COLUMBIA, S.C. — It's the bedrock of American democracy: school boards, city councils and local commissions openly debating issues so citizens can keep members accountable.

But in South Carolina, as elsewhere, sometimes it doesn't happen that way.

In Lancaster County, the county council agreed without a public vote to spend $637,000 for incentives to lure a publishing and broadcasting company that said it would create more than 1,500 jobs. The deal fell through.

In recent years, most violations of the open-meetings section of the state Freedom of Information Act haven't been that evident, said Jay Bender, a Columbia lawyer who specializes in First Amendment issues.

"The violations have become less obvious because, for the most part, local officials are more knowledgeable of the law," Bender said. "But it's like discrimination. Blatant cases of discrimination aren't as common now, but discrimination is still out there."

Lancaster County probably would still be battling to get back its money from Front Door Communications even if county council members were on record voting on whether to give the company tax breaks and other help.

However, just the appearance of business going on behind closed doors can make a bad deal look even worse.

In Horry County, the current county council chairman ran for election on the promise to make meetings more open. The policy has been somewhat of a success, but problems remain, said Trisha O'Connor, editor of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News.

Recently, a council search committee announced it had three finalists for county police chief. The council didn't release the finalists' names until a meeting nearly 12 hours later. Then it hired the new chief during the meeting, O'Connor said.

"That gave absolutely no opportunity for public discussion on the new chief," O'Connor said.

Other recent disputes over the open-meetings law include:

As South Carolina continues to grow, decisions from all kinds of government bodies will become more important, O'Connor said.

"Those decisions effect all of us," O'Connor said. "They are making monumental decisions on how growth will affect all of us, and it is very important to let good public debate take place."

To counteract some of the misunderstandings between public bodies and the people they're supposed to be serving, the Municipal Association of South Carolina holds training sessions twice a year for elected officials on the Freedom of Information Act, executive director Howard Duvall said.

The sessions have more than 700 graduates in the past 15 years, but there are more than 1,500 elected municipal officials in South Carolina.

And some disputes arise from disagreements over what the law means.

For example, Duvall's group thinks FOIA requires the release of names of only the top three candidates for a public job, such as city manager or police chief. Bender and the South Carolina Press Association say information about all applicants must be made public.

The two sides also disagree on some proposals the press association says would strengthen the open meetings portion of FOIA.

One would require the chairman of a public board to sign a sworn statement saying nothing improper was discussed behind closed doors. The press association also wants boards to tape executive sessions. The tapes then could be listened to by a judge if necessary to determine whether a secret meeting was legal.

The municipal association opposes both ideas, Duvall said.

"Taping an executive session is a bad idea in the first place. We don't think if it's to be confidential it should be taped," Duvall said. "And to have a member of the council sign an affidavit that nothing illegal or improper was discussed is an affront to the elected official."

Governments that don't follow the law can be forced to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs who sue them. The Freedom of Information Act also has misdemeanor criminal penalties: First-time violators face up to a $100 fine or 30 days in jail, while a third offense carries a maximum fine of $300 or up to 90 days in jail.

Those penalties are rarely imposed, Bender said, recalling a case in the Upstate where a council member refused to allow a person in the audience to tape an open meeting.

The man went to a magistrate and wanted to get a warrant, but the judge refused, Bender said.

For the most part, South Carolina governments do a good job of keeping their meetings open, but the public and news media must be vigilant because they are fighting the state's history of plantation and mill owners lording over their slaves and workers, Bender said.

"We have a political culture where people think those in authority know best and will do what's best and we go along with that," he said.