WINNSBORO — A new majority of four on Fairfield County Council carried the vote during council’s Jan. 12 meeting to adopt several amendments to an ad hoc committee’s recommended changes to the county’s current Animal Ordinance 737.
Councilman Don Goldbach made the motion to adopt the amendments and was joined in the 4-3 vote by council members Peggy Swearingen, Carl Bell, and Oren Gadson. Voting against were Council Chair Clarence Gilbert, Dan Ruff, and Doug Pauley.
As Goldbach made the motion, he was interrupted several times by Pauley commenting, “Who is ‘we’?” and “We already know where this came from,” and more.
Goldbach said his proposed amendments are not much different from what the ad hoc committee proposed.
Following are those amendments and how they differed from the ad hoc committee’s recommendations:
If your dog is impounded, you may avoid mandatory spay/neuter if:
- it’s the first or second impoundment
- the dog is properly registered
- you pay an extra redemption fee
- or a vet says sterilization is unsafe
Ad hoc committee recommended sterilization after two or more impoundments and did not address dog registration.
Outdoor shelter rules
These do NOT count as proper dog shelter:
- crates
- carriers
- barrels
- vehicles
- open areas of houses/sheds
Ad hoc committee defined shelter to mean a structure, including, but not limited to, a dog house or stable that protects an animal from the sun, rain, and other inclement weather or environmental conditions.
Shelters must protect from weather and be:
- warm in winter
- cool in summer
- not overcrowded
Ad hoc committee recommended only protection from weather and environmental conditions.
You are considered a dog breeder if you:
- breed up to two dogs or
- allow mating and
- sell puppies or dogs
The revision includes small-scale breeders. Ad hoc committee addressed only commercial breeders who are permitted to breed 3 or more dogs for sale.
Ruff opposed Goldbach’s proposed amendments.
“There’s just been, I think there’s just been too much time to put into this to be changing again now, and so I am just absolutely for moving on, third and final reading, and be over this and move forward. I think we need to make it the end all for right now anyway,” Ruff said.
“I just really do want to thank all the committee, all the people, everybody else that has had input into this to get to this point,” he said. “But I’m just totally in favor of moving on with the original draft from the committee.”
With a vote of 4-3 to pass Goldbach’s amendments, Pauley said he agreed with Ruff and thanked the ad hoc committee “for all their hard work and dedication to this ordinance.”
“A few individuals did not get their way,” Pauley said. “They were not appointed to the committee. Also, even one committee member did not get their way and tried their best to go against the other committee members. These individuals went to a council member. I guess you can see what council member it was, complaining, hoping the ordinance would get changed,” he continued.
“These individuals think that their beliefs are the best thing when it comes to animal control in Fairfield County. But instead, they’re the worst thing,” Pauley said.
Council then voted 4-3 to pass the amended ordinance.
Prior to the vote, several citizens addressed the issue during public comment time.
Kati Titus-Odom, a dog breeder and chair of the ad hoc committee, urged council not to vote for any amendments to the committee’s recommendations and reminded council that the committee had worked 18 hours to craft the recommendations and was made up of citizens of the county.
At the time council voted on the appointments of committee members in March 2025, some council members questioned whether any of the nominees for the citizen committee were members of animal welfare organizations, one of the necessary qualifications outlined in council’s guidelines for appointees to the committee. The guidelines state that, “the committee shall include members of animal welfare organizations, recognized and licensed animal breeders, the hunting community and the general public.”
The Voice was not able to verify that any of the committee were at that time members of an animal welfare organization.
The Voice obtained emails, dated Feb. 10, 2025, from Clerk to Council Kimberly Roberts to council members asking them to “have your representative [candidate] fill out an application and return it to me as soon as possible. I have attached an application for convenience.”
A second email from Roberts to council members, dated the following morning, Feb. 11, stated, “I need to make a correction to the email sent last night. Your representative [candidate] does NOT [Roberts’s 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 person does not have to be in your district.”
The names of candidates approved by council are: Laura Thomas, Katie Titus-Odom, Liz Bankhead, Aimee Griffith, Ann Corrao, Roger Gaddy, and Jerome Armstrong.
Several ad hoc committee members at the Jan. 12 council meeting urged council to adopt the ad hoc committee’s version of the ordinance exactly as drafted by the citizen ad hoc committee, strongly opposing any amendments proposed from the floor. They argued that such amendments would impose financial burdens, expand government authority, and criminalize ordinary pet ownership in a rural county.
Dr. Roger Gaddy, a hunter and a member of the ad hoc committee that reviewed the ordinance, asked council to approve the committee’s version submitted without amendments. Gaddy objected to proposed changes redefining “dog breeder,” saying the committee did not intend for owners with a single litter of puppies to be classified as breeders requiring licenses. He also considered barrels to be acceptable dog shelters, describing them as practical, affordable, and effective.
“We wanted to identify people who were having multiple litters and profiting off of that,” Gaddy said.
Jerome Armstrong, also a hunter, of the Lebanon–Shady Grove area, said proposed requirements such as microchipping and breeder licensing would disproportionately affect residents with limited financial means.
“People in Fairfield County, for the most part, do the very best they can,” Armstrong said. “It should not seem to be punishment when they can’t fulfill all the requirements.”
Katie Titus-Odom, chair of the former Fairfield County Animal Control Advisory Committee, also urged council to pass the ordinance as presented by the committee. She said each provision — including definitions of breeder, commercial breeder, and shelter — was thoroughly debated by a diverse group of county residents and approved unanimously.
Resident Chris Chavez was openly hostile to both the ad hoc committee’s recommended version of the animal ordinance and to the ordinance itself. He urged council to reject the ordinance and its amendments, calling them “bureaucratic overreach” and comparing them to a homeowners’ association. He criticized provisions related to barking dogs, tethering requirements, inspections, and enforcement authority.
“You are granting government agents the power to obtain search warrants on private property based on reasonable suspicion of a code violation,” Chavez said. “The ordinance treats the citizens of Fairfield not as free Americans protected by the Fourth Amendment, but as suspects in need of surveillance.”
He urged council to “go back to the drawing board” and focus enforcement on animal abusers rather than ordinary citizens.
Ad hoc committee member Ann Corrao defended the committee’s work and asked council members to respect the process and research behind the recommendations. She cautioned against making significant changes without fully considering their impact on county residents.
Randy Bright of Ridgeway said the ordinance should be evaluated against the broad goal stated in the resolution—protecting public health and safety while regulating animal care consistent with state law.
