Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juneteenth Foia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes up to $500 to fulfill FOIA about Juneteenth vendor payment amid missing application and contract
Summary
Council voted to pay up to $500 to satisfy a FOIA request seeking records about a $20,000 payment for the town’s planned Juneteenth event; staff reported no H-tax application or contract in town files and said a demand letter was received in December.
The Blythewood town council voted Feb. 23 to authorize payment of up to $500 to satisfy a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records about the town’s planned Juneteenth event and vendor payments.
The vote followed a lengthy timeline review by Interim Town Administrator Ed Driggers and staff. Driggers told council that the town budgeted $25,000 for Juneteenth in the FY2024-25 budget and that staff requested the engagement of Universal CMG World Entertainment in March 2025, with a $20,000 payment subsequently advanced to the vendor. Driggers said staff later found there was no formal H-tax application or signed contract for the Juneteenth event in town records and that a demand letter was served on Dec. 12, 2025. That sequence prompted FOIA requests and media inquiries.
Council debated whether to authorize individual council members to pull their own emails to satisfy the FOIA or to have a third-party vendor search the town’s records. Several council members said an independent vendor search would protect data integrity; others said the town should bring FOIA capability in-house. The town’s outside records vendor (identified in discussion as a third-party search provider) quoted search rates and an estimate in the record; council asked for an itemized list of fees going forward.
Councilwoman Hovis moved—and the council approved by roll call—a motion to have the town pay FOIA compliance expenses not to exceed $500 for the request filed Dec. 19, 2025. A friendly amendment clarified the motion’s not-to-exceed amount.
Manager Driggers and the town attorney said they had provided council with a privileged legal communication about the matter in January that addressed facts and strategy; Driggers reiterated that facts (e.g., no application, no contract located) were not themselves privileged and could be shared. Council asked staff to supply an itemized approach for future FOIA responses (estimated megabytes/estimated search time and associated costs) and to evaluate options for in-house search capacity to reduce recurring third-party costs.
The council’s action resolves the immediate FOIA request by authorizing payment up to the stated limit; the motion did not, by itself, adjudicate any allegations or claims regarding the event procurement process. Staff said they will provide follow-up documentation and a recommendation on whether to build FOIA search capacity in-house.
