BC-SC--FOIA-Changes, Adv15,840

For release Tuesday, Nov. 15

Council, school board members appear ready for some FOI law change

With BC-FOIA-Changes-Glance, BC-FOIA-Field Guide

AP Graphic planned

By JIM DAVENPORT

Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) _ An audit of how elected officials handle the public's business in closed-door meetings shows shortcomings that could be addressed by law changes when legislators return in January.

In the survey, nearly 200 members of county councils and school boards responded to 13 questions presented as a way of gauging how they conduct themselves and interpret the state's Freedom of Information Act's requirements involving executive sessions. The audit, a joint project of The Associated Press, South Carolina Press Association and newspapers, also checked police compliance with open records laws.

Among the findings:

A quarter of elected officials who responded said they had spoken on topics in executive sessions beyond what they had told the public they would discuss. The survey also showed three-quarters of those officials are willing to sign affidavits swearing they stayed on track, but they're far less willing to agree to recording their secret sessions.

A quarter of police departments visited would not provide the criminal incident reports the law requires them to show the public. Those that did charged as much as $6 for the reports, usually just a couple of pages.

The results come as South Carolina open government advocates say they'll push for changes in the state's open meeting and records laws when the Legislature returns in 2006.

The willingness of school boards and county councils to sign affidavits could embolden advocates' efforts.

Their counterparts in Georgia say the affidavits _ signed by chairmen of public bodies and attached to meeting minutes _ have had an effect.

"In the beginning, they hated it," said Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. She recalls nearly being booed off a stage after the law went into effect.

With false swearing a felony in Georgia, the affidavits are taken seriously, said David Hudson, a Georgia Press Association lawyer who worked for that law change. "They would be afraid to sign a false affidavit," he said.

Hudson says chairmen are quick to put the conversation back on topic when a council member's talk strays from the disclosed reason for the executive session.

"He doesn't dare sign" a false affidavit, the lawyer said. Anyone on the council with a political agenda could later raise the issue and create legal problems for the leader of the public body, Hudson said.

That would help here, says Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association. "I think it would encourage them to think twice before they inadvertently break the law or do it on purpose," he said.

While "it's very easy to stray," Rogers said, "the flag needs to go up."

The police department portion of the survey raised other concerns as reporters left their notepads and press credentials behind to see what the typical citizen would face when they asked about crime in the communities they live. They found law enforcement agency workers who didn't know the law or were breaking it.

For instance, at the Anderson County Sheriff's Office visitors are greeted with a sign that reads: "For copies of incident reports, please provide a picture I.D. or a Driver's License. Without a form of I.D., we will NOT be able to provide the report. There is a $5 fee for copies of incident reports."

However, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't allow police agencies to demand identification or ask names of people requesting crime information. The law also says copies of documents _ in this case, reports that typically are two pages _ must be provided at the lowest cost possible.

"It really concerns me when law enforcement doesn't follow the law," Rogers said.

The survey turned up costs _ nearly $3 on average _ that "are high, way to high," state Attorney General Henry McMaster said. The law says copies of documents must be provided for the "lowest possible costs," he said.

"The FOI statute is pretty clear. It says the actual cost of creating the document," Jeff Moore, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriffs Association.

The costs are a big problem, particularly when taxpayer money allows the reports to be produced in the first place, McMaster said.

Rogers and Moore said more training may be required, and both say the law on copy costs needs to be changed.

For now, the public has a role when they see law enforcement and other agencies charging too much for a copy of a document. They should "challenge them and say, 'You can't charge this amount,'" Rogers said.

The same goes for improper closed-door meetings and other efforts to do the public's business out of sight and away from accountability.

"If the public doesn't challenge closed government and is not offended by it, it will become the rule," Rogers said. "Government in the open is messy. It works best, but it is messy."

BC-SC--FOIA-Changes-Glance, Adv15,370

For release Tuesday, Nov. 15

Changes sought in state's executive session, copy cost laws

With BC-FOIA-Changes, BC-FOIA-Field Guide

By The Associated Press

When legislators return to the Statehouse in January, they can expect renewed calls for changes in the state's open meetings laws and efforts to restrict copy costs. At the same time, results of a statewide survey point to the need for more training on existing laws.

Problem: In a statewide survey of school board and county council members, a quarter of the officials who responded said they had been in executive sessions where they did not stick to the subject they had told the public they would discuss before moving behind closed doors.

Possible changes:

More training by county and school board associations, both of which already hold training seminars.

Greater public vigilance. Citizens can become more involved and familiarize themselves with the law. They can challenge public officials to do better and publicly question efforts to go into executive session without describing issues that will be discussed.

Legislators can expect proposals to change the executive session law. Three of four public officials in the survey said they would be willing to sign sworn statements that they only discussed topics they told the public they would before going into executive session. That will fuel a proposal to require the affidavits, something already on Georgia's law books.

Problem: A statewide review of access to crime incident reports showed people couldn't review those reports at a quarter of the law enforcement agencies visited around the state although the law requires that they be made available for two weeks. When the reports _ usually a couple of pages _ were provided, they cost nearly $3 on average, far exceeding the minimum cost the law requires.

Possible changes:

More training by law enforcement organizations, which already do this work.

Greater public understanding that the law requires crime reports to be made available and that copies should be provided at a low cost _ about the same as you would pay at a copy shop. State Attorney General Henry McMaster says they should be "free or either rock-bottom low."

Legislators likely will see proposals to limit copying costs.

BC-SC--FOIA-Field Guide, Adv15,390

For release Tuesday, Nov. 15

Know your Freedom of Information Act rights

Eds: For the third day of a three-day FOIA series

With BC-FOIA-Changes, BC-FOIA-Changes-Glance

By The Associated Press

Citizens' field guide to open meetings

Know the law: Executive sessions can be called and exclude the public, but saying that an executive session is for a "personnel" or "legal" issue isn't enough. Public bodies need to offer more detail, such as "hiring an interim finance director." The panel has to vote in public to meet privately. They only may discuss the issue they voted on to enter executive session. Any other discussions or votes have to wait until they return to public session. They can't take any votes behind closed doors.

Before a meeting: If a public body lists "personnel" or "legal matters" as a reason for a closed-door session on an agenda, talk with the chairman. Ask that the public body be more specific about the reasons before they vote.

During the meeting: If a public body doesn't give specific reasons for executive session, after voting, stand and address the chairman. Politely say: "The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act requires a specific purpose of the session to be stated. Please be more specific."

After the meeting: If you think a public body abuses the executive session privilege, legal action can be taken in some cases to undo their decisions and the panel can be fined. Ultimately, abuses could become a factor when officials stand for re-election or reappointment.

Citizens' field guide to law enforcement records

Know the law: The state's Freedom of Information Act requires law enforcement agencies to make certain types of documents available for inspection during regular business hours. That includes crime incident reports that disclose "nature, substance and location of any crime or alleged crime." Police can redact pieces of information that threaten the safety of the victim or interfere with an ongoing investigation.

When you're there: You're not required to identify yourself. They agency is required to provide access to incident reports for the previous 14 days. If you need a copy, state law says those "must be furnished at the lowest possible cost." If the price is more than you would expect to pay at a copy shop, ask for a detailed explanation of the costs.

After you leave: If you think you're being denied access or being charged too much for documents, you can take legal action.