Opinion ID: 1344687
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: foia violation

Text: It is undisputed the Delegation's February 16, 1994 meeting was a properly noticed, open public meeting. It is also undisputed that a majority (10 out of 19) [4] of the Delegation recommended Mock's appointment to the Governor. However, the recommendation was accomplished by sending around a sign-up sheet at a meeting of the Delegation. The sign-up sheet was announced by Rep. Harrell prior to being circulated. The sign-up sheet began circulation with 2 signatures endorsed; the record does not reveal whether the signatures were placed on the letter during the course of, or prior to, the meeting. Respondents contend this informal letter-signing procedure violated FOIA requirements that the recommendation take place during the course of an official meeting. [5] We disagree. South Carolina's FOIA was designed to guarantee the public reasonable access to certain activities of the government. Martin v. Ellisor, 264 S.C. 202, 213 S.E.2d 732 (1975). S.C.Code Ann. § 30-4-60 requires that every meeting of a public body be open to the public unless it is closed pursuant to section 30-4-70(a), which provides that a public body may hold a closed meeting for, inter alia, (1) Discussion of . . . appointment . . . of an employee ... or the appointment of a person to a public body . . . (6) Prior to going into executive session the public agency shall vote in public on the question and when such vote is favorable the presiding officer shall announce the specific purpose of the executive session. No formal action may be taken in executive session. As used in this item formal action means a recorded vote committing the body concerned to a specific course of action. No vote may be taken in executive session. Although formal action is defined as a recorded vote, nothing in section 30-4-70 requires such a vote to be by open roll-call. We find the circulation of a letter, at an open, public meeting, at which each individual member signs his recommendation is in compliance with subsection six. So long as the vote is taken at an open public meeting, and the public is able to glean the results and how each member voted, there is no FOIA violation. Moreover, it is clear from the attendance reflected in the minutes of the meeting that all 10 members who signed the letter were present at the meeting. Accordingly, it is apparent that the two members who signed prematurely adhered to their signatures. Since this was done during the course of an open public meeting, the Delegation sufficiently complied with the FOIA. See Multimedia, Inc. v. Greenville Airport Comm'n, 287 S.C. 521, 339 S.E.2d 884 (1986) (substantial compliance with the Act will satisfy its requirements where a technical violation has no demonstrated effect on a complaining party). [6] We find the trial court erred in granting an injunction based upon violation of the FOIA. We therefore dissolve the injunction. The judgment below is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. FINNEY, C.J., and TOAL, MOORE and BURNETT, JJ., concur.