BLYTHEWOOD – Members of council voted 4-1 Tuesday night to pass first reading of a proposed ordinance amending the Town’s Freedom of Information (FOI) policy, largely without discussion. Councilwoman Trish Hovis cast the lone vote against approving the ordinance. According to media attorney Jay Bender, long regarded as South Carolina’s foremost authority on the state’s Freedom of Information Act, the ordinance includes a number of provisions inconsistent with state law.
“The town manager and attorney were called out by council for playing games with the FOI law earlier this year, and this proposed ordinance is an effort to obtain approval for future obstruction,” Bender said.
Town Attorney Pete Balthazor, who wrote the amended policy, said it is based largely on a model policy from the Municipal Association of South Carolina and is intended to address concerns surrounding FOIA matters that surfaced several months ago.
But a review of the draft ordinance during the meeting failed to address concerns that arose in December 2025, when Balthazor attempted to charge The Voice $500 for documents the newspaper had requested concerning $20,000 that some council members said was missing. Balthazor said the charge was due to the cost of having a third-party vendor retrieve the documents, that the Town did not have their own server. A copy of the cashed $20,000 check was later obtained by a citizen through an FOI request, revealing that it had been signed by Interim Town Manager (Administrator at that time) Ed Driggers on March 27, 2025—information Driggers did not release until approximately 10 months later. At the March 2026 council meeting, council ordered Driggers and Balthazor to hand over the requested documents to The Voice at no charge.
Balthazor Adds Attorney Fees
At Tuesday’s meeting, Councilwoman Trish Hovis pressed Balthazor on whether the new policy resolved the original problem of steep charges by a third party vendor for records retrieval.
“Where did we address third-party retrieval problems in this policy, which was really the origin of why we redid all this – a third-party charging us money that we really couldn’t articulate to the consumer,” Hovis asked.
Balthazor said the policy addresses it by allowing the Town to charge for “the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of records,” and that he had added language in parentheses specifying that cost may include the use of a vendor or third party. He acknowledged that charges would vary depending on who fulfills the request—a staff member or an attorney reviewing records for exemptions and redactions.
“That’s where discretion comes in,” he said.
“Okay, so essentially nothing has changed, is that right?” Hovis asked.
“Right,” Balthazor said.
Balthazor’s proposed policy follows state law in that fees “should not exceed the actual cost of the search, retrieval, and redaction of the public records at the prorated hourly salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the reasonable discretion of the custodian of the records, has the necessary skill and training to perform the request.” Balthazor added language allowing fees to include “the use of an attorney to review such records at the attorney’s standard hourly rates, or the use of a vendor to conduct the search and retrieval.” The Town’s attorney would most likely be the financial beneficiary of such a provision.
Bender said neither outside vendor fees nor attorney fees are permitted under state law.
“A fee may not be charged to have an attorney review records to determine if they must be disclosed or may be withheld,” Bender said. “And having public records in the possession and control of an outside vendor is likely inconsistent with the law governing preservation of public records. Unspecified vendor fees are also inconsistent with the state requirement that fees be disclosed, and the requirement that records be produced at a cost not to exceed the actual cost cannot be met if a vendor includes a profit in the charge.”
More Inconsistencies
Balthazor’s proposed amendment also states that the town’s timeframe for responding to an FOI request commences “upon receipt of the request or deposit, if applicable.”
Bender disagrees.
“The timeframe for the Town’s compliance with an FOI request commences upon receipt of that request, not upon receipt of a deposit,” he said.
State law allows governments to waive or reduce fees for media when the information requested primarily benefits the public. Section 30-4-30(B) of the state’s Freedom of Information Act states that “documents may be furnished when appropriate without charge or at a reduced charge where the agency determines that waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public.”
Law Allows Reduced Fees
Balthazor added his own language to the town’s policy, stating that “the town shall not otherwise waive or discount the costs or fees associated with any request for any requestor. The town’s costs and fees shall be uniformly applied to each requestor.”
“The proposed ordinance precludes (prevents) providing records at reduced fees or at no charge when disclosure of the information serves the public interest as the law allows,” Bender said.
The proposed ordinance also states that future amendments may be adopted by resolution. Bender says that’s not how it works: “An ordinance may be amended only by another ordinance.”
Balthazor’s policy states that requests to inspect public records identifying persons confined in jail, detention center, or prison for the preceding three months (with the exception of records regarding juveniles) need not be in writing provided that the requestor appears at Town Hall in person during normal business hours. Bender says that exception goes too far: criminal records containing references to juveniles may not be withheld in their entirety; only the name or photo may be withheld.
While state law prohibits using personal information obtained from a government agency for commercial solicitation, Balthazor’s proposal again goes further: it requires requestors to certify in writing that they acknowledge this provision and to disclose what the requested information will be used for. They must, “demonstrate a non-commercial purpose for the requested records.” He said the town would deny requests where “the only reasonably perceptible use is commercial solicitation.”
Bender says that exceeds what the law allows.
Disclosing Purpose of FOI Request
“While it is appropriate for the Town to obtain an acknowledgement that the personally identifying information will not be used for commercial solicitation,” Bender said, “the law does not allow a public body to inquire about the requestor’s proposed use of the records or to condition the release of records on the Town’s approval of the use.”
Bender also noted a broader concern with the ordinance’s framing: it does not make clear that exemptions from mandatory disclosure are discretionary and must be narrowly construed. In plain terms, even when the law permits a government body to withhold a record, officials are not required to do so, and any exemption must be interpreted as narrowly as possible to ensure maximum public access.
“Given the history of difficulty this town government has encountered in complying with the law,” Bender said, “a more appropriate FOI ordinance would require the town’s public officials, officers, and employees to sign a statement certifying that each has read the law, understands its importance in a democratic society, and pledges to follow it.”
This story was updated online Thursday, May 28, 2026, to include correcting Councilwoman Hovis’ vote which was initially reported as approving the ordinance. She, in fact, voted against passing the ordinance.