Why did Barnwell City Council enter closed session? That’s a question even council couldn’t fully answer before voting to close their meeting last week.
Council’s Sept. 12 agenda listed “personnel/procedural/informational briefing” as the reason for closed session; however, those reasons were not specific enough as required by state law. Before a public body can go behind closed doors, the S.C. Freedom of Information Act requires they vote on both the specific purpose and identify one of the six enumerated proper reasons in the Act.
“In voting to go into executive session for ‘personnel/procedural/informational briefing’ the City Council failed to announce a specific purpose, including a description of the matter to be discussed, for going into executive session. This failure robbed those present of an understanding of their public officials’ activities purportedly being done on their behalf,” said Taylor Smith, attorney for the S.C. Press Association, which represents the state’s nearly 100 newspapers.
Fellow SCPA attorney Jay Bender said the lack of stating a specific purpose made the closed-door meeting illegal.
According to the Municipal Association of South Carolina, which represents and serves the state’s 271 incorporated municipalities, “councils must be as specific as possible without compromising the issue.” Though matters about personnel/employees are a valid reason to go into closed session, simply stating “personnel matter” is not specific enough. Some examples of specific reasons include "to go into executive session to discuss applications for employment within [a specific department]" or "to discuss negotiation of a contract and receipt of legal advice related to a building project,” according to the MASC.
The People-Sentinel asked for clarification on the specific purpose before council voted to enter closed session. Neither Mayor Marcus Rivera, City Administrator Lynn McEwen, City Attorney Tom Boulware or the six council members could provide the “specific” reason for meeting in closed session.
“Mr. Boulware, I think that’s a question for you,” said Mayor Rivera, referring the matter to the attorney.
“Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure,” replied Boulware.
Administrator McEwen said the question needs to go to Barnwell County Sheriff Steve Griffith since he requested the closed-door meeting. “We were not provided information for your request,” said McEwen.
The sheriff described the matter as a “sensitive” informational briefing about the procedures of personnel.
“Some of the informational stuff will lead into personnel. Some of the procedural stuff will lead into personnel,” said Sheriff Griffith, who clarified that the matter did not involve hiring or firing anyone. “I want to give you information, but it’s sensitive.”
Mayor Rivera said he was “leery” of the closed session after receiving the agenda in advance of the meeting. “From my understanding, personnel should not be discussed with anyone outside of the city or council,” Rivera said of the sheriff, an elected county official who does not work for the city.
“I can’t help you; I don’t know either,” said Boulware.
The mayor then asked if they were able to proceed with closed session. Boulware said he thought the sheriff should be allowed to make his presentation.
“I wish I knew more about what was to be presented so I could better advise you, but I think he’s entitled to do that,” said Boulware of allowing the sheriff to talk.
Council then unanimously voted to enter closed session for the unspecific matters listed on the agenda. The sheriff remained in council chambers with city leaders.
After an hour and a half, the council returned to open session where they immediately adjourned without taking any action.
The People-Sentinel reached out to the administrator and mayor for follow-up, but received no response as of press time Tuesday.
