Hilton Head council member chastises mayor over closed-door meetings
Closed-door discussions at public meetings have time and time again drawn the ire of critics of the Hilton Head Island Town Council.
The practice is allowed under South Carolina law, but some critics see it as a way of shielding the council from public scorn when discussing matters of high public concern.
One council member is speaking out and openly questioning the council’s use of closed-door discussions.
At a Tuesday meeting, Ward 4 Council Member Tamara Becker called the decision to discuss two items on the agenda in executive session “inappropriate.”
She criticized Mayor Alan Perry, who sets the agenda for the town council, for not answering her questions about why these items warranted private discussion.
“I’m just putting on notice that I’m watching these things carefully,” Becker said.
Residents of the town, she said, are also watching the actions of the town carefully, and whether the council is acting transparently.
“When we lose the faith of those we represent, we lose everything,” Becker said.
What’s this about?
There were two items on the agenda that evening that Becker argued were “not appropriate” to be discussed behind closed doors.
The first relates to the town’s plans for the former Wild Wing Cafe, which it purchased for $4 million in October 2023. The town is negotiating with the owners of Circle Center, the adjoining shopping center, regarding preexisting restrictions on the property.
The second related to “personnel matters,” according to the agenda.
Was it ‘absolutely necessary’?
At the meeting, Becker attempted to bring those items forth for public discussion, but she did not receive a second from another member of the council, and a motion failed.
She read out loud guidance from the Municipal Association of South Carolina, which says use of executive sessions needs to “carefully follow state law” and “be used only when absolutely necessary.”
“I have no idea of what emergency, absolutely necessary confidential discussions need to take place in executive session,” Becker said.
Under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, public bodies are allowed to use executive session for “discussion of employment, appointment, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline or release of an employee, or an appointment to a public body.”
Certain legal matters, such as real estate deals, are also allowed to be discussed privately.
Specifically, the law allows public bodies to use executive session for “discussion of negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements, discussions of a proposed sale or purchase or property, receipt of legal advice, settlement of legal claims or discussions of the public agency’s position in adversary situations, discussion about development of security personnel or devices.”
At the meeting, Becker said she was “disappointed” with her fellow council members for not siding with her in her attempts to open the items up for public discussion.
“You might hear irritation in my voice,” Becker said. “I’m irritated.”
Addressing her constituents, Becker said, “I’m looking out for you, and I hope you appreciate it.”
Ward 5 Council Member Steve Alfred told The Island Packet that the remaining six members of the council believe the items are “entirely appropriate” for executive session, and that the council is “very careful” to make sure they’re following the rules.
“There is no abusing [of executive session] in any way,” Alfred said.
Why do people care?
The council has been criticized in the past for its use of closed-door discussions to talk about things relevant to the public interest.
For example, last year, amidst contentious public debates over whether to instate a moratorium on short-term rentals, the council moved to seek legal advice behind close doors before discussing the matter publicly.
Discussions about the town’s highly-scrutinized agreement with the Hilton Head-Bluffton Chamber of Commerce also took place exclusively behind closed doors last year. In years prior, heated debates about how transparent the chamber should be with the millions in public money it receives were held in the public eye.
The Circle Center deal matters to taxpayers who fund Hilton Head real estate purchases through real estate transfer fees. It also matters to residents, who have been waiting for answers as to what the town plans to do with the property to benefit the public good, and to tourists, who are wondering when or if the town will build new public parking on that property.
Despite the public’s interest in the deal, Alfred said the Freedom of Information Act is “pretty clear.”
“Real estate matters is an appropriate subject for executive session,” Alfred said. “To disclose what we may or may not be interested in doing and might agree to in advance of executing the contract is probably a bad idea.”
This story was originally published March 12, 2026 at 9:26 AM.
