State AG opinions: Bluffton council violated open meeting law

Bluffton Town Council members didn't comply with the state's Freedom of Information Act -- as interpreted by the state attorney general's office -- when it met last week in a secret session.

Public bodies are required to state publicly the specific topics they plan to discuss before going into an "executive session," according to an opinion from the attorney general's office.The town council didn't do that.

Moreover, the reason the council gave for going behind closed doors -- to discuss "personnel matters" -- is expressly forbidden by another attorney general's opinion.

The opinions, issued in 1988 and 2004, were provided by the attorney general's office in response to a request from The Island Packet.

On Tuesday, the council voted to go into an executive, or closed, session citing "boards and commissions" and "personnel matters" as the reasons.

A Packet reporter objected to the session during the meeting, but town attorney Terry Finger told the council that their reasons were legally acceptable.

When the reporter asked the council to provide more specific reasons, Finger again said doing so was unnecessary.

Council member Charlie Wetmore started to speak, but Mayor Lisa Sulka cut him off and said it was unnecessary for him to say anything publicly.

When the council emerged from the executive session, it voted to cut $1.34 million from its general fund budget.

Finger, hired as town attorney in 2003, provides legal advice to Bluffton officials and made nearly $70,000 during the last fiscal year. Finger, who practices in a private law firm, also serves as a Beaufort County magistrate, a position that earns him about $52,000 a year.

Sulka and Finger did not return several calls seeking comment for this story. Council members Oliver Brown, Fred Hamilton, Allyne Mitchell and Wetmore also did not return calls for comment.

The Island Packet provided town manager Bill Workman with the attorney general's opinions on Friday.

On Saturday, Workman said he would not respond to specific questions before discussing the issue with Finger.

"We're not trying to skirt the law or do anything in executive session that isn't kosher," Workman said. "I seek to put nothing in executive session that isn't legitimate there. ... We're not trying to find a way to get around it (the law),"he said.

He said that last week's session was held to discuss possible lay-offs.

Questions on executive sessions are expected to come up again at this week's

council meeting.

An agenda posted on the town's Web site said there will be another such session to discuss "personnel matters" and "economic development."

WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS

State law allows government bodies to meet in closed session to discuss matters including the hiring, firing and disciplining of staff; negotiations about contracts and land purchases; and investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct, among other things.

Votes or polls may not be taken in closed session, except those that allow the body to return to public session.

The law requires the mayor to announce the "specific purpose" of the executive session.

The word "specific" was added to the law in 1987 to require governmental bodies to provide as much clarity and openness as possible. "We do not deem an announcement that 'personnel matters' will be discussed to be in compliance...," according to the 1988 opinion from the attorney general's office. "... Merely stating that an executive session will be convened for the discussion of 'personnel matters' is not sufficient... . An announcement specifically apprising the public in attendance at the meeting of the subject matter to be discussed is mandated."

The 2004 opinion re-affirms that.

"The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner ...," the opinion states.