Categories: Breaking NewsGovernment NewsNewsPolitics

Beaufort County Council Faces Uproar Over Private Meeting

Local residents express their concerns during a community meeting about the council's transparency.

News Summary

Beaufort County is in turmoil as Council Chair Joe Passiment faces criticism for holding a private meeting on the U.S. 278 bridge funding project. The meeting excluded key council members, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. As community outrage mounts, discussions intensify around the council’s commitment to open governance, especially with the upcoming council chair election on January 2. The legality of the meeting has been questioned, adding to residents’ frustrations. Many are calling for a change in leadership to restore trust within the community.

Beaufort County Council Faces Community Uproar Over Private Meeting

In a surprising twist, Beaufort County is heating up as Council Chair Joe Passiment finds himself at the center of a brewing storm. The local council is facing backlash after hosting a not-so-public meeting about the funding of the U.S. 278 bridge project, a vital structure for the community.

The Secret Meeting

On December 6, Passiment gathered a handful of selected council members, staff, and local government officials to discuss ways to navigate funding after voters turned down a proposed sales tax increase aimed at financing the bridge project. One key player was notably absent: Council member Tom Reitz, whose representation of Hilton Head Island left him feeling sidelined. Many in the community are raising eyebrows over the *lack of transparency* involved in this meeting.

Concerns Over Transparency

Reitz expressed his discontent regarding not being invited, making it clear that such meetings should not exclude elected officials, especially when they directly impact their constituents. This sentiment echoes a broader concern within the community about the council’s commitment to *openness in governance*. After all, it is the constituents who deserve to be in the know about decisions that affect their lives.

Passiment’s Justification

In defense of the exclusive gathering, Passiment claimed that inviting five out of the eleven council members technically made it a private meeting according to state law, a point he believes protects against creating a quorum. However, the community’s interpretation sharply contrasts with this, as residents are interested in local leaders being fully transparent about the decision-making processes.