Council members weigh anonymous reporting, outside investigations, new integrity function as they work to overhaul county’s whistleblower policy
By Delayna Earley
The Island News
Beaufort County employees could eventually have a new way to anonymously report allegations of fraud, corruption and other wrongdoing as County Council works to strengthen whistleblower protections and determine who should be responsible for handling those complaints.
During a special workshop Aug. 28, council members spent nearly an hour discussing proposed changes to the whistleblower section of the county’s employee handbook and the possibility of creating an integrity officer or similar position to oversee complaints.
While council members did not settle on exactly what that position would look like, there appeared to be broad agreement on several points: employees need to be able to report concerns without fear of retaliation, complaints need to be routed to the right place and County Council itself should not be responsible for investigating them.
Councilman Lawrence P. McElynn said he has moved away from the idea of creating an entirely new integrity department and instead favors identifying an integrity officer within the county’s executive staff.
“I’m not trying to create here a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy,” McElynn said. “I’m simply trying to identify someone on the executive staff who can be identified as an integrity officer.”
McElynn said the officer could serve as a central point for receiving allegations, protecting the identity of employees who come forward, tracking cases and determining when an outside investigator should be brought in.
He suggested the position could initially be part time or assigned to an existing county employee, with the role expanding later if the volume of complaints warranted it.
Not everyone favored limiting the role that narrowly.
Councilman David Bartholomew suggested the county consider something closer to an Office of Inspector General, with responsibilities extending beyond investigating whistleblower complaints.
Under that model, the office could also conduct audits of individual county departments and examine whether public money is being spent appropriately and county operations are functioning efficiently.
The Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee will now continue working through those questions before bringing a proposal back to council.
Protecting employees who come forward
A recurring concern throughout the workshop was whether employees would feel safe reporting wrongdoing if they feared their identity could become known to supervisors or coworkers.
Councilman York Glover said it is not enough for the county to simply say employees will be protected from retaliation.
“We can’t just say we want to protect you,” Glover said. “I think we have to make sure that it’s demonstrated as well.”
Glover said employees need to feel comfortable coming forward without believing their jobs could be jeopardized.
Councilman Logan Cunningham also pushed for an anonymous reporting option, saying anonymity may provide the best protection for employees.
Council members discussed Spartanburg County’s system as a possible model. That county uses an outside reporting system that allows complaints to be submitted anonymously and gives the person filing the report a number that can be used to follow the complaint.
Beaufort County administrators were asked to contact Spartanburg County to determine how its program was established, how much it costs, whether it required a request for proposals and how the outside vendor, NAVEX, is used.
Council Chair Alice Howard said one feature she liked about the Spartanburg system was the additional separation it creates between an employee making a report and county government.
“It seems like another level of protection for the employees,” Howard said.
Not every complaint is a whistleblower complaint
Much of the discussion centered on another problem: determining what actually qualifies as a whistleblower complaint.
Council members acknowledged that allegations involving fraud, waste, abuse, corruption or violations of law are different from routine workplace complaints involving supervisors, employee relations or other personnel issues.
But several members said that distinction should not mean complaints that fall short of the whistleblower threshold are simply ignored.
McElynn said a complaint about a supervisor’s management style, for example, may not constitute an integrity violation but could still reveal a problem county administrators need to know about.
“I don’t believe it needs to be ignored,” he said. “I believe that if that complaint is received, it should be forwarded for consideration and review, and nothing should be turned back as being unacceptable.”
Cunningham agreed, saying information contained in complaints can still help county administrators identify problems even when the allegations do not meet the criteria for whistleblower protection.
“We can’t just let these complaints die even if they don’t meet the criteria of a whistleblower,” Cunningham said.
The revised policy is expected to more clearly spell out what constitutes a whistleblower or integrity matter and where other complaints should be directed.
Who investigates?
Council members also have not decided exactly how investigations would be conducted.
McElynn advocated using outside investigators when allegations rise to the level of requiring a formal investigation. Rather than relying primarily on law firms, he suggested hiring experienced investigators with backgrounds in areas such as criminal investigations, interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence.
The integrity officer would receive and evaluate the allegation, determine whether an outside investigation was warranted, establish a timeline and track the case until a report was completed, McElynn said.
Other complaints could be referred to human resources or county administrators for handling.
Council members also stressed that County Council should remain out of individual investigations.
Cunningham said council’s responsibility is to establish the policy, not become the “gatekeepers” of complaints or involve itself in day-to-day personnel matters.
“We set policy,” Cunningham said.
Handling day-to-day complaints and personnel matters should remain the responsibility of the county administrator and human resources, he said.
The Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee, chaired by Councilman Mark Lawson, is expected to take up the issue again Sept. 21.
County administration will gather additional information from Spartanburg County before that meeting, while the committee continues working to define the integrity officer’s authority, independence and reporting structure and refine proposed changes to the whistleblower policy.
Delayna Earley, who joined The Island News in 2022, formerly worked as a photojournalist for The Island Packet/The Beaufort Gazette, as well as newspapers in Indiana and Virginia. She can be reached at delayna.theislandnews@gmail.com.