Six District 5 Board Members Vote to Remove Kim Murphy

Six Lexington-Richland 5 board members voted to remove Kim Murphy from the board during a special called meeting Tuesday night. 

Board chairman Robert Gantt said the board considered retired Circuit Court Judge G. Thomas Cooper Jr.'s recommendation that Murphy should be removed from the board after state officials reviewed her residency and determined her Old Laurel Lane home is located about one-tenth of a mile northwest of the Lexington County boundary.  (Read Cooper's full report in the attached document)

Cooper was asked by the board to serve as a hearing officer in the dispute over Murphy's residency at an evidentiary hearing in February.

In his review, Cooper said "numerous potential negative legal problems could arise" for the district should Murphy stay on the board including the unwillingness of bonding authorities to issue bonds based on her vote.

Murphy, who was elected in 2010 to serve on one of three seats representing Richland County, said she will appeal the board's decision and will continue to attend the meetings sitting in the front row of the audience while the issue is being resolved. 

Murphy said she had to fight the decision because of the 6,000 voters that elected her to serve. 

"Bullies will be bullies even to the point of stealing elections," she said. 

During the session, Murphy's attorney Todd Kincannon moved for dismissal saying the board didn't have the authority to remove Murphy and that the board's hearings violated the Voting Rights Act for not having been precleared by the Justice Department.

Kincannon said Murphy was being unfairly punished and asked the board to separate politics from right and wrong. 

He said no harm would come to the board if Murphy continued to serve the rest of her term since her vote is not the deciding factor when it comes to board matters. 

Board vice chairperson Beth Burn Watson said the board could not ignore the law requiring four of the seven board members to live in Lexington County and three members to reside in Richland County.

"We have to follow the law," Burn Watson said. "We tried to do our best to make it a fair procedure." 

Kincannon said it was hard to have a fair hearing when one side picked the judge.

Gantt denied the board’s actions were personal, saying  “Our actions this evening center on the simple truth that she does not live in the county which she was elected to represent, a simple but essential requirement of the law."

"To allow Ms. Murphy to remain on the board would violate state law and potentially invalidate future decisions made by the board."

The residency dispute began late last year when Gantt made a request to the Office of Research and Statistics at the State Budget and Control Board to research whether or not Murphy lived in Richland County.

Murphy said she was told she resides in Richland County having paid property taxes there for a number of years and having been issued a voter registration card in the county. 

An annexation petition was filed Tuesday on Murphy's behalf, Kincannon said, which requests all of Murhpy's property be considered in Richland County. 

Now with a vacant seat, a special election must be held to elect a member. 

Read more

• District 5 Trustees to Consider Removing Kim Murphy from Board
• State Officials: Kim Murphy's Residency Not a "Difficult Call"
• District 5 Board Chair Claims Kim Murphy May be Ineligible to Hold Seat
• Judge Cooper to Hear Dispute Over District 5 Board Member's Residency

Sign up for our free newsletter. Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.