Beaufort County Council debates whistleblower policy, weighs part‑time integrity officer vs. broader OIG model

Beaufort County Council held a special workshop on Aug. 28 to discuss a proposed county whistleblower policy and how reports should be received and investigated. Chair opened the workshop noting the packet had been distributed; council members spent the session debating whether the county should appoint an "integrity officer" or create a larger Inspector General‑style office, and how anonymous reporting should be handled.

Councilman Passman said the county needs "a much more robust whistleblower policy" that clearly states the policy's intent, scope, reporting procedures, investigation steps and protections for people who file reports. "It has the purpose, the scope, the definitions, the prohibited activities, how we're going to protect individuals, the reporting process, setting up the office of integrity," he said, recommending the council start with his proposed policy text included in the meeting packet.

Councilman York Glover emphasized the practical need to protect people who report concerns so they do not lose their jobs: "I think we have to make sure that it's demonstrated as well," he said, adding that complaints can evolve into whistleblower matters and the policy should prevent reprisals. Other council members urged a clear distinction between ordinary HR complaints and whistleblower allegations that may require external investigation.

Several members, including one who said the Spartanburg County model allows anonymous reporting to an outside agency that assigns a tracking number, said anonymity and an external clearinghouse can increase reporter confidence. One speaker recommended using outside investigators with investigative backgrounds—retired investigators or private investigators—rather than law firms, for fact‑finding in serious cases.

There was disagreement about scale and oversight. One council member argued against creating "another bureaucracy," preferring an integrity officer on executive staff to receive and triage complaints. Another proposed a twofold approach: an anonymous clearinghouse for intake plus an expanded Inspector General‑style office that could audit departments and investigate fraud, waste and abuse when warranted.

Chair closed the workshop by asking administration to contact Spartanburg County for details on implementation and cost; Mike Moore said staff will collect that information and the item will be returned as a draft resolution to the finance/administration committee. No formal vote on the policy was taken in the workshop setting.