Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Beaufort County votes down local hate‑intimidation ordinance; USCB convocation funding also fails after debate
Loading...
Summary
Council rejected a proposed county hate‑intimidation ordinance at second reading after objections over First Amendment risks and constitutionality; a separate motion to reallocate roughly $11.1 million in county funds for a proposed USCB convocation center also failed at first reading amid concerns about timing, traffic and priorities.
Two contentious items dominated the latter part of Beaufort County Council’s April 27 meeting: a proposed county hate‑intimidation ordinance and a funding request for a University of South Carolina Beaufort (USCB) convocation center.
Hate‑intimidation ordinance: The measure, drafted by staff following direction from the community services committee, would have created a county criminal offense for intimidation based on protected characteristics. Staff noted earlier versions considered a criminal penalty with a 500‑foot distance provision but that committee and solicitor input led to a narrower local criminal/misdemeanor draft; county counsel reiterated the attorney general had flagged constitutional concerns and recommended state legislative action as the stronger path. Multiple council members warned the ordinance risked First Amendment overreach or trivializing serious crimes at the local level. On roll call the ordinance did not receive the votes necessary to advance and "died" at second reading.
USCB convocation center funding: Council considered two related first‑reading ordinances that together would have appropriated $1.6 million from fund balance and redirected $9.5 million of GO bond proceeds — a combined roughly $11.1 million — to help build a convocation center at USCB. Several council members objected to using county general funds or bond proceeds for the project now, citing traffic, timing, and the university’s obligation to pursue state and private funding. Supporters argued the center would benefit local students and the county. The roll‑call vote failed; the ordinances did not move forward.
Other related actions: Council did advance a civil‑penalty ordinance covering wrongful discharge of firearms in certain unincorporated areas (staff and council emphasized the measure is civil, not criminal, after an earlier criminal version failed). Council also approved multiple non‑controversial ordinances, housing conveyances and routine appointments.
The council discussion underscored the legal and policy limits of county‑level ordinances on speech‑adjacent matters and the political tradeoffs involved in using local public funds for large institutional projects. Officials and staff repeatedly recommended pursuing state‑level statute for hate‑crime protections rather than relying on a locally enacted criminal ordinance.
The hate‑intimidation ordinance failed on roll call and the USCB funding motion failed on roll call; both items may return in other forms (the council previously adopted a resolution urging the state legislature to consider hate‑crime legislation).
