Council members clash over vote on issue that wasn't on agenda
The Post and Courier
Jamie Feltner (left)<br /> Larry Hargett (center)<br /> Chris Murphy (right)
SUMMERVILLE — Dorchester County Council disregarded the state's open-government laws again Monday by voting on a controversial issue that was not on the printed agenda, the chairman says.
The issue was a rezoning request to keep condos from being built in Ashborough, a neighborhood off Dorchester Road where Councilman Jamie Feltner lives. It's been a highly contentious proposal, with attorneys involved on both sides.
Council gave the request initial approval in April and sent it to the planning committee for further study. The county Planning Commission, another body, recommended against rezoning, since the buyer had already gotten permits and invested thousands of dollars in plans.
A number of Ashborough residents and their attorney showed up at Monday's council meeting to urge council to rezone the property. They said condos would make their flooding problems worse, questioned the validity of the permits, and urged council to rezone the parcel for single-family homes.
Feltner got enough votes to amend the agenda, pull the item out of the planning committee and give the rezoning second-reading approval. Council Chairman Larry Hargett and Committee Chairman Chris Murphy objected.
"I was very upset." Hargett said. "He had the votes all counted before he got there. It's not a good way to do business."
Feltner said he assumed Murphy was going to put the item on the agenda and moved to include it Monday because so many people showed up to talk about it.
Feltner also pointed out that a county ordinance says council members can amend the agenda with a majority vote, and other council members have done so on issues they cared about. "I'm following the rules," he said.
Feltner riled up Hargett and Murphy in September when he amended the agenda to pull another issue out of Murphy's committee for a vote. Council tasked its Governmental Affairs Committee to study the issue, but the committee has not discussed it since then.
Jay Bender, an attorney who represents the S.C. Press Association, has previously said such actions violate the state's open-government laws. State law requires public bodies to publicize agendas at least 24 hours in advance, and amending the agenda during the meeting to bring up controversial issues not previously advertised contradicts the law, he said. He could not be reached Tuesday.
Reach Dave Munday at 745-5862 or dmunday@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
zoomru (anonymous) says...
WHAT??
"I was very upset." Hargett said. "He had the votes all counted before he got there. It's not a good way to do business."
HARGETT....You FOOL! That's called "Planning" you ninnie! Maybe you don't need to be on this COUNCIL at all??
FELTNER.... you Criminal! Stop breaking state LAWS!! You need to be ABOVE board.. SON ! Don't ASSUME diddly; it makes WHAT out of you??
JAY BENDER....Attorney for the SC PRESS?? Uh oh! Stop blowing air and start filing some paperwork to take the editors of OUR states newspapers to COURT... NOW! On the grounds of FRAUD. That's right...FRAUD! These newspapers are supposed to be the citizens GUARD DOGS; but instead their LAP DOGS! Want proof...look at your trash! Then get on your laptop (I KNOW YOU HAVE ONE !!); and google "JOSEPH LONGO". Once you read that article, go to www.startech.net and read the press releases. Next ..call up Andre' "the GIANT" Bauer and have him drive YOU over to the Bees Ferry Landfill or any other of the 18 Landfills operating in our state. JAY....GET BUSY BEING A WORTHWHILE ATTORNEY FOR OUR GREAT STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA... you Ravenel'er !! JAY are YOU a Guard DOG or a LAP dog?? Which ONE? You can't have it both ways!!
JAY...I'm sure your a fine man. You need to get some clarity on why YOU went to LAW school. Jay..Does OUR state LEAD in ANYTHING?
1) Education...
2) Landfill Closure..and trash to energy and not METHANE?\
3) Do we lead in Windfarms?
4) Do we lead in Mass transit?
5) Do we lead in Business developement?
6) DO we PRODUCE OUR OWN FUEL?
7) Why do we have BIG OIL funding campaigns when we don't have any OIL WELLS??
8) How many electric COOPS have net-metering to encourage personal energy production??
9) Do we learn from othert cities mistakes or is OUR state going to LEAD?
Jay ... the answers are NOT found in OUR STATES newspapers?
DO YOU READ THEM ALL?
July 23, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
This council has a track record for doing things behind closed doors and against the will of the people. Whose interests do they really represent? On the surface, I would say only their own. Unless you are a friend or neighbor of your county councilman, your opinions don't seem to matter. They forget that we are sprawled out and the district they represent extends past the end of their driveways.
How much is this action going to cost the rest of us when it is tied up in litigation?
July 23, 2008 at 5:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
Good morning all!
I'm a proponent of "managed growth" which is the position espoused by Feltner and Rosebrock and generally supported by Waggoner and Davis. However "abuse of process" is a serious charge leveled by FOI Attorney Jay Bender. When the other side does it, we hear these guys "cry fowl". When the shoe is on the other foot, it seems to be OK. Well folks "abuse of process" is never OK. As Bender says, put an item on the agenda and stick to the agenda in accordance with our open meeting laws of SC. IT'S A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!!
July 23, 2008 at 5:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Sounds like Feltner runs the council not you Larry?
July 23, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summervillerepub (anonymous) says...
Same old Dorchester....
July 23, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnotherVoice (anonymous) says...
Why don't you tell the whole story, Mr. Munday??? What is Mr. Feltner to do when the people he represents are pressuring him to get on with the second reading on this issue but Mr. Murphy will not put it on the committee agenda? We have all shown up for an advertised public hearing that doesn't take place!! The county attorney will not publicly state what he tells council and the planning commission in executive session!! The county attorney was right there and okayed this being added to the agenda so apparently it was not illegal. Mr. Pratt was obviously aware it was going to be on the agenda since he, his attorney, and other supporters were there. He also had his development plans and pictures of the property with him to present to council! This is all about some homeowners, trying to protect their property, fighting a developer who happens to be a friend (and probably a big campaign contributor) of certain councilmen.
July 23, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
barrister (anonymous) says...
The issue is Feltner's blatant abuse of FOIA. He made no effort to put the matter on the written agenda. The motion to amend the agenda always comes after the public comment period, so the general public has no ability to know the issue will be discussed or to voice any concerns at the meeting. If the matter is not being handled in a timely matter by the committee, he can also request that it be placed on that agenda. An agenda denial by the PBD committee would give him a valid reason to go to the full council for redress. Short of that happening, he is circumventing the rules of council and violating the law requiring notice to the public.
July 23, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
metallic (anonymous) says...
"AnotherVoice" posted:
>>>This is all about some homeowners, trying to protect their property, fighting a developer who happens to be a friend (and probably a big campaign contributor) of certain councilmen.<<<
Since when did stopping development on property one does NOT OWN become a matter of protecting "their" property?
You must have some strange ideas about "property rights" -- it seems you think a group of homeowners trying to prohibit neighboring property owners from exercising their right to use their property AS IT WAS ZONED WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT is somehow correct and legal?
If homeowners in a certain area do not want neighboring property developed they have the right to pool their money and buy the property and restrict development in any way they want.
We see instead, a situation where a councilman, with his local neighborhood "mob" using the force of government, attempting to VIOLATE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS of another because "the mob" doesn't "like" the change in atmosphere development of neighboring property will create.
This situation is another example of people wanting the UNEARNED and trying to use the government to take what is not theirs to take.
July 23, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mcdian (anonymous) says...
Buying up surrounding property will not work in this day and age. Inividuals around the US are loosing their property to eminant domain that the gov. is taking property and giving it to someone else. Very similar to the Distrabution of wealth that has been initiated. We take from the middle class and give it to the poor, by food stamps and other welfare. Aproval for the programs are in the Farm Bills, whish in no maner benifits the farmers.
July 23, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ashleyatwork (anonymous) says...
Do we really need any of this construction right now? Is there a condo shortage in the Summerville area? I cant go out of the house without hearing about the over abundance of housing, less qualified buyers, etc. Is someone really going to get so rich off this that would explain all this nonsense?
July 23, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drp7773 (anonymous) says...
And folks wonder why Dorchester is and always has been corrupt.
July 23, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnotherVoice (anonymous) says...
To "barrister": As I said before, the county attorney did not have a problem with this being added to the agenda so apparently he did not know it is "violating the law"!! You said "the motion to amend the agenda always comes after the public comment period" so why is there an established time for this if it is "violating the law"?? Mr. Feltner made his motion at the appropriate time! As I also said before, Mr. Pratt seemed to be well prepared to state his case so he wasn't denied the opportunity to "voice any concerns".
To metallic: My "strange idea" about property rights is that I believe property rights extend to surrounding homeowners as well as the developer -- especially when that developer was well aware of the problems with the property before he purchased it!! I believe I have the right to try to protect my property from increased flooding or other physical damage and devaluation. Why do you and certain members of council seem to think that just because I own my home I no longer have property rights?? You're suggesting that the only way to protect my property is to buy up the surrounding property? Maybe you can afford to do that but all of us can't! We're not developers -- just ordinary citizens who love and care about our homes.
Thank goodness we have representatives like Mr. Feltner and the others who voted with him who are willing to stand up for the people!! I was shocked at Mr. Murphy's and Mr. Hargett's attempts to intimidate the other councilmen and at their unprofessional behavior! Every voter in the county should attend a county council meeting occasionally to see their representatives in action. I think it would be a real eye-opener -- it was for me.
July 23, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
"My "strange idea" about property rights is that I believe property rights extend to surrounding homeowners as well as the developer --"
I agree. Not all growth and development is good. The developer and realters make money and move on. This is good, I believe in capitalism and property rights. But if the development has a negative impact on the surrounding property owners what about their "property rights"? What about the sudden new infrastructure costs like roads and schools. What about doubling the existing owners time to get to work and property taxes? I used to beleive the same as metallic. But, experience gave me a new perspective. Where and how to draw the line is complicated but the question is valid for fairness to all sides.
July 23, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnotherVoice (anonymous) says...
If changing the agenda is a violation of open government laws, shouldn't these "executive sessions" be also?? All of council's and the planning commission's discussions of this issue have been behind closed doors. Is the county attorney not confident enough in his advice to let the public know what he is telling them?
July 23, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Floger76 (anonymous) says...
AnotherVoice - You must think you have drive by rights. That is to say that you control what another does with his/her property that you "drive by." How can you rezone a property after it was purchased by someone else???
You said:"Thank goodness we have representatives like Mr. Feltner and the others who voted with him who are willing to stand up for the people!!"
Let me get this straight. The property in question was legally purchased with specific zoning. The owner wants to build on it in a manner that is consistent with that zoning. And you think because you live in the area you should have the right to stop it??? Do I have this right. So you and Feltners boys have the right to determine what another can do with their property? Never mind that they purchased it with specific zoning. Just because you don't like it, they should be stopped? So if my mob is bigger than your mob, then I win?
Sure, that sound about right.....
July 23, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
totheright (anonymous) says...
When is Mr. Munday going to report the real story about Mr Pratt's permit applications? Did he knew about the flooding and claim otherwise to DEHEC? Are the surrounding homeowners supposed to sit idly by while Pratts get richer and their foundations float away? Get real and put your selves in their shoes...get out of downtown historic Summerville sometime and get to know your neighbors. At least Feltner is not afraid of Pratt and stands up for his constituents. I'd have paid $20 to see the look on Hargett, Murphy and Pratt's faces on Monday night. Pratt knew it would be on the agenda and came prepared. Mr. Munday needs to do some INVESTIGATING and get to the bottom of this story, and not present it as a cheap conflict between Feltner and Pratt and his buddies on County Council.
July 24, 2008 at 2:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmurdock (anonymous) says...
Why am I not surprised? As a long time resident of Dorchester county and a former employee of the county I can say that our elected councilmen have routinely done business their way despite what is legal or right.
I suggest we all remember this come election time.
July 24, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com 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 "report abuse" 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 website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.