Editor's note: This is the first story in a planned series of stories on livestreaming and other transparency issues affecting local or state government in South Carolina.
By RICK BRUNDRETT
Nearly 30% of South Carolina’s regular school districts don’t livestream official meetings, though nearly all of them have websites and at least one social media account, a review by The Nerve found.
Of the 72 school districts, 21 as of last week weren’t livestreaming school board meetings through their websites or popular social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. Most of the no-livestreaming districts are located in the Upstate, concentrated in Spartanburg and Anderson counties, The Nerve’s analysis found.
Supporters say that livestreaming government meetings, which allows viewers to watch proceedings in real time over the internet, fosters greater citizen participation, improves transparency and increases accountability of elected officials.
But although school boards, as well as municipal and county councils, are allowed to livestream their official meetings, state law doesn’t require it. Under the state’s longstanding open-records law, government agencies must keep and make available written minutes of their public meetings.
The S.C. General Assembly on its website livestreams floor debates during legislative sessions, though as the South Carolina Policy Council – the parent organization of The Nerve – has pointed out, while livestreaming of some legislative committee meetings has improved recently, other committees are either sporadically doing it or not at all.
In its priority list for the legislative session that starts in January, the Policy Council has called for livestreaming of state and local government meetings, including school board meetings.
A Senate bill introduced in 2023 would have required schools boards in the state’s regular school districts, as well as public charter and special schools, to “make reasonable and necessary efforts” to livestream regular or special meetings. If that wasn’t possible, meetings would have to be video recorded and archived on their websites or elsewhere online no later than two calendar days after the meeting.
Penalties for noncompliance under the bill would have been a maximum 1% of state funds appropriated to the regular school district or charter or special school. Those estimated amounts for last fiscal year ranged from about $64,600 to $6 million, according to a fiscal impact statement on the bill by the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.
The bill, whose main sponsor was Sen. Greg Hembree, R-Horry, and chairman of the Senate Education Committee, passed the Senate in February 2023 by a 43-0 vote on the main second reading and cleared the House Education and Public Works Committee in April this year. But it died in a House floor debate in May.
“As far as livestreaming is concerned, it’s 2024,” said outgoing Sen. Penry Gustafson, R-Kershaw, who was one of the bill’s co-sponsors, when contacted last week by The Nerve. “It’s become a simpler and easier process to do.”
“And we’re doing it anyway,” she continued. “There are people who attend these meetings, and they’re in the audience where the public sits; and they have their phones, and they’re livestreaming it from their phones. And that’s fine, too.”
Gustafson said she supports school boards and county councils livestreaming their official meetings to allow citizens who can’t attend in person to watch it in real time or later at their convenience, noting, “I truly believe the best way to garner your own opinion – and have a good, solid opinion – is to go right to the source.”
Livestreaming can encourage greater citizen participation when testimony during in-person meetings is taken live via the internet, she said, adding that was done in Senate hearings that she attended.
It also can be a check on how public officials interact with each other during meetings, Gustafson said.
“I’ve seen inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in person that’s not going to be caught in the meeting minutes,” she said, contending that livestreaming can help reduce “animosity” and “conflict” during meetings.
School districts’ responses
The Nerve’s review found that 51 regular school districts livestream and archive their meetings, many of them through their respective YouTube channels. Others livestream through professional video-streaming software on their websites or through Facebook accounts.
Twenty-one school districts, or about 29.2% of the total, weren’t livestreaming their regular school board meetings as of last week, though all of them have websites, and only one district didn't have at least one official social media account, The Nerve’s review found. Four districts that aren’t broadcasting their meetings live have archives of recent meeting videos.
The Nerve recently sent written questions to 30 school district superintendents asking them, among other things, what the main obstacles were to livestreaming if their districts weren’t doing it, though most of them didn’t reply.
In his response to The Nerve, Neal Vincent, who is the Florence County School District 2 superintendent, said the district currently doesn’t livestream public meetings “primarily due to the lack of resources including audio systems in our Board Room and Media Centers.”
Vincent estimated the cost of a video and audio system “required to enable” livestreaming at $25,000. He said the district employs one full-time technology worker and projected the annual overtime cost to support livestreaming at $3,000.
Asked about using cheaper alternatives, such as livestreaming via YouTube or Facebook with a mounted cell phone on a tripod, Vincent replied that the “overall quality may not meet citizens’ expectations – particularly regarding ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance,” and that “extra costs may be associated with closed captioning if requested.”
The 1990 ADA requires state and local governments to “communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities,” such as deafness, though there is an exception if providing aids or services would place an “undue burden” on the public entities, defined as a “significant difficulty or expense,” according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s website.
Bamberg County School District Superintendent Dottie Brown in her written response to The Nerve said there is no cost to livestream or archive school board meetings via YouTube, which the district has been doing for three years, adding the channel is managed and maintained by the district’s technology director and department.
In Dorchester School District 4, Superintendent Jeffrey Beckwith said his district’s livestreaming cost through YouTube is “pretty low due to using equipment that we already have for other academic programs like Media Technology,” noting in his written response the district uses cameras on tripods, and that livestreaming began 18 months ago.
Faye Colley, the communications coordinator for Laurens County School District 55, told The Nerve there was a one-time $10,000 cost for equipment to livestream board meetings on YouTube and Facebook, adding there are no annual recurring costs. Livestream recordings go back three years, she said.
In its fiscal impact statement for the failed Senate bill, the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office said that out of 41 responses that the state Department of Education received in a survey of districts’ livestreaming practices, 23 indicated that they currently livestream school board meetings, while 17 other responding districts said their expenses would increase “by a range of $3,000 to $100,000 per district for equipment, onsite support, and overtime for staff.”
In Anderson School District 4, Superintendent M. Dee Christopher said in a written response to The Nerve that although his district doesn’t currently livestream official meetings, “We anticipate starting sometime during this school year,” noting the district has “investigated and starting planning in the last year.”
Sen. Gustafson said citizens should question their local public officials if they don’t want to livestream their meetings.
“Why – that’s the No. 1 question any typical citizen might have if a particular public entity does not want their meetings to be broadcast,” she said. “Let’s set aside the financial part of it; there’s something going on there.”
