Dillon County officials cite judgment in Curry’s removal

Dillon County Council members terminated the contract of county administrator Charles Curry because he showed a lack of judgment by mediating a federal U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case, even though it involved the investigation of his position, according to a letter dated June 18.

The letter was hand-delivered to Curry just two days after he was terminated from his position during a special Dillon County Council meeting June 16. 

Curry was removed by a 4-3 vote after being the county administrator for just three months.

In the letter, council members said Curry displayed a “serious lack of judgment, bordering on ethical impropriety” during the EEOC case and was “particularly slow and less than forthcoming in bringing the case to the attention of council.”

When EEOC officials notified Dillon County Council that the body was to mediate the case, Curry didn’t apprise the entire council of this development so it could be considered, according to the letter. Instead, Curry mediated the meeting on behalf of council May 21 even thought council didn’t delegate that authority to him.

The meeting concerned an EEOC an investigation into the circumstances surrounding him being named Dillon County administrator. The act was a “colorable breach of procedure” that put Curry in a conflict of interest in the case, council members said in the letter.

According to the letter, Curry let his personal interests in the case take precedent over the interests of Dillon County.

Council members also said in the letter Curry seemed to have difficulty making the transition from lawyer to administrator and lacked the executive skills, experience and “the professional judgment required for a competent progressive county administrator in as diverse and forward-aspiring county as ours.”

Curry said Tuesday he wouldn’t comment on council’s letter.

The EEOC and the S.C. Human Affairs Commission are investigating a case of possible discrimination concerning the selection process for Dillon County administrator.

A discrimination compliant was filed in March with both agencies by Dillon attorney Glenn Manning, who applied for the position of Dillon County administrator after it was vacated by Clay Young in 2008.

Manning said council had narrowed the job applicant pool down to a Georgia candidate and himself.

A member of council told him the group decided in an executive session that the job would be offered to him if the Georgia candidate declined, Manning said.

The candidate did decline, but Dillon County Council offered the position to Curry instead of Manning.

Curry’s name wasn’t in the original job applicant pool, Manning said.

“Mr. Curry was negotiating the contract with the Georgia applicant on behalf of council,” Manning said. “That’s how he knew that the he didn’t accept the position.”

Manning said the fact Curry applied for the position after he negotiated the county administrator’s contract is a conflict of interest.

Manning maintains he didn’t get the position because of his race and council selected Curry because he’s white. 

Dillon County Chairman Harold Moody wouldn’t comment on the EEOC investigation, but said he accompanied Curry to the May 21 EEOC meeting mentioned in council’s letter to Curry.

The case remains under investigation by both agencies.