Did Dorchester County have to provide an office and funding for its legislative delegation in 1996?

Plain-English summary

Dorchester County Council had voted against funding an office for the county legislative delegation. Asked whether state law required the space, the 1996 AG answered yes. Section 3 of the Home Rule Act required county councils under the specified forms of government to provide delegation office space and operating appropriations, with the delegation determining the amount needed for that office.

The provision had been left out of the 1976 Code, but the AG found no express repeal and rejected treating omission from codification as an implied repeal. He reaffirmed earlier opinions reading the act to support one delegation office rather than payments for individual legislators’ private offices. The conclusion concerned the law as the office understood it in 1996.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did omission from the Code end the office-funding duty? A: The AG said no. He found no express repeal and said the uncodified Home Rule Act provision still governed.

Q: Who determined the needed appropriation?
A: Under the provision as read by the AG, the legislative delegation determined the necessary office amount, and county council was required to include and provide it.

Q: Could each delegation member receive a private-office subsidy? A: The opinion reaffirmed earlier guidance that the act contemplated one county delegation office and did not authorize paying individual members’ private business-office expenses.

Background and statutory framework

The letter traced section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975, an uncodified part of the Home Rule Act, and the office’s prior interpretations of it. The AG found no later legislative change or express repeal and explained why mere omission from the 1976 Code did not eliminate the obligation.

Citations and references

Act discussed: section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-18-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96apr18bailey.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE of SOUTH CAROLINA
Office of the Attorney General
Columbia 29211

CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
A1TORNEY GENERAL

April 18, 1996

The Honorable George H. Bailey
Member, House of Representatives
308-C Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Bailey:
You have advised that the Dorchester County Council has voted not to fund an office for the Legislative Delegation in Dorchester County. You have stated your feeling that a section of the Home Rule Act explicitly states, "county colincil shall provide office spac~ and appropriations for the operation of the county legislative delegation" and that the delegation would submit a budget. You have sought my opinion as to whether Dorchester County Council is required by law to provide office space for the Legislative Delegation. The provision of the Home Rule Act to which you are referring is found in section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975, which section provides in relevant part: Under all forms of county government except the board of commissioners form, county councils shall provide office space and appropriations . for the operation of the county legislative delegation office including compensation for staff personnel and necessary office supplies and equipment. The amount of such appropriations shall be determined by the
· legislative delegation and included in the annual county budget by the council. The delegation shall be responsible for the employment, supervision and discharge of all personnel employed in the delegation office.
·
[Emphasis added.]

(803) 734-3970

(803) 7S4-3646 Facsimile

The Honorable George H. Bailey
Page 2
April 18, 1996
This provision of the Home Rule Act has been the subject of numerous opinions of the Office of the Attorney General, among them opinions dated December 29, 1976; September 9, 1977; May 18, 1978; September 18, 1979; July 16, 1980; July 7, 1981; August 17, 1981; April 15, 1983; October 18, 1983; and December 22, 1988. Copies of these opinions are enclosed for your review. These opinions have consistently interpreted section 3 of the Home Rule Act to mean that a county council would be required to furnish office space and appropriations for the operation of an office for the county legislative delegation. The delegation itself would be responsible for determining the amount of appropriated funds which would be necessary to fund the office, and county council would then be required to provide that amount. That the above-quoted portion of the Home Rul~ Act was not codified in the 1976 Code of Laws1 was discussed in the opinion of December 22, 1988. Therein, it was stated:

In spite of the fact that the relevant portion of section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975 was omitted from the 1976 Code of Laws, this Office has continued to suggest that the enactment be followed, as indicated by the five referenced opinions, the oldest of which was issued several years after the adoption of the Home Rule Act. It is also worthy of mention that another
. uncodified portion of section 3 of Act No. 283 has been discussed and
,,, applied as late as 1986 in Graham v. Creel, 289 S.C. 165, 345 S.E.2d 717 (1986), ... -. Thus, it appears appropriate that section 3 of Act No. 283 of 1975 continue to be followed, in spite of its failure to be codified in the 1976 Code of Laws. It is observed that since the 1988 opinion was rendered by the Office of the Attorney General, no legislative changes have been forthcoming. It is well recognized that the absence of any legislative amendment following the issuance of an opinion of the Attorney General strongly suggests that the views expressed therein were consistent with legislative intent. Scheffv. Township of Maple Shade, 149 N.J.Super. 448, 374 A.2d 43 (1977); Op. Atfy Gen. No. 84-69. Indeed, the General Assembly has on occasion acted swiftly in amending statutes following the issuance of an opinion by this Office; but such amendment has not been forthcoming in this instance.

1

Section 3 of Act No. 283of1975 was codified as §14-3717 in the 1975 Cumulative Supplement to the 1962 Code of Laws.
·

The Honorable George H. Bailey
Page 3
April 18, 1996

It is further observed that in the volume of the Code of Laws titled "Statutory Tables," no reference is made to the repeal, by implication or otherwise, of section 3 of Act No. 283 which, as noted earlier, was once codified as §14-3717 of the 1962 Code of Laws. Arguably, the Code Commissioner has therefore not considered this section to have been repealed.2 I have been unable to locate a legislative act expressly repealing the section. Furthermore, repeal by implication is not favored. State v. Thrift, 312 S.C. 282, 440 S.E2d 341 (1994). It is my understanding that county councils have continued to follow this uncodified provision, in various ways, since the inception of the Home Rule Act. Thus, the provision has not been treated as repealed, due to its lack of codification, by the State or its political subdivisions. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, it is too late in the day to argue that the county does not have an obligation to provide office space and appropriations for the operation of the county legislative delegation office. With Home Rule came that obligation. Absent an express repeal of Section 3 of the Home Rule Act, and I fmd none, it cannot be said that a repeal may be implied through a failure to insert this provision in the Code. Accordingly, this Home Rule requirement remains on the books. Moreover, earlier opinions of this Office conclude that the Home Rule Act "contemplates the establishment and maintenance by each county of one legislative delegation office and does not ... authorize the payment of expenses for conducting delegation business to individual delegation members who maintain private business

2

In instances in which the Code Commissioner has made a notation that a statute has been repealed by implication, such notation is not always dispositive. Justice Toa!, in State v. Thrift, supra, opined in footnote 16: We are mindful that the South Carolina Code Annotated contains a notation in the 1992 supplement that Secs. 8-13-410 through 8-13-500 are repealed by 1991 Act No. 248, Sec. 3. The 1991 Act No. 248 contains no such express repealer. We take judicial notice that it is the current practice of the Code Commissioner to place this type of repealer language in the Code; however, we hold today that this notation is not dispositive.... That there is no notation from the Code Commissioner as to repeal in this instance, the argument is even stronger that section 3 of the Home Rule Act cited above has not been repealed and is still valid and effectual.

The Honorable George H. Bailey
Page 4
April 18, 1996
offices of whatever nature." Op. Att'y Gen. September 18, 1979 (Karen LeCraft Henderson). Those earlier opinions are hereby reaffirmed today. It is, therefore, my opinion that the county is obligated to provide the delegation.with an office and with the appropriation deemed necessary by the delegation to operate the office, and not its members with a personal subsidy. With kindest regards, I am

Enclosures
cc:

Each County Administrator and Supervisor
Each County Legislative Delegation Chairperson

_:,

.-