v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 308 S.C. 205, 208, 417 S.E.2d 579, 581 (1992). “Otherwise, parol evidence could render official minutes uncertain or unreliable so that the minutes would fail to afford dependable evidence of the proceedings____” Id.; see also Moore v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 202 S.C. 225, 236, 24 S.E.2d 361, 365 (1943) (stating that where company’s Pension and Benefit Committee was required to keep minutes of meetings, the original minutes of the meetings were the best evidence of changes in the pension plan and parol testimony was properly excluded). A court must initially review the minutes to determine whether the minutes are incomplete or ambiguous and whether parol evidence is admissible to then clarify them. Berkeley Elec. Coop., 308 S.C. at 209, 417 S.E.2d at 582 (<HOLDING>). The OCLEC enabling ordinances require a full
holding that the trial judge did not err by admitting copies of the indictments as part of the defendants record of conviction  holding that after review the minutes were unambiguous and the trial judge erred in admitting parol evidence holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error holding that court erred in admitting letters written in anticipation of litigation as business records holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous