaint also states the JWC gives residential customers preferential treatment over commercial customers. Water service was denied to a church and businesses, while granted to private residents, the litigation states.

    Additionally, the JWC board commits to courses of action while in executive session, the lawsuit states.

    The state’s Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, prohibits public bodies from voting or even conducting informal polls while in executive session.

    “[The] policy of residents first and preferential treatment/more favorable for residents makes it likely the unfair and deceptive acts and practices will occur once again in the future,” the amended complaint states.

    Smith, the former JWC board member, repeats many of the assertions from the amended complaint in her affidavit.

    The affidavit includes new allegations as well, including one that says Ginyard often polled board members in advance of meetings.

    “If Mr. Ginyard wanted a vote to go a particular way he would call Board members and try to get them to vote his way,” the document states. “He intimidated members of the Board who were supporting the campground.”

    In the end, Smith said she resigned from the board, citing medical reasons.

    “I resigned because of medical reasons due to the stress caused by the continuous hiding of information and false information being provided to the Board during the meetings.”

  • Election commission blocks JV annexation protest

    JENKINSVILLE – Fairfield County election officials upheld the result of the Jenkinsville annexation vote by a more decisive margin than the original referendum itself.

    In a unanimous vote Monday, the Fairfield County Election Commission voted to uphold the results of the June 5 special election that saw the annexation measure fail 19-15.

    Commissioners agreed one vote shouldn’t have been counted, but it wasn’t enough to sway the final result.

    Their decision to uphold the election was largely influenced by a miscommunication regarding a property owner who opted out, according to testimony. His property bordered other contiguous properties, which could have swayed the vote, town attorneys argued.

    Commissioners disagreed.

    One official noted a letter from the property owner was sent to the town’s lawyer, and not the Jenkinsville town clerk.

    “The letter should’ve been sent to the town clerk, and it was not sent to the town clerk,” election commissioner Alice Rice said. “It was sent to the lawyer instead.”

    Betty Trapp, chairwoman of the election commission, said a written order of the board’s findings would be issued as soon as possible.

    Trapp said the town could file an appeal in accordance with state law.

    Section 7-17-60 says appeals must be filed no later than noon Monday following the date of the county board’s decision, pegging the deadline as June 25.

    Had the annexation vote passed and been subsequently adopted by Jenkinsville Town Council, the town would have added 143 properties to its tax rolls, quadrupling the town’s geographical boundaries, according to Fairfield County property records.

    Two witnesses were called during Monday’s protest hearing: Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard and Debby Stidham, director of voter registration and election for Fairfield County.

    Jenkinsville’s protest cited three main arguments:

    The list of eligible voters provided to the polling location included voters outside of the proposed annexation area.

    A blind woman’s vote was incorrectly counted.

    One property owner exercised his right to opt out, which broke continuity with several other properties.

    “At minimum, the above irregularities make the actual outcome of the election uncertain and require a new election,” the protest states.

    Jeff Goodwyn, a Columbia attorney representing Jenkinsville, focused primarily on the contiguity issue in his opening statement.

    Goodwyn said if the property owner who opted out was excluded, it would’ve dramatically impacted the outcome because other properties would have been excluded as well.

    “Without this property, the part of the annexation, it breaks the contiguous nature in the city,” he said. “Their votes were meaningless because they couldn’t possibly be in the town.”

    Ginyard affirmed that position during testimony at Monday’s hearing.

    “There were quite a few votes that shouldn’t have been counted,” he said. “With the vote count being 19-15, with there being eight to 10 votes in that area, that could’ve swung the election either way.”

    Ginyard also testified that a blind woman who voted on a paper ballot intended to vote “Yes.” Her vote was excluded because the “X” didn’t appear in either the “Yes” or “No” boxes, Ginyard said.

    Election officials, however, said there’s evidence countering that statement.

    Commissioners noted the woman cast her ballot at the county election office using an electronic machine, meaning she couldn’t possibly have voted on a paper ballot.

    Stidham did confirm that another voter living outside the annexation area cast a ballot, but noted that wasn’t enough to order a new election.

    Stidham added that before the election, she sent a list of eligible voters to Ginyard for verification, but never received a response.

    “Going by the map I received with tax map numbers, I never got any feedback,” she said. “I assumed we had those registered voters correct.”

    Stidham also said the town never mentioned the voter who opted out.

    “The ‘opt out’ you keep mentioning, we had no knowledge of an ‘opt out,’” she testified. “We received nothing in my office to know there was an ‘opt out’ to even remove those voters.”

    Not mentioned during the hearing were reports that Ginyard was observed inside the polling location, beckoning voters to speak to him before they could register with poll workers and cast ballots.

    Stidham and Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins told The Voice they witnessed Ginyard calling out to voters. Stidham said she eventually asked Ginyard to allow voters to register.

    A state election commission spokesman previously said when public officials speak to voters before they register, it could be viewed as campaigning inside a polling location, a violation of state law.

    “That certainly would not look good and could be construed as campaigning, interfering, or intimidating voters,” said Chris Whitmire, spokesman with the S.C. Election Commission.

  • Voters reject Jenkinsville annexation

    Turnout was High: 34 of 54 registered voters

    JENKINSVILLE – Annexation appears to be off the table in Jenkinsville.

    The controversial measure, which would have annexed 143 properties into the town limits, failed by a 19-15 vote, according to unofficial results.

    There were 36 ballots cast, but two under-votes – one absentee and one in-person – were discounted, said Debby Stidham, the county’s director of voter registration and election.

    Certification of election results is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday, June 8 at the Fairfield County Voter Registration and Elections office at 315 S. Congress Street in Winnsboro.

    Turnout was comparatively high, with 34 ballots counted out of 54 registered voters.

    Only registered voters living in the proposed annexation area were eligible to vote Tuesday. There will be no mandatory recount.

    Contested ballots, allegations of voter intimidation and even threats of legal ac tion emerged during the election process, according to observers.

    Jenkinsville Mayor Gregrey Ginyard, who supported the ballot question and was present at the polling location Tuesday, said in a brief interview Wednesday that he doesn’t anticipate filing any election protests.

    Ginyard also couldn’t say whether or not Jenkinsville Town Council would consider pursuing annexation in a future referendum.

    “The outcome of the election is the outcome of the election,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, the people spoke. It is what it is.”

    Others in attendance, however, said moments after election results were announced, Ginyard spoke openly about filing a protest and consulting a lawyer.

    “He was shocked, upset. He got loud,” said Fairfield County Councilwoman Bertha Goins, who was also present at the polling location and opposed annexation.

    “It was unbelievable. He said, ‘I’m going to protest, I’m going to call a lawyer.’ He was beside himself,” Goins added.

    The Voice was unable to ask Ginyard about Goins’ remarks because the call ended Wednesday before press time.

    Election controversies

    Unless a protest is filed, the 19 votes against annexation mean the measure dies. Stidham said according to state law, a majority of votes counted is required for a referendum measure to pass.

    In the case of the Jenkinsville vote, the magic number was 18, since 34 votes were counted, Stidham said.

    Tuesday’s election didn’t come without controversy. Several sources confirm at least one ineligible voter, who didn’t live in the proposed annexation area, cast a ballot. It’s unclear how that person voted.

    In addition, Ginyard spent most of the day at the polling location.

    At times, the mayor called voters over so he could speak with him before they could sign in with poll workers, Goins and Stidham said.

    State law prohibits public officials from campaigning inside a polling location, but the law does permit officials to have casual conversations. It’s unclear what Ginyard discussed with the voters.

    A state election official said Ginyard calling out to voters before registering would be questionable.

    “That certainly would not look good and could be construed as campaigning, interfering, or intimidating voters,” said Chris Whitmire, spokesman with the S.C. Election Commission.

    “In that case, the managers could ask him to stop that activity or leave the polling place,” Whitmire said.

    Stidham said she spoke to Ginyard about calling out to voters. She also said at least one voter telephoned her office to complain about the activity.

    “I just asked him to let people come into the precinct,” she said. “He was telling them if they could or could not vote.”

    Goins said she was angered by the mayor’s conversations with voters.

    “He was on the side and he would call them over to the area before they came in to vote,” she said. “It was not professional and it was not right.”

    There were also reports of Ginyard jokingly asking poll workers to count the ballots quickly.

    If the results are challenged, Goins said she’d file a counter-challenge.

    Contested ballots?

    Goins and Stidham both said Ginyard did verbally dispute a vote cast by a woman living outside of the proposed annexation area.

    Stidham said the woman’s name appeared on a voting list, but it shouldn’t have been there. She didn’t know how the woman was able to vote.

    Ginyard, observers say, claimed the woman voted against annexation because she sent him a letter stating that was her intention.

    Stidham said strictly looking at ballots, there’s no way to know how any person voted.

    There was no mistaking Ginyard’s reaction to the vote, with Stidham and Goins saying he was shocked. Stidham said Ginyard raised the issue about the woman’s address.

    “The mayor was standing there saying she shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but he didn’t challenge the ballot,” Stidham said.

    Stidham added that she doesn’t know whether any formal election protests will be filed. Any protests must be filed by noon Monday, June 11, she said.

    Goins said she was thankful the measure failed.

    “Thank God and thank the people,” she said. “I thank them for responding the way they did, for stepping up to the plate and did what needs to be done for the good of the community. It makes me very proud to be a representative in this area.”