Could a Winthrop adjunct professor also sit on the university’s board of trustees?

Official title

Regarding a seat on the Winthrop University (“the University”) Board of Trustees (“the Board”).

Requester

The Honorable Harvey S. Peeler, Jr., Senatorial District No. 14

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether a Winthrop University adjunct professor could serve on its board of trustees. The Attorney General concluded that the candidate could not hold both roles at the same institution. It relied on an earlier opinion and a South Carolina court's concern about one person occupying a supervisory and subordinate position in the same public institution. The office said the person could resolve that conflict by choosing one position and giving up the other.

The request also described the candidate as executive director of a regional council of governments. A footnote said the combination did not present a constitutional dual-office problem because those employment roles were not treated as public offices for that rule. The office's objection was the institutional conflict between professor and trustee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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 an adjunct professor serve on the board of the university that employed them? A: The opinion said no. It treated the board's supervisory position over the institution as incompatible with the professor's employment there.

Q: Could the candidate serve if they stopped teaching at Winthrop? A: The office said the conflict could be cured by choosing one of the two positions and relinquishing the other.

Q: Was the problem the constitutional ban on holding two public offices? A: No. A footnote said the described roles did not create that dual-office issue. The opinion instead applied a common-law conflict principle.

Background and statutory framework

The office cited its 1986 opinion about a professor serving on the same school's board and quoted the court's warning against one person acting as both “master and servant.” It applied that principle to the proposed Winthrop appointment, without deciding any separate ethics question.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-25-2014/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/peeler-h-s-jr-os-9746-4-25-14-seat-on-winthrop-university-board-of-trustees-00321958xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

<<£SS&>

opsouTnc^

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

April 25, 2014

The Honorable Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.
Senatorial District No. 14
213 Gressette Senate Office Building

Columbia, SC 29202
Dear Senator Peeler:
By your letter dated February 28, 2014 you have asked for the opinion of this Office

regarding a seat on the Winthrop University ("the University") Board of Trustees ("the Board").

Per your letter, you explain one of the potential candidates for a seat on the Board serves as an adjunct professor at the University. You further add that the potential candidate is also the "full time executive director of the Catawba Regional Council of Governments." In light of this you

ask, "[i]s there any case law or statute that would prohibit an adjunct professor from serving on

[the Board]" of this institution?" Because serving as both a professor and member of the Board

would create a conflict of interest, we believe that there is.1
In a 1986 opinion of this Office we said that a conflict of interest arises when an

individual serves both as a professor and member of the Board at the same state educational institution. Op. S.C. Attv. Gen. 1986 WL 289867 (June 25, 1986). Continuing, we explained that such a relationship "would create a master-servant problem" which is a specific type of conflict based on the common law principle that where one office is subordinate to the other, and subject in some degree to the supervisory power held by the other office, a single individual should not hold both positions. Op. S.C. Attv. Gen. 1986 WL 289867 (June 25, 1986) (citing 67 C.J.S. Officers § 27). Indeed, our Supreme Court, in McMahan v. Jones. 94 S.C. 362, 77 S.E. 1022 (1913) affirmed this principle stating.

1 However, we note that a dual-office holding issue is not presented by the circumstances mentioned in your letter. See Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 2005 WL 2250213 (August 29, 2005) (concluding that individual serving as the executive director of a regional council of government does not occupy an office for purposes of the South Carolina Constitution's dual-office holding prohibition); Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 1986 WL 289867 (June 25, 1986) (finding that an individual who is a professor at a state educational institution does not hold an office for purposes of a dual-office holding analysis).

Rembert C. Dennis Building

•

Post Office Box 11549

•

Columbia, SC 29211-1549

•

Telephone 803-734-3970

•

Facsimile 803-253-6283

The Honorable Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.
Page 2
April 25,2014

No man in the public service should be permitted to occupy the dual position of master and servant; for, as master, he would be under the temptation of exacting

too little of himself, as servant; and as servant, he would be inclined to demand too much of himself, as master. There would be constant conflict between selfinterest and integrity. 94 S.C. at 365, 77 S.E. at 1023.

In light of both our prior opinion on this matter and the underlying principle regarding the master-servant conflict of interest, it is the opinion of this Office that the Board candidate mentioned in your letter would be unable to serve as both an adjunct professor and member of

the Board. That said, we would advise you, consistent with our prior opinions, "that the problem may be cured by permitting the individual to choose which position he [wishes] to hold, [while] giving up the remaining position." Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. 1986 WL 289867 (June 25, 1986). Sincerely,

Brendan McDonald
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

^Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General