The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act, SC Code Section 30-4-90, stipulates that “[a]ll public bodies shall keep written minutes of all of their public meetings.”
Beyond merely satisfying a legal mandate, keeping public meeting minutes ensures transparency, accountability and efficiency in governance. It may seem like a routine administrative task, but preparing and retaining minutes is important for maintaining public trust, ensuring legal compliance and preserving a historical record.
Are verbatim minutes required?
There is no legal requirement to record everything that is said at a meeting.
Instead, SC Code Section 30-4-90(a) provides that the minutes “shall include but need not be limited to” these items:
- the date, time, and place of the meeting;
- the members of the public body recorded as either present or absent;
- the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided; and,
- at the request of any member, a record, by an individual member, of any votes taken.
Any member of the public body may also request that other information be included in the minutes.
A public body could satisfy the legal requirement to keep minutes by producing a fairly short document for each meeting, setting forth only the details of the meeting, the members in attendance, and the “substance” of each proposal, discussion or vote. Modern recording and archiving technology make retaining full audio recordings of every meeting inexpensive and convenient. As such, municipalities may generally avoid the time and effort required to produce verbatim minutes.
How should minutes be prepared?
The heart of the minutes-taking process is the responsibility to accurately capture the essence of the meeting. Minutes should provide a comprehensive yet concise summary that provides an understanding of the context and rationale behind decisions taken.
Errors or omissions can have significant consequences: misunderstandings, disputes or even legal challenges. The minutes become the official record of all actions taken and not taken, and can become highly relevant in lawsuits.
In the 2001 case Davis v. Orangeburg-Calhoun Law Enforcement Commission, the Court of Appeals of SC concluded that the commission had not adopted a formal financial management policy because the minutes contained no record of such an adoption. When a party tried to prove the approval of the policy by evidence outside of the minutes, the court rejected this evidence. According to the court, external evidence “may not be admitted to explain, enlarge or contradict minutes which are complete and unambiguous on their face.”
Minute-takers must have strong listening and note-taking skills, along with attention to detail. Although there is no legal requirement that the person who prepares the minutes physically attend the meeting, it is helpful if a person with knowledge of the body and the agenda attends the meeting and takes contemporaneous notes. At the same time, the meeting should be recorded. Either the same person or another staff member should listen to the recording and compare it to notes taken at the meeting, supplementing and correcting as necessary. Staff should proofread the minutes for accuracy and clarity.
Does production of minutes have a deadline?
South Carolina law is clear that the minutes need not be made available immediately, allowing staff time to produce accurate, complete minutes before approval. Even so, timeliness remains critical. Staff should prepare minutes promptly while details are fresh in their minds. Delays in distributing minutes can hinder follow-up actions and diminish the minutes’ effectiveness as a communication tool. Timely distribution also shows a commitment to transparency. When people request minutes that have been compiled but that council has not yet approved, cities should release them with a note or a watermark indicating that the document is a draft.
Minutes have far-reaching implications
Keeping minutes for public meetings is a multifaceted, but critical, task. Accurate, timely, and accessible minutes are essential for fostering trust in government institutions, facilitating resident engagement, and preserving the record of governance.