SC mayor’s ethics fine upheld for voting to put himself on board that paid him
A Midlands mayor must pay a $1,300 fine imposed after the S.C. Ethics Commission found he violated the state Ethics Act.
Commissioners earlier this month rejected an appeal from Batesburg-Leesville Mayor Lancer Shull challenging his fine and the commission’s February finding that by voting for his own appointment to Lexington County’s Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Shull violated the Ethics Act because the mayor received a $250 monthly per diem for his service on the water board.
Shull appealed the fine, arguing the per diem paid by Joint Municipal Water did not meet the legal definition of an “economic interest” prohibited by the law; that there is an exception because all members of the water commission earned the same per diem; and that the payments were authorized by the law creating the water commission.
But on appeal, the Ethics Commission affirmed its earlier finding that Shull’s conduct on the water commission was not at issue. It was instead three votes Shull took on the Batesburg-Leesville Town Council that led to the fine.
Back on Jan. 13, 2020, Batesburg-Leesville Town Council voted 5-4 to remove Shull from the water commission and replace him with Town Councilman Steve 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. Lastly, Shull voted again for his own reappointment to the water board in December 2023.
The appeal was heard by a different set of ethics commissioners than the ones who decided on Shull’s initial fine. Cain earlier paid a $250 fine for his two votes on his own appointment.
Shull earlier told The State his only motivation to serve on the water commission was to assist in overhauling Batesburg-Leesville’s 1930s-era municipal water system. But Shull was also paid $18,000 in per diems over his eight years on the commission, the ruling found.
“Respondent was paid regardless of whether the JMWSC held a meeting and regardless of whether Respondent attended those meetings,” the ethics commissioners said. “The JMWSC did not maintain records related to Respondent’s mileage or actual expenses.”
Shull was fined $50 for each of six violations — the votes, as well as a failure to provide a statement of recusal from the votes — plus a $1,000 administrative fee, for a total of $1,300.
When reached for comment by The State on Monday, Shull said he had just received the decision and would review it before commenting.
The commissioners decided the legal exception to the Ethics Act ”requires the economic interest to be ‘incidental to the public official’s ... position’ for the exception to apply.”
“In the present case, while the payments may be incidental to JMWSC board members, they are not incidental to all Town Councilmembers because not all Town Councilmembers receive the payments — only those who are appointed to the JMWSC.”
Ethics commissioners also rejected Shull’s contention that the water commission was authorized by law to make the payments.
“[T]his provision of the Joint Water and Sewer Act only addresses the types of payments the JMWSC may make to its board members,” the board ruled. “It does not address how Respondent must conduct himself as a member of Town Council when Council is considering his appointment to the JMWSC — this situation is governed by the Ethics Act.”
Shull is not running for re-election as mayor in the municipal election on Nov. 4. Cain, the other council member fined by the ethics commission, is running to replace Shull along with David Bouknight, Larry McConnaughhay and Greg Moseley.
In a statement Monday, Cain applauded the Ethics Commission’s decision.
“These repeated violations compromise the trust our residents place in Town leadership,” Cain said. “Given the nature of the violations and their connection to decisions made by the Town Council, I believe all related contracts and decisions involving the Mayor during this period may be tainted and must now be thoroughly reviewed for validity and compliance.”
.jpg)