760 S.E.2d 785
S.C.2014Background
- At a December 8, 2008 regularly scheduled Saluda County Council meeting, the council unanimously moved to amend the posted agenda and passed a nonbinding water/sewer resolution not originally listed on the agenda.
- Lambries, a county citizen and chairman of the County Water and Sewer Authority, sued under FOIA § 30-4-80, seeking declaratory/injunctive relief that the amendment without prior notice violated FOIA and requesting a rule barring agenda amendments absent exigent circumstances.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief, interpreting § 30-4-80’s “agenda, if any” language to mean agendas are discretionary for regularly scheduled meetings and FOIA does not prohibit amending a published agenda.
- The Court of Appeals reversed (2–1), finding an agenda is required for regular meetings and that amending a posted agenda violated FOIA’s purpose and notice requirements.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals: it held § 30-4-80 does not require an agenda for regularly scheduled meetings and contains no prohibition on amending such agendas; imposing additional restrictions is for the legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIA § 30-4-80 requires an agenda for regularly scheduled meetings | Lambries: “agenda, if any” should be read to require an agenda when substantive action may occur; otherwise notice could be circumvented | County Council: “if any” means agendas are discretionary for regular meetings; statute requires only dates/times/places annually | Held: “agenda, if any” means agendas are not required for regularly scheduled meetings; notice requirement limited to dates/times/places unless an agenda exists |
| Whether FOIA prohibits amending a posted agenda at a regular meeting | Lambries: Amending a posted agenda without prior notice frustrates FOIA’s purpose and should be barred absent exigent circumstances | County Council: FOIA is silent; no statutory prohibition; meeting and amendment occurred openly so no FOIA violation | Held: FOIA contains no prohibition on amending agendas for regularly scheduled meetings; council did not violate FOIA |
| Proper standard of appellate review for injunction denial based on statutory interpretation | Lambries: (implicit) de novo review of legal issues affecting injunction | County Council: trial court’s injunctive decision reviewed for abuse of discretion | Held: statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo; an error of law can render a trial court’s injunctive ruling an abuse of discretion |
| Whether courts may judicially impose additional FOIA restrictions (e.g., ban on amendments) | Lambries: courts should enforce FOIA’s purpose and bar amendments to protect notice | County Council: any new constraints should come from legislature | Held: Court will not judicially graft new agenda/anti-amendment requirements onto FOIA; policy choices rest with legislature |
Key Cases Cited
- Denman v. City of Columbia, 387 S.C. 131, 691 S.E.2d 465 (S.C. 2010) (injunctions are equitable and issued in court’s discretion)
- Strategic Res. Co. v. BCS Life Ins. Co., 367 S.C. 540, 627 S.E.2d 687 (S.C. 2006) (order granting/denying injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Fields v. J. Haynes Waters Builders, Inc., 376 S.C. 545, 658 S.E.2d 80 (S.C. 2008) (abuse of discretion occurs when decision rests on error of law or unsupported findings)
- Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452, 636 S.E.2d 598 (S.C. 2006) (in novel statutory-interpretation issues appellate court need not defer to lower court)
- Wiedemann v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 330 S.C. 532, 500 S.E.2d 783 (S.C. 1998) (FOIA’s purpose is to prevent secret government activity)
- Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (S.C. 2000) (plain, unambiguous statutes control; courts may not rewrite clear statutes)
- State v. Lewis, 141 S.C. 207, 139 S.E. 386 (S.C. 1927) (courts must not assume legislative power by changing clear statutory meaning)
- Dorsten v. Port of Skagit County, 650 P.2d 220 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982) (primary requirement for regular meetings is openness; agenda notice is principally for special meetings)