Greenville County, South Carolina — Plaintiffs in the Greenville County budget litigation, including Senator Dwight Loftis (R-South Carolina Senate District 6, Greenville County) Representative James Mikell “Mike” Burns (R-South Carolina House District 17), Representative Patrick Haddon, (R-South Carolina House District 19, Former Representative Adam M. Morgan (R-South Carolina House District 20), Representative T. Alan Morgan (R-House District 18), Former Representative Ashley B. Trantham (R-House District 28), the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation, citizen Michelle Shuman (Greenville), and other public officials and citizens, have reached a settlement resolving their legal challenge to the County’s budget practices.
Senator Loftis and Representative Burns had previously successfully challenged Greenville County’s Road Maintenance and Telecommunications Fee in Burns v. Greenville Cnty. Council, 433 S.C. 583, 861 S.E.2d 31 (S.C. 2021) where the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that two Greenville County “fees” were actually unlawful taxes, and therefore invalid under state law wherein the Court stated “State law prohibits local government from imposing taxes unless they are value-based property taxes or are specifically authorized by the General Assembly.” Chief Justice John Kittredge of Greenville County also stated in the opinion “I am hopeful that today’s decision will deter the politically expedient penchant for imposing taxes disguised as ‘service or user fees.’ “
Another Plaintiff in this case was the South Carolina Public Interest Foundation (SCPIF) is a South Carolina-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit public-interest litigation organization focused on governmental accountability, constitutional compliance, and transparency in state and local government. SCPIF describes itself as an “independent, non-partisan private operating foundation” dedicated to ensuring that South Carolina governmental entities comply with the South Carolina Constitution and statutes. https://www.scpif.com/
The present lawsuit challenged, among other issues, the County’s use of a biennial budget process, alleged violations of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and procedural irregularities in budget adoption and public meetings. These all arise from 2023 when Greenville County enacted its first property tax increase in 30 years to pass a two-year budget. The result was a massive political upheaval, with three incumbent council members who supported the increase losing their seats to primary challengers in 2024, altering the balance of power on the council.
Key Outcomes of the Settlement
- End of Biennial Budget Practice
Greenville County is no longer using the biennial budget system challenged in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs retain full rights to bring immediate legal action if the County returns to that practice.
- FOIA and Public Transparency Safeguards
The County has agreed to consider additional measures addressing:
- Public notice and openness of meetings
- Workshop transparency and minutes
- Remote participation by council members
- Public access to hearings
- Remote Voting and Meeting Integrity
The County has implemented roll-call procedures and will consider further reforms to ensure transparency where electronic participation occurs.
- Financial Accountability Protections
The County acknowledged existing limits on interdepartmental transfers under its ordinance and faces future legal exposure if those limits are violated.
- Public Access to Hearings
The County will consider measures to prevent the crowding of public hearings by government personnel to the exclusion of citizens.
- Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees
The County has agreed to pay $40,000.00 in attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.
Statement from Plaintiffs’ Counsel
“This settlement ensures that Greenville County understands clearly that the biennial budget process is not permitted under South Carolina law and will not be tolerated going forward. The citizens of Greenville County are entitled to transparency, lawful budgeting, and open government. If the County returns to any of the practices challenged in this lawsuit—whether it be improper budgeting, inadequate public notice, or non-transparent meetings—we will not hesitate to file suit again immediately.” said Plaintiffs’ representatives Robert “Robbie” C. Childs, III and James G. Carpenter
Looking Forward
While the County denies liability, the settlement reflects meaningful structural changes and preserves all rights of the Plaintiffs to enforce compliance in the future.
The Plaintiffs emphasized that this resolution is not the end of oversight, but the beginning of continued accountability.
For further information, please contact:
Robert C. Childs, III
Childs Law Firm, LLC
(864) 242-9997
Robert@LawyerChilds.com
James G. Carpenter
The Carpenter Law Firm, PC
864-235-1269 Jim@carpenterlawfirm.net