WINNSBORO – Jesse Ross Duke, 33, of Pine Isle Drive in the
Blair area of Fairfield County has been arrested, according to Fairfield County
Sheriff Will Montgomery.
In the early morning hours of Friday, Aug. 21, a Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office patrol deputy observed a suspicious vehicle in the area of SC 215 near McCrorey-Liston Elementary School.
Upon further investigation, the occupant of the vehicle, later identified as Duke, fled from the vehicle on foot. The vehicle was found to have recently been stolen from a location in Richland County. Duke was located at his residence on Pine Isle Drive where a search warrant was conducted.
During the search warrant, numerous stolen items, to include tools, firearms, computers and a golf cart, were recovered. More charges are expected from Fairfield, Richland and Lexington counties.
Investigators are currently working to identify owners of
this recovered property.
This investigation is on-going and more details will be
released later.
Brian Leroy Watson, 48, faces eight counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion; one count of attempted sex trafficking of children; and three drug-related counts, according to indictments obtained by The Voice
BLYTHEWOOD – A Blythewood man with a lengthy record of drug and theft charges has pleaded not guilty to federal indictments stating that he trafficked women and dealt drugs from his home in the Round Top community of Blythewood.
Watson
Brian Leroy Watson, also known as “B” or “Lil B,” entered the plea at an arraignment hearing Thursday, the day of his arrest. He remains in federal custody, court records show.
Watson, 48, faces eight counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion; one count of attempted sex trafficking of children; and three drug-related counts, according to indictments obtained by The Voice.
James Rogers, a federal public defender, has
been appointed to represent Watson.
U.S. Attorney Peter McCoy said in a statement
that human trafficking is an “egregious crime,” one that federal investigators
do not tolerate.
“That is why we work not only with our law
enforcement partners to uncover and prosecute those who exploit others, but with
support groups within the community that offer support services to human
trafficking victims and educate the public about this unconscionable practice,”
McCoy said.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, whose
agency assisted in the investigation that also included the FBI and Kershaw
County Sheriff’s Office, said human trafficking is a reality in South Carolina.
“Working in partnership with other law
enforcement agencies and most important, the community, is the key to stopping
this horrible crime,” Lott said.
The 12-count indictment alleges human
trafficking violations occurred between 2016 and 2019 in South Carolina. It
also charges the suspect with distributing heroin and fentanyl, and with
unlawfully operating a Blythewood dwelling for the purpose of storing and
distributing heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine,
according to the indictment.
Court records also state that prosecutors are
also seeking an undisclosed sum of money “equal to all proceeds the Defendant
obtained directly or indirectly as the result of the offenses charged in this
indictment.” Prosecutors also are seeking, upon conviction, to seize a home on
Round Top Church Road in Blythewood where the indictment says the drugs were
manufactured.
The federal indictment isn’t Watson’s first
brush with the law.
In 2018, he pleaded guilty to breach of trust
and shoplifting, $2,000 or less. He also pleaded guilty in 2017 to receiving
stolen goods, according to Richland County court records.
Watson pleaded guilty to two counts of
attempted armed robbery in 2010 and was sentenced to seven years in prison,
court records show.
The Richland County Public Index lists
additional theft and drug-related charges dating back to at least 1990.
BLYTHEWOOD – The Blythewood Planning Commission has begun the process to rezone a 143-acre undeveloped site across the interstate from downtown after developers failed to initiate construction of a planned mixed-use development.
The large wooded site, which is known as Red Gate Farms,
sits on Blythewood Road between Syrup Mill and Muller Roads. It lies across
Syrup Mill Road from Cobblestone; across Muller Road from Muller Road Middle
School and across Blythewood Road from Fairfield Electric Cooperative.
The property is currently zoned PD (Planned Development),
the town’s site-specific zoning designation for planned or mixed-use
development.
It was given that classification years ago, explained Town
Administrator Brian Cook, after a developer presented a plan for a mixed-use
development that was to include 233 single-family homes, 300 apartments, and 36
acres of commercial development.
The zoning for this property has been on the books since the
town annexed it in the mid-2000s, Cook said, but the project – and other,
subsequent proposed variations – never occurred. According to county records,
the bulk of the land is now owned by Arthur State Bank.
In its Monday night meeting, the Blythewood Planning
Commission discussed rezoning the property based on a provision in the town’s
zoning ordinance that mandates rezoning when a project with the PD
classification fails to progress within two years.
After some discussion, the commission voted unanimously to
direct town staff to craft a proposal to rezone the property to D-1, a
development district designed for large tracts of land on the fringe of the
town’s developed core.
“It puts the power back in our hands, especially since we
don’t know what the uses are going to be for this particular parcel of land,”
said Planning Commission Member Dereck Pugh, speaking in favor of classifying
the property as D-1. “It will give us the opportunity to review it again once
the [future] developer puts in the application.”
Cook said the commission discussed the issue of this
property in 2018 and again in early 2019, when a new proposal for a zoning
amendment and lower-density development was made but never moved forward.
“The applicant withdrew the application before town council
could take a vote on the proposed project,” Cook said, “and it stands today
with nothing happening on the property from a permitting or development
standpoint.”
The D-1 zoning classification, Cook said, is a kind of
holding pattern for land that’s likely to be developed in the future, allowing
for uses like single-family residential, parks and recreation, and religious or
government buildings, but requiring zoning approval for more intense types of
development.
“The district is intended to provide for large tracts of
land located primarily on the fringe of urban growth where the predominant
character of urban development has not yet been fully established, but where
the current characteristics of use are predominately residential or
agricultural with scattered related uses,” according to the town’s zoning
ordinance.
“It is further recognized that future demand for development
will generate requests for amendments in zoning designations to remove land
from the D-1 classification and place it into other more intensely developed
classifications as a natural consequence of urban expansion,” the ordinance
states.
Planning Commission Chairman Rich McKenrick said intentions
are to hold next month’s meeting in person with social distancing measures in
place with the option to participate via Zoom for commissioners and members of
the public who are uncomfortable attending in person, with social distancing
measures in place with the option to participate via Zoom for commissioners and
members of the public who are uncomfortable attending in person. The current
property owners will be informed of the meeting and invited to speak.
Cook said the town is currently undergoing a technology
upgrade that should make it possible to facilitate this plan from a technical
standpoint.
“We should’ve done something about this long ago,” said
McKenrick of the need to address the zoning at Red Gate, referring to the
property as a “golden nugget” on the edge of town. “The PD has sat out there
for way too long and is probably more dense than we would even want to approve
at this point.”
Cook said there is no rush to complete the rezoning, and the
town will follow the process required.
“I think that D-1 probably brings it back to the intent of
the master plan and comprehensive plan,” said commissioner Malcolm Gordge.
“Let’s hear what the immediate property owners have to say
about that,” Gordge said, “as well as the residents of the town.”
SCDHEC’s latest update for coronavirus case numbers in the following Blythewood and Fairfield County zip codes.
BLYTHEWOOD – 304 reported cases
FAIRFIELD COUNTY – 533 reported cases, 23 deaths
Fairfield ranks sixth highest county in the state for COVID-19 cases at 2,385.11 per 100,000 residents
Because DHEC does not report specific case numbers for several of the ZIP codes in Fairfield County any more, we are not able to give an accurate breakdown of cases by ZIP code, only totals for the county.
BLAIR – The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office is
investigating a murder that occurred in the Blair area of Fairfield County
during the early morning hours of Sunday, Aug. 2.
Andrew Trapp, 34, has been identified as the murder victim
in a shooting incident. Two other unidentified persons were injured.
Deputies responded to a shooting incident on Cole Trestle
Road where there had been a large gathering of several hundred people. Upon
arrival, deputies found three gunshot victims. Fairfield County EMS transported
all three victims to the hospital where Trapp was pronounced dead.
Investigators are currently following up on investigative
leads to identify the shooter(s) involved in the incident.
“This was a senseless act and we grieve with Mr. Trapp’s
family at this time,” Sheriff Will Montgomery said in a statement released
Monday. “We are asking for anyone who may have witnessed this incident to
contact the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office or Crimestoppers. We have been
told that there were several hundred people at this gathering and know that
someone must have seen something or have some information regarding the
identity of the individual, or individuals, responsible for these crimes,”
Montgomery stated.
Anyone who may have information about this incident is asked
to contact the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office (803-635-4141) or Crime
Stoppers at 1-888-CRIMESC (888-274-6372) or visit www.midlandscrimestoppers.com
to email a tip. Your identity will be kept anonymous and, if your tip leads to
an arrest, you could be eligible for a cash reward of up to $1,000.00.
(An earlier report in The Voice erroneously named Alexander Rhoring as a suspect who was arrested and charged with Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. That information is not correct and The Voice regrets that error.)
WINNSBORO – Winnsboro Public Safety officers were called to Cuz’s Corner service station on S. Congress Street on Tuesday, July 28 about 7 p.m. to investigate shots fired.
At this time, according to WDPS Chief John Seibles, no
arrests have been made.
A witness told officers that two cars – a black one and a
white one – drove past the station, shooting at each other.
A review of the store’s video showed two vehicles traveling
on Calhoun Street from Vanderhorst Street. The first vehicle, which was a dark
color, pulled into the parking lot near the trash dumpsters. The second (light
colored) vehicle continued on Calhoun Street to Congress. As the vehicles
passed each other, gunshots were exchanged, according to the report.
After officers found no victim at the station, central
dispatch advised them that EMS had been dispatched to an address on Westgate
Drive in reference to a gun hot victim.
According to officers, that victim was located at a Columbia
Hospital where he told medical personnel that he suffered from an accidental
self-inflicted gunshot.
After officers met the gunshot victim at the home on Westgate
Drive, he led them to a black handgun with an extended magazine under a doghouse
in the back yard, according to authorities. He was then taken to the Winnsboro
Police Department for questioning.
The investigation is on going.
This story was updated on July 31, 2020 at 1:11 p.m.
WINNSBORO – Another high-profile animal cruelty case in Fairfield County has resulted in either a reduced sentence or outright dismissal. The public will never know which, since it was shut out of the judicial process of the case entirely.
Randy Newman, solicitor for the sixth judicial circuit case,
declined to comment.
“This matter is no longer of public record,” Newman said via
email, “and we are unable to comment further on this case.
In March 2017, the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Office charged
Lirhonda Butler, 42, with ‘Ill Treatment of Animals’ in the starvation death of
a pig in her care.
According to the initial incident report, the veterinarian
called to the scene stated the pig’s extremely poor condition was the result of
neglect and cruelty.
Instead of being charged under the felony section of the
‘Ill Treatment’ statute, however, Butler was charged under the misdemeanor
section.
Records No Longer Available
The Voice learned about the case more than two months after
Butler’s arrest. The newspaper initially hit several road blocks as it sought
access to the incident report and Butler’s mug shot through normal county
channels. That information was eventually released in June, 2017, in response
to a Freedom of Information request by The Voice. However, the records made
public at that time, no longer appear in law enforcement and court records. The
Voice learned last month that the online court records no longer state whether
or not Butler’s case is still active.
Butler
The case was last known to be active as of Sept. 12, 2019.
At the time, Newman told The Voice he expected the case to reach a resolution
by the end of 2019, almost three years after Butler was charged.
Case is Expunged
Official sources not authorized to talk about the case,
confirmed to The Voice earlier this month that Butler’s case was expunged in
December, 2019.
Records may be removed from public view by an order of
expungement issued by a judge.
Only certain cases qualify for expungement, such as
misdemeanors, youthful offenders and other minor cases. Defendants seeking
expungement must apply to the solicitor’s office.
Applicants must pay a $250 administrative fee to the
Solicitor’s office, $25 to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
(“SLED”), and a $35 filing fee to the Clerk of Court, according to the S.C.
Judicial Department.
Butler hired a high profile Columbia defense attorney to
represent her, and It doesn’t appear the case ever came before a judge.
If convicted for a first offense under the misdemeanor
section of the ‘Ill Treatment of Animals’ statute, section 47-1-40 (A), Butler
faced imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine of not less than $100 nor
more than $1,000, or both. If she had been charged with a felony and convicted
under section (B) of the statute, she would have faced punishment by
imprisonment of not less than 180 days and not to exceed 5 years and a fine of
$5,000.
“Deplorable Conditions”
On March 24, 2017 a Fairfield County sheriff’s deputy,
acting on a telephone tip, found a pig underweight and essentially motionless
in the mud floor of a storeroom on a sprawling property on Richtex Road in
Fairfield County.
The only access to the storeroom was a window. The door to
the storeroom was boarded over and secured with screws from the inside of the
room, according to the incident report. Looking through the window, the deputy
reported the condition of the pig as laying in deep mud and feces with no food
or potable water in the room.
“The pig was laying in the far right corner [of the room]
and could not get up,” the report said. “A metal drum cut in half contained
rusty water with algae present – “very polluted,” the deputy’s report stated.
“The pig was not moving, but making noises,” said Fairfield
County Animal Control Director Bob Innes who was called to the scene by the
deputy. “He [the pig] looked to be suffering and dying, Innes stated on the
report.”
When Butler arrived a few moments later, she reportedly told
officers on the scene that she had owned the pig since he was nine weeks old.
She said the pig had been in that condition for two days, the deputy reported.
Innes asked if she had called a veterinarian.
“What for?” Butler asked, according to the report.
Innes and a second deputy who had also arrived at the
storeroom explained to Butler that the pig needed to be taken away to receive
treatment. The report said the woman initially refused to let anyone enter the
storeroom until she spoke to an attorney, but allowed officers to enter a few
minutes later.
Since the doorway to the area where the pig was located was
boarded up, deputies entered by crawling through a window. Once inside, they
described the pig’s condition as “deplorable,” the report said.
“There were pieces of boards with protruding nails lay[ing]
in the mud,” the report stated.
An old paint bucket, pieces of cement blocks and a metal
pipe lay in the mud as well, according to the report.
A veterinarian who arrived at the scene to evaluate the
animal said it appeared to be a case of ‘pure neglect’ and that it would cost
at least $3,000 to treat the pig.
At that point, Butler decided to allow the pig to be
euthanized.
Her grandfather reportedly shot the pig twice but did not
kill it. The veterinarian then euthanized the pig with a single shot to the
head.
In a subsequent written report, the veterinarian wrote that
the body score of the severely malnourished pig was a ‘1’ on a scale of 1-5.
“This indicates severe starvation,” the veterinarian wrote.
“The hog was unable to rise, had severe white dysentery, subnormal body temperature
and dehydration. This indicates prolonged starvation [from] at least three to
four weeks to two months,”
The one-year-old pig weighed approximately 120 pounds and
should have weighed about 300 pounds, the veterinarian wrote.
Asked why the charge was a misdemeanor and not a felony,
Fairfield County Sheriff Will Montgomery said he consulted with Newman about
the charge and that Newman made the decision that it was a misdemeanor.
Montgomery has lingering questions about the charge.
“I was going to go back and look at it again,” he said,
pausing. “But now it’s too late,” he told The Voice.
Expert Opinion
Joe Berry, a former Richland County prosecutor, said he
tried at least 39 animal abuse cases while he served as a solicitor and
obtained convictions in 17 of them.
Berry declined to comment on the Butler case, noting that
he’s not involved in that case or other Fairfield County cases.
He did say that, typically, animal abuse cases resulting in
death—either directly or through euthanasia—meet the threshold of the felony
offense section of the ‘Ill Treatment of Animals’ statute.
“As a general rule, if the animal dies, then it’s going to
be a felony,” Berry said. ”The statute says it’s a felony if you “torture,
kill, or maim’ and when it ‘causes excessive pain and suffering.’ If it’s a
misdemeanor, it just says ‘causes pain and suffering.’ When the animal dies,
that’s excessive pain in my book,” he said.
Butler did not have any prior criminal convictions, but in
July 2017 a judgment for $20,437.41 was entered against her in civil court,
according to the Fairfield County Public Index.
Light sentences for animal abusers
If past Fairfield County animal abuse cases prosecuted by
Newman are a predictor, chances are good that animal abuse-related offenders
will be allowed to plea for reduced punishment and receive probation. Even
felony animal abuse charges are typically plea-bargained to misdemeanors. Many
times, charges are dropped altogether by Newman, according to court documents.
Expungement of the Butler case is the latest in a series of
severe animal abuse cases in Fairfield County resulting in light sentences or
no sentence at all.
In 2018, an investigation by The Voice found that at least
15 animal abuse cases that came to Newman for prosecution between 2015-2018
resulted in lighter sentences or were dismissed outright. Many of those cases
resulted in the animal’s death. Generally, the investigation showed,
perpetrators of animal abuse in Fairfield County don’t go to jail. Or, as in
Butler’s case, are expunged.
Jay Bender, an attorney with the S.C. Press Association, of
which The Voice is a member, said expungement typically occurs in one of two
circumstances. The first happens when the prosecuting attorney [solicitor]
chooses not to prosecute; the other occurs if the defendant successfully
completes a pre-trial intervention or diversion program.
“In those circumstances the record can be expunged,” Bender
said. “But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”
The Park senior apartment complex proposed to be located next to the IGA received final approval Monday evening from the Board of Architectural Review for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
BLYTHEWOOD – The Board of Architectural Review spent much of Monday evening’s meeting negotiating with a representative of the Prestwick Company on lighting, landscaping, fencing, business connectivity and more associated with the apartment complex proposed next to the IGA.
After much discussion and several adjustments to the planned
facility, the board voted 4-0 to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for
The Park apartment complex.
It was the BAR’s second meeting with Prestwick
representatives who initially proposed a long three-story building that BAR
members felt looked plain and institutional.
While the board approved the color scheme and materials of
the building, they were concerned about its placement and design. They also
asked for a fence and berm along the northern boundary behind both Zaxby’s and
the proposed Starbucks coffee shop that face Blythewood Road. And they asked
that paths be provided for the apartment tenants to be able to walk to the IGA
stores and perhaps to the Blythewood Road businesses.
Prestwick came back Monday evening with an L-shaped building
and a 20-foot landscape buffer along the northern boundary instead of the
10-foot required buffer.
“We bought an additional 10 feet of land from the landowners
that will allow us to keep a 20-foot buffer of natural trees that you see from
Blythewood Road,” Devin Blankenship, senior development manager for Prestwick,
told the board.
Blankenship suggested that with the 20-foot buffer, a fence
and berm would no longer be needed. And he said he could not create a path to
promote connective foot traffic to an area not designed for traffic.
“If I create a path onto an existing road [the IGA parking
lot] without a sidewalk connection, I’m encouraging our tenants to use that
path onto a traffic area we don’t have access to,” Blankenship said. “It’s all
legal jargon, but it’s a liability for us unless we have a proper access
easement and crosswalk on to an existing sidewalk.”
“That was part of the reason for the fence as well,” the
board’s architectural advisor Ralph Walden added. “It would discourage people
from walking through those sites.”
Blankenship argued that the 20-foot buffer would act as a
deterrent to walking through.
“People will create a path,” McLean said. “It would be an advantage
to the apartment complex and to the businesses as well [to have a path]. It’s
an issue that at some point in time is going to have to be addressed.” McLean
went on to point out, “If you’re not going to have access, then you need to
stop access. That’s where the fence comes in, maybe a coated chain link fence
that’s a nice neutral color that you won’t see in that wooded buffer.”
“I think that’s how you solve that issue,” board member Alan
George said.
McLean suggested a coated four-foot chain link fence, but he
said he would also like to see the town do something to encourage connectivity.
Addressing the lighting on the property, the board’s
architectural advisor, Ralph Walden, suggested the developer pull the lighting
back from the edge of the property into the interior parking area.
McLean made a motion to approve the site plan as presented
in the new and final L-shaped rendering with a 20-foot buffer.
“I’m also going to include a four-foot chain link fence
along the northern border and require the lighting be brought back to the
center of the parking lot,” McLean said. “I would also like to see the town do
something to encourage connectivity with this, and I guess it can’t be part of
the motion, but I think that burden lies with the town to some degree to give
connectivity for these folks [tenants] to the businesses and the town,
specifically, the IGA and back to Blythewood Road.”
WINNSBORO – With minimal discussion, the Fairfield County
Council moved forward at this month’s meeting with plans to put a wastewater
treatment plant referendum on November’s ballot.
If given final approval next month, the ballot question will
ask voters to authorize a one percent sales tax in the county, and the county
would issue bonds, if needed, which would be paid back with revenue generated
by the tax. The money would be earmarked for capital projects, specifically the
wastewater treatment plant and other needed wastewater infrastructure.
“Once you get to a certain point as far as capacity with
sewer, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)
does step in. They put you in a moratorium situation, which means basically you
can issue no more building permits; you can’t issue anymore connections to the
sewer plant,” explained County Administrator Jason Taylor.
“You do get in a position where you can’t accept any
additional growth, and DHEC will shut you down,” he said.
“The county is not in that position yet, but it only has
32,000 gallons of available wastewater capacity remaining for industrial
development,” Taylor said. “Due to small sized lines, that is all that is
available for the commerce park or mega site, which is not nearly enough. One
company could take all of that.”
While Winnsboro does have roughly 100,000 gpd of capacity
available in town, adding more capacity for the county has come to the
forefront as a priority.
The anticipated revenue from the tax, which will expire
after eight years, is $11.5 million – a bit more than the $9.35 million that
would be authorized for a bond issue.
The meeting, which was held in person but with several
participants calling in by phone or video, began with a public hearing, in
which the one comment that had been received was read by Clerk to Council Patti
Davis. The comment, from District 1 resident Randy Bright, was in favor of the
proposal.
“Building water and wastewater infrastructure in rural and
urban communities creates jobs, stimulates the private sector, and increases a
community’s tax base,” Bright wrote, citing a Duke University study. “For each
dollar spent building water or wastewater infrastructure, about $15 is created
in private investment and $14 added to the local property tax base.”
Most of the county council’s discussion was centered around
questions clarifying the details of the proposal, including some hypothetical
what-if scenarios and the reasoning behind why the proposal is structured the
way it is.
Attorney C.D. Rhodes, who is assisting Fairfield county with
the referendum, said in response to council members’ questions that if
something were to change, enabling the project to be funded by other means, the
revenue from the one percent sales tax would still be earmarked for capital
projects.
Council would then have to initiate another referendum for
voters to approve its use for specific projects. To designate projects without
a referendum would require waiting until the end of the tax’s eight-year term.
Rhodes also explained the likely need for a bond issue:
Unlike counties that use a tax of this type to fund a list of projects, which
can be done on a pay-as-you-go basis, Fairfield County doesn’t have the luxury
of waiting eight years to build the wastewater treatment plant; the urgency of
the project means that ideally it should be built in two or three years.
“You would have, at the very least, a year’s worth of tax
collections to prove to yourself and the public and everyone else – and banks,
honestly – to prove that those collections were going to come in as expected,”
Rhodes said of the situation prior to any bond issue.
“If we get a year into this thing, and for instance the
Covid situation hasn’t improved, then it may make lots of sense for you to wait
until you’re two years out and you have two years of tax collections and you
increase your level of certainty,” he said.
“The good news is that, as you wait, those taxes keep coming
in and they keep getting deposited into your bank, and so the amount of the
bonds that you have to borrow keeps going down and down and down, and you have
cash on hand that you can use for the plant whenever the time is right to build
it.”
While a couple of the council members expressed distaste for
the idea of borrowing money, the majority supported the project as a whole, and
the council voted 5-2 to approve offering the referendum, which would allow the
voters to decide.
Chairman Neil Robinson, Vice Chair Bertha Goins, and council
Members Clarence Gilbert, Jimmy Ray Douglas, and Doug Pauley voted in
favor. Council Members Moses Bell and
Mikel Trapp were opposed.
Vice Chairman Bertha Goins said it’s important to get
information about the project and the referendum out to the voters, and she
urged her fellow council members to share information in their districts.
“We need to… get an understanding to the citizens of the
value of this one percent sales tax and what they’re going to reap long-term,”
Goins said.
“If we do this and we do it right and we’re successful with
it, by the grace of God, once the wastewater treatment plant is in place, the
lines are in place, [and] we begin to get an influx of businesses and people,
we won’t have to worry about bonds, we won’t have to worry about levying taxes
or any of that, we’ll just be growing what we’ve already invested in.”
WINNSBORO – There is currently a law in South Carolina that
protects, in part, certain monuments from being removed from public property in
the state without a vote by the General Assembly.
Winnsboro Mayor Roger Gaddy said during town council meeting
Tuesday night that the town government does not intend to break that law.
Following a lengthy executive session about the legalities of moving the town’s
confederate monument, council voted 5-0 to authorize Town Manager Don Wood to
explore suitable options for relocating the monument.
The monument, which sits on the far corner of the Mt. Zion
Institute grounds from the former school building, is one of three kinds of
monuments that the Heritage Act is designed to protect – those erected for
Native Americans, African Americans and war memorials.
The town’s confederate memorial is a war memorial.
To be protected by the Act, monuments must also be located
in a public area, according to an opinion by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson.
While the issue of the confederate monument has smoldered in
some Winnsboro neighborhoods for years, the discussion caught fire last month when
the Fairfield County NAACP President Jennifer Jenkins wrote a passionate
editorial that appeared on the front page of The Voice, calling for the removal
of the monument from the Mt. Zion property – a property that will soon be home
to the county offices.
Jenkins said it would be offensive for county employees to
have to go to work there in sight of what many in the community consider a
monument to slavery.
A confederate monument stands on the edge of the Mt. Zion Institute property. | Barbara Ball
“We’re not moving it [right now],” Gaddy said. “We’re just
exploring our different options and how to legally apply those options. We’re
not going to do anything illegal,” he said. “I don’t know where we can move it.
I don’t know how much it will cost to move it. I don’t know who moves it. I do
know we have to get permission from the state legislature to move it. But
before I would ask permission from the legislature to do that, I would want to
be able to tell them what we’re going to do with it.”
County Administrator Jason Taylor said in a County Council
meeting last month that the county would be glad to help the town government
with the expenses of moving the monument to a more suitable location.
While SC Attorney General Wilson has said he is prepared to
defend the constitutionality of the Heritage Act, he has also said the part of
the law that requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly in both the
House and the Senate to remove a protected monument might be found
unconstitutional if challenged since the General Assembly passes legislation
with a simple majority.
Gaddy said he doesn’t expect the legislature to take the
matter up until they come back into regular session on Jan. 3.
“There is a lawsuit in the courts now that’s trying to
declare the Heritage Act unconstitutional,” Gaddy said. “It may be that they
(legislature) may not have an Act to deal with when they come back. So, we’re
going to see what avenues we have that are appropriate for us, legally, and to
get the information that we need so that whenever the time comes, if we are
able to move it, then we’ll have everything ready to go.”
Gaddy said to get approval from the legislature to move the
monument, the county’s legislative delegation would have to request approval of
the General Assembly. A two-thirds vote is required for passage.
As Gaddy was calling for adjournment of the meeting,
Councilman Danny Miller interrupted him, saying he wanted to thank the mayor
and council for its work on the issue.
“I want you to know, with this situation, we appreciate
you,” Miller said.
“I appreciate all of our council members,” Gaddy said. “We’re
fortunate in Winnsboro to have a good town council. We work together really
well. There’s almost never any acrimony. Everything is usually done in a very
civil, cordial and professional way.”
Following the meeting, Miller, one of two African Americans
on council, commented that he’s proud of how well the council has worked
collaboratively on the issue of the monument and wanted to assure the community
that council is working toward a goal.
“Out of love and care, we’re going to come up with a good
solution to this problem. We’ll work together for the good of the whole
community,” Miller said.
Asked when a decision might be reached about what to do with
the monument, Councilman Demetrius Chatman, council’s newest member, said
council has now put it in the hands of the town administrator to research where
the monument should be moved to.
“We had a really good discussion in executive session. But
whatever we decide to do with it, we still have to find out what the
legislature is going to do. We’re not going to break the law,” Chatman said.
Chatman said that council was advised by legal counsel that
even though the statue was moved some years back from the center of Congress
Street in front of the town clock to its present location, its movement is
still governed by the Heritage Act.
“We can’t move it without approval from the General
Assembly,” he said.
