COLUMBIA-A quarter of elected officials in a statewide survey say they've broken state law by letting their closed-door sessions stray beyond what they promised the public they would discuss while out of sight and earshot.

But public officials were agreeable to a solution that might keep them from breaking that promise in the future: signing sworn statements that they don't stray when the public isn't there to hold them accountable.

Those are two key findings of an audit of board and council practices by The Associated Press, South Carolina Press Association and newspapers.

Nearly 200 county council and school board members responded to the 13-question survey. The survey is not a poll or a scientific sampling that would suggest what the typical public official would do, but it does reflect how participants say they handle the privilege state law grants them to discuss some of the public's business in private.

Executive sessions are puzzling enough to citizens trying to observe how their elected officials handle taxpayers' business.

Last month, Cindy and Doug Myers went to their first Abbeville County Council meeting as they tried to prevent rezoning of property across the street from their home. They found themselves waiting in the hall while the council went into executive session to discuss personnel and economic development issues.

'Anything that needs to be said should be said in public,' Doug Myers said. 'They're discussing public things, things that involve the public. I don't see why they should have a closed-door session at all.'

In Abbeville, just asking the questions about executive sessions produced blank stares and flat refusals.

Two County Council members agreed to take the survey. One did, but a reporter later was told to destroy the responses. Given a second chance a couple of weeks later, all the members refused after the county's lawyer warned them to be careful about their answers.

In Newberry County, 20-year County Council veteran Henry Summer said the survey's questions would force him to compromise discussions shielded from the public. 'It's kind of like saying you're committing adultery on your wife,' Summer told a reporter. 'It's not a 'yes' or 'no' question.'

The law, however, is straightforward. It allows executive sessions for very limited purposes, such as discussing why a specific employee lost a job or how to lure an economic development project. The law also says public bodies have to vote in open session on the specific reason they're going behind closed doors. Any other voting they do has to wait until they return to public view.

No matter. Public bodies routinely usher out taxpayers by merely saying they're going to discuss 'personnel issues' or a 'legal matter,' offering no details underlying those broad labels.

State Attorney General Henry McMaster said public bodies must be specific. The public needs 'to know the issues that are being handled in executive session,' McMaster said. It's part of building and keeping citizens' trust, he said. If officials break that trust, 'the public loses all confidence in the public body,' McMaster said.

The public might have reason to be less than confident. Survey results show a quarter of the school board and county council members have participated in an executive session where a topic other than the one specified was discussed.

'Often we move to go into executive session for legal matters but, once in, will take up personnel matters or economic development matters,' said George H. 'Smokey' Davis, a Lexington County Council member for nine years.

Sandra Engelman, with two years on the Charleston County School Board, said she's seen her board stray, too. 'The school board has a tendency to start talking about issues and items not listed on the agenda,' she said.

'The board doesn't get time to discuss such issues during a regular meeting, and they come up during executive sessions.'

Mike Cone, executive director of the South Carolina Association of Counties, says he doesn't think officials are deliberately breaking the law. It's sometimes difficult to keep people on topic, he said.

'Sometimes it is human nature to get off the subject, but we get back on it,' said Jerry Oakley, who has been on Georgetown County Council for more than two years.

Paul Krohne, executive director of the South Carolina School Boards Association, said he's been in executive sessions when the conversation strayed and has seen leaders pull the discussion back on track. It's never a deliberate attempt to talk about areas outside of the announced reason for an executive session, it's just the 'nature of conversation,' he said.

'The law, doesn't have an exception for the 'nature of conversation,' ' McMaster said. 'Compliance with the law requires some precision and discipline and determination.'

 

Methodology

The Associated Press, South Carolina Press Association and newspapers across the state worked together on a project that gauged how school boards, county councils and law enforcement agencies handled different aspects of the state's Freedom of Information Act.

Reporters and editors asked county council and school board members about the state's laws on executive sessions, the closed-door meetings the law allows in extremely limited circumstances. Members of each of the state's 46 county councils were asked to participate, as were school board members in every county.

The responses are not a scientific poll that could predict how all county council or school board members would respond. They do reflect the positions of about 30 percent of the state's county council members and 15 percent of school board members on the 13-question survey.

To determine how police agencies handle requests from residents seeking routine crime information, journalists visited 62 sheriff's offices and police departments to request crime incident reports. The journalists did not identify themselves as reporters or editors unless asked. They noted whether they were given access to the documents, how much they cost and whether they were asked for identification.