Kevin Bronson: How Westminster SC Attempted to Silence a Citizen

Westminster’s No Contact Order: When a City Administrator Decided One Citizen Could No Longer Contact His Government

Franklyn Jones comes across as a good man that worked a hard life and feels he earned a place of respect. Sure, he can be difficult, outspoken and profane. None of those things gives a city administrator the authority to exile a citizen from his own municipal government.

Franklyn Jones did not move to Westminster looking for a constitutional fight. Jones is a retired electrical and mechanical systems engineer who spent a career working domestically and abroad, including work he says he performed for companies such as Siemens and General Electric. He moved to the small Oconee County city around 2020, bought a house for cash, and expected to live the relatively ordinary life of a retired professional. Instead, a dispute that began with his municipal utilities eventually developed into something much larger: a conflict of personalities in which relatively small alleged infractions were answered with increasingly extraordinary exercises of governmental power.

This is not the entire Franklyn Jones story. That story has become too long, too complicated and too strange to tell honestly in one article. This story is about one man, Westminster City Administrator Kevin Bronson, and one extraordinary decision: Bronson's attempt to prohibit Jones from communicating with virtually the entire municipal government of the city in which Jones lives.

On September 10, 2024, Bronson sent Jones a letter on City of Westminster letterhead directing that “there is to be no contact” by Jones, whether in person, by telephone, mail, email or electronic means, with any City of Westminster staff or elected officials. The letter went further. Bronson declared that any future contact would be considered harassment and would be reported to law enforcement for investigation for possible criminal charges and/or a restraining order. The letter identified no statute, ordinance, court order, restraining order, judicial finding or other source of legal authority empowering Bronson to make such a declaration. It provided Jones no hearing, no appeal, no expiration date and no procedure by which he could challenge the restriction.

Read literally, the implications are breathtaking. Bronson did not merely tell Jones to stop calling a particular employee, stay away from a particular office, or direct communications concerning a particular dispute through an attorney. He purported to prohibit Jones from having any contact whatsoever with every employee and every elected official of the City of Westminster.

That prohibition was not limited to City business. The letter contains no exception for innocent, incidental or purely social contact. If Jones encountered a City employee in a grocery store, at church, at a restaurant or walking down the street, Bronson's language purported to prohibit Jones from speaking to that person. If one of Jones's friends happened to work for Westminster, the letter purported to prohibit that friendship from involving contact. If Jones wanted to approach the mayor or one of the council members he helped elect and complain about Kevin Bronson himself, the letter purported to prohibit that too.

The practical governmental consequences are just as extraordinary. Westminster operates municipal utilities and administrative offices, and its police officers, utility personnel, clerks, records custodians and other municipal employees fall within the plain language of “any City of Westminster staff.” Bronson provided no exception allowing Jones to call the police for assistance, dispute a City utility bill, report a water or sewer problem, request City records, ask questions about municipal services, communicate with code enforcement, complain about a City employee, or petition his elected representatives for redress of grievances.

Even voting illustrates the absurdity of the restriction. Westminster's municipal elections are administered through the Oconee County election system, but City personnel may still be present and involved in the municipal voting process. Under the literal language of Bronson's directive, Jones could not even enter that environment and cast his ballot without risking prohibited contact with a City employee. And after voting for his mayor or council member, Jones was supposedly forbidden from approaching that elected official, telephoning them, emailing them, writing them, contacting them through social media, or even engaging in ordinary social conversation. Bronson's directive therefore purported to allow Jones the formal act of choosing his representatives while simultaneously prohibiting him from communicating with the very people he elected to represent him.

That is not a conventional “no contact” restriction. It is an attempt by an unelected administrator to isolate a particular citizen from the municipal government that exists to serve him.

I do not use the word oppressive lightly, and government employees have rights too. But after reviewing the extensive record, I have found no accusation that Franklyn Jones threatened anyone. He curses, he is energetic, and he has little patience for what he perceives as incompetence. He can be abrasive. That is not a crime.

The First Amendment does not protect threats or criminal harassment, but neither does the word harassment give a government administrator the power to silence a difficult citizen. Americans do not lose their right to criticize government because officials find them unpleasant. A sweeping prohibition on speech and contact with an entire municipal government is not the American way.

I asked Bronson, the Police Chief, the Mayor and City Council to explain or defend these restrictions. None chose to comment.

That distinction is the heart of this story.

Before going further, it is reasonable for a reader to ask an obvious question: What in the hell did Franklyn Jones do?

To understand that question, one first has to understand personalities, because from everything I have reviewed and from my conversations with Jones, this appears to have started as a fairly ordinary clash of personalities. The problem is that some of the personalities involved had badges, titles, government offices and, apparently, very thin skin.

Franklyn is a dynamic character. In the time I have spent talking with him, I have found his energy, humor and attitude refreshing and at times inspirational. I can also understand perfectly well how an orderly, rule-bound Protestant type might find some of his finer qualities exhausting. Franklyn has spent his professional life solving complex mechanical and electrical problems. He has little tolerance for incompetence, and even less tolerance for someone telling him that he must accept incompetence simply because the person delivering it happens to work for the government.

He is outspoken. He is profane. He tells long stories. He has an almost recreational willingness to tell a police officer exactly what he thinks of the officer's perception of authority. Yet he also strikes me as remarkably unlikely to hold a personal grudge. We all know men like this. We may not always enjoy their antics, particularly when we are on the receiving end of them, but thoughtful people eventually recognize why society needs them. The agreeable citizen rarely discovers the limits of governmental power. It is usually the demanding and persistent citizen who does.

And irritating the government is not a crime.

The dispute that appears to have started all of this goes back to a utility incident around January 2021. That date does not come merely from Jones's recollection. Westminster's own June 16, 2022 City Council minutes record “Franklin Jones of James Street” appearing before Council and complaining about “a legal dispute between himself and the City over a utility incident around January 2021.” Those same minutes show Mayor Brian Ramey presiding, with Kevin Bronson, then-Police Chief Matt Patterson, the Utility Director and the City Attorney present.

Jones tells me the original dispute was almost comically mundane. There was confusion surrounding his utility account. Jones insists the City was responsible for that confusion. His water was shut off when he says he was unaware a payment was due. He paid the bill, waited for the water to be restored and, according to his account, approximately seven hours later he still had no water. More than likely Franklyn delivered criticism in the process of paying the bill in person.

Franklyn being Franklyn, he eventually reached the conclusion that he pissed off the utility civil servants, so they were not coming, and he did not need a municipal employee to perform the technologically advanced operation of turning a water valve. He cut the small wire tag on the meter and turned his own water back on.

No water was stolen, Jones says. The account had been paid. He says the meter was not damaged. The great physical casualty of this confrontation between citizen and state was the little wire marker he cut from the meter. Police nevertheless became involved, and a meter-tampering prosecution followed. Westminster's own records confirm that the dispute resulted in a meter-tampering case, although I am attributing the details surrounding the shutoff, payment and tag to Jones because those details remain his account of what happened.

There is a funny coincidence in this story that makes it particularly personal for me. In May 2024, a pipe broke inside my own house and water began flooding the kitchen. I did not immediately know where the interior shutoff was, but I knew exactly where the water meter was. I ran outside with a pair of channel locks and shut the water off at the meter.

My neighbor informed me that what I had just done was supposedly a criminal offense in Oconee County and that I could be arrested for it.

I told her there was no way that could possibly be true. She then began telling me the story of a man she knew who had gone through hell over essentially the same thing. I now hope she was talking about Franklyn Jones, because the alternative is that criminalizing homeowners for turning a water valve is a regular feature of life in Oconee County.

The meter case did not disappear. By October 2022, Jones was appearing before Westminster City Council complaining about the still-open meter-tampering case and his access to court proceedings. By May 14, 2024, Westminster's official minutes state that Jones appeared before Council asking for a transcript from a jury trial that had been held in Municipal Court concerning the meter-tampering charge.

Somewhere during the conflict surrounding these municipal proceedings, the situation escalated again. Jones says he became frustrated with the court, called seeking answers and, after no one answered, left the municipal judge a profanity-laced message that contained direct accusations of misconduct and criticism. This resulted in a separate 2022 unlawful-communication matter. South Carolina Code §16-17-430 criminalizes certain profane, obscene or harassing telephone or electronic communications.

That 2022 case produced something important for understanding what came later: an actual judicial restriction on Jones's contact with the court. Whatever one thinks of the underlying charge or the constitutionality of applying that statute to Jones's particular words, a judge has legal machinery available to impose bond conditions and issue court orders. Courts hold hearings. Orders come from judicial authority. They may be challenged, modified or appealed.

Kevin Bronson is not a judge.

That distinction should have ended this story before it began.

Kevin Bronson Creates His Own “No Contact Notice”, as if he has judicial power as an appointed administrator.

Two years later, on September 10, 2024, Bronson did something entirely different.

He did not go into court and seek a restraining order. He did not present evidence to a judge that Jones had threatened him or anybody else. There was no adversarial hearing where Jones could respond to allegations against him. Bronson instead placed a letter on City letterhead, signed it as City Administrator, and announced that Jones was not to communicate with anyone employed by or elected to the City.

The wording was not subtle. Jones was prohibited from contact “in person, by telephone, mail, email, or other electronic means,” including text messages, instant messaging, fax, blogs and social media, with any City of Westminster staff or elected officials. In Westminster South Carolina, in the town he lives and pays taxes, he officially became a second-class citizen. Bronson then declared that any contact after receipt of the notice would be treated as harassment and referred to law enforcement for investigation for possible criminal charges or a restraining order.

Think about the inversion of due process contained in that sentence. Ordinarily, conduct occurs first. Police investigate whether the conduct violated a law. If probable cause exists, the criminal process follows. Bronson's letter instead attempted to declare in advance that the mere act of Jones contacting his own government would be considered “harassment,” regardless of what Jones said, why he was calling or whether the communication was otherwise completely lawful.

Bronson's directive was not limited to threats, harassment, a particular employee, or even a particular dispute. It prohibited Franklyn Jones himself from communicating with an entire municipal government. There was no alternative contact, no restricted subject matter, and no distinction between employees who were on duty and those who were not. Jones was simply prohibited from interacting in any way with any City employee or elected official.

Taken literally, Jones could have a conversation with an unknown City employee while shopping, walking his dog, or standing in a restaurant and suddenly find himself accused of violating Bronson's directive. The letter went even further, warning that future contact would be considered harassment and could be referred to law enforcement for possible criminal charges. That is an extraordinary amount of power for one administrator to claim over one citizen's ordinary speech without any due process.

Westminster operates under South Carolina's council form of government, in which municipal authority and policy are vested in City Council. Bronson is the City Administrator, not the City government unto himself. Yet his notice identifies no ordinance, statute, court order, Council action or other legal authority permitting him to unilaterally silence a resident's communications with every City employee and elected official.

I have asked Bronson to identify what authority he believed gave him that power, who he consulted before exercising it, and whether the Mayor, Council, Police Chief or City Attorney approved it. Those questions remain unanswered.

The document speaks for itself.

This Was Not Bronson’s First Controversy

Before coming to Westminster, Kevin Bronson had already left another South Carolina government position under extraordinary circumstances. In 2017, Bronson was Richland County’s Assistant County Administrator for Public Safety, a position that placed him over public-safety departments including EMS. During an August meeting with roughly 100 EMS employees who were raising concerns about working conditions, witnesses reported that Bronson responded to a lengthy list of complaints by telling them, in substance, that if things were really that bad, they could “kill yourself or leave.”

The reaction was immediate. EMS workers, firefighters and retired law-enforcement officers protested, with some demanding Bronson’s termination. The circumstances were especially disturbing to first responders because a Richland County sheriff’s deputy had died by suicide only weeks earlier. Richland County called Bronson’s remarks inappropriate and unacceptable.

Bronson resigned on August 14, 2017. Importantly, this is not merely an accusation he denied. In his resignation letter, Bronson acknowledged that his words had been disrespectful, apologized to EMS workers and others affected by suicide, and characterized what he had said as a “horrible” and “terrible” thing to say. He wrote that although he had wanted to remain and “right the ship,” staying in the position was no longer appropriate.

Local reporting at the time suggested that the controversy went beyond a single terrible sentence. WIS reported concerns about low morale and longstanding complaints within Richland County EMS, and questioned why Bronson had been permitted to resign rather than be fired. One County Council member said employees had been raising concerns about the department as far back as 2015.

Then Bronson Did It Again
If the September 2024 letter was bad enough, what happened in January 2026 is even harder to defend...

I particularly like the line “this is not merely an accusation he denied” because it lets you report the very serious 2017 allegation fairly: contemporaneous witnesses reported the statement, but Bronson's own resignation letter independently establishes that he acknowledged and apologized for the substance of what he said. That is much stronger journalism than simply repeating the headline that he “told EMTs to kill themselves.”

Then Bronson Did It Again

If the September 2024 letter was bad enough, what happened in January 2026 is even harder to defend. Bronson had well over a year to consult the City Attorney, the Mayor and Council, reconsider the scope of his authority, and correct course. Rather than act within the limits of the law, he doubled down on his proclaimed authority.

In another letter on City letterhead, signed in his official capacity as City Administrator, Bronson made his position unmistakable. His January 15, 2026 letter acknowledged that Jones “may have been advised by a public official” that the No Contact Notice was no longer in effect.

Bronson did not respond by identifying the law that gave him this extraordinary authority. He did not seek a court ruling, narrow the restriction, or provide Jones with any lawful avenue to communicate with his government.

He doubled down.

“This letter serves to reissue and reaffirm the No Contact Notice, effective immediately,” Bronson wrote, again prohibiting Jones from contacting City employees or elected officials and again threatening law-enforcement investigation, possible criminal charges, and a restraining order.

That second letter matters because it removes any suggestion that the first was an impulsive mistake or poorly considered warning. More than a year later, after someone within government had apparently questioned whether the restriction remained valid, Bronson deliberately reaffirmed it. Faced with a question about the legitimacy of his authority, Bronson did not answer with law. He answered with another letter declaring that his authority existed because he said it did.

That is government by assertion.

The Mayor, Council and Police Knew

At some point, this ceased being solely Kevin Bronson's problem.

Jones says he repeatedly brought the No Contact restriction before Westminster City Council. Council was told about the restriction and given repeated opportunities to rescind it, narrow it or establish a lawful means by which he could communicate with his own government. The complaint alleges that no written rescission or clear City-wide exception was provided before Bronson reissued the notice in January 2026. These are allegations that remain to be litigated, but at least one critical part is independently confirmed by Westminster's own records.

On February 10, 2026, Franklyn Jones stood before Westminster City Council, in direct defiance of the order itself, and spoke about “the no-contact order that was signed by the City Administrator.” That sentence appears in the City's official minutes.

Mayor Brian Ramey was presiding.

City Administrator Kevin Bronson was there.

City Attorney Keith Denny was there.

For more articles related to Keith Denny see:

https://www.oconeenews.org/open-letter-to-micah-black-the-oconee-county-solicitor?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.oconeenews.org/open-letter-to-judge-mcintosh?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Police Chief Fred Miller was there.

The members of Westminster City Council, Daby Snipes, Dale Glymph, Adam Dunn, Jimmy Powell, Charles Morgan and Jamie Jones were there.

By February 2026, the directive was no secret. Jones raised it publicly before Mayor Ramey and the entire City Council, with Bronson, the City Attorney and Police Chief present. From that point forward, the City cannot plausibly claim ignorance. Its governing officials knew that their City Administrator had purported to prohibit a resident from contacting City employees and elected officials, yet the directive remained in place. No rescission was issued. No lawful alternative was provided. No public correction was made.

Whatever responsibility began with Kevin Bronson, the City's refusal to correct what he had done made the problem institutional. Six months later, Jones is still living under this oppressive directive, imposed by a City Administrator rather than a court, with no meaningful relief in sight.

Police Chief Fred Miller's role also deserves attention. Miller became Westminster Police Chief in May 2024 and therefore headed the department both when Bronson issued the September 2024 notice and when he reissued it in January 2026. Bronson's letters expressly identify law enforcement as the machinery through which his restriction would acquire teeth. Jones alleges that Westminster police subsequently possessed, referenced or treated the notice as operative when dealing with him. The precise communications between Bronson and police—and whether officers were ever instructed to regard ordinary contact by Jones as harassment—are now subjects of records and discovery requests.

Jones tells me that Westminster officers repeatedly communicated to him that the No Contact directive was enforceable.

There should be nothing controversial about demanding answers. How did Bronson's No Contact directive come to exist? What conversations took place between Bronson and Westminster police about it? Do police officers believe they have authority to enforce it, and if so, under what law? And today, does Kevin Bronson still stand behind an order that purported to prohibit one citizen from communicating with an entire municipal government?

Those are not complicated questions. After nearly two years, the people of Westminster deserve clear answers.

The Constitution Is Supposed to Be Most Important When the Citizen Is Demanding

There is a temptation in stories like this to decide first whether we like Franklyn Jones.

That is precisely the wrong question.

Maybe Franklyn should not get frustrated as quickly as he does. Maybe he could be more patient, curse less and sometimes talk less. Maybe Kevin Bronson should have thicker skin. Maybe the police should look for opportunities to be supportive rather than punitive or driven by ego.

We can all work on ourselves. But government power cannot turn on whose personality we prefer. The question is not whether Franklyn Jones is difficult, or whether City officials find him irritating. The question is where personal feelings end and the law begins.

Yet, none of that answers the legal question created by Kevin Bronson.

The Constitution was not written only for agreeable people who speak softly at City Council meetings, compliment the police and patiently wait for administrators to return their telephone calls. The right to petition government has meaning precisely because government does not get to decide that a citizen's criticism has become inconvenient and therefore the citizen no longer gets to communicate with government. The First Amendment expressly protects petitioning government for redress, including criticism that public officials may find unpleasant.

People can say Franklyn Jones is loud, stubborn, abrasive and offensive. Kevin Bronson can dislike him. City employees can dread dealing with him. Police officers can wish he would stop arguing with them.

Those are human reactions. They are not legal authority.

What began with a water-meter dispute became something much larger: a conflict between a citizen exercising his rights and civil servants wielding the authority of government. Citizens are allowed to be impatient, abrasive, stubborn and even offensive. Public officials carry a different burden. When they act under the power of government, their response must be measured by law, not personality, irritation or wounded pride. They are called civil servants for a reason: humility is not weakness in public office; it is part of exercising authority with honor and integrity.

Franklyn kept showing up. He kept complaining. He kept demanding records, trials and explanations. And the very document Bronson delivered to silence him may now be the clearest evidence of the problem Franklyn had been complaining about all along.

Public officials deserve protection from real threats and harassment. They do not get protection from criticism, persistence or difficult personalities.

Government does not get to choose its citizens. And a City Administrator does not get to exile one of them from his own government simply because some took a disliking to Franklyn Jones.

About

Contact

Submit a story

Oconee News © 2024

Oconee News is dedicated to exposing corruption within the local law enforcement agencies and judicial system.

Contact us: Info@OconeeNews.orgtataverCtical

Reframe your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss a story.

We care about your data in our privacy policy.