Did South Carolina’s charter-school association have to follow FOIA if it received public money?

Plain-English summary

In 2004, the Attorney General said the South Carolina Association of Public Charter Schools would be subject to the state Freedom of Information Act if it received public funds as described in the request. The requester said the association received federal grant money and public charter-school funds. The AG relied on that account and did not make his own factual determination about the funding.

The opinion applied FOIA’s definition of “public body,” which included an organization supported in whole or part by public funds or spending public funds. The AG cited a state Supreme Court decision reading that language to cover a corporation receiving partial public support.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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

Did the AG say the association was definitely subject to FOIA?
He gave a conditional answer: if it received the public funds described, it came within FOIA’s public-body definition.

Would partial public funding matter?
Yes. The AG relied on statutory language covering organizations supported “in whole or in part” by public funds.

Did the AG audit the association’s grants?
No. He expressly said an AG opinion could not determine the facts and relied on the requester’s description.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion considered whether a charter-school association, rather than an individual school, met the FOIA definition of a public body. It read the statute’s public-funding language with the state Supreme Court’s treatment of partial public support.

Citations and references

• Section 30-4-20(a): public-body definition quoted in the opinion.
• Section 30-4-15: legislative openness findings quoted by the AG.
• Weston v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation: state Supreme Court interpretation of public support under FOIA.

Official title

Questioning whether the South Carolina Association of Public Charter Schools (SCAPCS) is required to comply with this State's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") as set forth by S.C. Code Ann. Sections 30-4-10 et seq. (Supp. 2003).

Requester

W. Fred Crawford, Principal, Greenville Technical Charter High School

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-27-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04oct27crawford.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Caroljna

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMASTER
ATTORNEY GENER.AL

October 27, 2004

W. Fred Crawford, Principal
Greenville Technical Charter High School
Post Office Box 5616
Greenville, South Carolina 29606-5616
Dear Mr. Crawford:

In a letter to this office you questioned whether the South Carolina Association of Public Charter Schools (SCAPCS) is required to comply with this State's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") as set forth by S.C. Code Ann. Sections 30-4-10 et seq. (Supp. 2003). You indicated that the SCAPCS receives public funds which you described as federal grant funds in addition to public charter school funds. In reviewing your question, it must be noted that this Office has repeatedly indicated that an opinion of the Attorney General cannot determine facts. See: Op.Atty.Gen. dated November 4, 2003. Therefore, in reviewing your question, we must rely on the factual basis set forth in your request (''lJ 1

As set forth by Section 30-4-15, in enacting this State's Freedom oflnformation Act, the General Assembly made the following findings: The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. Toward this end, provisions of this chapter must be construed so as to make it possible for citizens, or their representatives, to learn and report fully the activities of their public officials at a minimum cost or delay to the persons seeking access to public documents or meetings.

~P ,.,

_

.~~

•

PosrOmcE Box 11 549 • COLUMBIA. S.C. 29211·1549 • TEl..EPHONE: 803-734-3970 • f...cs1M1t;.:

l!O'~-?.'i'~'

·f

I

Mr. Crawford
Page2
October 27, 2004

Pursuant to the FOIA, a "public body'' is subject to the requirements of the FOIA unless otherwise excepted. The term "public body" is defined by Section 30-4-20(a) to mean

I
I

... any department of the State, a majority of directors or their representatives of departments within the executive branch of state government as outlined in Section 1-30-10, any state board, commission, agency, and authority, any public or governmental body or political subdivision of the State, including counties, municipalities, townships, school districts, and special purpose districts, or any organization, corporation, or agency supported in whole or in part by public funds or expending public funds, including committees, subcommittees, advisory committees, and the like of any such body by whatever name known, and includes any quasi-governmental body of the State and its political subdivisions, including, without limitation, bodies such as the South Carolina Public Service Authority and the South Carolina State Ports Authority. Committees of health care facilities, which are subject to this chapter, for medical staff disciplinary proceedings, quality assurance, peer review, including the medical staff credentialing process, specific medical case review, and self-evaluation, are not public bodies for the purpose of this chapter. In an opinion of this office dated March 27, 1984, it was stated that with regard to the stated legislative purpose, "the Freedom oflnformation Act 'is a statute remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to carry out the purpose mandated by the General Assembly.'" That opinion concluded that if a body is supported in whole or in part by public funds, then it would be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. In Weston v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation, 303 S.C. 398, 403, 401 S.E.2d 161, 164 ( 1991 ), the State Supreme Court similarly concluded that
... the unambiguous language of the FOIA mandates that the receipt of support in whole or in part from public funds brings a corporation within the definition of a "public body'' As set forth above, you indicated that the SCAPCS receives public funds, described as federal grant funds in addition to public charter school funds. If such is the case, then, in my opinion, the SCAPCS would come within that portion of the definition of"public body'' which includes "any organization, corporation or agency supported in whole or in part by

f
Mr. Crawford
Page3
October 27, 2004

public funds or expending public funds." The SCAPCS would then be subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. If there are any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

I
I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

i
b
I

~,CYz-_

v

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General