Special Called Laurens City Council Meeting on New Year’s Eve Highlights Deep Divisions Over Emergency Ordinance

The Laurens City Council held a special called meeting on Wednesday, December 31, 2025, marking the second such meeting in just over a week and underscoring deep divisions among city leadership over governance, process, and the adoption of an emergency ordinance.

The meeting, held at the City of Laurens Municipal Center, followed a similar special meeting convened on December 23. Both meetings took place during major holidays and drew public attention and criticism over timing, notice, and procedure.

A video recording of the December 31 special called meeting is publicly available through the City of Laurens’ official YouTube channel and can be viewed here.

Mayor’s Opening Remarks Focus on Process and Legality

Mayor Nathan Senn opened the meeting with extended remarks aimed at providing clarity and transparency to the public regarding recent events. He raised concerns about how the special meetings were called, noting that petitions were signed by a bare majority of council members without notice to all members and that draft agendas and ordinance language appeared to have circulated among only certain council members prior to broader review.

The mayor stated that multiple drafts of the proposed ordinance were privately shared without review by the city’s legal counsel or the full council, leading to confusion during the December 23 meeting over which version of the ordinance was properly before the body. He also referenced a mistakenly sent group text message among council members that raised questions about whether city business or coordination may have occurred outside publicly noticed meetings.

Mayor Senn further addressed a document released to the press on City of Laurens letterhead titled City of Laurens Council Response to Legal Opinion, stating that it was not authorized, not approved by council in a public meeting, and did not reflect an official position of the city.

He emphasized that the City of Laurens’ legal counsel, Pope Flynn, had provided written legal guidance warning that the proposed ordinance exceeded council’s lawful authority, did not qualify as a lawful emergency ordinance, and failed to follow proper procedure. According to the mayor, counsel further advised that if the ordinance were adopted despite that guidance, the firm would be unable to continue representing the City.

Mayor Senn noted that Pope Flynn was retained by a vote of council in 2023 through a publicly noticed process and represents the City as a whole—not individual officials. He stated that council had relied on the firm’s legal guidance in all prior matters requiring legal interpretation until this issue.

Ordinance Characterization and Legal Warnings

During the prior meeting, the ordinance had been described by one council member as a precautionary measure, likened to purchasing insurance. Mayor Senn disputed that characterization, stating that unlike insurance, the ordinance would alter statutory authority, override state law, and restructure the legal framework of city government.

He emphasized that the city’s legal counsel issued written warnings that the ordinance exceeded council’s lawful authority, did not qualify as a lawful emergency ordinance, failed to follow proper procedure, and could expose individual council members to personal financial liability.

Mayor Senn warned that adoption of the ordinance would leave the City without its current legal counsel, requiring the retention of new counsel while simultaneously exposing the City and individual council members to potential legal and financial risk.

The mayor also questioned the urgency of holding holiday meetings for what had been described as a precautionary measure, particularly when the meetings did not prioritize second reading of a budget amendment tied to employee raises that had been promised to begin in the new year.

Allegations and Referral to State Authorities

Mayor Senn acknowledged that allegations circulating publicly originated from a disgruntled former employee and stated that several current and former employees declined to support those claims. He expressed concern that current employees who wished to speak had not been allowed to do so.

He stated that he had already requested that all materials related to any allegations involving city officials be forwarded to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and, if appropriate, the State Ethics Commission, noting that no ordinance was required to initiate that process and that referrals were already underway.

Council Exchange Highlights Tension

Tensions during the meeting were evident during a verbal exchange between Council Member Alicia Sullivan and Council Member Martin Lowry as discussion followed the mayor’s opening remarks. As Lowry attempted to speak, Sullivan repeatedly and in rapid succession raised “point of order,” a procedural request typically used to call attention to potential violations of meeting rules or process. The repeated interruptions prevented Lowry from completing his remarks.

The exchange escalated when Lowry responded to Sullivan by stating, “point of order my ass, shut your pie hole.” The comment was made during the public meeting and was audible on the official meeting broadcast.

Mayor Nathan Senn immediately admonished the remark and urged all council members to conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner as the meeting continued. No formal censure or ruling was issued, and council proceeded with the remaining agenda items.

Council Vote

Despite the concerns raised during the meeting, council proceeded with the agenda and approved the emergency ordinance on second reading. Council Members Whitmire, Campbell, Sullivan, and Miller voted in favor of the ordinance. Council Members Bolt and Lowry voted against it. Mayor Nathan Senn did not vote, citing that the ordinance directly affected the office of mayor.

Closing Remarks and Next Steps

In closing the meeting, Mayor Senn stated that he would not sign the ordinance, reiterating his position that the measure is unlawful and conflicts with state law and the written advice of the city’s legal counsel. He indicated that any next steps related to the ordinance would proceed through appropriate legal channels.

Council then adjourned the meeting.

Looking Ahead

The December 31 meeting highlighted sharp disagreements not only over the ordinance itself, but also over transparency, communication, decorum, and adherence to established legal and procedural standards. As state-level reviews move forward, the ordinance and the actions surrounding its passage are expected to remain under close public scrutiny.

Editor’s Clarification:
This article reflects discussion, statements, and actions taken during the Laurens City Council special called meeting held on December 31, 2025. Descriptions of remarks and exchanges are based on the publicly broadcast meeting and available agenda materials. Readers are encouraged to view  the full meeting recording via the City of Laurens’ official YouTube channel to review the proceedings in their entirety and in context.