There’s a right time and wrong time to close a public meeting

Nobody can say I haven’t tried.
During the two years I’ve been here, Pageland Town Council has struggled to follow either the letter or the spirit of South Carolina’s “Sunshine Laws.” These laws are in place to ensure that the business of government is conducted in a public forum. It’s a matter of accountability, but some local officials think accountability is someone else’s problem.
Mayor Carroll Faile is of the mind that this is much ado about nothing, because the town is accustomed to doing business behind closed doors. Brian Hough more or less confirmed this for me last week when he told me about his methods of getting information about closed meetings after the fact when he was editor of this newspaper.
Having to choose between tradition and the law, though, I choose the law.
Here’s the most common problem with Pageland’s public meetings: at the end of most meetings a so-called “executive session” usually takes place. These sessions allow public bodies to close meetings to the public to discuss legal, personnel or contractual matters. Council has to vote to close the meeting and explain themselves.
Public bodies do not have to name names, but if a meeting is closed to discuss a disciplinary matter with a particular department, they must say so. They do not have to detail the name or the nature of the complaint.
So far, this has been too much trouble for council. I learned last week that much of council doesn’t even know why they are closing a meeting until after it has closed, which means votes are being cast in haste at the expense of the public’s right to know.
Last week, several members of council stood up to Faile and demanded to know what would be discussed in closed session. Faile and Town Administrator Roland Windham, though, believe Freedom of Information Act laws require them to do as little as possible to keep the public informed. Shutting the public from a meeting to discuss a “contractual matters” is enough for them, despite the fact that the law is very clear that a more specific explanation is in order.
I don’t plan to air information about the town that is legally considered “private.” I won’t publish sensitive information about legal discussions, industrial prospects or anything along those lines. There are times when meetings need to be closed, but they are the exception — not the rule.
In July, council made no effort to explain themselves when they closed the meeting for “personnel” and “legal” reasons. I made no motion to correct them, as I have in the past. I shouldn’t have to. But those days are over.
Despite my frustrated discussions with Faile and Windham last week, I got the impression that some members of council are fed up with secrecy. It was a step in the right direction, but more work needs to be done. Too much of town business is conducted at the whim of the mayor.
For example, last week an “emergency” meeting of town council was scheduled. The newspaper was not given notice, nor was the meeting publicized at least 24 hours prior, as the law requires. The only reason I learned of it was because Hough, aware of my situation, called to tell me.
Public bodies can, in fact, schedule immediate meetings when emergencies demand it.
Last week’s “emergency?” The private White Plains Country Club needed water from a town lake. Faile, a member of the club, called the meeting.
It’s not my intent to belittle the needs of the club, but I don’t think it’s what legislators had in mind when they drafted an “emergency” provision into public meeting laws.

By Wallace McBride,
editor