Sunshine laws aren’t just for newspapers

It makes sense that newspapers use Freedom of Information Act laws more than anyone else. We tend to be the eyes and ears of the community, reporting on public meetings for those of you who don’t have the time — or inclination — to attend.
That being said, there is also the myth that FOIA is a “newspaper” law, something created to make sure the press always has access to public records. Even though we put these laws to the most use, FOIA certainly isn’t designed solely for the press to use. Our business is information and we should have the same rights to access as anyone else in the community, which is why so many reporters and editors get steamed when governments try to rule by secrecy — if they won’t tell us what they are doing, you can bet they won’t tell anybody.
FOIA was signed into law July 4, 1966, by President Lyndon B. Johnson and went into effect the following year. In short, FOIA allows for the full or partial disclosure of information and documents controlled by the U.S. Government. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute. Locally, these laws change from state to state, all of which have been under attack in recent years as politicians invoke the magic number 911 to justify an array of unethical behaviors.
Like it or not, local newspapers are a community’s only line of defense against this kind of problem. In other words, if a local government decides to illegally shut the public from a meeting, don’t expect The Charlotte Observer to take notice.
Since South Carolina’s “sunshine laws” have been amended a few times since they went into effect 30 years ago and are stronger than they once were. But abuse persists, sometimes out of ignorance, and other times out of willful ignorance. I’ve seen many politicians make an effort not to learn how these laws function because it’s easier to act like a creep if you can later claim you didn’t know any better.
Local governments can close meetings for a handful of reasons, and these reasons are all legally justifiable. For example, a public body that publicly negotiates the purchase land runs the likelihood of driving the cost of that land up — at an expense to the taxpayer.
But these reasons are all exceptions, not rules. At a recent Pageland Town Council meeting, an attempt was made to close a meeting for “personnel matters,” which is like walking into Pizza Hut and ordering “food.” A public body can close a meeting to discuss a personnel matter, but they are obliged to be as specific as possible in detailing what those matters are. Saying “personnel matters” just doesn’t cut it.
Local government is obliged to keep business matters in the view of the public whenever possible. When these laws aren’t followed, I’m obliged to fuss about it. Believe me, it’s not personal — I’d prefer to never have to write another FOIA editorial and would rather spend my days writing stories about less tedious topics.
But if we don’t do it, nobody will.

Wallace McBride,
editor