S.C. Town Unspooling as ‘Emergency’ Meeting Targets Mayor

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by WILL FOLKS

***

The city government of Laurens, South Carolina – an ordinarily sleepy town located in the rural Upstate region of the Palmetto State – continued to unspool this week as an on-again, off-again special-called meeting of its elected leaders was finally held.

However, after council members voted to approve a controversial emergency resolution targeting the city’s mayor, Nathan Senn, a city attorney insisted their actions violated the law.

Who is currently running the town? That’s a good question…

As we previously reported, Laurens city councilwoman Alicia Sullivan distributed a meeting agenda (.pdf) – and a proposed emergency ordinance  (.pdf) – earlier this week which she and her colleagues were originally supposed to have taken up at an emergency meeting on Monday (December 22, 2025).

City officials refused to hold that meeting, however, arguing it was “not properly called or noticed in accordance with state law and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements.” The meeting was subsequently rescheduled for Tuesday (December 23, 2025).

***

The proposed ordinance referenced “credible allegations against the mayor (and) senior appointed officials” in city government – and invoked a “governmental emergency” in response to those allegations.

A resolution invoking this ordinance was approved on Tuesday evening by a 4-2 margin, with city council members Marian Miller, Cassandra Campbell and Calvin Whitmire joining Sullivan in supporting it. Senn and councilman Johnnie Bolt voted against the resolution. A subsequent 4-1 vote ostensibly enacted the ordinance, with the only difference from the initial vote count being Senn’s decision to recuse himself.

Sullivan’s ordinance declared “an emergency exists requiring immediate enactment to prevent irreparable harm to city finances, governance, and public confidence.” It also referenced investigatory referrals in response to the following conditions:

• Abuse of administrative authority
• Financial irregularities or misuse of public resources
• Ethical violations
• Obstruction, concealment or destruction of public records
• A documented patter of conduct creating material fiscal or operational risk

It further called for the temporary deactivation of “all city-issued credit cards and fuel/gas cards assigned to the mayor or any official subject to investigation” – with a similar prohibition related to the “use of any city-owned vehicle by the mayor.” It also mandated that any purchase, expenditure, contract or financial commitment above $3,000 receive “prior approval by city council” during the pendency of the investigation.

The ordinance also authorized city council to retain independent legal counsel and conduct an independent forensic audit. In the event the city’s investigation found “reasonable cause… to believe violations of law or ethics may have occurred,” city council would refer those findings to the S.C. State Ethics Commission (SCSEC), the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and the office of S.C. eighth circuit solicitor David Stumbo.

***

RELATED | A BLUEPRINT FOR SOUTH CAROLINA’S FUTURE

***

While it is not immediately clear what alleged misconduct Sullivan and her allies believe Senn has committed, a recently submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from a private citizen hinted at some of the allegations.

“City personnel and resources were commandeered to subsidize the mayor’s private law practice,” a letter accompanying the FOIA stated.

The letter further accused Senn of creating “an environment where public service was explicitly subordinated to personal servitude.”

While we continue to dig into the allegations against Senn, the status of the resolution targeting him was called into question before it was even approved.

“This resolution does not serve a legal function as drafted,” city attorney Ginny Bozeman told council members on Tuesday evening as they were preparing to vote on the measure. “Its intent is to effectuate an ordinance – which is not the way ordinances become effective. It has no standalone legal basis, and would actually be contrary to the law, because you can’t use a resolution to amend or otherwise impact an ordinance.”

Keep it tuned to FITSNews as we do our best to unpack the madness in Laurens over the coming weeks…

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.