Did a South Carolina school district have to keep administrators’ local salary supplements in 1996–97?

Plain-English summary

Colleton County School District’s attorney asked whether certified administrators had to be paid in line with the statewide minimum salary schedule for the coming school year and whether their local supplements had to remain at least at the existing level. In a short 1996 response, the AG agreed with the attorney’s conclusions on both points, subject to legislative change during that session.

The AG specifically declined to decide whether a supplement had to be maintained as a percentage of salary. He also did not adopt every issue raised in the attorney’s attached research. The conclusion addressed the amount of the existing supplement, alongside the statewide minimum schedule, for that school year.

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: Could the district pay certified administrators below the statewide minimum schedule in 1996–97? A: The AG agreed that the district had to pay them consistently with that year’s statewide minimum schedule, subject to any legislative change.

Q: Could the district reduce the administrators’ existing local salary supplements? A: The opinion agreed that the district had to maintain the supplements at least at their then-current level for that year, again subject to legislative change.

Q: Did the AG require supplements to remain at the same percentage of salary? A: No. He expressly gave no opinion on whether a percentage level had to be maintained.

Background and statutory framework

The letter concurred in the district attorney’s narrow conclusions and pointed to §59-20-50. It also mentioned an earlier AG opinion on supplements, but did not reproduce its analysis. The attached research and enclosure are not part of the text reproduced here.

Citations and references

Statute discussed: §59-20-50.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-24-1996-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96apr24jones.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M O LONY C O:'\DOl'!
ATfORNF.Y G El'ERAL

April 24, 1996

Marvin c. Jones, Esquire
P.O. Box 1515
Walterboro, South Carolina 29488
Dear Marvin:
As attorney for the Colleton County School District Board of Trustees, you have requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether the District must pay certified administrators in 1996-1997 consistently with the Statewide minimum salary schedule for that year and whether the District must maintain salary supplements for them at, at least, the present level next ·year.
·
Subject to any legislative change this session, I concur in the legal conclusions that you have reached regarding these issues in the research that you have attached to your request letter. 1 Your conclusion was that the School district must pay certified administrative personnel in the 1996-1997 school year consistently with the Statewide minimum salary schedule for that year and t hat the school district must maintain local salary supplements to those administrators at least at their current level in that year (aee s.c. Code Ann. §59-20-50 (Supp. 1995)); however, I express no opinion as to whether the salary supplements must be maintained at a percentage level nor do I address any other issues that may be set forth in your research. For your further information, I am enclosing a copy of a previous opinion of this Off ice regardi ng supplements. Ops. Atty . Gen . (December 9, 1987).

1

Your research references communications attributed to another State agency. I cannot speak for that agency, nor can I determine from your reference that the same question was posed of that agency as you have asked here.

::; " Bl!:! C". f), , , ,, (l : : :" ' ' '

/:)..L'i-'''o(- ~

•

Po~r01nn; l3ox 11549

•

(•>I.I \IHI. s .c. 29211 - :549

•

T!'. l.f:PilO.XE: xOJ -7J4-3970

•

F.\CSl\111.•.: go3.25:;.r..2s>

Marvin c. Jones, Esquire
April 24, 1996
Page 2
This letter is an informal opinion. It - has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have further questions, please let me know .

Yours very truly,
.,,,.

"

7

.J. Emory Smith, Jr.
Asststant Deputy Attorney General
Enclosure
JESjr