Mount Pleasant secretive on vote
Action dealt with Shem Creek property
MOUNT PLEASANT — Town Council violated provisions of the state Freedom of Information Act on Tuesday when it voted after an executive session on a matter related to Shem Creek property without adequately stating what the vote was about, South Carolina Press Assocation attorney Jay Bender said.
Council voted to go into an executive session for "legal and contractual matters pertaining to properties near Shem Creek." Bender said the council description of the reason for the executive session is insufficient under the law.
After the executive session, council voted to direct Town Attorney Allen Young to proceed as discussed in executive session regarding the Shem Creek properties. "It's probably insufficient because they failed to adequately state it. You don't know what it is they are proceeding to do," Bender said.
Young declined to identify the properties near Shem Creek that were discussed in executive session, or the action that he was directed to take. "We believe that what we did was legal," he said.
Council voted recently to condemn 1.05 acres near Shem Creek known as the OK Tire property. Attorney Mark Mason, an owner of the land, attended the meeting. He said state and town codes require council to be open about what a vote is about after an executive session. "You've got to state the motion in a way that's understood by the persons present. I have no idea what they did. This is just a continued misuse of their legislative power," he said.
The town filed suit to condemn Mason's OK Tire property for a park, and Mason filed a countersuit after rejecting the town's final offer for the property of $2,285,000. Mason plans to build 24 condominiums there. He also plans a marina on Shem Creek.
The town wants to acquire the property as a first step toward public access to Shem Creek, a scenic landmark lined with restaurants, bars, inns and shrimp boat docks on the northern side of the creek on a frontage road just off Coleman Boulevard about 100 yards from the creekfront.
Hundreds of people signed a petition presented to council urging it to stop Mason's condo development.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 16 comment(s)
Posted by bigwhip on November 14, 2007 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is anyone surprised? Maybe HH can send his #1 diplomat over to "discuss" this issue w/Mr. mason.
Posted by commonsence on November 14, 2007 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A question for the attorneys...You hear of these FOIA violations all the time but never any consequences for these illegal activities by elected bodies. What are the legal consequences when a public body violates FOIA?
Posted by bkeelin on November 14, 2007 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is wrong with our governing bodies that they feel the need to do things in secret, or in code. And why is it that they are able to get away with it. We need a reformation or perhaps a revolution. If it's too late for the current generations in power then let us pray for the next generations.
Posted by locallady on November 14, 2007 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Title 30 - Public Records
CHAPTER 4.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
SECTION 30-4-110. Penalties.
Any person or group of persons who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days for the first offense, shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than sixty days for the second offense and shall be fined three hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than ninety days for the third or subsequent offense.
Posted by sailaway on November 14, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Mount Pleasant Town Council meetings are televised, live, and I encourage everyone to watch -- fascinating viewing. Two things noteworthy about last night: after Executive Session, they voted to have the council members retain their own, individual counsel (Shem Creek issue) and submit fees to the town's attorney "for review." YOUR tax dollars at work again, my friends. YOU pay for the legal defense of their kneejerk reactions. They didn't know Shem Creek was there until Mason already had a plan in place??
Furthermore, notice how little discussion goes into their decision making on anything before them. They hear a plan for development, and vote. No discussion. How can this be? Perhaps do they work it out ahead of time? They are as well-choreographed as Disney on Ice, and "bkeelin" you are right to question WHY they feel a need to work this way.
Posted by RTC on November 14, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The title of the article tells all about the way "business" is transacted over here. The meetings that are open to the public are a different thing entirely compared to what goes on behind closed doors.
Posted by Kerry on November 14, 2007 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More shenanigans by a bunch of hooligans who should not be trusted near a snack vending machine, much less empowered to manage a town the size of Mount Pleasant.
Posted by eyfigueroa on November 14, 2007 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
a local government entity working behind closed doors to make and enact policies that will affect those citizens that put them there?!?!?!?
and of those same individuals lawyering up and using tax dollars to do so?!?!!?!?
and the same SHEEP continuously voting in the same people over and over again?!?!?!?!?
this must be some prime time network drama not real life!
for those who don't know, one of the definitions for insanity: repeatedly doing the same thing expecting a different result.....
Posted by Kerry on November 14, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the citizens voted an actual SHEEP into office they would be better served than they are by the current lineup of bumbling baboons and their attorney/trainer.
Posted by Kerry on November 14, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry Mayor, I am sure at some point an undisclosed settlement will be agreed upon behind closed doors, monies will change hands under the table, and all parties will come out smiling - including Mr. Mason. All parties with the exception of the fine taxpaying citizens of Mount Pleasant that is, who ultimately must keep funding the ongoing carnival located at 100 Ann Edwards Lane.
Posted by sailaway on November 14, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey everybody, check out an article in today's Moultrie News (p. 18A) about the Attorney General opinion on Central Mount Pleasant development and Snee Farms townhouses. Very interesting reading, as it shows this same Council not knowing the law. It tells you something about them that, when the going gets tough, they make Nick Collins go out and do their talking for them. Where is Bustos right now? And why hasn't there been an article about this in the Post Courier? I think it is a better story than Roper Hospital taking a few feet off the height of their new hospital. What's going on????
Posted by RTC on November 14, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I usually throw the Moultrie News straight into the recycling bin.
Maybe I will check it out this time.
Of course council doesn't know the law, nor do they abide by it.
It is much easier to take money and turn a death ear to citizens' complaints.
Imagine telling a council member that HH is a drunk and have them give you a look of total shock and reply " I didn't know that." That would be laughable, if it was not such a serious issue that no one will do squat about it.
Posted by Reader on November 14, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I find frustrating is the Post & Courier's practice of always running a story about claimed violations of the FOIA. Invariably, the newspaper will consult Jay Bender who represents newspapers. Obviously, Jay Bender has a bias in these things.
Now, don't misunderstand. I agree with Jay that the law has been broken in this case. However, I just don't think that there is any point in running a story about the viewpoint of a lawyer who only represents one side of the conflict. That ain't news! Of course he agrees.
If the newspaper thinks that it has been denied access to public information (and it has in this case), the newspaper needs to do something about it. Filing a suit to assert a FOIA violation is not very expensive. Since there are typically no factual disputes about what happened (just legal arguments about the significance of those events), most FOIA cases can be wrapped up very quickly with one hearing.
I frequently read in the paper about some violation of the FOIA, but I never read about the newspaper actually suing for access to the information. Come on P&C! Do something to GET access! THAT would be news!
Posted by jammanofdi on November 14, 2007 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll throw another twist into it. Why is The Town of Mount Pleasant's Planning and Permitting office operating out of the old Trawler restaurant? The town offices are undergoing renovations, and for 6 months they are taking up shack at Richard Coen's (who also is involved in all this Shem Creek development) restaurant? And that is the only offices in The Town's offices that has to relocate to that location - waterfront? Don't some people call that a conflict of interest?
Posted by bigwhip on November 14, 2007 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I commented first and waited for the numerous comments that I knew would come out on this item. Some very good comments, a few off the mark. A few more thoughts/opinions:
~ Allen Young does have a law degree
~ He is deathly afraid of HH
~ A chance to negotiate in good faith with Mason
was available a few years back & HH and some of
Council didn't want to do so.
~ Roper will not go in Carolina Park, another HH/BM faux
paux
~ the HH regime has been riddled with secrecy & back room
politics.
Posted by mtptiger on November 28, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
has anyone considered a protest on the night of the Mount Pleasant Christmas parade on December 9? The parade will pass right by the site. Just a thought...