Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise FOIA and inspection-record transparency concerns at Saluda County meeting
Summary
Two residents told the council they received inspection records and a certificate of occupancy that lacked inspector identification and signatures and said one resident was told by county counsel to submit future FOIA requests through an attorney; they asked the council to ensure equal treatment and transparency.
Two residents used the public-comment period at the Saluda County Council meeting to challenge the county’s handling of public records and building inspection documentation.
Regina Sanders, who identified herself as a Saluda County resident, said she submitted a request in March for inspection records and the certificate of occupancy for the new public safety building (permit 24SC-00025). "The inspection results document lists 39 inspections, all marked 'pass,' but nowhere on the document is there an inspector's name, a license or certification number, a signature, wet or electronic, or even a jurisdiction or company logo," Sanders said. She added that the certificate of occupancy included a redacted line for the building official and that the documents she received were editable Word files, which she said could be altered if obtained by a bad actor.
Gail Meyer, introduced on the agenda as speaking on FOIA matters, cited "South Carolina code 30‑4" and said she had been informed by the county attorney that she is no longer permitted to submit FOIA requests through normal administrative channels and was told future requests must go through legal counsel or she could face legal action. Meyer said that treatment — if applied only to her — would be retaliatory and urged the council to publicly clarify its policy and ensure equal access to public records.
Chair thanked the speakers and acknowledged receipt of the written exhibits attached to the meeting packet. No formal action was taken at the meeting; both residents asked the council to provide clarifying information about how inspection records and certificates are documented and how FOIA requests are processed. The council did not resolve the specific allegations during the meeting and did not record any direction to staff at that time.
Next steps: Both speakers asked for public clarification and for consistent treatment of FOIA requests; the council may respond at a future meeting or via the county’s public-information office.
