814 S.E.2d 513
S.C.2018Background
- DomainsNewMedia filed a declaratory judgment action seeking FOIA disclosure from the Hilton Head Island–Bluffton Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber), arguing the Chamber is a "public body" because it receives and spends accommodation (A‑Tax) funds.
- The Chamber is a private nonprofit and long‑standing designated marketing organization (DMO) for local governments; it received A‑Tax allocations and a PRT grant governed by S.C. Code § 6‑4‑10(3) and Proviso 39.2 (2012–2013).
- A‑Tax law requires DMOs to submit budgets, render year‑end accountings to the local government, and triggers multi‑layer oversight (local advisory committee, Accommodations Tax Oversight Committee, and the Tourism Expenditure Review Committee (TERC)); PRT grants require annual reporting to legislative committees and DNR.
- Domains’ FOIA request sought broad Chamber records (minutes, membership, accounts); the Chamber refused, contending FOIA does not apply because the A‑Tax statute and Proviso supply the exclusive accountability framework for those funds.
- The trial court held the Chamber was a public body under FOIA (relying on Weston); the Supreme Court reversed, holding the legislature did not intend FOIA to apply to the Chamber solely because it manages these specified tourism funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Domains) | Defendant's Argument (Chamber) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Chamber is a "public body" under FOIA because it expends public (A‑Tax and PRT) funds | Receipt/expenditure of public funds brings the Chamber within FOIA's plain definition of "public body" and Weston supports disclosure | A‑Tax statute and Proviso 39.2 are specific regulatory schemes providing required transparency and oversight; legislature did not intend FOIA to apply to DMOs for these funds | Reversed: Chamber is not a FOIA "public body" solely by virtue of receiving/expending these specific tourism funds; A‑Tax/Proviso provide the controlling accountability framework |
| Whether Weston requires FOIA coverage whenever an entity manages public funds | Weston means entities that manage/divert public funds en masse are subject to FOIA; applies here | Weston does not compel FOIA where a specific statutory oversight and reporting scheme exists; Weston involved lack of statutory oversight | Court: Weston supports a nuanced inquiry; here statutory A‑Tax scheme distinguishes this case from Weston and counsels against FOIA coverage |
| Whether FOIA's broader disclosure rules (meetings, minutes) should apply to DMOs performing marketing services with public funds | FOIA's policy of open government requires public access to records of entities spending public money | Applying FOIA would subsume private organizations into public‑body obligations despite legislature creating a targeted oversight regime | Court: Legislature chose targeted oversight for A‑Tax funds; courts should not expand FOIA beyond legislative intent in this context |
| Whether the more specific A‑Tax statute overrides the general FOIA provision | N/A (Domains argues FOIA controls) | A specific statute addressing identical subject qualifies as an exception to the general FOIA rule; A‑Tax is comprehensive for tourism funds | Court: Specific A‑Tax provisions and Proviso govern the accountability of these funds and thus control over general FOIA application in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Weston v. Carolina Research & Development Foundation, 303 S.C. 398 (1991) (receipt and management of public funds can make an entity a public body when funds are diverted en masse or entity manages expenditures without oversight)
- Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Const. Co., 368 S.C. 137 (2006) (specific statute addressing an issue controls over a general statute on the identical subject)
- Disabato v. S.C. Ass'n of Sch. Adm'rs, 404 S.C. 433 (2013) (FOIA subjects public bodies supported by or expending public funds to record disclosure)
- Lambries v. Saluda Cty. Council, 409 S.C. 1 (2014) (FOIA's purpose: public business must be performed openly so citizens can learn of officials' actions)