Midlands mayor appeals ethics fine, even as councilman pays for same vote
The mayor of a small Midlands town is fighting an ethics fine imposed on him because of a vote over the town’s water system — even as a fellow town councilman agreed to a settlement with the S.C. Ethics Commission over the same vote.
Batesburg-Leesville Mayor Lancer Shull was fined $1,300 earlier this year for voting to place himself on Lexington County’s Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, a post that came with a $250 monthly per diem for its members.
The state Ethics Commission ruled in March that Shull’s town council vote violated a provision in the S.C. Ethics Act that prohibits elected officials from voting to give a financial benefit to themselves.
On Thursday, Shull’s attorney James Randall Davis argued that the per diem could not be an economic interest if it reimbursed costs Shull incurred while serving on the water commission. In some months, Shull’s expenses may have exceeded the flat-rate per diem.
“The law wants to avoid private interest, not public service,” Davis said. “The per diem by definition is not compensation. It’s reimbursement for work and time spent with the agency.”
But Courtney Laster, general counsel for the Ethics Commission, argued the flat-rate nature of the payments contradicted that. Of the six years of Shull’s service on the water commission that ethics investigators looked at, “he attended meetings 44 out of the 72 months, but he got paid the per diem every month,” Laster said.
Asked by a commission member if her analysis would be different if the per diem were tied to specific expenses the mayor incurred, Laster said it probably would. But given the flat rate, she argued town council members should recuse themselves from any votes to put themselves on the board.
“This is a public official who believed they were the only one capable of doing a task, and that kind of thinking leads to where we are today, when someone is led to a violation of the Ethics Act by their own ego,” Laster said.
Shull’s appeal also noted that council members Stephen Cain and Shirley Etheredge Mitchell, who both filed complaints against Shull, did not testify at the Ethics Commission hearing in February, which denied Shull the ability to challenge his accusers.
Shull told The State ahead of the hearing that his only goal in joining the water commission was to ensure that Batesburg-Leesville had access to new water sources besides the town’s aging reservoir and water plant.
“I didn’t benefit from the [town water] project, and I didn’t benefit from voting,” Shull said. “I only voted on contracts on the Batesburg-Leesville side, not on the commission side. ... If anything, I lost money serving over the last eight years.”
The Ethics Commission will issue a ruling on Shull’s appeal within 60 days.
Meanwhile, Cain, one of the town council members who initially filed a complaint against the mayor, has accepted a settlement with the commission to resolve a nearly identical charge against him.
Back on Jan. 13, 2020, Batesburg-Leesville Town Council voted 5-4 to remove Shull from the water commission and replace him with Cain. Shull voted against his removal, while Cain voted for his own appointment. Later, the council reconsidered and voted 7-2 on Jan. 21 to put Shull back on the commission, again with Shull voting in favor and Cain voting against.
After the Ethics Commission’s decision went against Shull, Cain also faced charges of participating in actions in which he had an economic interest and failure to recuse himself.
In its decision issued last month, the Ethics Commission notes that Cain acknowledged the violation.
“In mitigation, Respondent states he believed his actions were permissible based on guidance received from the town’s attorney and a representative from the Municipal Association of South Carolina,” the order reads.
Because the payments to members was labeled a per diem, “this designation led to the belief that the money was akin to an expense reimbursement and therefore was not of any economic benefit to its Board members,” the Ethics Commission said. “However, the Commission finds that, regardless of how the money is categorized or named, there is an economic interest in the JMWSC payments because the payments are made regardless of meetings attended or official duties performed.”
”The Council was given poor legal advice by our town attorney,” Cain told The State via text message. “That’s why Lancer is still fighting. The Town Manager and our current town attorney still think that the Ethics Commission misinterpreted the law. I agree with Ethics and that’s why I have cooperated and complied with the law.”
Because Cain never actually served on the water commission or received the per diem, the ethics commissioners decided against any civil penalty and instead required Cain to pay an administrative fee of $250, equivalent to a single month’s per diem.
Shull, on the other hand, has served as Batesburg-Leesville’s representative on the commission since 2018, earning an estimated $15,000 in per diems during that time.
This story was originally published July 17, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
.jpg)