Jasper officials fire back on new treasurer’s demand for access to county bank accounts

In the ongoing dispute over whether a Jasper County treasurer should have access to all of the county’s bank accounts, the county filed a formal response June 27 with the South Carolina Supreme Court challenging the current treasurer’s petition and arguing that the request should initially be considered by a lower court.

Jasper County Administrator Andrew Fulghum and Director of Jasper County Administrative Services Kimberly Burgess are listed as the respondents in the county’s response for a writ of mandamus. The legal file urges the state’s supreme court to deny Treasurer Michael Skinner’s petition for Fulghum and Burgess to add Skinner as a signatory to all county bank accounts, arguing that the request is unnecessary, doesn’t meet legal standards, can’t be complied with and lacks specific legal rights, with other legal options existing.

Walt Cartin with Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP — a law firm that has represented many of the Southeast’s largest companies and local governments in transactions, regulatory issues and complex litigation, according to their website — filed the return for petition. That action prompted Skinner’s attorney’s Ronald Richter and Eric Bland, best known for representing victims of Alex Murdaugh’s financial crimes, to respond in a press release saying that Skinner would withdraw his petition if granted access to the county’s bank accounts. He added that Skinner’s attorneys would modify their service terms to be similar to those of the lawyers hired by the county in an effort to reduce the use of county funds.

A public record request filed by the Island Packet and Beaufort Gazette revealed the bank account types and titles Skinner has on file as well as an updated list showing him only being signatory to 30 accounts, leaving the other 75% of the bank account’s contents unknown to him.

Fulghum is co-signatory to six of the 119 accounts and Burgess is signatory to 17 with six of the accounts being co-signatory with Fulghum, according to the return for petition filed on behalf of the county. Clerk of Court Margaret Bostick, Probate Judge Hon. Judge Albert Kleckley Jr., Chief of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Lee and Sheriff Donald L. Hipp are signatory on the remaining accounts. Since Fulghum and Burgess are not the sole signatories on all accounts, the return to petition states they neither have an obligation to fulfill Skinner’s request nor the authority to do so, even if ordered by the court.

The return for petition also notes Skinner has the same access and signatory authority over the accounts as Verna Garvin, a Democrat who held the treasurer’s office for the previous 22 years before Skinner, a Republican, defeated her in November 2022.

The lawsuit filed by Skinner’s attorneys states the situation was “suggestive of efforts to sabotage his ability to perform the duties of his office.” Documents had been removed, the petty cash drawer had been locked in another county official’s office and the treasurer’s website had been taken offline, according to the lawsuit.

Both Skinner’s attorneys as well as Fulghum and Burgess’ attorney cite County Ordinance 2-66, which states “All such funds generated from fees collected and monies received by the county departments’ employees and/or elected officials shall be memorialized with appropriate accounting methods for the purposes of audit and all such funds shall be timely deposited with the county treasurer’s office.”

While Skinner relies on this ordinance to support his petition, Fulghum and Burgess argue in their response that it doesn’t give Skinner the authority he is requesting since different laws allow different entities, like school districts, to manage their own finances separately.

One legal option Fulghum’s and Burgess’ response to Skinner’s lawsuit recommends is for him to pursue a declaratory judgment instead of a writ of mandamus. According to the state’s code of laws , a declaratory judgment is a legal remedy where a court clarifies the rights and obligations of parties under a law, contracts or other legal documents. In this case, the court could decide whether or not Skinner is entitled to have signatory authority on all of the bank accounts in accordance with ordinance 2-66.