Could a South Carolina college commission limit public speaking at its meetings in 1995?

Official title

Asking for a review of a policy adopted by the Denmark Technical College Area Commission regarding public participation in its commission meetings, specifically inquiring if it falls within the guidelines and parameters of the Freedom of Information Act.

Requester

The Honorable Wilda J. Robinson, Chairperson

Plain-English summary

The Denmark Technical College Area Commission asked whether its public-participation policy complied with the Freedom of Information Act. The 1995 informal opinion did not rule that the specific policy was valid or invalid. Relying on an earlier AG letter, it said the act gave no instructions for setting an agenda or allowing members of the public to participate. The cited provision permitted removal of someone whose willful disruption seriously compromised orderly conduct. A public body could also impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Whether this commission’s policy was reasonable in light of the particular circumstances would be for a court to determine.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did FOIA specify how this commission had to set its agenda? A: The letter said it did not.

Q: Could a public body set any speaking restriction it wanted? A: No. The opinion discussed reasonableness and permissible time, place, and manner restrictions.

Q: Did the AG approve the enclosed college policy? A: No. It said a court would need to assess that policy against the facts.

Q: Could a meeting remove a disruptive person?
A: The cited provision allowed removal when willful disruption seriously compromised orderly conduct.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied reasoning from a prior AG opinion on a fire district agenda policy, discussed the FOIA provision on willful disruption, and cited a speech decision on reasonable limits.

Citations and references

• §30-4-70 (c), quoted in the prior opinion reproduced by this letter on disruptive conduct.
• City of Darlington v. Stanley, cited on reasonable speech restrictions.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-16-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995may16robinson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDO:--;:
ATTORNEY GE!\ERAL

May 16, 1995

The Honorable Wilda J. Robinson
Chairperson
Denmark Technical College Area Commission

• Post Office Box 327
  Denmark, South Carolina 29042-0327
  RE: Informal Opinion
  Dear Ms. Robinson:
  By your letter of May 1, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you asked that this Office review a policy adopted by the Denmark Technical College Area Commission regarding public participation in its commission meetings. You wished to know if the policy is within the guidelines and parameters of the Freedom of Information Act. I am enclosing a copy of an opinion of this Office dated July 23, 1992, in which the agenda policy of the Taylors Fire and Sewer District was examined to the extent possible. In that opinion, we stated: The Freedom of Information Act contains no guidance as to how a public body is to establish its agenda or how a member of the public will be allowed to participate at a meeting. See Op. Atty. Gen. dated November 30, 1987.... Participation of the public can be limited by the terms of §30-470 (c), which provides that "[t]his chapter does not prohibit the removal of any person \'.ho willfully disrupts a meeting to the extent that orderly conduct of the meeting is seriously compromised." (Emphasis added.) Because the FOIA offers no guidance as to how a public body is to establish its agenda for any type of meeting, a court reviewing the matter would likely consider whether such a policy would be reasonable, given the RE\1BERT C. DENNIS Bi !L[)l>,;G

•

POST OFFJCE Box 11549

•

CoLC\1BIA.

s.c. 29111-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSl.llLE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Wilda J. Robinson
Page 2
May 16, 1995
need for conducting public business in public, in an orderly fashion. Even if an individual is seeking to address the District, as a public body, given the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, still the public body is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech in a public forum. City of Darlington v. Stanley, 239 S.C. 139, 122 S.E.2d 207 (1961). It would be up to a court to review the policy and determine whether such is a reasonable policy, considering all attendant facts and circumstances. The same reasoning would apply to the policy enclosed with your letter. It would likewise be up to a court to review the policy and determine whether it is a reasonable policy, considering all attendant facts and circumstances. This Jetter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure