Town Council MAYESVILLE^{[1, 2]}

• Name	Town Council MAYESVILLE
  Gender	Male
  HIST	Mayesville mayor excluded from executive session amid lawsuit over FOIA, records handling The town council of Mayesville held a special called meeting to discuss FOIA procedures at the Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on July 29. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, August 2, 2025 6:00 am By ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com A two-hour special called Mayesville Town Council meeting descended into confusion, conflict and chaos this week when council members voted to exclude Mayor Chris Brown from executive session. They cited a vague conflict of interest connected to an ongoing lawsuit against the town. Brown pushed back, calling the action unlawful. What followed was a tense power struggle and raised questions about transparency, authority and legality in the town’s government. The Tuesday, July 29, meeting was called by Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin, Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill and Councilman Jasaad Ricks to address Freedom of Information Act policies and procedures concerning a lawsuit that claims financial records requested by Louis Tisdale under FOIA laws were not released. Brown said he did not know the meeting was called until Monday, July 28, when the agenda was sent to the media. The lawsuit Court documents obtained by The Sumter Item state Tisdale hand-delivered a written FOIA request to the Town of Mayesville on Nov. 28, 2023, requesting the town’s approved budget for fiscal year 2021-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayesville Mayor Jereleen Miller; positional budgeted salaries; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to charter and governance of the CDC; any rental agreements between the town and CDC; and seven other financial documents. The matter originated from Tisdale’s concern about how Mayesville and its nonprofit CDC have managed town property that has been improved with nearly $2 million in local, state and federal grants. Neither group has produced records or documents demonstrating how public funds have been managed or spent, court records state. “We have extremely strong concerns that the CDC has operated in secrecy,” state Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale, told The Item. “There is absolutely no accountability for nearly $2 million in federal, state and local grants that the CDC now controls.” Brown, in an email that included Town Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins as well as council members Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks, responded to Tisdale on Dec. 8, 2023, saying Collins was “working earnestly” to gather and organize the requested information. In an email to Tisdale on Feb. 5, 2024, Collins wrote “the request has not gone unnoticed” but that she was waiting on legal guidance from Town Attorney Eleazer Carter as to how to handle FOIA requests. She also said Brown had possession of the records and, therefore, she would not fulfill FOIA requests. “Mayor Brown has publicly stated, ‘he has taken’ secured Town of Mayesville records to an undisclosed location. And continues to remove records (instead of copy) as needed without communication with the clerk/treasurer or the council,” Collins wrote in the email. “In light of this breach, I will not be handling FOIA requests without legal guidance. “... He [Brown] is lawfully obliged to respond and fulfill your request.” In court documents and at Tuesday’s meeting, Brown said he is not nor has he ever had access to such records. “When public bodies fail to respond to FOIA requests within 15 days of receiving the request, that public body loses its right to contest whether a particular record is public,” Wetmore told The Item. “In this case, the judge ordered that the records requested (with the exception of one) must be produced and that the town officials could be held in contempt of court if they didn’t facilitate the release of records or cooperate in any way.” A court order to turn over the documents was executed in early July — a year and a half since the initial FOIA request. According to Wetmore, upon Tisdale’s arrival at town hall to receive them, Collins initially said the town only had four of the requested documents. Once pressed, several additional filing cabinets and electronic financial records were “revealed.” Three more of the requested documents were turned over. Wetmore told The Item while they are still waiting on the remaining documents, so far, it appears there has not been a town financial audit since 2022. She said documents they do have seem to corroborate an allegation that the 2020 and 2021 audits were plagiarized from earlier findings. There also were no reports from the CDC as to how taxpayer-funded grants have been spent. Approving the agenda The special called meeting started at 6:33 p.m. inside Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center on Mayesville’s Main Street. Ricks motioned to make an amendment to the agenda to review a town ordinance concerning disruptions during meetings. A discussion would last 16 minutes, the majority of which involved Brown asking about his suspected conflict of interest to participate in executive session to discuss the ongoing lawsuit. He asked council three times what his conflict of interest was. Council did not respond. Carter, the town attorney, entered the meeting at 6:42 p.m., asking where they were on the agenda. Brown responded that Carter is not part of council and that he’d rather hear from them on the matter. “I don’t care what [who] you’d like to hear it from,” Carter said. Brown and Carter engaged in a three-minute discussion — amid the 16-minute discussion to approve the amended agenda — that centered on whether Brown is represented by Carter, to which Brown stated Carter represents council, which he is a part of, but not him as an individual. Brown attempted to read a letter from Carter Law Firm serving as a “declaration of conflict of interest and exclusion of deliberation” before Benjamin interrupted, stating that if he was going to read the letter, he should approve the agenda and proceed with the meeting where that matter was scheduled to be discussed. Brown contested rather than approve the item, it could be stricken from the agenda. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor of the amended agenda approval while Brown voted in opposition. The town’s governmental format includes three council members and the mayor who have voting powers. The ordinance “It shall be unlawful for any person to disrupt, interrupt or interfere with the proceedings of council, a committee of council, a city board or commission, municipal court or any other official body while it is in session,” Collins read from the ordinance for disruptions during meetings. Ricks motioned to enforce any elected official, staff member or member of the public who causes a disruption or outburst during a council meeting to be removed by the deputy on duty at the request of any sitting council member. Anyone who engages in repeated disruption after a formal warning or removal may be subject to a civil fine or temporary exclusion from future meetings. Brown asked Ricks if he was adding to the ordinance, to which Ricks had mixed answers. Initially, he replied no. Seconds later, when asked a second time by Brown, he said yes. Brown said if it is a new ordinance, it has to go before council and the public for a first reading. Massingill said it is not a new ordinance. Ricks said his reason for reviewing the ordinance was due to disruptions during previous meetings, namely by Brown. Council went to vote, but Brown interrupted that the ordinance has to go through “the proper process.” Carter interjected, explaining the motion included council’s “problem” with Brown and an emphasis to enforce the ordinance that exists. By asking if council was adding to the ordinance, Brown was “delaying and interrupting the process.” A back-and-forth ensued of who enforces ordinances; Brown said it is the mayor’s responsibility. Carter agreed but contested that it could be anyone on council if Brown fails to do so. “What you’re doing now is the reason that you’re having these problems,” Carter told Brown. “Every little issue is not worth a fight.” When Massingill interjected, Brown called her “out of order” and said she could raise her hand if she wished to speak. Massingill said she was not in school, to which Brown responded, “Maybe you need to be.” Massingill retorted the same phrase to him. Benjamin told Brown he was “getting beside himself,” to which he answered there was a problem before now. Benjamin said, “You created it.” Massingill proposed a vote, to which Benjamin and Ricks added their votes in favor of the motion to enforce the ordinance. The motion passed with a three-to-one vote. The conflict of interest Brown continued to read the letter he received from Carter Law Firm on his alleged conflict of interest and exclusion from executive session. The letter says council members have “the right and the duty to proceed in the absence of a recused member or a mayor.” The recused member’s presence should be recorded but not their participation in official minutes, and, if needed, law enforcement assistance should be requested to maintain decorum. “Oh, that sounds kind of like a threat,” Brown said. “‘This memorandum serves as a legal opinion for the council’s authority to conduct its business lawfully and properly. This includes legal, ethical and moral decisions regarding the approval of the CDC agreement.’” At the question of what the CDC agreement is, Carter alleged Brown moved town property from one location and hid it in another. He asked Brown whether he informed council of moving the property to the Mayesville Fire Department building. Brown said he told council it was moved to a public place. Carter then brought up the town’s rental agreement with the CDC to use the Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center on a “month-to-month” basis. Brown said council is required to go through a procurement process, which is a systematic approach a business uses to acquire the goods and services it needs to operate, for any cost over $5,000. The CDC charges the town $30,000 annually to rent the learning center, according to Brown. Carter contested the $5,000 threshold is for goods and services being purchased. The rental agreement could be tied to that but is not, he said. He then alleged the town has rented buildings and services from other residents, some of whom were at the meeting. Brown asked the audience to raise their hand if they rented to the town. No one did. A second letter received by Brown from Carter Law Firm served as a “formal notice and objection to [his] handling of one or more of the Freedom of Information Act requests” submitted to the town, which were not routed to Collins’ office as clerk/treasurer, “as required by state law.” A discussion ensued between Brown, Carter and Collins about who is responsible for town records. Carter asked Brown whether he has keys to the town’s two records rooms. Brown said he does not. “So, then you’re not really responsible for them,” Carter said to Brown. Collins said Brown has access to some records, namely those in the town’s main office. Brown asked if he has access to all municipal records. Collins did not answer. Carter instructed her to say yes, whispering, “It’s not on the record that you’re going to give him access to the keys; it’s only on record you saying that he doesn’t have them.” Brown asked if this was “defiance of the mayor.” “I don’t consider it defiance. You have a key,” Collins said. “Do I have a key to all records, yes or no?” Brown asked. “You have a key to some,” Collins answered. “And it is going to be noted.” Massingill made a motion to require Brown to recuse himself from executive session “due to known and reasonably perceived conflicts of interest arising from the mayor’s involvement in an existing allegation” of Town of Mayesville and the CDC. Brown contested it was illegal to exclude him. A palpable silence settled, during which an audience member asked, “Who is the mayor?” if decisions are being made to exclude Brown. The question lingered for eight seconds before Massingill attempted to answer, “The mayor.” Brown interjected, telling Massingill, “That’s not your job.” A three-minute debate ensued to review the enforcement of the meeting disruption ordinance and who could be removed from meetings, with the council trio and town attorney faulting Brown for not calling the resident out of order but threatening to have Massingill removed if interruptions continued. Brown called for a vote, asking council to re-read the motion that would require him to recuse himself from executive session. Following the same voting pattern, the motion passed 3-1 with the council members aligned and Brown in opposition. Executive session began at 7:30 p.m. The policy When Brown followed as council headed into executive session, Benjamin called for the on-site deputy to enforce the meeting disruptions ordinance and remove Brown. The deputy refused, walking out the back door and saying, “He’s the mayor.” Council and audience members gathered outside the front of the learning center for a few minutes to discuss the meeting thus far and lack of action from law enforcement. Brown stood outside the door to executive session, watching council. While the three council members discussed matters behind closed doors, Carter called Brown outside to discuss unknown matters without a public audience, with the deputy standing by. Council returned 45 minutes later. Ricks made a motion for Brown to be excluded from all town council meetings, discussions, deliberations, votes or official action related to the ongoing FOIA request; any pending or potential lawsuits involving the town and/or its elected officials; all matters involving a conflict of interest, personal actions or ethical allegations related to his conduct; and issues involving the custody, removal or interfering in town records or FOIA processes. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor. Brown was not able to vote. As council moved into new business, an attempt was made by Carter to return control of the meeting to Brown. He responded, “By all means, keep going.” Benjamin called for a motion for town administration, council and Collins to collaborate with Mayesville CDC on the FOIA request submitted by Wetmore on behalf of Tisdale. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor. Brown opposed. Collins then read the policy on FOIA processes and procedures, which stated all FOIA requests must be directed to clerk/treasurer; the mayor nor council members can fulfill FOIA requests independently; and access to all records must be made accessible to the clerk in order to be in compliance with the 15-day response window. Failure to do so can expose the town to legal liability and internal investigation. Collins then reviewed the cost of copies for requested documents. During discussion, Brown contested that 75 cents for a standard copy is not the lowest cost and that council needs to review it. Carter prompted Benjamin to call for a vote on the FOIA policy. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor, while Brown opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The meeting raised unresolved questions of who holds authority to direct council proceedings, what timeline — if any — has been established to fulfill the FOIA request under the newly adopted policy and whether actions taken by council — including the exclusion of the mayor — were legally sound. Editor’s note: This article is part one of a two-part series exploring Mayesville Town Council and administration conduct in response to the FOIA lawsuit. State press association attorney weighs in on Mayesville's FOIA lawsuit Posted Saturday, August 9, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com Mayesville's ongoing legal battle over public records has drawn scrutiny not only from the courts but also from legal and government experts questioning the town council's recent conduct. As the town continues to withhold records requested in a Freedom of Information Act inquiry, Jay Bender, attorney for South Carolina Press Association, speculated the town may be edging toward contempt and further raised concerns about its collaboration with a nonprofit over access to public money and an allegedly unlawful meeting procedure. These issues all came to a head at the town's special-called meeting on Tuesday, July 29, where council excluded Mayor Christopher Brown from executive session, citing a "conflict of interest" pertaining to the ongoing FOIA lawsuit filed by Louis Tisdale against the town. Court documents obtained by The Sumter Item state Tisdale hand-delivered a written FOIA request to the Town of Mayesville on Nov. 28, 2023, requesting 13 financial documents, including the town's approved budget for fiscal years 2021-22 and 2022-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayesville Mayor Jereleen Miller; positional budgeted salaries; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to the charter and governance of the CDC; and any rental agreements between the town and CDC. The request was partially fulfilled on July 7 - more than a year since the request was initially filed - after a Sumter judge ordered the town to release the records. State Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale, told The Item seven of the requested documents - three of which were retrieved from "secret" filing cabinets in the town's office - were handed over only after Town Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins was pressed. The request stems from concern of how Mayesville and its nonprofit CDC have managed town property that has been improved with nearly $2 million in local, state and federal grants. Neither group has produced records or documents demonstrating how public funds have been managed or spent, court records state. Emails were exchanged between Brown, Collins, Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin, Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill and Councilman Jasaad Ricks between December 2023 and February 2024 about who was responsible for fulfilling the request. Collins stated that because of Brown's moving of town records to an "undisclosed location," she would not fulfill the request without legal guidance. At the Tuesday meeting, town attorney Eleazer Carter said Collins is the custodian of the records. "It doesn't make any difference who has possession of the records; the town as an entity is obligated to turn them over," Bender, press association attorney, told The Item. Under FOIA law, public bodies have a specific period of time in which they should respond to a request. If there is a claim for an exemption, requester must be notified in writing as to the basis for the claimed exemption. Tisdale received a response from Brown on Dec. 8, 2023, that Collins was "working earnestly" to fulfill the request. In an email from Collins on Feb. 5, 2024, to Tisdale, she wrote "the request has not gone unnoticed" but that in light of Brown's "breach," or moving of the records, he was "lawfully obliged to respond and fulfill your request." "If they're saying, 'We're seeking legal guidance,' it's too late to do that if you've ignored the request for months," Bender said. There are certain exemptions that are allowed for FOIA; however, such exemptions do not extend to an entity's financial or administrative records, according to state law. A vote for the town, its council and clerk to collaborate with its nonprofit CDC to fulfill the FOIA request passed in a 3-1 vote at the meeting, with Brown being the only one opposed. Yet, according to Bender, once the town failed to turn over all records in early July, they legally could have been held in contempt. Wetmore told The Item a motion for a rule to show cause was filed on Thursday, which asks a judge to hold a hearing for the town to give reasons why the documents haven't been produced or face being held in contempt of court. No timeline of when that hearing will take place was available by press time. EXAMINING THE MEETING Discussion of the lawsuit was one item of several on the town's amended agenda for the July 29 meeting, an agenda Bender questioned whether it was adopted soundly. Ricks moved to add a review of the town's ordinance on disruptions during meetings and to enforce it given Brown's behavior in previous meetings. The 16-minute discussion to approve the agenda, however, centered on Brown's alleged conflict of interest in the ongoing lawsuit. The agenda was only approved on the basis that moving forward would allow Brown and council to discuss his alleged conflict of interest. The ordinance states it is "unlawful for any person to disrupt, interrupt or interfere with the proceedings of council" or any official body while it is in session. Ricks moved to enforce any elected official, staff member or member of the public who causes a disruption during a council meeting to be removed by the deputy on duty at the request of any sitting council member, be fined or temporarily excluded from future meetings. To Brown, he said, it sounded like an amendment to the ordinance. Bender agreed, stating a motion to amend the agenda for that purpose was "illegitimate." "What was being proposed was an amendment to an ordinance. It doesn't sound, to me, like it was being done in the appropriate manner," he told The Item. "What we have is council proceeding on an agenda that may or may not have been lawful." An ordinance cannot be amended without going through the proper procedure: a notice of a first reading with at least 24 hours advance notice; approval of the first reading; and then a second reading. Bender said there would have to be "exigent circumstances" to add an item that wasn't initially on the agenda, which this was not, in his opinion. Bender also opined that while initial concerns raised of whether the executive session that excluded Brown was legal, it sufficed. Benjamin moved to enter executive session "to receive legal advice from legal counsel concerning potential or impending litigation involving the town, including claims or actions connected to the conduct" and "discuss the allegations of official misconduct, abuse of office and potential conducts of interest," all pertaining to Brown. Bender said the presiding officer is obligated to state a specific purpose of the executive session after affirmative vote to enter into executive session. However, Benjamin's motion satisfied the law despite the mayor's exclusion. What still has yet to be answered on record by council is what they believe to be Brown's conflict of interest in the case, the town CDC's alleged handling of public funds and what accounting, if any, town officials required of the nonprofit to have concerning spending. Each time the question was posed by Brown during the meeting, it was met with silence, deflection or more questions. The Item reached out to the Town of Mayesville and Carter for clarification but did not receive a response by press time. Mayesville town council in violation of S.C. constitution State Municipal Association says members didn’t follow their own ordinance with budget delays Mayesville town council holds its regularly scheduled meeting with a packed audience at Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on Tuesday, Aug. 12. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, August 23, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com The Town of Mayesville is in violation of the South Carolina Constitution after not following its own fiscal year budget ordinance, according to the Municipal Association of South Carolina. MASC Senior Field Services Manager Charlie Barrineau confirmed with The Sumter Item on Thursday that Mayesville's failure to finalize its 2025-26 fiscal year budget by its July deadline puts the town out of compliance with the budget ordinance adopted earlier this year. While residents have long voiced frustration with council's financial disputes, this is the first time an outside authority has confirmed legal violations. A second reading on the budget was scheduled for Aug. 12 - a month past its initial scheduled date. According to the town's budget ordinance, first reading and public hearing for the budget were scheduled for June 10. Council voted unanimously in favor. However, meeting minutes from the July 8 meeting summarized Mayor Chris Brown's opposition to giving Attorney Eleazer Carter back pay from the general fund, as motioned by Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin. Brown said the 2025-26 budget had not been passed and money is not in the budget from last year, noting expenditures were "$60,000 over." The public notice for the second reading of the budget reported projected fiscal year expenditures to be $276,121.96 and fiscal year revenue $219,400. All of this discussion occurred during actions to be taken after executive session on July 8. When Brown made the motion at the appropriate time to approve the budget, the motion died. Another second reading was scheduled for Aug. 12, when Benjamin moved to transfer $5,000 from the town's advertising expenses to pay Carter. According to the 2025-26 proposed budget, the attorney salary and advertising expenses are $5,000 each. The Town of Mayesville estimated $264,400 for its general operation fund, with $219,400 in expected income and $45,000 in federal COVID-19 money designated by council to pay the Sumter County Sheriff's Office for additional law enforcement presence in the town. The town received $190,000 in COVID-19 money that had to be allocated to specific items - including the remodeling of the old Town Hall - by Dec. 31, 2024, and spent by the following year, Dec. 31. According to Brown, neither the sheriff's office nor the contractor for the old Town Hall remodel have been paid. It was also at the Aug. 12 meeting that Benjamin, along with Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill, voted in favor terminating the town's $45,000 contract with the sheriff's office. Brown was the only member opposed. Councilman Jasaad Ricks was present via Zoom but not able to vote. The agency will still respond to 911 calls but will not station a deputy in the town for patrol. The town's fiscal year was to begin April 1 and end March 31, 2026. Another public hearing was to be scheduled for its regular meeting in September. Though not uncommon among small town operations, not following its ordinance is still a violation of the state constitution, MASC's Barrineau said. For example, most municipalities that have a July 1 fiscal year start date hold their budget work session in May, followed by two readings and a public hearing of the budget ordinance in June. According to the South Carolina Constitution, municipalities are required to adopt a balanced budget each year, with revenues equaling expenditures.The constitution likely does not allow municipalities to operate under a continuing resolution instead of an approved budget. If the budget is not adopted properly by the end of the fiscal year, the council should adopt a provisional budget based on last year's revenues and expenses, according to Barrineau. Council can then amend this later as new revenue and expense information becomes available, but any changes are required to have two readings and a public hearing. "Obviously, Mayesville has failed to comply with the state constitution," Barrineau told The Item. The question of what happens next depends on the town's annual audit. According to Barrineau, a certified public accountant would review many factors, including the town's meeting minutes and steps taken to adopt their budget in accordance with the state constitution. If the auditor determines the budget was not adopted correctly, the auditor will note the council's compliance issue in the audit. The town would then respond, acknowledging the repercussions and their effort to correct it in the next fiscal year. The audit may also point to this as an operational inefficiency, which could affect the town's credit rating and risk its ability to receive future financial assistance, Barrineau told The Item. The situation is rectifiable and, according to Barrineau, "they need to rectify it as soon as they can." DOCUMENT STORAGE and FOIA DISPUTE A tense debate broke out about records being stored in the Learning Center, a Town of Mayesville Community Development Corporation-owned building. The debate arose during discussion about the July 29 meeting minutes. Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins stated Ricks and Massingill, who misspoke while reading their motions during the meeting, had corrections that would allow the meeting minutes to reflect their written motions. A brief back and forth between Collins and the mayor ensued on whether the "changes" would alter the meaning of the motions, to which Collins repeatedly stated they were only "small corrections." Brown then asked, in reference to the same July meeting where a 3-1 vote authorized the collaboration of the town and the CDC to fulfill the Freedom of Information Act inquiry from November 2023 by Louis Tisdale, who would pay for the collaboration. Brown was the only member opposed. For context, a Sumter judge ordered Town of Mayesville this July to turn over 12 of the 13 requested financial documents, which included the town's approved budget for fiscal years 2021-22 and 2022-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayor Miller; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to the charter and governance of the CDC; and any rental agreements between the town and CDC. The request was partially fulfilled on July 7 - more than a year since the initial request was filed - when seven of the requested documents - three of which were retrieved from "secret" filing cabinets in the town's office - were handed over only after Collins was pressed, according to state Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale. Despite Massingill asking to table the discussion on the collaboration, Collins continued that the documents requested would be beneficial to have for auditing purposes and that those documents are kept in the same room as the CDC's records. This was a big point of contention for Brown and community members, who questioned why town documents are stored in the same room as records for the nonprofit. Carter said the records were stored there when the town worked alongside the CDC; this occurred during the administration of former Mayor Jereleen Miller. When Brown was elected in 2023, the CDC never removed its records. Collins also added she works in that office where the CDC records are held, meaning she takes town records in there with her. "In an effort to satisfy the judge's order - for us, not for the CDC - we're scheduled to meet with them and gather documents that they may have. And of course, they're saying their documents from 2017-2023, when you came, are located here in the building," Carter said. Wetmore also told The Item a motion for a rule to show cause was filed on Thursday, Aug. 7, which asks a judge to hold a hearing for the town to give reasons the documents haven't been produced or face being held in contempt of court. Carter said regarding who will pay for the collaboration, since he was directed to facilitate it, "I expect you to pay for it," he directed at Brown followed by "your council." Brown denied he would. A 2-1 vote, Brown being the member opposed, approved the July 29 meeting minutes. A second FOIA request has been submitted to CDC concerning receipt and dispersal of money received from Town of Mayesville and publicly funded grants, according to the United Citizens of Mayesville Newsletter. The publication stated CDC Director Ed Miller "almost immediately" requested an extension, which was denied. TABLED DISCUSSIONS and OTHER BUSINESS Council tabled two items until changes are made or results released. Council addressed a letter of condition from the USDA related to health care, the town's nature trail and kitchen equipment. Massingill questioned whether the letters were restored to their original state after being changed previously, to which Brown said no. The item was tabled after the same 2-1 voting pattern. An anonymous report was made to the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services on July 31 about Mayesville Town Hall's "unhealthy and heavy asbestos," according to the letter read aloud by Brown. Asbestos testing was scheduled for that Thursday, and the results would return that Friday, Aug. 15. Though Brown moved to have the payment approved for demolition and remodeling of the town hall, Massingill moved to table the topic pending test results. All three council members present voted in favor. Flood mitigation efforts were also approved 3-0. June and July meeting minutes and financial reports passed 2-1, each opposed by Brown. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. with lingering concerns from residents about public safety after council's approval to terminate its contract with the sheriff's office, the town's financial oversight and transparency of public records. 'Major negligence' found in Mayesville audit probe, leaving finances in limbo Mayesville Town Council held its regularly scheduled meeting in the Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on Tuesday, Sept. 9. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com Mayesville's financial footing was thrown off balance at Tuesday's regularly scheduled meeting when Mayor Chris Brown informed residents the audit of the fiscal year 2019-20 budget - the last audit completed - included "major negligence." The findings put Mayesville in a difficult position. Council is months late on approving a new budget, and current auditors are grappling to create reliable audits with what the mayor said are "imaginary numbers" to piece together the town's books. In addition, the town's asbestos test results prompting further delay of demolition of the old Town Hall and the sheriff's office's flip-flopped contract emphasize the town's struggle to restore order and credibility to its local government. Approving the agenda The meeting started at 6:30 p.m. and fell immediately into a 10-minute discussion, which included Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin and Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill, to approve the agenda. Councilman Jasaad Ricks was present via Zoom but was told he could not vote. The issue on the table was finalizing the town's FY2025-26 budget, which was supposed to be approved by April. The town is now four months past its deadline and in violation of the South Carolina constitution. According to Benjamin, council had a conversation via email to discuss the budget, and Brown responded a public hearing must be publicized 15 days before any budget discussion. The discussion led to two unanimous decisions concerning the agenda: council scheduled a budget workshop for Thursday, Sept. 25, at 6 p.m. and a public hearing to follow on the same day at 6:30 p.m. It also moved the presentation of its FY2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 budget audits into executive session. But before the hour-and-a-half executive session, Brown shared the news of negligence found in the 2019-20 budget audit. Faulty audit In a letter from South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, obtained by The Sumter Item, the department completed an investigation on Sept. 2 into Maryland-based auditor Roy Friday and found "major negligence" in the audit of the town's budget. According to records provided to The Item, Friday copied much of the information in the FY2019-20 audit from a previous audit that was conducted by a different auditing group for FY2018-19 and included information from the town's FY2017-18 audit. Once made aware of this, Brown filed a complaint with LLR in 2023. Council was not made aware of the investigation until Tuesday's meeting. According to The Item archives, Friday said in an interview in 2024 that the allegations about a faulty audit were false. Friday voluntarily surrendered his South Carolina certified public accountant license on Aug. 25 in exchange for stopping all legal proceedings that could follow. In the resolution from LLR, Friday did not admit to the alleged misconduct. Friday will not be eligible to reapply for a CPA license in the future. After the hour-and-a-half executive session on Tuesday, Brown told residents the town's current auditors, Atlanta-based CKH Accounting and Auditing Group, had to start with "imaginary numbers" for FY2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25; he clarified the audit Friday did has not been deemed fraudulent, only that it is "not good accounting." Based on this, Brown posed the question to the public of whether to spend additional taxpayer money chasing losses, totaling $22,000 - the price Friday charged to conduct an audit, which they may never recover. Asbestos results Before learning of the town's financial woes, Dawn Schoolcraft with Conway Asbestos Inspection delivered the results of the old Town Hall's asbestos testing. The drywall on the front portion of the structure and its black flashing tested positive for asbestos. Black flashing is protective strips of material used to direct water away from building components and prevent leaks and structural damage; Schoolcraft explained this material is notorious for having asbestos because of its purpose. Because of the condition of the building, especially that it has no roof, traditional abatement is not feasible, and removal operations will have to be modified, Schoolcraft said. The abatement would be conducted by Department of Environmental Services. They scheduled for complete demolition. It takes 10 days to acquire an asbestos permit and 10 days for a demolition permit. Most contractors will apply for both permits simultaneously, making the wait period 10 days. However, if it is a different contractor for each permit, it could take 20 days to a month for permits, Schoolcraft explained. There was no further discussion on the demolition of the old Town Hall. Why Brown is always opposed At nearly every meeting, the voting pattern concerning approval of the town's financial reports includes Brown being the only opposed member against Benjamin and Massingill. Ricks has been attending meetings virtually and not voting. On Tuesday, after a 2-1 vote approved the financial reports for July and August, Brown said his continuous opposition is because the financial reports only report expenditures. He said the reports should be attached to the budget to show that every dollar is accounted for. Council would also be 2-1 on whether discussion should take place concerning old business. A USDA letter of conditions for emergency rural health care, nature trail and kitchen equipment grants, the old Town Hall demolition update and a business license class schedule update were all scheduled to be discussed. However, when Brown questioned if anyone on council had anything to discuss, no one answered. Minutes before the meeting was adjourned, town attorney Eleazer Carter asked Brown to address old business. Brown explained the opportunity for council to discuss it had passed and that he had no information to discuss, as he did not add those items to the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. What's next? The audit negligence leaves Mayesville - both its council and community - facing fundamental questions, including how a town can operate effectively without a reliable starting point for its financial records; what safeguards should be put in place to ensure residents' money is properly tracked going forward; whether the actions by Friday reflect on the town's oversight of its own finances; and what could become of the town if financial stability and transparency can't be restored.  [1, 2, 3, 4]
  HIST	Mayesville mayor excluded from executive session amid lawsuit over FOIA, records handling The town council of Mayesville held a special called meeting to discuss FOIA procedures at the Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on July 29. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, August 2, 2025 6:00 am By ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com A two-hour special called Mayesville Town Council meeting descended into confusion, conflict and chaos this week when council members voted to exclude Mayor Chris Brown from executive session. They cited a vague conflict of interest connected to an ongoing lawsuit against the town. Brown pushed back, calling the action unlawful. What followed was a tense power struggle and raised questions about transparency, authority and legality in the town’s government. The Tuesday, July 29, meeting was called by Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin, Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill and Councilman Jasaad Ricks to address Freedom of Information Act policies and procedures concerning a lawsuit that claims financial records requested by Louis Tisdale under FOIA laws were not released. Brown said he did not know the meeting was called until Monday, July 28, when the agenda was sent to the media. The lawsuit Court documents obtained by The Sumter Item state Tisdale hand-delivered a written FOIA request to the Town of Mayesville on Nov. 28, 2023, requesting the town’s approved budget for fiscal year 2021-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayesville Mayor Jereleen Miller; positional budgeted salaries; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to charter and governance of the CDC; any rental agreements between the town and CDC; and seven other financial documents. The matter originated from Tisdale’s concern about how Mayesville and its nonprofit CDC have managed town property that has been improved with nearly $2 million in local, state and federal grants. Neither group has produced records or documents demonstrating how public funds have been managed or spent, court records state. “We have extremely strong concerns that the CDC has operated in secrecy,” state Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale, told The Item. “There is absolutely no accountability for nearly $2 million in federal, state and local grants that the CDC now controls.” Brown, in an email that included Town Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins as well as council members Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks, responded to Tisdale on Dec. 8, 2023, saying Collins was “working earnestly” to gather and organize the requested information. In an email to Tisdale on Feb. 5, 2024, Collins wrote “the request has not gone unnoticed” but that she was waiting on legal guidance from Town Attorney Eleazer Carter as to how to handle FOIA requests. She also said Brown had possession of the records and, therefore, she would not fulfill FOIA requests. “Mayor Brown has publicly stated, ‘he has taken’ secured Town of Mayesville records to an undisclosed location. And continues to remove records (instead of copy) as needed without communication with the clerk/treasurer or the council,” Collins wrote in the email. “In light of this breach, I will not be handling FOIA requests without legal guidance. “... He [Brown] is lawfully obliged to respond and fulfill your request.” In court documents and at Tuesday’s meeting, Brown said he is not nor has he ever had access to such records. “When public bodies fail to respond to FOIA requests within 15 days of receiving the request, that public body loses its right to contest whether a particular record is public,” Wetmore told The Item. “In this case, the judge ordered that the records requested (with the exception of one) must be produced and that the town officials could be held in contempt of court if they didn’t facilitate the release of records or cooperate in any way.” A court order to turn over the documents was executed in early July — a year and a half since the initial FOIA request. According to Wetmore, upon Tisdale’s arrival at town hall to receive them, Collins initially said the town only had four of the requested documents. Once pressed, several additional filing cabinets and electronic financial records were “revealed.” Three more of the requested documents were turned over. Wetmore told The Item while they are still waiting on the remaining documents, so far, it appears there has not been a town financial audit since 2022. She said documents they do have seem to corroborate an allegation that the 2020 and 2021 audits were plagiarized from earlier findings. There also were no reports from the CDC as to how taxpayer-funded grants have been spent. Approving the agenda The special called meeting started at 6:33 p.m. inside Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center on Mayesville’s Main Street. Ricks motioned to make an amendment to the agenda to review a town ordinance concerning disruptions during meetings. A discussion would last 16 minutes, the majority of which involved Brown asking about his suspected conflict of interest to participate in executive session to discuss the ongoing lawsuit. He asked council three times what his conflict of interest was. Council did not respond. Carter, the town attorney, entered the meeting at 6:42 p.m., asking where they were on the agenda. Brown responded that Carter is not part of council and that he’d rather hear from them on the matter. “I don’t care what [who] you’d like to hear it from,” Carter said. Brown and Carter engaged in a three-minute discussion — amid the 16-minute discussion to approve the amended agenda — that centered on whether Brown is represented by Carter, to which Brown stated Carter represents council, which he is a part of, but not him as an individual. Brown attempted to read a letter from Carter Law Firm serving as a “declaration of conflict of interest and exclusion of deliberation” before Benjamin interrupted, stating that if he was going to read the letter, he should approve the agenda and proceed with the meeting where that matter was scheduled to be discussed. Brown contested rather than approve the item, it could be stricken from the agenda. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor of the amended agenda approval while Brown voted in opposition. The town’s governmental format includes three council members and the mayor who have voting powers. The ordinance “It shall be unlawful for any person to disrupt, interrupt or interfere with the proceedings of council, a committee of council, a city board or commission, municipal court or any other official body while it is in session,” Collins read from the ordinance for disruptions during meetings. Ricks motioned to enforce any elected official, staff member or member of the public who causes a disruption or outburst during a council meeting to be removed by the deputy on duty at the request of any sitting council member. Anyone who engages in repeated disruption after a formal warning or removal may be subject to a civil fine or temporary exclusion from future meetings. Brown asked Ricks if he was adding to the ordinance, to which Ricks had mixed answers. Initially, he replied no. Seconds later, when asked a second time by Brown, he said yes. Brown said if it is a new ordinance, it has to go before council and the public for a first reading. Massingill said it is not a new ordinance. Ricks said his reason for reviewing the ordinance was due to disruptions during previous meetings, namely by Brown. Council went to vote, but Brown interrupted that the ordinance has to go through “the proper process.” Carter interjected, explaining the motion included council’s “problem” with Brown and an emphasis to enforce the ordinance that exists. By asking if council was adding to the ordinance, Brown was “delaying and interrupting the process.” A back-and-forth ensued of who enforces ordinances; Brown said it is the mayor’s responsibility. Carter agreed but contested that it could be anyone on council if Brown fails to do so. “What you’re doing now is the reason that you’re having these problems,” Carter told Brown. “Every little issue is not worth a fight.” When Massingill interjected, Brown called her “out of order” and said she could raise her hand if she wished to speak. Massingill said she was not in school, to which Brown responded, “Maybe you need to be.” Massingill retorted the same phrase to him. Benjamin told Brown he was “getting beside himself,” to which he answered there was a problem before now. Benjamin said, “You created it.” Massingill proposed a vote, to which Benjamin and Ricks added their votes in favor of the motion to enforce the ordinance. The motion passed with a three-to-one vote. The conflict of interest Brown continued to read the letter he received from Carter Law Firm on his alleged conflict of interest and exclusion from executive session. The letter says council members have “the right and the duty to proceed in the absence of a recused member or a mayor.” The recused member’s presence should be recorded but not their participation in official minutes, and, if needed, law enforcement assistance should be requested to maintain decorum. “Oh, that sounds kind of like a threat,” Brown said. “‘This memorandum serves as a legal opinion for the council’s authority to conduct its business lawfully and properly. This includes legal, ethical and moral decisions regarding the approval of the CDC agreement.’” At the question of what the CDC agreement is, Carter alleged Brown moved town property from one location and hid it in another. He asked Brown whether he informed council of moving the property to the Mayesville Fire Department building. Brown said he told council it was moved to a public place. Carter then brought up the town’s rental agreement with the CDC to use the Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center on a “month-to-month” basis. Brown said council is required to go through a procurement process, which is a systematic approach a business uses to acquire the goods and services it needs to operate, for any cost over $5,000. The CDC charges the town $30,000 annually to rent the learning center, according to Brown. Carter contested the $5,000 threshold is for goods and services being purchased. The rental agreement could be tied to that but is not, he said. He then alleged the town has rented buildings and services from other residents, some of whom were at the meeting. Brown asked the audience to raise their hand if they rented to the town. No one did. A second letter received by Brown from Carter Law Firm served as a “formal notice and objection to [his] handling of one or more of the Freedom of Information Act requests” submitted to the town, which were not routed to Collins’ office as clerk/treasurer, “as required by state law.” A discussion ensued between Brown, Carter and Collins about who is responsible for town records. Carter asked Brown whether he has keys to the town’s two records rooms. Brown said he does not. “So, then you’re not really responsible for them,” Carter said to Brown. Collins said Brown has access to some records, namely those in the town’s main office. Brown asked if he has access to all municipal records. Collins did not answer. Carter instructed her to say yes, whispering, “It’s not on the record that you’re going to give him access to the keys; it’s only on record you saying that he doesn’t have them.” Brown asked if this was “defiance of the mayor.” “I don’t consider it defiance. You have a key,” Collins said. “Do I have a key to all records, yes or no?” Brown asked. “You have a key to some,” Collins answered. “And it is going to be noted.” Massingill made a motion to require Brown to recuse himself from executive session “due to known and reasonably perceived conflicts of interest arising from the mayor’s involvement in an existing allegation” of Town of Mayesville and the CDC. Brown contested it was illegal to exclude him. A palpable silence settled, during which an audience member asked, “Who is the mayor?” if decisions are being made to exclude Brown. The question lingered for eight seconds before Massingill attempted to answer, “The mayor.” Brown interjected, telling Massingill, “That’s not your job.” A three-minute debate ensued to review the enforcement of the meeting disruption ordinance and who could be removed from meetings, with the council trio and town attorney faulting Brown for not calling the resident out of order but threatening to have Massingill removed if interruptions continued. Brown called for a vote, asking council to re-read the motion that would require him to recuse himself from executive session. Following the same voting pattern, the motion passed 3-1 with the council members aligned and Brown in opposition. Executive session began at 7:30 p.m. The policy When Brown followed as council headed into executive session, Benjamin called for the on-site deputy to enforce the meeting disruptions ordinance and remove Brown. The deputy refused, walking out the back door and saying, “He’s the mayor.” Council and audience members gathered outside the front of the learning center for a few minutes to discuss the meeting thus far and lack of action from law enforcement. Brown stood outside the door to executive session, watching council. While the three council members discussed matters behind closed doors, Carter called Brown outside to discuss unknown matters without a public audience, with the deputy standing by. Council returned 45 minutes later. Ricks made a motion for Brown to be excluded from all town council meetings, discussions, deliberations, votes or official action related to the ongoing FOIA request; any pending or potential lawsuits involving the town and/or its elected officials; all matters involving a conflict of interest, personal actions or ethical allegations related to his conduct; and issues involving the custody, removal or interfering in town records or FOIA processes. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor. Brown was not able to vote. As council moved into new business, an attempt was made by Carter to return control of the meeting to Brown. He responded, “By all means, keep going.” Benjamin called for a motion for town administration, council and Collins to collaborate with Mayesville CDC on the FOIA request submitted by Wetmore on behalf of Tisdale. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor. Brown opposed. Collins then read the policy on FOIA processes and procedures, which stated all FOIA requests must be directed to clerk/treasurer; the mayor nor council members can fulfill FOIA requests independently; and access to all records must be made accessible to the clerk in order to be in compliance with the 15-day response window. Failure to do so can expose the town to legal liability and internal investigation. Collins then reviewed the cost of copies for requested documents. During discussion, Brown contested that 75 cents for a standard copy is not the lowest cost and that council needs to review it. Carter prompted Benjamin to call for a vote on the FOIA policy. Benjamin, Massingill and Ricks voted in favor, while Brown opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. The meeting raised unresolved questions of who holds authority to direct council proceedings, what timeline — if any — has been established to fulfill the FOIA request under the newly adopted policy and whether actions taken by council — including the exclusion of the mayor — were legally sound. Editor’s note: This article is part one of a two-part series exploring Mayesville Town Council and administration conduct in response to the FOIA lawsuit. State press association attorney weighs in on Mayesville's FOIA lawsuit Posted Saturday, August 9, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com Mayesville's ongoing legal battle over public records has drawn scrutiny not only from the courts but also from legal and government experts questioning the town council's recent conduct. As the town continues to withhold records requested in a Freedom of Information Act inquiry, Jay Bender, attorney for South Carolina Press Association, speculated the town may be edging toward contempt and further raised concerns about its collaboration with a nonprofit over access to public money and an allegedly unlawful meeting procedure. These issues all came to a head at the town's special-called meeting on Tuesday, July 29, where council excluded Mayor Christopher Brown from executive session, citing a "conflict of interest" pertaining to the ongoing FOIA lawsuit filed by Louis Tisdale against the town. Court documents obtained by The Sumter Item state Tisdale hand-delivered a written FOIA request to the Town of Mayesville on Nov. 28, 2023, requesting 13 financial documents, including the town's approved budget for fiscal years 2021-22 and 2022-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayesville Mayor Jereleen Miller; positional budgeted salaries; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to the charter and governance of the CDC; and any rental agreements between the town and CDC. The request was partially fulfilled on July 7 - more than a year since the request was initially filed - after a Sumter judge ordered the town to release the records. State Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale, told The Item seven of the requested documents - three of which were retrieved from "secret" filing cabinets in the town's office - were handed over only after Town Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins was pressed. The request stems from concern of how Mayesville and its nonprofit CDC have managed town property that has been improved with nearly $2 million in local, state and federal grants. Neither group has produced records or documents demonstrating how public funds have been managed or spent, court records state. Emails were exchanged between Brown, Collins, Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin, Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill and Councilman Jasaad Ricks between December 2023 and February 2024 about who was responsible for fulfilling the request. Collins stated that because of Brown's moving of town records to an "undisclosed location," she would not fulfill the request without legal guidance. At the Tuesday meeting, town attorney Eleazer Carter said Collins is the custodian of the records. "It doesn't make any difference who has possession of the records; the town as an entity is obligated to turn them over," Bender, press association attorney, told The Item. Under FOIA law, public bodies have a specific period of time in which they should respond to a request. If there is a claim for an exemption, requester must be notified in writing as to the basis for the claimed exemption. Tisdale received a response from Brown on Dec. 8, 2023, that Collins was "working earnestly" to fulfill the request. In an email from Collins on Feb. 5, 2024, to Tisdale, she wrote "the request has not gone unnoticed" but that in light of Brown's "breach," or moving of the records, he was "lawfully obliged to respond and fulfill your request." "If they're saying, 'We're seeking legal guidance,' it's too late to do that if you've ignored the request for months," Bender said. There are certain exemptions that are allowed for FOIA; however, such exemptions do not extend to an entity's financial or administrative records, according to state law. A vote for the town, its council and clerk to collaborate with its nonprofit CDC to fulfill the FOIA request passed in a 3-1 vote at the meeting, with Brown being the only one opposed. Yet, according to Bender, once the town failed to turn over all records in early July, they legally could have been held in contempt. Wetmore told The Item a motion for a rule to show cause was filed on Thursday, which asks a judge to hold a hearing for the town to give reasons why the documents haven't been produced or face being held in contempt of court. No timeline of when that hearing will take place was available by press time. EXAMINING THE MEETING Discussion of the lawsuit was one item of several on the town's amended agenda for the July 29 meeting, an agenda Bender questioned whether it was adopted soundly. Ricks moved to add a review of the town's ordinance on disruptions during meetings and to enforce it given Brown's behavior in previous meetings. The 16-minute discussion to approve the agenda, however, centered on Brown's alleged conflict of interest in the ongoing lawsuit. The agenda was only approved on the basis that moving forward would allow Brown and council to discuss his alleged conflict of interest. The ordinance states it is "unlawful for any person to disrupt, interrupt or interfere with the proceedings of council" or any official body while it is in session. Ricks moved to enforce any elected official, staff member or member of the public who causes a disruption during a council meeting to be removed by the deputy on duty at the request of any sitting council member, be fined or temporarily excluded from future meetings. To Brown, he said, it sounded like an amendment to the ordinance. Bender agreed, stating a motion to amend the agenda for that purpose was "illegitimate." "What was being proposed was an amendment to an ordinance. It doesn't sound, to me, like it was being done in the appropriate manner," he told The Item. "What we have is council proceeding on an agenda that may or may not have been lawful." An ordinance cannot be amended without going through the proper procedure: a notice of a first reading with at least 24 hours advance notice; approval of the first reading; and then a second reading. Bender said there would have to be "exigent circumstances" to add an item that wasn't initially on the agenda, which this was not, in his opinion. Bender also opined that while initial concerns raised of whether the executive session that excluded Brown was legal, it sufficed. Benjamin moved to enter executive session "to receive legal advice from legal counsel concerning potential or impending litigation involving the town, including claims or actions connected to the conduct" and "discuss the allegations of official misconduct, abuse of office and potential conducts of interest," all pertaining to Brown. Bender said the presiding officer is obligated to state a specific purpose of the executive session after affirmative vote to enter into executive session. However, Benjamin's motion satisfied the law despite the mayor's exclusion. What still has yet to be answered on record by council is what they believe to be Brown's conflict of interest in the case, the town CDC's alleged handling of public funds and what accounting, if any, town officials required of the nonprofit to have concerning spending. Each time the question was posed by Brown during the meeting, it was met with silence, deflection or more questions. The Item reached out to the Town of Mayesville and Carter for clarification but did not receive a response by press time. Mayesville town council in violation of S.C. constitution State Municipal Association says members didn’t follow their own ordinance with budget delays Mayesville town council holds its regularly scheduled meeting with a packed audience at Mary McLeod Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on Tuesday, Aug. 12. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, August 23, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com The Town of Mayesville is in violation of the South Carolina Constitution after not following its own fiscal year budget ordinance, according to the Municipal Association of South Carolina. MASC Senior Field Services Manager Charlie Barrineau confirmed with The Sumter Item on Thursday that Mayesville's failure to finalize its 2025-26 fiscal year budget by its July deadline puts the town out of compliance with the budget ordinance adopted earlier this year. While residents have long voiced frustration with council's financial disputes, this is the first time an outside authority has confirmed legal violations. A second reading on the budget was scheduled for Aug. 12 - a month past its initial scheduled date. According to the town's budget ordinance, first reading and public hearing for the budget were scheduled for June 10. Council voted unanimously in favor. However, meeting minutes from the July 8 meeting summarized Mayor Chris Brown's opposition to giving Attorney Eleazer Carter back pay from the general fund, as motioned by Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin. Brown said the 2025-26 budget had not been passed and money is not in the budget from last year, noting expenditures were "$60,000 over." The public notice for the second reading of the budget reported projected fiscal year expenditures to be $276,121.96 and fiscal year revenue $219,400. All of this discussion occurred during actions to be taken after executive session on July 8. When Brown made the motion at the appropriate time to approve the budget, the motion died. Another second reading was scheduled for Aug. 12, when Benjamin moved to transfer $5,000 from the town's advertising expenses to pay Carter. According to the 2025-26 proposed budget, the attorney salary and advertising expenses are $5,000 each. The Town of Mayesville estimated $264,400 for its general operation fund, with $219,400 in expected income and $45,000 in federal COVID-19 money designated by council to pay the Sumter County Sheriff's Office for additional law enforcement presence in the town. The town received $190,000 in COVID-19 money that had to be allocated to specific items - including the remodeling of the old Town Hall - by Dec. 31, 2024, and spent by the following year, Dec. 31. According to Brown, neither the sheriff's office nor the contractor for the old Town Hall remodel have been paid. It was also at the Aug. 12 meeting that Benjamin, along with Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill, voted in favor terminating the town's $45,000 contract with the sheriff's office. Brown was the only member opposed. Councilman Jasaad Ricks was present via Zoom but not able to vote. The agency will still respond to 911 calls but will not station a deputy in the town for patrol. The town's fiscal year was to begin April 1 and end March 31, 2026. Another public hearing was to be scheduled for its regular meeting in September. Though not uncommon among small town operations, not following its ordinance is still a violation of the state constitution, MASC's Barrineau said. For example, most municipalities that have a July 1 fiscal year start date hold their budget work session in May, followed by two readings and a public hearing of the budget ordinance in June. According to the South Carolina Constitution, municipalities are required to adopt a balanced budget each year, with revenues equaling expenditures.The constitution likely does not allow municipalities to operate under a continuing resolution instead of an approved budget. If the budget is not adopted properly by the end of the fiscal year, the council should adopt a provisional budget based on last year's revenues and expenses, according to Barrineau. Council can then amend this later as new revenue and expense information becomes available, but any changes are required to have two readings and a public hearing. "Obviously, Mayesville has failed to comply with the state constitution," Barrineau told The Item. The question of what happens next depends on the town's annual audit. According to Barrineau, a certified public accountant would review many factors, including the town's meeting minutes and steps taken to adopt their budget in accordance with the state constitution. If the auditor determines the budget was not adopted correctly, the auditor will note the council's compliance issue in the audit. The town would then respond, acknowledging the repercussions and their effort to correct it in the next fiscal year. The audit may also point to this as an operational inefficiency, which could affect the town's credit rating and risk its ability to receive future financial assistance, Barrineau told The Item. The situation is rectifiable and, according to Barrineau, "they need to rectify it as soon as they can." DOCUMENT STORAGE and FOIA DISPUTE A tense debate broke out about records being stored in the Learning Center, a Town of Mayesville Community Development Corporation-owned building. The debate arose during discussion about the July 29 meeting minutes. Clerk/Treasurer Taurice Collins stated Ricks and Massingill, who misspoke while reading their motions during the meeting, had corrections that would allow the meeting minutes to reflect their written motions. A brief back and forth between Collins and the mayor ensued on whether the "changes" would alter the meaning of the motions, to which Collins repeatedly stated they were only "small corrections." Brown then asked, in reference to the same July meeting where a 3-1 vote authorized the collaboration of the town and the CDC to fulfill the Freedom of Information Act inquiry from November 2023 by Louis Tisdale, who would pay for the collaboration. Brown was the only member opposed. For context, a Sumter judge ordered Town of Mayesville this July to turn over 12 of the 13 requested financial documents, which included the town's approved budget for fiscal years 2021-22 and 2022-23; number of employees of the town and its Community Development Corporation, spearheaded by Ed Miller, husband of former Mayor Miller; annual salaries for the mayor and each council member; annual certified audits from the past three fiscal years; any actions taken by council regarding the CDC financially or as it relates to the charter and governance of the CDC; and any rental agreements between the town and CDC. The request was partially fulfilled on July 7 - more than a year since the initial request was filed - when seven of the requested documents - three of which were retrieved from "secret" filing cabinets in the town's office - were handed over only after Collins was pressed, according to state Rep. Spencer Wetmore (D-Charleston), who is representing Tisdale. Despite Massingill asking to table the discussion on the collaboration, Collins continued that the documents requested would be beneficial to have for auditing purposes and that those documents are kept in the same room as the CDC's records. This was a big point of contention for Brown and community members, who questioned why town documents are stored in the same room as records for the nonprofit. Carter said the records were stored there when the town worked alongside the CDC; this occurred during the administration of former Mayor Jereleen Miller. When Brown was elected in 2023, the CDC never removed its records. Collins also added she works in that office where the CDC records are held, meaning she takes town records in there with her. "In an effort to satisfy the judge's order - for us, not for the CDC - we're scheduled to meet with them and gather documents that they may have. And of course, they're saying their documents from 2017-2023, when you came, are located here in the building," Carter said. Wetmore also told The Item a motion for a rule to show cause was filed on Thursday, Aug. 7, which asks a judge to hold a hearing for the town to give reasons the documents haven't been produced or face being held in contempt of court. Carter said regarding who will pay for the collaboration, since he was directed to facilitate it, "I expect you to pay for it," he directed at Brown followed by "your council." Brown denied he would. A 2-1 vote, Brown being the member opposed, approved the July 29 meeting minutes. A second FOIA request has been submitted to CDC concerning receipt and dispersal of money received from Town of Mayesville and publicly funded grants, according to the United Citizens of Mayesville Newsletter. The publication stated CDC Director Ed Miller "almost immediately" requested an extension, which was denied. TABLED DISCUSSIONS and OTHER BUSINESS Council tabled two items until changes are made or results released. Council addressed a letter of condition from the USDA related to health care, the town's nature trail and kitchen equipment. Massingill questioned whether the letters were restored to their original state after being changed previously, to which Brown said no. The item was tabled after the same 2-1 voting pattern. An anonymous report was made to the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services on July 31 about Mayesville Town Hall's "unhealthy and heavy asbestos," according to the letter read aloud by Brown. Asbestos testing was scheduled for that Thursday, and the results would return that Friday, Aug. 15. Though Brown moved to have the payment approved for demolition and remodeling of the town hall, Massingill moved to table the topic pending test results. All three council members present voted in favor. Flood mitigation efforts were also approved 3-0. June and July meeting minutes and financial reports passed 2-1, each opposed by Brown. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. with lingering concerns from residents about public safety after council's approval to terminate its contract with the sheriff's office, the town's financial oversight and transparency of public records. 'Major negligence' found in Mayesville audit probe, leaving finances in limbo Mayesville Town Council held its regularly scheduled meeting in the Bethune Learning Center in Mayesville on Tuesday, Sept. 9. ABIGAIL PITTMAN / THE SUMTER ITEM Posted Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:00 am BY ALAYSHA MAPLE alaysha@theitem.com Mayesville's financial footing was thrown off balance at Tuesday's regularly scheduled meeting when Mayor Chris Brown informed residents the audit of the fiscal year 2019-20 budget - the last audit completed - included "major negligence." The findings put Mayesville in a difficult position. Council is months late on approving a new budget, and current auditors are grappling to create reliable audits with what the mayor said are "imaginary numbers" to piece together the town's books. In addition, the town's asbestos test results prompting further delay of demolition of the old Town Hall and the sheriff's office's flip-flopped contract emphasize the town's struggle to restore order and credibility to its local government. Approving the agenda The meeting started at 6:30 p.m. and fell immediately into a 10-minute discussion, which included Mayor Pro Tempore Roteshia Benjamin and Councilwoman Cynthia Massingill, to approve the agenda. Councilman Jasaad Ricks was present via Zoom but was told he could not vote. The issue on the table was finalizing the town's FY2025-26 budget, which was supposed to be approved by April. The town is now four months past its deadline and in violation of the South Carolina constitution. According to Benjamin, council had a conversation via email to discuss the budget, and Brown responded a public hearing must be publicized 15 days before any budget discussion. The discussion led to two unanimous decisions concerning the agenda: council scheduled a budget workshop for Thursday, Sept. 25, at 6 p.m. and a public hearing to follow on the same day at 6:30 p.m. It also moved the presentation of its FY2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 budget audits into executive session. But before the hour-and-a-half executive session, Brown shared the news of negligence found in the 2019-20 budget audit. Faulty audit In a letter from South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, obtained by The Sumter Item, the department completed an investigation on Sept. 2 into Maryland-based auditor Roy Friday and found "major negligence" in the audit of the town's budget. According to records provided to The Item, Friday copied much of the information in the FY2019-20 audit from a previous audit that was conducted by a different auditing group for FY2018-19 and included information from the town's FY2017-18 audit. Once made aware of this, Brown filed a complaint with LLR in 2023. Council was not made aware of the investigation until Tuesday's meeting. According to The Item archives, Friday said in an interview in 2024 that the allegations about a faulty audit were false. Friday voluntarily surrendered his South Carolina certified public accountant license on Aug. 25 in exchange for stopping all legal proceedings that could follow. In the resolution from LLR, Friday did not admit to the alleged misconduct. Friday will not be eligible to reapply for a CPA license in the future. After the hour-and-a-half executive session on Tuesday, Brown told residents the town's current auditors, Atlanta-based CKH Accounting and Auditing Group, had to start with "imaginary numbers" for FY2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25; he clarified the audit Friday did has not been deemed fraudulent, only that it is "not good accounting." Based on this, Brown posed the question to the public of whether to spend additional taxpayer money chasing losses, totaling $22,000 - the price Friday charged to conduct an audit, which they may never recover. Asbestos results Before learning of the town's financial woes, Dawn Schoolcraft with Conway Asbestos Inspection delivered the results of the old Town Hall's asbestos testing. The drywall on the front portion of the structure and its black flashing tested positive for asbestos. Black flashing is protective strips of material used to direct water away from building components and prevent leaks and structural damage; Schoolcraft explained this material is notorious for having asbestos because of its purpose. Because of the condition of the building, especially that it has no roof, traditional abatement is not feasible, and removal operations will have to be modified, Schoolcraft said. The abatement would be conducted by Department of Environmental Services. They scheduled for complete demolition. It takes 10 days to acquire an asbestos permit and 10 days for a demolition permit. Most contractors will apply for both permits simultaneously, making the wait period 10 days. However, if it is a different contractor for each permit, it could take 20 days to a month for permits, Schoolcraft explained. There was no further discussion on the demolition of the old Town Hall. Why Brown is always opposed At nearly every meeting, the voting pattern concerning approval of the town's financial reports includes Brown being the only opposed member against Benjamin and Massingill. Ricks has been attending meetings virtually and not voting. On Tuesday, after a 2-1 vote approved the financial reports for July and August, Brown said his continuous opposition is because the financial reports only report expenditures. He said the reports should be attached to the budget to show that every dollar is accounted for. Council would also be 2-1 on whether discussion should take place concerning old business. A USDA letter of conditions for emergency rural health care, nature trail and kitchen equipment grants, the old Town Hall demolition update and a business license class schedule update were all scheduled to be discussed. However, when Brown questioned if anyone on council had anything to discuss, no one answered. Minutes before the meeting was adjourned, town attorney Eleazer Carter asked Brown to address old business. Brown explained the opportunity for council to discuss it had passed and that he had no information to discuss, as he did not add those items to the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. What's next? The audit negligence leaves Mayesville - both its council and community - facing fundamental questions, including how a town can operate effectively without a reliable starting point for its financial records; what safeguards should be put in place to ensure residents' money is properly tracked going forward; whether the actions by Friday reflect on the town's oversight of its own finances; and what could become of the town if financial stability and transparency can't be restored.
  _UID	69ECDEDABA6F4761973701A257BF31EC8296
  _UID	69ECDEDABA6F4761973701A257BF31EC8296
  Person ID	I348258	Singleton and Related Families
  Last Modified	25 Sep 2025

  
  

  Family	Sumter Sheriff’s Patrol Contract MAYESVILLE
  _UID	F753E67E4EE74D108B6795011320B97A2EB2
  _UID	F753E67E4EE74D108B6795011320B97A2EB2
  Family ID	F232421	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	28 Aug 2025

  
  

• Sources

  [S32836] Mayesville town council in violation of S.C. constitution. [S32905] ‘Major negligence’ found in Mayesville audit probe, leaving finances in limbo. [S32846] Mayesville mayor excluded from executive session amid lawsuit over FOIA, records. [S32847] State press association attorney weighs in on Mayesville’s FOIA lawsuit.