|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Hampton County officials moved swiftly this week to authorize payment to the South Carolina fourteenth judicial circuit’s public defender’s office — but only after the county’s chief public defender publicly warned she was prepared to sue over years of unpaid funding totaling nearly $200,000.
During a recent budget meeting, public defender Stephanie Smart-Gittings told Hampton County Council her office had “not received any money in the last three fiscal years” despite what she said was a statutory obligation requiring counties to fund indigent defense at no less than prior-year levels.
She warned council members bluntly “either Hampton County pays me the $178,000 that they owe me … or I’ll just sue Hampton County.”
Smart-Gittings also tied the funding lapse to real-world consequences in county courtroooms, telling council members she has started taking cases personally because she “doesn’t have lawyers.”
“This is my last year,” Smart-Gittings said. “I will not take another case.”
Her remarks echoed a familiar theme in Hampton County: vendors and service providers publicly asserting they have not been paid for their work, with county leaders responding only after pressure mounts.
***
COUNTY ISSUES STATEMENT, PROMISES IMMEDIATE PAYMENT
One day after Smart-Gittings’ warning circulated publicly, Hampton County Administrator Lavar Youmans issued a formal statement acknowledging the county’s obligation and announcing that payment was imminent.
“Hampton County recognizes our constitutional responsibility to support indigent defense and the essential work performed by the fourteenth judicial circuit public defender’s office,” the statement read.
According to the release, the county reviewed invoices on file and committed to issuing $178,125 in payment on January 28, 2026 – covering invoiced amounts tied to FY 2023–2024, FY 2024–2025, and the first two quarters of FY 2025–2026.
The statement also acknowledged internal failures, conceding that “inconsistent payment timing and documentation in prior years contributed to confusion and an unacceptable public dispute.” County officials said they are implementing new controls, including “a standardized payment schedule, routine reconciliation between adopted budgets and invoices, and clearer documentation and reporting.”
“Our objective is straightforward,” the statement concluded. “Support effective indigent defense, meet our legal obligations, and demonstrate responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars through sound financial practices.”
***
***
PUBLIC REACTION: SKEPTICISM, ANGER — AND DEMANDS FOR PROOF
The county’s announcement did little to quell public skepticism.
On social media, residents questioned why funding that was allegedly unavailable for years suddenly materialized after the threat of litigation.
“So for three years they didn’t have the money to pay the public defender’s office and now, threatened with lawsuit, they miraculously have the money,” one commenter wrote.
Another asked pointedly: “What about other outstanding debts?”
Several residents demanded proof of payment before accepting the county’s explanation.
“Show proof that the payment was made,” one commenter noted. “Then I will believe it.”
Others framed the episode as part of a broader pattern.
“That recent end of fiscal year audit was a FARCE,” one resident posted.
“We’ve effectively robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now there’s nothing left in the coffers to shift around,” another added.
Smart-Gittings later thanked community members for amplifying the issue, writing that public attention helped prompt the county’s acknowledgment – and produce the promised payment.
***
RELATED | HAMPTON COUNTY RESPONDS TO EQUIPMENT REPOSSESSION REPORTS
***
“HIGH RISK” — AND WHY IT STILL MATTERS
The dispute over public defender funding unfolded just days after Hampton County leaders publicly touted what their outside auditor described as a “clean or unmodified opinion” on the county’s FY 2025 financial statements.
But the same audit (.pdf) — discussed at the January 20, 2026 Hampton County Council meeting — also identified repeat findings auditors classified as material weaknesses, keeping the county labeled “high risk.”
Auditors reported that Hampton County ended FY 2025 with an unassigned General Fund balance of roughly $1.5 million, an amount they described as less than one month of operating expenditures. The audit also confirmed the county still owes more than $3 million to its voter-approved Capital Projects Sales Tax (CPST) fund, a finding that will persist until the money is fully reimbursed.
During the meeting, auditors told council the county’s “high risk” designation remains tied directly to those unresolved issues — even as they acknowledged improvements under current management.
Taken together, the audit findings and the public defender funding dispute reinforce a central concern voiced repeatedly by residents: Hampton County’s financial problems are no longer abstract accounting failures. They are surfacing in missed payments, strained public services, and last-minute interventions triggered only after public pressure or legal threats.
For many citizens watching closely, the question is no longer whether Hampton County can produce a clean audit — but whether it can pay its obligations consistently, transparently, and without being forced to the brink first.
For Hampton County, the sudden move to pay the public defender’s office did not resolve the deeper questions raised by the audit — it underscored them. A county that can find $178,000 overnight after the threat of litigation is the same county auditors say remains “high risk,” operating with thin reserves, unresolved fund advances, and repeat internal-control failures.
As residents continue demanding proof, transparency, and accountability, Hampton County’s challenge is no longer just repairing its books — it’s rebuilding trust. Whether this payment marks a turning point or simply the latest crisis-driven response will depend on what comes next: consistent payments, verifiable reforms, and a willingness to confront the county’s financial reality before the next vendor, agency, or constitutional officeholder is forced to ask the same question — why does it take public pressure to get paid?
***
THE AUDIT REPORT…
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
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.
