A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Solicitor urges pay-scale parity to retain prosecutors, highlights victim-services and diversion programs

April 10, 2026 | Beaufort County, South Carolina


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Solicitor urges pay-scale parity to retain prosecutors, highlights victim-services and diversion programs
Solicitor Duffy Stone asked the council to approve his office’s budget request, emphasizing three core program areas that drive his funding needs: a career‑criminal prosecution unit, a county‑based victim services center and an expanding diversion program that includes drug, mental‑health and veterans courts.

Stone said the career criminal prosecution unit—staffed by experienced prosecutors, investigators and analysts—has handled hundreds of cases across the 14th Circuit; he reported that the broader unit has been responsible for 544 incarcerations and 70 life sentences across five counties and said Beaufort County’s share totals 243 career criminals and 24 life sentences. For victim services, Stone detailed a county center with roughly 3,500 square feet dedicated to crime victims and partners such as Hope Horizons and Lowcountry Legal Assistance; he said 2,518 victims have used the center to date, about 30% of whom were children, and cited 58 pediatric assault exams and 689 forensic interviews.

Stone told council members he has created a pay scale for his office that mirrors the county’s attorney pay scale so prosecutors can be retained locally rather than leaving for higher private‑sector pay; he said the proposal equates to a calculated per‑capita funding request of about $20.83 based on his personnel cost allocation. Stone argued that the solicitor’s office is central to public‑safety outcomes and that investments in prosecution and victim services support broader community stability.

Council members asked whether the solicitor was advocating parallel increases for public defenders; Stone said he was not and outlined reasons why the two offices’ budget responsibilities and service portfolios are not the same. Council members noted the county’s overall interest in remaining mill‑neutral while considering public‑safety spending increases and asked staff to consider the cumulative impact of elected‑official budget requests.

The solicitor’s presentation provided data and program context for the office’s funding request; councilmembers and staff said they will consider the information as they prepare budget recommendations for the public and for the finance committee.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee