September 29, 2015
In the 2015 case of Stephen P. Donohue v. City of North Augusta, the South Carolina Supreme Court (SCSC) held that a public body describing an executive session as a “proposed contractual matter” is not specific enough to comply with the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
In its majority opinion, the SCSC noted that state law allows a public body to hold a closed meeting for any reason allowed under Section 30-4-70 (a) (1) – Section 30-4-70 (a) (6) of the South Carolina Code of Laws, as long as the “specific purpose” is announced in the body’s open meeting.
If a public body holds an executive session for purposes described in Section 30-4-70 (a) (1) or 30-4-70 (a) (5), it does not have to disclose the identity of the individual or entity being discussed.
During the council meetings considered in the case, the SCSC stated that city council did not invoke either subsection that specifically allows the individual’s or entity’s identity to be withheld. Instead, in each executive session Donohue challenged, the minutes reflect the city council’s executive session occurring for a “contractual matter.” The SCSC determined that North Augusta had not met the “specific purpose” requirement.
In light of the SCSC’s decision, our recommendation for Best Practices is that for public bodies entering executive session, it would be prudent that the motion to enter executive session include the Code section along with the Code’s wording that allows the body to enter executive session.
For example, “Pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(1) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, I move that this body enter executive session for the purpose of discussing compensation for the fire chief.”
In addition, with a lack of clarity in the ruling (in terms of information included in the announcement of the body entering executive session), we recommend that public entities that reside under the provisions of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act consult their legal counsels before moving to executive session.
Documentation:
- Donohue v City of North Augusta
- Section 30-4-70 Detailing Valid Reasons for Closing a Public Meeting
NOTE: Nothing above is offered as legal advice, and nothing above should be construed as a substitute for retained legal advice. If you find yourself in need of professional legal services or require legal representation, contact an attorney.
PHOTO CREDIT: Michael Harrison / Distributed Under Creative Commons.
