Investigation disputes reasons for ending Harriott’s employment, raises concerns about leadership; additional findings are expected
By Delayna Earley
The Island News
An independent investigation into Beaufort County’s administration has raised serious questions about the circumstances surrounding the departure of former Chief Financial Officer Pinky Harriott, finding that three of the four matters used to justify her separation from county employment were not supported by the evidence reviewed.
The 14-page report from the Quick Group, released Tuesday, Oct. 20, also identifies shortcomings in the county’s internal investigations, conflicting accounts involving County Administrator Michael Moore and concerns about employee complaints involving Finance Director Sandy Novak that were left out of the county’s original investigative findings.
Novak, who joined Beaufort County in April 2025, had previously faced public criticism over her management of the Finance Department in Josephine County, Oregon. Similar concerns about her leadership and employee relations were raised during the Quick Group investigation.
Investigators found that Harriott had been making substantial progress on a performance improvement plan when she left the county in May, and that actions described by the administration as grounds for termination were, in some instances, appropriate responses to problems within county government.
But the report may not be the final word.
During an Oct. 12 County Council meeting, Vice Chair Anna Maria Tabernik questioned whether Quick Group had completed the investigation council originally requested. Council Chair Alice Howard confirmed that a supplement to the report was expected, although no timeline for its completion was announced.
The report’s release comes after weeks of disagreement among council members over when the findings should be made public and what should happen next.
How the investigation began
County Council unanimously authorized hiring Quick Group in June to conduct an administrative inquiry involving departments and personnel under Moore’s supervision.
The Charleston-area investigative firm was retained July 10 through the law firm Howell, Gibson and Hughes, P.A.
According to the report, the investigation examined four matters that began with an anonymous complaint about the Finance Department in February and eventually became the basis for Harriott’s departure.
Those matters involved the department’s work environment, a deficit in a Human Services account, the deletion of electronic files and a management letter issued by the county’s outside auditing firm, Mauldin & Jenkins.
Quick Group conducted 43 interviews, compared with 26 interviews conducted during the county’s original Human Resources investigation.
Harriott, who had served as CFO for approximately a year and a half, left county employment effective May 12.
At the time, the county would confirm only that she was no longer employed. The circumstances of her departure were not publicly explained.
A June 11 letter bearing Moore’s name and title subsequently outlined the administration’s reasons for separating Harriott from employment.
Quick Group’s findings challenge much of that explanation. Workplace complaints had merit, but improvement was underway
The investigation began with an anonymous complaint received Feb. 23 concerning Harriott’s management style and the work environment within the Finance Department.
The county’s Human Resources Department investigated, conducting 26 interviews and issuing a report March 19 that identified five areas of concern.
Harriott was placed on a performance improvement plan March 27.
Quick Group agreed that the original complaints had sufficient merit to warrant intervention by county administration.
However, investigators also found that Harriott was complying with the improvement plan and that employees had reported significant improvements in her conduct. At the time of her departure, she was approximately halfway through the plan.
Investigators also found that a substantial number of employees outside the Finance Department spoke positively about Harriott, an important consideration given that her position required extensive interaction with other county departments.
The report notes that approximately half of the employees working within the Finance Department building expressed concerns involving Harriott and Novak.
But while complaints about Harriott were included in the county’s investigative findings, concerns involving Novak were omitted.
Quick Group found that both the county’s original interviews and its own investigation had identified concerns about Novak’s conduct, support and performance.
The report states that Deputy County Administrator Nicole Wood had reviewed the underlying interviews and was aware of additional concerns beyond those addressed in the county’s report.
Since the original investigation, three Finance Department employees had resigned, all citing issues involving Novak, according to Quick Group.
The investigators concluded that those concerns should have been considered by upper management to provide a more complete understanding of the department’s problems.
Human Services deficit
The second matter involved allegations that Harriott provided misinformation to County Council about a negative balance in a Human Services account associated with the Cozy program.
During a March 2 committee meeting, Harriott discussed the account’s negative balance and indicated that she did not know why certain revenue from previous years had not been received.
A subsequent complaint alleged that the revenue had, in fact, been received.
Quick Group found that the revenue had been properly recorded but that the account still had a negative balance, as Harriott had told council.
Investigators also determined that the information concerning the revenue had not been provided to Harriott before her comments.
The report describes discussions about potentially merging Human Services into the NexusCare program to provide more sustainable funding. Investigators found that Harriott had not recommended eliminating the department, contrary to language in the June 11 letter.
Instead, she had encouraged efforts to obtain additional grant funding to sustain services.
Quick Group concluded that the matter did not support the administration’s stated justification for Harriott’s departure.
Deleted files or protected information?
One of the most significant disagreements between Quick Group and county administration concerns Harriott’s deletion of electronic files from a shared Capital Improvement Projects SharePoint folder.
The June 11 separation letter described the deletions as unauthorized and stated that they alone were sufficient grounds for termination. Quick Group reached a different conclusion.
According to the report, Harriott discovered the files Jan. 27 while assisting another county official with an authorized matter involving the department’s SharePoint system.
The folder contained files from Harriott’s previous employment with the county, including restricted salary information for county employees.
The files had been copied into the Capital Improvement Projects system after Harriott left her earlier position in 2023. As a result, employees in that department could access information that was outside their responsibilities.
Investigators found that Harriott deleted the folder after recognizing the sensitive nature of its contents and informed the appropriate county official of her actions.
The report also states that the files remained on Harriott’s county-issued laptop because her previous computer files had been restored when she returned to county employment in 2024.
During a May 7 meeting, Harriott told Wood the files were still on her computer and turned the laptop toward her to show her, according to Quick Group.
Despite that explanation, investigators found that the administration apparently did not inspect the laptop before concluding that the files had been improperly deleted.
Quick Group also disputed claims that the deleted files were regularly used by county employees, finding that the folder’s records had generally not been accessed since 2023.
The firm concluded that Harriott had authority over the information, that her actions were consistent with her responsibilities and that removing restricted salary information from an improperly accessible location reflected sound judgment.
Investigators also found that employees had not received training on county procedures governing the deletion of electronic files.
The findings raise questions about the county’s handling of sensitive personnel information, its electronic records practices and the accuracy of the allegations used to justify Harriott’s departure.
An audit letter and conflicting accounts
The fourth matter involved a management letter issued by Mauldin & Jenkins following the county’s annual financial audit.
According to Quick Group, the letter was distributed to County Council members at Moore’s direction and placed on an executive-session agenda the evening before Harriott’s departure.
But investigators found that the letter did not identify serious deficiencies in the county’s financial management.
Quick Group interviewed the firm’s audit partner, who described the county’s audit as clean, with no material deficiencies.
The management letter contained six recommendations related primarily to accounting procedures and preparation for future audits.
The audit partner told investigators the recommendations were not matters of significant concern and were intended to assist finance staff in preparing for the following year’s audit.
He also expressed concern about repeated turnover in the county’s CFO and Finance Director positions since 2016.
Quick Group concluded that the management letter had been used for a purpose different from what its author intended and questioned its inclusion among the reasons for Harriott’s separation.
The investigation also uncovered conflicting accounts about a proposed termination of Novak.
According to Quick Group, Harriott and Moore had discussed concerns about Novak’s performance for several months and had agreed to move forward with terminating her employment before April.
Investigators found that Moore directed Harriott to include the auditor’s management letter among the supporting documentation submitted to Human Resources.
However, the June 11 letter concerning Harriott’s departure stated that Moore had not approved the proposed termination.
Quick Group found that account inconsistent with information obtained during its interviews, which indicated Moore had initially approved the action.
Novak remains the county’s Finance Director.
Novak faced similar complaints in Oregon
Concerns about Finance Director Sandy Novak’s management style are not limited to her time in Beaufort County.
Before joining the county in May 2025, Novak served as Finance Director for Josephine County, Oregon, where her departure followed public criticism of her leadership, employee relations and compensation.
In a March 8, 2025, article published by the Grants Pass Tribune, JJ Scofield, who identified himself as the former Josephine County human resources director responsible for hiring Novak, raised concerns about her tenure overseeing the county’s finances.
Scofield wrote that Novak initially demonstrated technical competence and dedication but struggled with employee relations and leadership.
According to his account, Josephine County’s Finance Department experienced significant employee turnover under Novak’s leadership. He described complaints from current and former employees involving inadequate training, poor communication, insufficient support and a management style that alternated between micromanagement and neglect.
Scofield also alleged that the department ranked last in a countywide customer satisfaction survey and that financial management problems had emerged during budget discussions.
The article also questioned Novak’s compensation and her participation in a voluntary employee resignation program.
According to Scofield, Novak assumed additional responsibilities overseeing Josephine County’s Human Resources Department and received a salary increase that brought her annual compensation to approximately $184,000.
He questioned the salary comparisons used to justify the increase, arguing that the compensation exceeded what similar counties paid their finance directors.
Scofield also estimated that Novak received approximately $80,000 through Josephine County’s voluntary resignation program, which offered eligible employees compensation to leave county employment.
The reported compensation figures and the circumstances surrounding Novak’s departure have not been independently confirmed.
The Oregon article did not establish that Novak engaged in misconduct, and Scofield acknowledged that there was no direct evidence she influenced the resignation program for her own benefit.
However, the previously published concerns about Novak’s management are notable in light of Quick Group’s findings in Beaufort County.
Investigators reported that employee complaints involving Novak were omitted from Beaufort County’s original internal investigative findings, even though county administrators were aware of them.
Quick Group also reported that three Finance Department employees resigned citing concerns involving Novak.
It is not known whether Beaufort County officials were aware of the criticism surrounding Novak’s previous employment when she was hired or whether those concerns were considered during the hiring process.
The Island News is seeking comment from Novak and Beaufort County administration regarding her previous employment, the hiring process and the findings of the Quick Group investigation.
Who wrote the separation letter?
Questions about the June 11 letter extend beyond the findings it contains.
The letter was issued nearly a month after Harriott’s departure and bears Moore’s name and title.
But Quick Group reported that Moore told investigators he was not the author.
According to the report, the letter was provided to Moore, Wood and the county attorney by the Human Resources director.
The report does not identify who originally drafted the letter or establish who approved its contents.
Investigators repeatedly disputed statements contained in the document, particularly those involving the deletion of files, the Human Services account and the proposed termination of Novak.
The report concludes that the county’s internal investigations were materially incomplete, undermining the basis for Harriott’s separation.
The findings do not establish that Harriott was unlawfully terminated or that any county official committed a crime. They do, however, raise questions about how the administration investigated employee complaints, evaluated evidence and documented its personnel decisions.
Other county operations examined
Although much of the report focuses on Harriott’s departure, Quick Group also examined three other matters involving county operations: a proposed consolidation of fire districts, delays in putting a body scanner into service at the Beaufort County Detention Center and contracts for inmate medical care.
On fire district consolidation, investigators found that the effort faced substantial financial and operational obstacles.
Fire chiefs interviewed by Quick Group generally agreed that consolidation would be difficult and questioned whether it would reduce costs. Concerns included differences in tax rates, district funding and the potential effects on emergency service coverage.
The report states that a proposed consolidation study ultimately went unfunded after money designated for the work was redirected.
Investigators also examined delays involving a Tek84 body scanner purchased for the detention center in fall 2024 using federal grant money.
The equipment required additional training, regulatory approvals and safety measures before it could legally be operated. Quick Group concluded that the delays were reasonable under the circumstances, citing staffing shortages and other operational challenges.
The scanner has been in use since approximately June 2026, according to the report.
The third matter involved contracts for medical services at the detention center.
After the previous provider declined to renew its contract, the county entered into a temporary emergency agreement with Advanced Care Health to avoid an interruption in inmate medical services.
The report states that the temporary provider performed poorly, according to the assistant county administrator overseeing the detention center.
Following a competitive procurement process, 22nd Century began providing medical services around July 2026.
Recommendations for change
Quick Group’s recommendations extend beyond the circumstances surrounding Harriott’s departure.
The firm recommended that county officials clarify the distinction between ordinary employee complaints and whistleblower complaints, noting confusion among employees about which concerns qualify for whistleblower protections.
Investigators also recommended better guidance on when workplace complaints should be handled through department leadership rather than Human Resources.
The firm suggested that the county consider creating an ombudsman position staffed by someone with investigative experience to help evaluate and direct employee complaints.
Another recommendation concerns the handling of electronic files belonging to former employees.
Quick Group found that the county’s practice of copying departing employees’ computer files into shared departmental folders could expose sensitive information to employees who should not have access to it.
The firm recommended additional review before those records are made available to entire departments.
Investigators also called for a review of county records retention policies and clearer guidance to employees about proper procedures.
Council divided over release
The report’s release followed several contentious County Council meetings.
Council members first heard from Quick Group during an executive session Oct. 5 but took no public action afterward.
At the Oct. 12 meeting, members disagreed over whether the report should be released immediately or whether Moore should be given additional time to respond. A motion to release the findings that evening failed 5-6.
Council subsequently scheduled a special meeting for Oct. 19 to revisit the matter.
After another executive session Monday evening, Councilman Logan Cunningham moved to release the report by noon Tuesday and waive attorney-client privilege concerning the document.
The motion passed unanimously.
Before the vote, Cunningham cautioned that releasing the report without taking additional action did not mean the matter was finished.
“Just because no action is taken today does not mean that any other actions or questions cannot be taken further,” Cunningham said.
He also encouraged residents to read the findings, noting that taxpayer money had been spent on the investigation.
Council adjourned without announcing any personnel or administrative action related to the findings.
Additional findings still expected
The report released Tuesday may not be the final word from Quick Group.
During County Council’s Oct. 12 meeting, Tabernik questioned whether the investigative firm had completed the assignment council originally gave it.
Tabernik said council had requested a data-driven investigation into four specific areas and expressed concern that the work presented did not fully address those requests.
Howard confirmed during the discussion that a supplement to the report was expected but had not yet been received.
No timeline for the additional findings was established during the public discussion.
The distinction is significant because the report released Tuesday focuses heavily on the circumstances surrounding Harriott’s departure, while council’s original authorization called for a broader administrative inquiry into departments under Moore’s supervision.
It remains unclear which portions of the original investigation will be addressed in the supplement, whether additional interviews or document reviews are being conducted, or when the findings will be made public.
The county’s Tuesday announcement described the released document as the Quick Group report but did not address the supplement discussed by council members the previous week.
What happens next?
Although the Quick Group report raises questions about the county administration’s handling of Harriott’s departure and employee complaints involving Novak, additional investigative findings are expected.
Council members have not announced whether the findings will result in personnel decisions, policy changes or additional action involving Moore or other county employees.
The county has appointed D. Allen Milburn as its new chief financial officer, effective Nov. 2.
The Island News has prepared questions for county administration regarding the findings, including the authorship of the June 11 separation letter, the handling of complaints involving Novak and the administration’s response to the conclusions reached by Quick Group.
Questions have also been directed to County Council members concerning the scope of the supplemental investigation, whether they are satisfied with the findings released so far and what additional action they believe may be necessary.
For now, the report provides some answers about what happened inside Beaufort County’s Finance Department, but with additional investigative findings still expected, questions remain about the full extent of the problems identified and how County Council intends to address them.
The full 14-page report is available through the Beaufort County website.
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.