Clerk of court loses four-year battle | News | Berkeley Independent

Printer friendly version |

E-mail to a friend |

0 0 comment(s) |

Clerk of court loses four-year battle

Published Monday, August 18, 2008 2:03 PM

By Jim Tatum
Berkeley Independent

Berkeley County Clerk of Court Mary Brown has lost a long and expensive lawsuit against Berkeley County Council and former County Supervisor Jim Rozier.

Judge Markley R. Dennis granted the defendants’ (council and Rozier) motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Brown’s case, on Aug. 11. In his order, Markley stated Brown had not met the burden of proof in her allegations of slander and defamation of character.

According to the order, Brown’s case rested on several points:

•Whether county council and the county supervisor slandered Brown by passing the resolution authorizing the supervisor to obtain copies of her county credit card statements and by voting for an expanded audit of her office;

• Whether any requests by the county supervisor for Brown’s county credit card statements were facially slanderous and qualified privilege;

• Whether Brown, as a public figure, can satisfy the legal or factual burden of proof for a slander claim;

• Whether she was hindered in her use of federal Title IV funds that such a request posed interference with her contractual relationship with DSS and whether a private cause of action would exist even if her contractual relations with DSS had been impacted;

• Whether the county had asserted improper control over a constitutional officer and whether any such claim is moot;

• Whether the county has converted funds belonging to the clerk of court’s office;

• Whether there has been a violation of the Freedom of Information Act;

• Whether Brown is entitled to attorney’s fees.

According to the order, “Plaintiff has not met her burden of proof as to the remaining causes of action. Therefore the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief with respect to the county’s employment classification is deemed moot.”

Brown’s lawsuit stemmed from a special audit ordered by the council in Dec. 2002 after the county finance department expressed concern over personal expenditures. On three separate occasions, council asked Brown to provide documentation explaining several expenditures; after the third request, council passed a resolution requiring an expanded audit.

Brown maintained that the typical fiscal audit conducted by the county thoroughly reviewed her department and she should not be subject to another. However, the county maintained that the yearly audit was used for “spot checks” and did not encompass areas of concern under $100,000. The bank card statements specifically questioned fell under that threshold and the audit was necessary to determine whether Brown’s accounting practices were acceptable with regard to handling public monies.

The South Carolina Supreme Court confirmed that council was authorized to request an expanded audit of the clerk’s office.

During the audit, the county found a number of areas of concern regarding how the clerk of court handled funds, payroll, procurement, county credit cards, and requests for reimbursements for what might have been personal expenditures. In her reply affidavit, Brown said she had lost her personal debit card and “used the county credit card to pay for some personal expenses.”

She also indicated she had mistakenly used the wrong credit card to purchase personal items and tried to explain some of those expenditures.

Brown did not provide explanation or produce receipts for certain payments made to employees for work performed or for some expenses. She also admitted to using the county card when her personal limit was low or she had forgotten her personal cards, although she always paid back any expenditure she made.

According to the county’s accounting experts, such usage of county credit amounts to the receipt of unauthorized loans from the county and increases Brown’s purchasing power in that her personal credit limit is not compromised when she is using the county’s line of credit.

Comments

Notice about comments:

Berkeleyind.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Berkeleyind.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Berkeleyind.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by reading our terms and conditions, and then signing up below!

Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Most Viewed
Most Commented

104 East Doty Avenue | Summerville, SC 29483 | 843-572-0511 office