Court: Richland County’s $1 million settlement vote with former administrator invalid
A South Carolina court on Friday invalidated Richland County Council’s decision to pay former county administrator Gerald Seals $1 million, ruling the council vote violated state law.
The decision leaves the county in the position of having to reaffirm its controversial payment to Seals with a new vote, or to somehow find a way to reclaim the money paid out to a man a majority of council members at the time wanted to fire.
Judge Jocelyn Newman said the 2018 vote violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act because the council failed to specify the nature of its discussion in a closed-door session, did not notify the public it would vote on a potential settlement offer at the meeting, and indicated the council had decided to accept the settlement behind closed doors, without a public vote or discussion.
County Council Chairman Paul Livingston said late Friday afternoon that he was “surprised” by the ruling but had not yet had time to thoroughly review it and that county attorneys had not yet briefed council members.
Whether council could soon take further action regarding the settlement “all depends on a clear understanding of the order and what are the pros and cons and consequences and so forth,” Livingston said. “And that will depend on a briefing from the attorneys before I can begin to think about that.”
The State also has reached out to Seals for comment.
In May 2018, Seals walked away from Richland County government with a settlement of around $1 million and an understanding that he wouldn’t sue the county. Weeks before the settlement, a slim majority of county council members had abruptly voted to fire Seals, who they claimed took major actions without input from the council, slept on the job and caused a rapid turnover in county staff. Seals disputed those claims and fired back that the council members had acted illegally in terminating him.
Ultimately, Seals agreed to resign and took the settlement.
Soon after, county resident William Coggins sued the county over that settlement, claiming it was improperly approved and that an excessive amount of money was paid to Seals. Coggins’ attorney, Joe McCulloch, sought to have the court invalidate county council’s vote to approve the settlement based on what the attorney claimed were invalid, self-interested votes.
But the judge declined to rule on any of the accused ethical violations in the case, including accusations that members voted for the settlement to avoid specific allegations Seals could publicly make against them, and one case of a council member who texted details of the settlement to Seals during the discussion.
Newman ruled state law puts ethical complaints against elected officials under the jurisdiction of the S.C. Ethics Commission.
But Newman did find that the council failed to properly disclose the nature of its executive session on May 14, 2018, noting the published meeting agenda only called for a discussion of a “personnel and contractual matter” related to the county administrator.
“Not only is this an impermissibly vague description of the matters to be discussed, it is also an incomplete list,” Newman wrote in her order. “In the days prior to the May 14 meeting, emails were exchanged between Seals’ attorneys and agents of County Council which make it clear that County Council intended to entertain settlement proposals from Seals and potentially execute a settlement agreement.”
Further, the meeting agenda did not indicate the council planned to vote on any action following its discussion of the personnel matter. She also cited Council Chairwoman Joyce Dickerson’s statement after the executive session that “the firm offer made by Mr. Seals to settle has been accepted and approved,” without any public discussion of what that offer was.
If the council held an informal vote on accepting the settlement before returning to open session, it would violate the state’s open meeting law.
“While FOIA does not require public discussion of such details, the lack of discussion on such a complex topic (coupled with the chair’s slip of the tongue that the matter had already been accepted and approved) indicates that the public vote was simply a ratification of a private vote.”
McCulloch said he was satisfied with the court’s decision.
“What we proposed and acknowledged was that state law does not allow this judge to order Mr. Seals to return the money, or order the council to do anything,” McCulloch said. “What this does is protect the public’s knowledge of public spending decisions, and prevents inside dealing.
“The next step is now squarely in the lap of the new council,” he said. “They can affirm the decision, do nothing and continue to whistle down kind of a dark alley, or they can decide he’s not entitled to $1 million, and hire another attorney to get it back.”
The current county council could vote again on whether to offer Seals the same settlement or a different settlement. Three members of the council at the time of the vote left after the 2018 election, and a fourth has since passed away. Four more council members will leave at the end of this year, which could leave the decision to a substantially different body if a new vote is taken next year.
In the midst of the case, a lawyer for the county argued that Seals likely could have sued the county for far more than $1 million on the grounds of racial discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation. Clarence Davis, Seals’ attorney, said in court his client would certainly pursue legal action if the court tried to unwind the settlement.
But McCulloch said any lawsuit brought by Seals would require him to answer for the ethical lapses cited in his suit. In court, McCulloch had called the former administrator a “co-conspirator” in getting the settlement approved.
Seals was first hired as interim county administrator in July 2016 before accepting a full contract in December 2016. He was the driving force behind the county’s transition to a biennial budget, restructuring county staff and the controversial Richland Renaissance development plan involving a new judicial center and county administrative offices.
This story was originally published October 9, 2020 at 4:52 PM.
.jpg)
