SOUTH CAROLINA: ENTIRE POLICE DEPT RESIGNS OVER DISPUTE WITH MAYOR

http://youtu.be/kYQ4DUA9SG0/ 03:10

Police chief, 2 officers quit in North to protest mayor

The Associated Press

NORTH, S.C.
Disagreements with the mayor led the police chief and the officers in the town of North to quit, leaving the Orangeburg County town of 750 people with no police force.

Police Chief Mark Fallaw said he could not work with newly elected Mayor Patty Carson, who said she wanted the department to write at least three times as many tickets, required the chief to show her all of his emails and only authorized him to buy tires and gas without permission.

"I would describe her management style as dictator," Fallaw told The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg.

Carson refused to speak to reporters, telling WLTX-TV she won't discuss personnel issues in public.

* At least 8 articles on this in the past 24 hours*

Police chief, 2 officers quit in North to protest mayor | The Herald http://www.heraldonline.com/news/state/south-carolina/article47710055.html/

Entire police force quits all at once in South Carolina town http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/02/entire-police-force-quits-south-carolina-town/76699260/ *Longer article & news video *

I don't care how small this town is. With a total of 3 cops, that is really small.This mayor has some major control issues.
She wants to throw the Constitution & Bill of rights, out the window.
Reading this reminded of when Obama tried to censor the media. (For complaining he didn't fulfill any of this 90 day promises)
That seems to be this woman's focus. New in her position & she is trying to control 'free speech'.

Geez..the Baltimore mayor, the Minneapolis mayor & now this woman.
Ladies! With few women in power, you are really making us look bad.
Tsk! Tsk!

I have not followed up with the links you provided yet (and I certainly do not agree with her style of leadership), but I fail to understand how she is "throwing the constitution and bill of rights out the window..." Would you explain please?

Sure... This time.
* Fear not my links or Google *

In short- Freedom of Speech & Censorship.

She (Mayor Patty Carson) violates their 1st amendment rights. She issued a GAG order.
She does NOT want them to speak to the press or anyone. She wants them to not only ask HER permission but wants to censor ALL statements & information.
She even said she wants TWO week notice prior to them speaking or making ANY public appearances etc..
She also wants unlimited access to ALL incoming & outgoing departmental emails.

She wants to be the ONLY contact, to an extreme. She is a dictator.
The police chief (Mark Farrow), has served under two mayors & has been in law enforcement for over 30 years.
The county is the 'acting' police force. And the town people (approx 750) are policing themselves.
* And reluctant to speak on the issue *

There has not been any updates. Last article was dated 12/03/2015

2 of those 3 things seem to be more about budget problems.
Everything regarding this situation can be related to budget issues.


I would too.
It would be different if it was "she wants unlimited access to all emails, and for the police chief and deputies to delete their copies."

And it would be completely totally different if it was "she wants unlimited access to all personal and private emails from their personal home computers as well as all official emails and emails from work computers."


I would too.

I wouldn't want some cop coming into my office and saying "hey, I'm going down to the school to show the kids the new riot gear and tear gas so I'm not on patrol today," or, "hey, I'm buying a last minute ticket and off to a conference in Vegas this afternoon to give a talk on small town law enforcement," or, "hey, I'm off to a Jerry Springer taping to represent our town."

Googling for more information because this

is patently false and supported nowhere in any of the 10 news articles I read, including the ones cited in the OP.

Censoring and wanting to be the outlet of information is 2 separate things.

Two things I found in another article
http://www.thestate.com/news/state/south-carolina/article47832345.html


This reads like "you want to supervise when we offer resources (money, overtime) to other agencies, and want us to focus only on things that generate revenue."


This reads like "I can show you how we spend our time, but it's going to cost money," and she doesn't want to spend money.



Sounds more like a town bankrupting and a mayor that wants to control expenses than a "dictator violating 1st amendment rights."

You beat me to it lol. Everything you said is what i was thinking as i was reading through the op's response to my request.

To ad a couple other things though in regards to the Mayor "wanting access to ALL incoming and outgoing emails", "She even said she wants TWO weeks notice prior to them speaking or making ANY public appearances, etc.", "wants to censor all statements and information"...

1. As Mayor, not only does she have a right to all departmental emails AND COMMUNICATIONS, she has a vested interest. Yes, she has a VESTED INTEREST int his information. It is her responsibility to ensure the police chief is doing his utmost to perform his duties and to protect the citizens of their town. It is her responsibility to oversee him and his department to ensure they are not embezzling money, or making back alley agreements (so to speak). She has the legal right as the Chief of Polices immediate supervisor (for that IS what she is) to ALL of his professional and business correspondance.

2. In regards to requiring two weeks notice prior to any public speaking... I am surprised they are allowed to speak publicly in the first place, without her direct permission. That is the NORM in every single state, county, city, town I have ever seen or visited. Most government employees are bound by a gag order in their contracts, preventing them (legally) from speaking to the public about certain things. And those who have authority to speak to the public on behalf of a government office (usually press personnel) still have to get permission before releasing specific information.

3. refer back to number two. She has the legal authority and ability to censure what is released tot he public (as long as it does not fall under the freedom of information act; and you would be surprised at what all does NOT fall under it in regards to police matters).


Now, I agree she sounds like she is looking more for revenue than anything. I do not agree with the blanket statement of tripling (?) the number of tickets written. But insofar as what you have posted in regards to her supposedly trying to block the first amendment? She has done no such thin from what I can see

I would think that there are privacy issues that conflict with what she is doing. I don't think she would or should have access to anything that is not public record...........

And why should be the the only one to speak to the press ? Besides the power trip, that doesn't make any sense. How or why should she be the only one to answer about a crime or investigation? How would she even have the right, to tell them, they can't & what they can & can not say?

personal opinion here, but the only people that should have the right to speak to the press in this situation, are the Mayor, the Police Chief, and if they have one, the Public relations Officer.

These people are generally the ones who are allowed to in the first place no matter where you go and for very good reason.

It is often not realized by people of all political viewpoints, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does NOT apply to every citizen in every situation, and never has.

If it did, we'd effectively have no government whatsoever. And yes, that would be a BAD thing.

It is not realized by all but a small percentage that the constitution nor the bill of rights have applied to nobody without their express consent. The last I looked there were but 39 signatures and they are all dead.



Having no government at all would be the best of all outcomes, not a bad thing. What you suggest as government is in actuality nothing more than usurpers, robbers, murders, and tyrants.

As to the mayor, one needs to ask just why a town of 750 needs to even have one? Being without a police department would be a wonderous thing, what is wrong with using the sheriff?

But then this is South Carolina that somehow chooses Lindsey Graham to represent them.

So your proposal is anarchy? yes, what you suggest is nothing other than anarchy. Without a government there would be NO central law that everyone had to follow (it would literally be nothing more than the old west all over again in regards to authority).
As far as "using the Sheriff" is concerned, the "Sheriff" IS the police department, along with their deputies.

I am sorry but I will not EVER support anarchy or chaos under any circumstances.

There are not any "privacy issues" involved in this at all. What many people fail to realize is the "Chief of Police" is actually the ASSISTANT Chief of Police, because the Mayor is the full Chief. Do not argue this please, because it is basic truth.

The Mayor is an elected position. The Mayor APPOINTS (in most cases) the Chief of Police and has the authority to remove / replace them at any time for any reason; thus the Mayor is the actual Chief of Police. The Mayor is legally responsible to ensure there is someone int he position of Chief of Police, fullfilling the job in all appropriate manners, and has the final say on what matter is pushed and what matter is ignored.