S.C. court gives FOI, newspaper big boost

In the first legal test of a state Freedom of Information law that governs how public bodies hire employees - in this case, school superintendents - the S.C. Supreme Court Monday sided with the Herald-Journal, upholding a lower court's decision against Spartanburg School District 7.

The decision should make it easier for parents, teachers and the community to find out more about who is being considered to run the schools their children attend. It also should spell out the hiring process for other public positions, such as police chiefs and city administrators.

The justices unanimously determined that School District 7 violated state law in 2003 when it withheld the names of five finalists while seeking to fill a superintendent spot.

Two finalists

Lynn Batten eventually got the job, though the school district claimed Batten was one of only two finalists, and that it was legally required to release information only on those two people. State law, however, requires public bodies to release information on "no fewer than three" finalists when seeking to fill a vacant position.

Because the school had five "semi-finalists," the school district should have released information on all five, according to the Supreme Court ruling.

In June, attorneys for the school board argued that if only one or two people were deemed qualified for a position, then only information on that person or those two people should be released. They said that's how they interpreted the law.

The state Supreme Court disagreed: "We will reject a statutory interpretation that leads to a result so plainly absurd that it could not have been intended by the legislature ... "

Batten out, White in

Batten resigned a year ago and was replaced by an interim superintendent. A permanent replacement, former Union County school chief Thomas White, was hired in May.

"We're pleased with the outcome," said Carl Beck, executive editor of the Herald-Journal and president of the S.C. Press Association.

"This case was about the public's right to know who is being considered for a public job. We're hopeful other government bodies around the state will take note of the court's ruling as a strong affirmation of the state's Freedom of Information law."

District 7 has accepted the court's ruling, Chairman Chip Hurst said

"The important thing to note is that we did not (withhold information) with intent or any sort of malice," he said. "We acted upon the advice of our attorney and upon the advice of the attorney of the (South Carolina) School Boards Association. We acted in a way we thought was just and proper."

When asked, Hurst said he could not recall the five semifinalists from 2003, but agreed to make that information available in the future.

Attorney Carlos Johnson, who represented District 7, affirmed that the court's ruling will have statewide implications.

"The Supreme Court has ruled, so their opinion will have to be followed not just by school districts, but by every other public entity in the state," Johnson said. "This district and other districts will have to abide by that ruling, and they will abide by it."

Hurst said he was not sure how much money the district had spent on the case.

Monday's ruling also requires District 7 to cover the cost of the Herald-Journal's attorney fees.

Johnson said he is aware of at least $3,025 in attorney fees ordered by a circuit court judge that District 7 will owe the newspaper. He and Hurst are still not clear on the total amount they will owe.

Jay Bender, the attorney who represented the Herald-Journal in the case, could not be reached for comment Monday.

'For the public'

Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association, said the ruling was important "for the public, more than the press."

"Now, those certain members of the public who have information about a candidate can share that with a public body," Rogers said.

"If it had gone the other way, you would have seen a tremendous increase in secrecy in the hiring process. So, the public would totally be left out of the equation."