785 S.E.2d 198
S.C.2016Background
- Petitioner Stephen Brock challenged the Town of Mount Pleasant under the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after Town Council took actions in open session following executive sessions at special meetings without the agendas indicating action would be taken.
- The contested meetings were "special meetings," for which FOIA then required public notice including an agenda at least 24 hours before the meeting.
- Trial court granted partial relief to Brock but ruled against him on whether matters added to an executive-session agenda may be acted on when the body reconvenes.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court, relying on this Court's Lambries decision about agenda amendments at regularly scheduled meetings.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the Town violated FOIA by taking unnoticed action at special meetings after executive sessions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Town violated FOIA by taking action in open session on items discussed in executive session when agendas did not indicate action would be taken | Brock: Special-meeting agendas must give notice if action may follow executive session; taking unnoticed action violates FOIA | Town: Lambries permits amending agendas and FOIA does not forbid action following executive session; no violation | Held: Town technically violated FOIA; action at special meetings must be noticed as potentially actionable when reconvening from executive session |
| Whether Lambries (about regular meetings) controls amendment/notice rules for special meetings | Brock: Lambries is distinguishable because it concerned regularly scheduled meetings where agendas were not required at the time | Town: Lambries supports flexible amendment/notice approach and was relied upon by Court of Appeals | Held: Lambries does not control special meetings; the Court of Appeals erred in equating the two contexts |
| How specific agendas must be about actions following executive session | Brock: Agendas must give notice of potential action on items discussed in executive session | Town: Listing an executive session provides adequate notice that matters may be discussed and possibly acted upon later | Held: Agendas need not specify exact actions, but must indicate that action may be taken upon return to open session for items discussed in executive session at a special meeting |
| Preservation/effect of Town Council’s subsequent ratification of unnoticed actions | Brock: Issues concerning preservation and ratification were properly raised below and matter for review | Town: Court of Appeals held some issues not preserved | Held: Court of Appeals erred in finding some issues unpreserved, but because Brock did not seek to void Town actions, the Court declined to resolve the ratification issues on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambries v. Saluda Cnty. Council, 409 S.C. 1 (2014) (distinguished: held FOIA did not bar amending agendas for regularly scheduled meetings where agendas were not required at the time)
- Wiedemann v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 330 S.C. 532 (1999) (discusses FOIA purpose to prevent secret government activity)
- Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell, 291 S.C. 4 (1986) (held FOIA does not require posting an agenda or media notice for executive session topics)
- Elam v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9 (2004) (articulates issue-preservation rule for appellate review)