767 S.E.2d 203
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Stephen Brock sued the Town of Mount Pleasant under South Carolina’s FOIA and RRA challenging how the Town noticed meetings, announced executive-session purposes, and handled e-mail records; the trial court granted some relief and awarded $42,000 in fees.
- Disputed events arose from three special Town Council meetings in Nov.–Dec. 2007 concerning the proposed purchase/settlement over the O.K. Tire Store (Shem Creek property) and related personnel/appointment matters.
- At the November 13 meeting the posted agenda listed only broad executive-session items; council amended the agenda in session, held an executive session, and later authorized the Town Attorney to "move forward" and authorized council members to obtain individual attorneys for Town litigation.
- At the November 16 and December 5 meetings council likewise amended agendas, held executive sessions for legal/personnel matters, reconvened, and took public actions (e.g., rejecting an offer; approving settlement and authorizing funds).
- Depositions showed councilmembers used private e-mail accounts for town business and routinely deleted messages; the Town later adopted a computer/e-mail policy and issued town e-mail computers.
- The trial court found some FOIA violations (not all challenged on appeal), denied a past-RRA violation finding on e-mail deletions, dismissed the notice claim as to Dec. 5 agenda additions, and awarded injunctive relief plus attorney’s fees; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acting on items added to a special meeting agenda without prior public notice violated FOIA notice provisions | Brock: Adding items in executive session and then acting on them after reconvening violated §30-4-80 and cannot be cured by later ratification | Town: FOIA requires posting agendas for special meetings but does not require listing the exact action to be taken; amendments and acting after reconvening are permitted | Affirmed: Court held FOIA does not prohibit acting on items added to a special-meeting agenda upon reconvening to open session |
| Whether Town failed to announce the "specific purpose" of executive sessions in violation of §30-4-70(b) | Brock: Announcements were too generic (e.g., "legal advice") and failed to identify the specific item types listed in statute | Town: Announcements and attorney/staff clarifications sufficiently identified the statutory categories for Nov. 16 and Dec. 5 | Mixed: Reversed as to Nov. 13 (insufficient specificity); affirmed as to Nov. 16 and Dec. 5 (sufficient specificity) |
| Whether past deletion of councilmembers' e-mails violated the Public Records Retention Act | Brock: Routine deletion of town-business e-mails on private accounts violated RRA and warrants a declaratory finding | Town: Law in this area is evolving; Town later implemented a retention/computer policy and issued town e-mail accounts | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion in declining declaratory judgment on past deletions; injunctive relief preventing future unlawful destruction remains in place |
| Whether attorney’s fees and costs award was correct | Brock: Entitled to full fees/costs for prevailing on multiple FOIA claims | Town: (implicit) fees must be reasonable and apportioned where plaintiff only prevailed in part | Remanded: Because court found an additional FOIA violation (Nov. 13 specific-purpose), remand required for reconsideration of reasonable fees and allocation under FOIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambries v. Saluda Cnty. Council, 409 S.C. 1, 760 S.E.2d 785 (S.C. 2014) (supreme court reversed earlier decision restricting amendment of published agendas and declined to impose non‑statutory limits)
- Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 345 S.C. 156, 547 S.E.2d 862 (S.C. 2001) (meeting record failed to announce specific purpose of executive session)
- Piedmont Public Service Dist. v. Cowart, 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (S.C. 1996) (1987 FOIA amendments prohibit voting in executive session and eliminated ratification of secret votes)
- Multimedia, Inc. v. Greenville Airport Comm’n, 287 S.C. 521, 339 S.E.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1986) (discussed in context of ratification and notice principles)
- Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell County, 291 S.C. 4, 351 S.E.2d 878 (Ct. App. 1987) (FOIA does not require posting or notifying the media of an executive-session agenda)