WINNSBORO — The Fairfield County Council meeting agenda on Monday included a second reading of Ordinance 851, which repeals and replaces the county’s current animal control ordinance (No. 737).
The proposed ordinance was developed by an ad hoc committee established earlier this year by county council to review and recommend updates to Fairfield County’s animal welfare policies.
The seven-member committee was appointed directly by council without requiring applicants to submit qualifications or statements of interest.
Guidelines Overlooked
Council’s own guidelines for forming the ad hoc committee stated that it “shall include representatives of animal welfare organizations, recognized and licensed animal breeders, the hunting community, and the general public.” Several council members later said they were unaware of these prerequisites at the time of the appointments.
“I don’t know all these folks or if any represent animal welfare groups,” Councilman Don Goldbach remarked prior to the vote to select committee members.
While the ad hoc committee was intended to represent a cross-section of Fairfield County citizens, it did not include any representatives from the active local animal welfare organizations. Attendance at the committee’s meetings showed that a majority of the members came from backgrounds in breeding, hunting, or agriculture—fields often central to local animal control issues.
Those approved for the committee were Laura Thomas, Katie Odom, Liz Bankhead, Aimee Griffith, Anne Corrao, Roger Gaddy, and Jerome Armstrong.
Selection Process Raises Questions
The nominees affiliated with animal welfare organizations were not selected by council. Emails obtained by The Voice show that Fairfield County’s Clerk to Council, Kimberly Roberts, informed council members that candidates for the committee would not need to complete the standard application process.
In an email dated Feb. 11, Roberts wrote, “Your representative [candidate] does NOT (Roberts’ emphasis) need to fill out an application for this committee. Once you have received confirmation of his/her willingness to serve, send that name to me. Remember, the candidate does not have to be in your district.”
It was not publicly announced which council members nominated which candidates.
Additionally, the county’s Public Information Officer, Gene Stephens, stated that contact information for ad hoc committee members would not be made available to the public for questions or input.
Draft Draws Scrutiny
While county council members praised the ad hoc committee’s work, questions remain about whether the group’s makeup reflects the full spectrum of community stakeholders. Critics argue that the lack of a transparent selection process and deviation from stated guidelines may have influenced the council’s priorities—tilting toward breeders and hunters rather than advocates for stronger animal protection standards.
Council and the ad hoc committee members, however, defended the process and the resulting ordinance.
Committee Chair Katie Titus Odom thanked the council for entrusting citizens with the process.
“This was a truly democratic process,” Odom said. “The
dedication, knowledge, and participation of the appointed citizens is an example
that many other counties will undoubtedly strive to emulate.”
“Often public policy can be influenced by some of the loudest voices,” she
added. “In this case, the citizen-driven process has resulted in a product
truly representative of the diverse needs of our county.”
Vice Chair Laura Thomas echoed Odom’s comments, emphasizing that the committee engaged diverse perspectives.
“We engaged with animal welfare advocates, animal control, rescuers, pet owners, farmers, hunters, competition dog owners, breeders, trainers, and kennel owners,” Thomas said.
“The ordinance addresses the county’s animal control problems without burdening responsible residents,” she continued. “Strict enforcement and stringent penalties will go a long way to solve the animal welfare issues in our county.”
Councilman Dan Ruff praised the committee’s work, reminding the audience that the group had been formed after “careful selection and months of work.”
“We asked them to do this work for us, and I think we should accept this [ordinance] as is,” Ruff said. “There’s no ordinance anywhere that’s perfect, but this one represents an excellent effort.”
During deliberations, Councilwoman Peggy Swearingen requested assurance that working farm dogs would not be classified as commercial breeders under the new ordinance. The county attorney confirmed that the definitions excluded such cases and that a legal review would occur before final approval.
‘Fringe Voices’ and Differing Views
Some local animal welfare advocates who have attended council meetings and the committee sessions called for stronger enforcement measures and tighter breeding regulations. This has not set well with most committee members.
Committee member Anne Corrao urged the Council to adopt the ordinance as presented, cautioning against what she described as “fringe voices” that she said had complicated prior discussions.
“You [council members] brought together credible and rational citizens to bring you their best version of an animal ordinance,” Corrao said. “Unity is becoming apparent.”
Council voted 7–0 in favor of the ordinance’s second reading, moving it one step closer to a final vote on Dec. 8.