Opinion ID: 2809226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FOIA Violations

Text: Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in finding that between January and September 2013 respondents complied with the FOIA's requirement that the specific purpose of the executive session10 be announced in open session. The circuit court held an announcement that the purpose of the executive session was (c) redevelopment is in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the municipality. 9 In light of this ruling, we do not address the additional grounds upon which the circuit court upheld the ordinance. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999). 10 S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-70(b) (2007). the discussion of a proposed contractual matter satisfied the specific purpose requirement. We agree with appellant that the FOIA was violated. Section 30-4-70(a) (2007) allows a public body to hold a closed meeting for any one of five reasons. If such a closed executive session is to be held, its specific purpose must be announced in the open session. Specific purpose is defined by statute as: a description of the matter to be discussed as identified in items (1) through (5) of subsection (a) of this section. However, when the executive session is held pursuant to Sections 30-4- 70(a)(1) or 30-4-70(a)(5), the identity of the individual or entity being discussed is not required to be disclosed to satisfy the requirement that the specific purpose of the executive session be stated. § 30-4-70(b). Subsection (a)(1) covers employment matters while (a)(5) covers Discussion of matters related to the proposed location, expansion, or the provision of services encouraging location or expansion of industries or other business in the area served by the public body. Here, respondents did not invoke either (a)(1) or (a)(5), but rather, in each of the eleven executive sessions challenged by appellant, the minutes reflect respondents invoked only § 30-4-70(a)(2), and merely stated that the specific purpose of the meeting was to be a contractual matter. In Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 345 S.C. 156, 547 S.E.2d 862 (2001), the Court was asked to determine whether the city had met the specific purpose requirement of the FOIA before going into executive session. In that case, the written agenda reflected as item 4(C) Towing-Contractual Recommendation. When item 4(C) was reached, the City Council minutes reflect: C. Towing -- Contractual Recommendation Mayor Grissom advised this matter would be discussed in Executive Session Upon motion Councilman Cain, seconded by Councilman Woods, Council voted unanimously to go into executive session. Id. at 164, 547 S.E.2d at 866. In finding this notice insufficient, Court said: FOIA is clear in its mandate that the specific purpose of the session shall be announced. (emphasis added in original opinion). Therefore, FOIA is not satisfied merely because citizens have some idea of what a public body might discuss in private. As evidenced by the minutes, the presiding officer did not announce the specific purpose of the executive session. This was a violation of FOIA. The City argues, even if there was no specific purpose announced, reversal is not warranted because substantial compliance with FOIA should be found when only a technical violation has occurred, and there has been no demonstrated effect on a complaining party. See Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart, 319 S.C. 124, 459 S.E.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1995). However, given the history and the purpose of FOIA, this was more than a technical violation. The statute clearly mandates the specific purpose of the session must be announced. Id. The circuit court erred in finding that respondents satisfied the FOIA's specific purpose requirement when they announced the specific purpose of the executive session in these types of general terms: ITEM 1. LEGAL: Executive Session-Request of the City Administrator Upon the request of the City Administrator and in accordance with Section 30-4-70 (a) (2) and on motion by Councilmember Baggott, second by Councilmember Adams, City Council unanimously voted to go into executive session for the purpose of discussion of negotiations incident to 1 proposed contractual matter. On motion by Councilmember McDowell, second by Mayor Jones, the executive session was adjourned. There was nothing to report out.11 Having found respondents violated the FOIA, we now remand the issue to determine what relief, if any, appellant is entitled to as a result of these violations. Quality Towing, supra. Since none of the challenged executive sessions related to Ord. No. 2013-19, we disagree with appellant's contention that the FOIA violations would support the invalidation of Ord. No. 2013-19. On remand, the circuit court shall limit its consideration of possible remedies to attorneys' fees and/or costs and/or prospective injunctive relief relating to future executive sessions. See Sloan v. South Carolina Dep't of Rev., 409 S.C. 551, 762 S.E.2d 682 (2014).