BLYTHEWOOD — Public records reveal that a ‘missing’ $20,000 check drawn on the Town’s hospitality tax fund was jointly signed by former Interim Town Administrator Ed Driggers and Mayor Sloan Griffin in contradiction of Driggers’ statement that he “was not involved in this at all.”
When The Voice filed an FOI request for documents concerning the $20,000 check, The Town charged the newspaper $500 to receive a response, essentially impeding the newspaper from moving forward with the request. Now Balthazor wants council to adopt that same fee standard and more for all the Town’s FOI requests during the Monday, July 27 council meeting.
A review by The Voice found several provisions in Balthazor’s proposed FOI policy that differ from language contained in South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, including Balthazor’s addition of attorney and outside vendor fees, eliminating fee waivers altogether, and adding requirements for requesters to sign formal promises and agreements before records are released.
The proposal comes after months of controversy surrounding The Voice’s requests for records related to the disappearance of a $20,000 hospitality tax payment intended for Blythewood’s 2025 Juneteenth celebration.
Law Emphasizes Public Access
The General Assembly states in Section 30-4-15 of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act that public business should be conducted openly so citizens can learn about the actions of public officials “at a minimum cost or delay.”
Councilman Donald Brock said during the January 2026 council meeting that the high fees and inconveniences to the public that are proposed in Balthazor’s policy are chilling and could intimidate the public from making FOI requests.
Attorney Review
One of the most significant differences in the state’s FOI law and Balthazor’s proposed FOI policy is Balthazor’s addition of attorney participation fees.
State law provides that fees for searching, retrieving and redacting records may not exceed the prorated hourly salary of the lowest-paid qualified employee capable of performing the work. The law also states that agencies may not charge requestors for examining records to determine whether they are subject to disclosure.
Balthazor’s proposal adds that costs may include the use of the town attorney “at the attorney’s standard hourly rate” and charges from an outside vendor to conduct searches and retrieval.
The policy further directs the town’s FOIA officer [the town clerk] to consult the town attorney on non-routine requests and questions involving exemptions from disclosure. Balthazor’s proposal does not explain what a non-routine request is.
During a previous council meeting, Balthazor defended that approach.
“I think what the law says is that we are entitled to recoup actual expenses to retrieve data,” he told council.
When Councilwoman Trisha Hovis questioned whether the attorney should charge review costs to requestors, Balthazor argued that the town attorney would not be charging the public.
“This policy doesn’t allow the town attorney to do anything,” he said. “It allows the town manager to say, ‘You know what? This is a very involved request. We’re going to have to review this thing for redactions or exemptions pursuant to state law.’”
Under that arrangement, the town manager would assess the attorney’s standard fee and pass the payment along to the attorney.
Fee Waivers
Another difference in the state FOI law and Balthazor’s proposal involves fee waivers.
South Carolina’s FOI law allows public agencies to reduce or waive fees when providing records is determined to be in the public interest because disclosure primarily benefits the general public.
Balthazor’s proposed policy prohibits fee waivers altogether.
During the June 22 council meeting, Balthazor questioned whether state law even grants that discretion.
“I don’t know that there was any discretion there to begin with,” he told council. “I don’t think there was that discretion. But this [proposed policy] specifically says the town manager can’t play favorites or pick and choose.”
Fee Schedule Not Published
The Voice also found that Balthazor’s proposal does not establish and publish a specific fee schedule as required by state FOI law.
Under his proposed policy, hundreds of dollars in fees could be charged by outside vendors or attorneys for a request that produces only one or two emails, depending on the request.
Juneteenth Records Request
Questions about the proposed FOI policy follow The Voice’s efforts to obtain records related to the $20,000 hospitality tax payment issued in March 2025 to Universal CMG World Entertainment, a for-profit company owned by Edward Straiter. According to Mayor Sloan Griffin, Straiter is a close friend and mentor to him (Griffin.)
During a November 2025 budget discussion, the Town’s Marketing and Events Manager Jordan Langland informed council that $20,000 budgeted for the town’s Juneteenth celebration was unaccounted for.
Records later obtained by The Voice from council members showed that Griffin instructed Langland on March 24, 2025, to prepare a $20,000 check from the Town’ hospitality tax fund payable to Universal CMG World Entertainment.
Council members said during the November 2025 council meeting that they knew nothing about the $20,000 from hospitality tax funds that had been missing for about nine months.
The Voice has previously reported that the $20,000 payment was made without a hospitality tax application and that the recipient was a for-profit company rather than a nonprofit organization as required by state law.
Town officials later reported that the Blythewood Juneteenth event was ultimately held in Chester, S.C. without council’s knowledge.
On Dec. 19, 2025, The Voice submitted the FOI request seeking records concerning the $20,000 payment.
The Town charged The Voice $500 to produce those records.
After The Voice couldn’t pay, town council unanimously directed that the records be provided without charge. The newspaper received various emails between Griffin and Straiter but did not receive significant records pertaining to the $20,000 payment.
During the March 2026 council meeting, council members questioned Griffin and Driggers (who had come to work for the Town in late March 2025) about the $20,000 check that Langland prepared on March 24, 2025.
“May I insert,” Driggers said to council, “that on March 24, 2025, I was not here. I was not involved in this at all.”
Signatures Redacted
After subsequent requests for documents, Balthazor provided The Voice with a copy of the cashed $20,000 check with the signatures redacted.
The Voice also obtained an unredacted copy of the check from another source that showed both Griffin and Driggers signed the check dated March 27, 2025, during the time period Driggers said he was “not involved in this at all.”
No Recovery of the Funds
Emails obtained by The Voice – not through an FOI request – also show that throughout December 2025, a council member repeatedly asked Driggers and Balthazor to explore the possibility of recovering the $20,000 payment from Straiter.
In a four-page email dated Jan. 7, 2026, to all council members and marked “privileged and confidential” that was obtained by The Voice, Balthazor advised against trying to recover the money.
“The Town’s violation of its own policies does not provide a basis for the return of any income from Universal,” Balthazor wrote. “I also do not believe that the Town can claw back the funds.”
The town has not subsequently pursued legal action to recover the $20,000.
Council to Vote Monday
Balthazor originally proposed his FOI policy as an ordinance at the May 26, 2026, council meeting. He said the ordinance could be amended in the future by a resolution.
During the June 22 council meeting, council members noted that ordinances may only be amended by another ordinance after two readings and suggested Balthazor present the proposal as a resolution instead, which only requires one reading.
The council is scheduled to consider the resolution during its Monday, July 27 meeting at 6 p.m. at Doko Manor. Citizens will have an opportunity to speak before council votes on the matter.
