Beaufort County kept hiring of its top job out of public view. One expert says it was illegal

A beleaguered Beaufort County Council, already battered over its refusal to make public details of an audit into inappropriate spending amid a period two employees were fired, one resigned and one left under suspicious circumstances, is again under siege for what one legal expert is calling secret and illegal votes during its search for a new county administrator.

The Island Packet and Beaufort Gazette have seen an email that shows the county selected a candidate to offer the job without publicly voting on which candidate to offer, as South Carolina law demands. When that negotiation fell through, similar circumstances appeared to have happened with the second candidate, Michael Moore, who was eventually hired. It is unclear whether other candidates were contacted.

An email dated May 20 from County Attorney Tom Keaveny to council members provides an update on the county’s attempt to hire Toby Chappell, the current county manager for Greenwood County. In the email, Keaveny informs the council that Chappell has countered “the offer I conveyed to him Friday morning” and goes into detail about the differences between the offer and the counter.

The problem? The council never publicly voted to offer the job to Chappell. In fact, the council has never mentioned Chappell’s name in any public setting.

Jay Bender, a long-time South Carolina media law and expert in open meeting laws, says that the council should have discussed who that candidate was.

“The decision was made in executive session as to who the one was going to be,” Bender said. “And that’s illegal.”

In Moore’s case, the council publicly announced him as a single candidate for the county administrator position at a meeting on May 28 while he was present in the audience. The council then went into executive session, came out, held a quick vote without discussion and announced Moore as the new administrator, raising questions about when Moore was offered and accepted the job.

“It’s clear that there have been a series of secret meetings by the council to reach decisions outside of public view and make an offer for an administrator,” Bender, said. “The first offer was not accepted by the candidate, so then there was a second person identified in a secret meeting. And lo and behold, that person shows up in public before there’s ever a public vote to hire.”

County officials say they’ve done nothing wrong, but when pressed, the county’s explanation of the hiring process shifted.

Initially, the county’s spokesperson, Hannah Nichols, told the newspapers that the only vote the council took was on May 28 to offer the position to Moore.

But when asked specifically about Chappell, the candidate previously unknown to the public, Nichols confirmed a vote was held May 16 authorizing the county attorney to negotiate with a candidate. That meeting was not held in council chambers, which are open to the public, as most meetings are. Instead, the council vote Nichols refers to happened in the council’s executive conference room, which the public can only see via livestream.

Nichols would not identify the candidate, but Chappell confirmed to the newspapers what Keaveny’s email shows — Chappell was offered the position.

Nichols argues the council appropriately followed its procurement code, but Bender says the council has no legal avenue for making decisions in executive session.

“Each time a decision was made in the executive session, there was a violation of the law,” Bender said.

The fact that so much of the council’s decision-making was intentionally kept from the public threatens to further erode what community trust remains in the way the scandal-scarred county operates and puts Moore in an awkward position of having his selection cast in questionable light.

Greenway’s hiring was more transparent

Notably in 2021, when Eric Greenway was hired, the council didn’t begin negotiating his contract until after his selection, according to previous reporting by the newspapers. When the motion selecting Greenway was made, it specified that contract negotiations would begin subsequently and the ratification of any contract would be brought before the council publicly.

Council chairman Joe Passiment did not return calls for this story. Keaveny declined to speak to a reporter, referring questions to Nichols.

In July of 2023, Beaufort County’s last administrator, Greenway, was fired with cause. The council cited Greenway’s failure to follow the statutes on hiring outside contractors, his relationship with a former contractor turned employee and his disregard for the county’s procurement process as Greenway’s grounds for termination.

A series of other questionable actions came to light in the wake of the Greenway firing including a mysterious purchase of nearly $36,000 worth of weighted blankets, reportedly from a company owned by then Deputy Administrator Whitney Richland’s husband. It was later discovered that the county was in possession of the blankets, which were all still boxed and on the floor in a county warehouse. Officials had previously denied that the county ever took possession of the order.

Unrelated to the blankets, county leaders eventually learned that $800,000 in playground equipment had been purchased and installed in Port Royal before getting the required council approval. The council retroactively approved the playground despite the substantial expense with a vote of 8-2.

Beaufort County’s former director of Parks and Recreation Shannon Loper now faces a hearing from the South Carolina Ethics Commission later this year over a separate complaint alleging she used her position to benefit family members. The allegation is focused on Chapter 13 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

Most recently, the county’s interim deputy administrator resigned leaving the council with sharp advice on how to put Beaufort County back on the right track.