Trainer outlines county council authority, FOIA and limits on executive-session disclosures

John Deloach, a trainer with the South Carolina Association of Counties, told Beaufort County Council on Jan. 10 that under South Carolina law the council holds the county's legislative authority while a professional county administrator handles operations and personnel oversight. Deloach explained the statutory division of powers and repeated a frequently cited statutory restriction on council interactions with staff.

Deloach summarized the form of government Beaufort County uses and the administrator's responsibilities, saying the administrator "executes all of the legislative directives, and ordinances that you as council enact" and directs departments and personnel subject to county policy. He noted that elected offices created by other statutes — such as the treasurer, auditor and sheriff — are not managed by the administrator.

Why this matters: the presentation recapped legal limits that shape how council members may interact with county employees, and it framed practical risks when council members speak outside formal channels. Deloach warned that individual members who disclose information discussed in executive session can expose themselves and the county to legal and personnel risks.

Key points from the presentation included the council's broad police powers under the Home Rule Act, the administrator's role preparing budget and financial reports, and the statutory restriction that "the council shall deal with county officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the county administrator solely through the administrator." Deloach said that restriction leaves a narrow exception for "inquiries and investigations," which must be handled through the administrator to avoid divided loyalty and potential hostile-work-environment claims.

Deloach reviewed legal precedents and statutory guidance council members raised during questions. He cited a South Carolina Supreme Court line of cases limiting what an individual council member may obtain without a majority council vote, and he discussed Brown v. Berkeley County as authority that councils may audit elected officials only to the extent the county funds those functions. He also reviewed the practical reasons for having clear rules about executive session confidentiality, saying an individual who publicly discloses attorney–client privileged material could face censure, civil liability and waiver of privilege by action of the individual — with disclosure consequences for litigation or economic-development negotiations.

Council members asked procedural questions about executive session attendance and confidentiality. Deloach advised that people who need to attend executive session (outside counsel, department heads or consultants) should be limited to those necessary for the topic, and he recommended adopting explicit confidentiality rules in the council's meeting procedures or member rules. He said the Freedom of Information Act authorizes closed sessions only for specified topics and does not itself create a standalone confidentiality rule.

Deloach also urged caution about members using personal devices or personal email to conduct county business, saying such communications are likely subject to FOIA requests and could require judicial review to separate public records from private material. He recommended that council members use official email addresses and county devices for public-business communications.

Ending: Deloach offered follow-up materials, including a distilled version of the Home Rule Act and sample council rules, and said the South Carolina Association of Counties would provide templates for confidentiality provisions and disciplinary procedures on request.