PUT COUNCIL’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY MANAGER ON RECORD
The Issue
PUT BEAUFORT CITY COUNCIL’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY MANAGER ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
Petition to the Mayor and City Council of Beaufort, South Carolina
We, the undersigned residents, taxpayers, business owners and members of the greater Beaufort community, respectfully call upon Beaufort City Council to place the following question on the agenda of its next properly noticed regular meeting:
Does City Council retain confidence in City Manager Scott Marshall’s administration, financial oversight, supervision of City staff and management of the affairs of the City of Beaufort?
We ask that Council debate this question publicly, call the roll and require every council member to vote by name.
This petition does not presume how any council member should vote. It does not declare anyone guilty of a crime, demand an immediate termination or attempt to resolve matters currently before a court.
It asks for something far more basic:
Tell the public, on the record, whether Council still has confidence in the official it employs to manage the City.
WHY THIS VOTE IS NECESSARY
Under Beaufort’s council-manager form of government, City Council establishes policy and the city manager administers the City’s daily operations. Council directly employs and evaluates the city manager.
The city manager’s responsibilities include supervising City staff, implementing Council’s policies, administering public funds, overseeing City departments, maintaining effective internal controls and ensuring that information presented to Council and the public is accurate.
Council cannot permanently separate the performance of the organization from the performance of the official responsible for managing it.
Over the past several years, Beaufort has faced a series of significant and recurring concerns involving financial reporting, public-record safeguards, capital-project oversight, litigation, administrative turnover and the City’s treatment of residents and elected officials who ask questions.
Any one incident might be explained as an isolated mistake.
Taken together, they present a legitimate question about management and public confidence that Council should answer openly.
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DOCUMENT CONTROL
City financial documents presented to Council and published for residents have contained conflicting figures, apparent mathematical errors, outdated information and incomplete descriptions of public funding.
Examples identified in City records include:
• Percentage calculations that did not agree with the underlying figures.
• A budget total in meeting minutes that differed from the supporting amounts by approximately $270,000.
• A Capital Projects Fund report showing a negative variance of approximately $36.86 million without a clear explanation on the face of the report.
• Conflicting revenue and expenditure percentages within the same reporting period.
• Capital-project amounts that varied among the adopted budget, staff presentations and other City reporting systems without explaining whether the figures represented total awards, annual appropriations, contracts, expenditures or remaining balances.
• Capital-project slides reporting “funding” without consistently identifying the amount spent, encumbered, remaining or expected as the final project cost.
• An August 19, 2026 agenda request continuing to identify Brian Ranger as the interim Capital Projects Director after the City had publicly announced that Raul Dominguez returned as Capital Improvement Projects Director on August 10.
At a public Council meeting, Finance Director Alan Eisenman confirmed that the 98.6 percent revenue figure identified by a resident was correct, despite conflicting information in the City’s report.
These inconsistencies do not, by themselves, prove that money was stolen, missing or illegally spent. Different figures may represent different accounting periods, project phases, grant awards, appropriations or contract amounts.
The problem is that the City’s documents frequently fail to tell Council and the public which figure represents which category.
Residents should not have to reconstruct the City’s financial position by comparing multiple budgets, meeting packets, spreadsheets and presentations.
That is not meaningful transparency.
TIF II AND APPROXIMATELY $3.64 MILLION IN REMAINING FUNDS
The City administered the TIF II account, which was funded by tax revenues attributable to multiple taxing entities, including the City, Beaufort County and the Beaufort County School District.
Although TIF II ended, millions of dollars remained in the account.
The City’s June 30, 2026 financial report showed an ending balance of approximately $3,644,229.
The reported balance can be reconciled mathematically:
• Beginning balance: $3,957,097
• Interest earned: $147,275
• Capital expenses: $360,143
• Transfer to the First South Carolina Volunteers Park project: $100,000
• Ending balance: $3,644,229
This petition does not claim that the balance disappeared.
The unresolved questions concern what was spent, who authorized the expenditures, whether those expenditures were permissible after the TIF ended and how the remaining principal and applicable interest should be distributed among the participating taxing entities.
The School Board voted publicly to seek the return of the School District’s share, including applicable interest. Board Chair Carlton Dallas subsequently confirmed that the District’s written demand had been properly signed and sent to the City.
The City had said it was awaiting official documentation.
That documentation has now been sent.
The public deserves a complete accounting of the account, including:
• Every expenditure and transfer made after the TIF ended.
• The authority approving each transaction.
• The interest earned and how it was calculated.
• The amount attributable to each taxing entity.
• The City’s response to the School District’s written demand.
• The timetable for resolving and distributing the remaining money.
These are management and financial-oversight questions squarely within Council’s responsibility.
THE FOIA DISCLOSURE AND OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION
In August 2025, the City officially acknowledged that it had inadvertently disclosed information exempt from public release and that the information should not have been produced.
News reports described the disclosure as involving approximately 9,000 unredacted files containing Social Security numbers, attorney-client communications, information concerning City litigation and sensitive police records, including records involving minors.
City Manager Scott Marshall publicly accepted responsibility at the management level, stating:
“I can be held responsible for it. I’m the city manager. Anything that we do that comes in and out of the city is my responsibility.”
The City initially reviewed the incident internally. Council subsequently retained Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd to conduct an outside investigation reporting directly to Council.
The investigation began in September 2025.
In February 2026, Councilman Josh Scallate said the investigation remained ongoing. Following an executive-session update in June 2026, Mayor Phil Cromer said the investigation was approaching its conclusion and expressed hope that it would be completed by the end of the summer. Councilman Scallate said the City would issue a public statement regarding the findings when it was able to do so.
The public deserves that statement, along with the investigation’s findings, recommendations, total taxpayer cost and any corrective or disciplinary action taken, subject only to redactions legally required to protect confidential information.
“TRIVIAL MATTERS,” A TERMINATION MOTION AND A LOSS OF CONFIDENCE
Documents produced in response to a separate FOIA request reveal a serious internal dispute over Council oversight.
On March 19, 2026, Marshall sent Council a letter complaining about a pattern of detailed information requests originating from an individual council member. He wrote that the requests consumed disproportionate staff resources, affected the working environment and could require “more formal avenues” if the concerns continued.
In his response, Councilman Scallate defended the requests as part of Council’s responsibility to ensure accountability, transparency and effective government.
Scallate attributed the following statement to Marshall:
“I don’t spend time or effort chasing trivial matters…if you want me gone to appease your base, then get on with it and make a motion on the dais to terminate my contract.”
Marshall later wrote to Council that the statement attributed to him was “not inaccurate,” although he maintained that it had been presented without its full context.
Scallate responded that Council has both the authority and responsibility to examine records, verify information and determine whether safeguards are functioning properly.
He also wrote:
“It is no secret that I have lost confidence in you.”
This petition does not ask the public to choose between competing accounts of every exchange.
The records establish three important facts:
1. A sitting council member expressly told the city manager that he had lost confidence in him.
2. The city manager acknowledged that the quoted statement telling the council member to make a termination motion was “not inaccurate,” while disputing its presentation and context.
3. No public confidence or termination vote followed.
When an elected council member has communicated a loss of confidence and the city manager himself has invoked the possibility of a public motion concerning his contract, the matter should not remain suspended in private correspondence.
Council should answer it on the dais.
WATERFRONT PARK AND CAPITAL-PROJECT OVERSIGHT
The structural problems affecting Henry C. Chambers Waterfront Park represent one of the largest financial and infrastructure challenges in Beaufort’s history.
The City’s adopted capital planning materials have identified an estimated requirement of approximately $80 million for the larger Waterfront Park project while other presentations have shown substantially smaller amounts for specific phases, engineering or interim work.
The City also redirected approximately $1.248 million previously associated with TIF II toward Waterfront Park-related purposes by removing funding identified for other City Hall and technology projects.
Residents support protecting Waterfront Park. The issue is not whether the park matters. It plainly does.
The issue is whether Council and the public are receiving a complete, consistent picture of:
• The total estimated cost.
• Every committed and anticipated funding source.
• Amounts spent and encumbered.
• The work included in each project phase.
• Interim repairs and access projects.
• The City’s long-term financing plan.
• The effect of those commitments on reserves and other capital needs.
The same reporting problem appears across numerous capital projects: funding totals are shown without consistently disclosing contracts, expenditures, remaining balances, change orders, completion percentages or estimated final costs.
Before Beaufort assumes tens of millions of dollars in obligations, its elected officials and residents need reliable, understandable reporting.
SAFE HARBOR LITIGATION
Protect Beaufort Foundation filed litigation challenging City actions associated with the Safe Harbor property and lease.
The lawsuit remains a legal dispute, and its allegations have not been finally adjudicated. This petition does not claim otherwise.
However, Marshall publicly characterized it as a “nuisance lawsuit” and reportedly stated:
“The only thing Beaufort needs protection from is the Protect Beaufort Foundation.”
Government officials have every right to defend the City’s legal position.
But residents also have the right to question whether public criticism of litigants and concerned citizens reflects the professional, neutral approach expected from the City’s chief administrator—particularly while the underlying legal questions remain unresolved.
The people raising concerns did not create the documents, votes or procedural history at issue.
They examined the public record and challenged the City’s actions through a lawful process.
Disagreement with City Hall is not misconduct.
POLICE-DEPARTMENT LITIGATION
Former Beaufort police officer Stephanie Fritz has filed a lawsuit against the City of Beaufort, current Police Chief Stephenie Price and former Chief Dale McDorman.
The lawsuit reportedly alleges retaliation, improper termination and problems involving the City’s grievance process.
The defendants are entitled to respond, and the allegations have not been proven in court.
Public reporting also states that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division found no criminal wrongdoing by Fritz and that the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy determined that she had not committed misconduct, restored her certification and expunged the related records.
This petition does not ask Council or the public to decide the lawsuit.
It asks Council to consider what the litigation and its underlying administrative process mean for confidence in the supervision of City departments and personnel.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
In February 2025, Marshall made a social-media comment referring to President Donald Trump as a “bullying thug” and suggesting that presidential ghosts should “choke” him.
Marshall had a constitutional right to express a personal political opinion. He later acknowledged that the comment demonstrated regrettable judgment.
The relevance here is not political agreement or disagreement. It is whether the City’s chief administrator exercises the professional judgment expected of a highly compensated public official representing residents with widely differing political views.
The same concern arose when Marshall proposed disabling comments on the City’s Facebook page. That proposal was modified after public resistance.
The City later hired Danielle Cobb as public information officer after Marshall personally recruited her without publicly posting the position. Marshall reportedly stated:
“There’s no requirement for this hire to be transparent.”
This petition makes no criticism of Cobb’s qualifications or performance. The issue is the process and the message conveyed by the City’s chief administrator about transparency in a taxpayer-funded appointment.
Public trust is shaped not only by whether an action is technically permitted but also by whether the process is open, defensible and consistent with the values the City publicly claims to uphold.
COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE BEFORE
In March 2024, Council publicly voted 5–0, following a positive performance evaluation, to increase Marshall’s salary from $150,000 to $175,000 and raise his monthly vehicle allowance from $600 to $800.
Council therefore has an established record of publicly expressing confidence in the city manager when it believed that confidence was warranted.
The public is now entitled to know whether that confidence remains after the events and concerns described in this petition.
WHAT THIS PETITION DOES — AND DOES NOT — ASK
This petition does not ask Council to prejudge pending litigation.
It does not accuse the city manager, any council member or any City employee of committing a crime.
It does not claim that every reporting inconsistency represents missing money or unlawful spending.
It does not demand that Council reach a predetermined result.
It asks Council to perform its responsibility in public.
OUR REQUEST
We ask Mayor Phil Cromer and Beaufort City Council to:
Place the following question on the agenda of the next properly noticed regular Council meeting:
“Does City Council retain confidence in City Manager Scott Marshall’s administration, financial oversight, supervision of City staff and management of the affairs of the City of Beaufort?”
1. Permit public comment on that agenda item before Council votes.
2. Discuss the question publicly to the fullest extent permitted by law.
3. Conduct a recorded roll-call vote so every council member’s position is identified by name.
4. Enter the motion, individual votes and result into the official meeting minutes.
WHY YOUR SIGNATURE MATTERS
This petition is not about personalities, political parties or private grudges.
It is about whether residents can trust the information produced by their government and whether elected officials will publicly exercise the oversight authority voters entrusted to them.
A vote of confidence is not automatically a vote to terminate anyone.
A “yes” vote would tell the public that a council member has reviewed the record and continues to support the city manager’s leadership.
A “no” vote would tell the public that a council member believes a change in leadership or direction is necessary.
Either answer is more accountable than silence.
Beaufort residents should not have to guess where their elected representatives stand.
Place the question on the agenda.
Call the roll.
Vote by name.
Put Council’s confidence - or lack of confidence - on the public record.
88
The Issue
PUT BEAUFORT CITY COUNCIL’S CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY MANAGER ON THE PUBLIC RECORD
Petition to the Mayor and City Council of Beaufort, South Carolina
We, the undersigned residents, taxpayers, business owners and members of the greater Beaufort community, respectfully call upon Beaufort City Council to place the following question on the agenda of its next properly noticed regular meeting:
Does City Council retain confidence in City Manager Scott Marshall’s administration, financial oversight, supervision of City staff and management of the affairs of the City of Beaufort?
We ask that Council debate this question publicly, call the roll and require every council member to vote by name.
This petition does not presume how any council member should vote. It does not declare anyone guilty of a crime, demand an immediate termination or attempt to resolve matters currently before a court.
It asks for something far more basic:
Tell the public, on the record, whether Council still has confidence in the official it employs to manage the City.
WHY THIS VOTE IS NECESSARY
Under Beaufort’s council-manager form of government, City Council establishes policy and the city manager administers the City’s daily operations. Council directly employs and evaluates the city manager.
The city manager’s responsibilities include supervising City staff, implementing Council’s policies, administering public funds, overseeing City departments, maintaining effective internal controls and ensuring that information presented to Council and the public is accurate.
Council cannot permanently separate the performance of the organization from the performance of the official responsible for managing it.
Over the past several years, Beaufort has faced a series of significant and recurring concerns involving financial reporting, public-record safeguards, capital-project oversight, litigation, administrative turnover and the City’s treatment of residents and elected officials who ask questions.
Any one incident might be explained as an isolated mistake.
Taken together, they present a legitimate question about management and public confidence that Council should answer openly.
FINANCIAL REPORTING AND DOCUMENT CONTROL
City financial documents presented to Council and published for residents have contained conflicting figures, apparent mathematical errors, outdated information and incomplete descriptions of public funding.
Examples identified in City records include:
• Percentage calculations that did not agree with the underlying figures.
• A budget total in meeting minutes that differed from the supporting amounts by approximately $270,000.
• A Capital Projects Fund report showing a negative variance of approximately $36.86 million without a clear explanation on the face of the report.
• Conflicting revenue and expenditure percentages within the same reporting period.
• Capital-project amounts that varied among the adopted budget, staff presentations and other City reporting systems without explaining whether the figures represented total awards, annual appropriations, contracts, expenditures or remaining balances.
• Capital-project slides reporting “funding” without consistently identifying the amount spent, encumbered, remaining or expected as the final project cost.
• An August 19, 2026 agenda request continuing to identify Brian Ranger as the interim Capital Projects Director after the City had publicly announced that Raul Dominguez returned as Capital Improvement Projects Director on August 10.
At a public Council meeting, Finance Director Alan Eisenman confirmed that the 98.6 percent revenue figure identified by a resident was correct, despite conflicting information in the City’s report.
These inconsistencies do not, by themselves, prove that money was stolen, missing or illegally spent. Different figures may represent different accounting periods, project phases, grant awards, appropriations or contract amounts.
The problem is that the City’s documents frequently fail to tell Council and the public which figure represents which category.
Residents should not have to reconstruct the City’s financial position by comparing multiple budgets, meeting packets, spreadsheets and presentations.
That is not meaningful transparency.
TIF II AND APPROXIMATELY $3.64 MILLION IN REMAINING FUNDS
The City administered the TIF II account, which was funded by tax revenues attributable to multiple taxing entities, including the City, Beaufort County and the Beaufort County School District.
Although TIF II ended, millions of dollars remained in the account.
The City’s June 30, 2026 financial report showed an ending balance of approximately $3,644,229.
The reported balance can be reconciled mathematically:
• Beginning balance: $3,957,097
• Interest earned: $147,275
• Capital expenses: $360,143
• Transfer to the First South Carolina Volunteers Park project: $100,000
• Ending balance: $3,644,229
This petition does not claim that the balance disappeared.
The unresolved questions concern what was spent, who authorized the expenditures, whether those expenditures were permissible after the TIF ended and how the remaining principal and applicable interest should be distributed among the participating taxing entities.
The School Board voted publicly to seek the return of the School District’s share, including applicable interest. Board Chair Carlton Dallas subsequently confirmed that the District’s written demand had been properly signed and sent to the City.
The City had said it was awaiting official documentation.
That documentation has now been sent.
The public deserves a complete accounting of the account, including:
• Every expenditure and transfer made after the TIF ended.
• The authority approving each transaction.
• The interest earned and how it was calculated.
• The amount attributable to each taxing entity.
• The City’s response to the School District’s written demand.
• The timetable for resolving and distributing the remaining money.
These are management and financial-oversight questions squarely within Council’s responsibility.
THE FOIA DISCLOSURE AND OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION
In August 2025, the City officially acknowledged that it had inadvertently disclosed information exempt from public release and that the information should not have been produced.
News reports described the disclosure as involving approximately 9,000 unredacted files containing Social Security numbers, attorney-client communications, information concerning City litigation and sensitive police records, including records involving minors.
City Manager Scott Marshall publicly accepted responsibility at the management level, stating:
“I can be held responsible for it. I’m the city manager. Anything that we do that comes in and out of the city is my responsibility.”
The City initially reviewed the incident internally. Council subsequently retained Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd to conduct an outside investigation reporting directly to Council.
The investigation began in September 2025.
In February 2026, Councilman Josh Scallate said the investigation remained ongoing. Following an executive-session update in June 2026, Mayor Phil Cromer said the investigation was approaching its conclusion and expressed hope that it would be completed by the end of the summer. Councilman Scallate said the City would issue a public statement regarding the findings when it was able to do so.
The public deserves that statement, along with the investigation’s findings, recommendations, total taxpayer cost and any corrective or disciplinary action taken, subject only to redactions legally required to protect confidential information.
“TRIVIAL MATTERS,” A TERMINATION MOTION AND A LOSS OF CONFIDENCE
Documents produced in response to a separate FOIA request reveal a serious internal dispute over Council oversight.
On March 19, 2026, Marshall sent Council a letter complaining about a pattern of detailed information requests originating from an individual council member. He wrote that the requests consumed disproportionate staff resources, affected the working environment and could require “more formal avenues” if the concerns continued.
In his response, Councilman Scallate defended the requests as part of Council’s responsibility to ensure accountability, transparency and effective government.
Scallate attributed the following statement to Marshall:
“I don’t spend time or effort chasing trivial matters…if you want me gone to appease your base, then get on with it and make a motion on the dais to terminate my contract.”
Marshall later wrote to Council that the statement attributed to him was “not inaccurate,” although he maintained that it had been presented without its full context.
Scallate responded that Council has both the authority and responsibility to examine records, verify information and determine whether safeguards are functioning properly.
He also wrote:
“It is no secret that I have lost confidence in you.”
This petition does not ask the public to choose between competing accounts of every exchange.
The records establish three important facts:
1. A sitting council member expressly told the city manager that he had lost confidence in him.
2. The city manager acknowledged that the quoted statement telling the council member to make a termination motion was “not inaccurate,” while disputing its presentation and context.
3. No public confidence or termination vote followed.
When an elected council member has communicated a loss of confidence and the city manager himself has invoked the possibility of a public motion concerning his contract, the matter should not remain suspended in private correspondence.
Council should answer it on the dais.
WATERFRONT PARK AND CAPITAL-PROJECT OVERSIGHT
The structural problems affecting Henry C. Chambers Waterfront Park represent one of the largest financial and infrastructure challenges in Beaufort’s history.
The City’s adopted capital planning materials have identified an estimated requirement of approximately $80 million for the larger Waterfront Park project while other presentations have shown substantially smaller amounts for specific phases, engineering or interim work.
The City also redirected approximately $1.248 million previously associated with TIF II toward Waterfront Park-related purposes by removing funding identified for other City Hall and technology projects.
Residents support protecting Waterfront Park. The issue is not whether the park matters. It plainly does.
The issue is whether Council and the public are receiving a complete, consistent picture of:
• The total estimated cost.
• Every committed and anticipated funding source.
• Amounts spent and encumbered.
• The work included in each project phase.
• Interim repairs and access projects.
• The City’s long-term financing plan.
• The effect of those commitments on reserves and other capital needs.
The same reporting problem appears across numerous capital projects: funding totals are shown without consistently disclosing contracts, expenditures, remaining balances, change orders, completion percentages or estimated final costs.
Before Beaufort assumes tens of millions of dollars in obligations, its elected officials and residents need reliable, understandable reporting.
SAFE HARBOR LITIGATION
Protect Beaufort Foundation filed litigation challenging City actions associated with the Safe Harbor property and lease.
The lawsuit remains a legal dispute, and its allegations have not been finally adjudicated. This petition does not claim otherwise.
However, Marshall publicly characterized it as a “nuisance lawsuit” and reportedly stated:
“The only thing Beaufort needs protection from is the Protect Beaufort Foundation.”
Government officials have every right to defend the City’s legal position.
But residents also have the right to question whether public criticism of litigants and concerned citizens reflects the professional, neutral approach expected from the City’s chief administrator—particularly while the underlying legal questions remain unresolved.
The people raising concerns did not create the documents, votes or procedural history at issue.
They examined the public record and challenged the City’s actions through a lawful process.
Disagreement with City Hall is not misconduct.
POLICE-DEPARTMENT LITIGATION
Former Beaufort police officer Stephanie Fritz has filed a lawsuit against the City of Beaufort, current Police Chief Stephenie Price and former Chief Dale McDorman.
The lawsuit reportedly alleges retaliation, improper termination and problems involving the City’s grievance process.
The defendants are entitled to respond, and the allegations have not been proven in court.
Public reporting also states that the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division found no criminal wrongdoing by Fritz and that the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy determined that she had not committed misconduct, restored her certification and expunged the related records.
This petition does not ask Council or the public to decide the lawsuit.
It asks Council to consider what the litigation and its underlying administrative process mean for confidence in the supervision of City departments and personnel.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
In February 2025, Marshall made a social-media comment referring to President Donald Trump as a “bullying thug” and suggesting that presidential ghosts should “choke” him.
Marshall had a constitutional right to express a personal political opinion. He later acknowledged that the comment demonstrated regrettable judgment.
The relevance here is not political agreement or disagreement. It is whether the City’s chief administrator exercises the professional judgment expected of a highly compensated public official representing residents with widely differing political views.
The same concern arose when Marshall proposed disabling comments on the City’s Facebook page. That proposal was modified after public resistance.
The City later hired Danielle Cobb as public information officer after Marshall personally recruited her without publicly posting the position. Marshall reportedly stated:
“There’s no requirement for this hire to be transparent.”
This petition makes no criticism of Cobb’s qualifications or performance. The issue is the process and the message conveyed by the City’s chief administrator about transparency in a taxpayer-funded appointment.
Public trust is shaped not only by whether an action is technically permitted but also by whether the process is open, defensible and consistent with the values the City publicly claims to uphold.
COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE BEFORE
In March 2024, Council publicly voted 5–0, following a positive performance evaluation, to increase Marshall’s salary from $150,000 to $175,000 and raise his monthly vehicle allowance from $600 to $800.
Council therefore has an established record of publicly expressing confidence in the city manager when it believed that confidence was warranted.
The public is now entitled to know whether that confidence remains after the events and concerns described in this petition.
WHAT THIS PETITION DOES — AND DOES NOT — ASK
This petition does not ask Council to prejudge pending litigation.
It does not accuse the city manager, any council member or any City employee of committing a crime.
It does not claim that every reporting inconsistency represents missing money or unlawful spending.
It does not demand that Council reach a predetermined result.
It asks Council to perform its responsibility in public.
OUR REQUEST
We ask Mayor Phil Cromer and Beaufort City Council to:
Place the following question on the agenda of the next properly noticed regular Council meeting:
“Does City Council retain confidence in City Manager Scott Marshall’s administration, financial oversight, supervision of City staff and management of the affairs of the City of Beaufort?”
1. Permit public comment on that agenda item before Council votes.
2. Discuss the question publicly to the fullest extent permitted by law.
3. Conduct a recorded roll-call vote so every council member’s position is identified by name.
4. Enter the motion, individual votes and result into the official meeting minutes.
WHY YOUR SIGNATURE MATTERS
This petition is not about personalities, political parties or private grudges.
It is about whether residents can trust the information produced by their government and whether elected officials will publicly exercise the oversight authority voters entrusted to them.
A vote of confidence is not automatically a vote to terminate anyone.
A “yes” vote would tell the public that a council member has reviewed the record and continues to support the city manager’s leadership.
A “no” vote would tell the public that a council member believes a change in leadership or direction is necessary.
Either answer is more accountable than silence.
Beaufort residents should not have to guess where their elected representatives stand.
Place the question on the agenda.
Call the roll.
Vote by name.
Put Council’s confidence - or lack of confidence - on the public record.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on August 26, 2026