Could South Carolina’s archives director accept a university teaching honorarium?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, South Carolina's Department of Archives and History director asked whether he could teach a university public-history course and accept a $2,500 honorarium. The governing statute said the director “shall not do any additional work for pay.” The Attorney General followed a 1965 opinion that read the restriction as barring paid work that diverted the director's time or attention from official duties, rather than every paid speech or course.

On that interpretation, the AG said the director could accept the offer if the course fit the earlier opinion's guidelines. The opinion left the interference judgment dependent on the circumstances and recommended that the director also contact the State Ethics Commission for its review.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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 the statute bar every paid class taught by the archives director?

A: The AG said no. Following an earlier opinion, it read the ban to reach paid work that interfered with the director's full attention to official duties.

Q: Was the $2,500 university honorarium permitted without conditions?

A: No. The AG said it could be accepted if teaching the course fell within the earlier opinion's guidelines, which turned on whether the work diverted time or attention from the director's duties.

Q: Did the AG address state ethics review?

A: Yes. It recommended contacting the State Ethics Commission to review the proposal under the State Ethics Act.

Background and statutory framework

Section 60-11-60 assigned active management of the department to its director and barred additional work for pay. The AG relied on a 1965 interpretation of that language, observing that it knew of no statutory change since then. It separately identified the Ethics Commission's advisory-opinion role under the cited ethics provision.

Citations and references

• Section 60-11-60: the director's duty and restriction on additional paid work.
• § 8-13-320 (11): the Ethics Commission advisory-opinion authority cited by the AG.

Official title

Dealing with teaching a course at the University of South Carolina, and have been offered a $2,500 honorarium. Request whether or not you can accept the offer in light of the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 60-11-60.

Requester

Rodger E. Stroup, Ph.D., Director, South Carolina Department of Archives & History

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-26-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06apr26-Stroup.pdf

Original opinion text

J
HENRY McMASTER
ATTORNEY G ENERAL

April26,2006

Rodger E. Stroup, Ph.D., Director
SC Department of Archives & History
8301 Parklane Drive
Columbia, South Carolina 29223-4905

I

Dear Dr. Stroup:

In a letter to this office you stated that you have been approached by the University of South Carolina regarding teaching a course on material culture in the Public History Program. A $2,500.00 honorarium is being offered. You have questioned whether you may accept the offer in light of the provisions of S.C. Code Ann.§ 60-11-60 which states that

I

L
rr..··
I

The active management and administration of the South Carolina Department of Archives and History shall be committed to the Director.. .The Director shall not do any additional work for pay. (emphasis added). A prior opinion of former Attorney General Daniel McLeod dated January 15, 1965, a copy of which is enclosed, dealt with the question of whether a former director of the State Department of Archives and History could accept an honorarium for a public speech during the normal working day, after working hours or during luncheon periods or accept payment for a course oflectures given outside of normal working hours at colleges or universities or in adult education programs. Reference was made to the cited provision that the Director " ... shall not do any additional work for pay."

In his opinion, Mr. McLeod stated:
It is my opinion that this phraseology does not mean that you may not undertake functions of the nature referred to above and receive compensation therefor. In my opinion it means that you must devote your full and necessary attention to the duties of your office, and that you are precluded by the statutory provision from engaging in any work which would interfere or restrict your full and necessary attention to your duties. I feel that a proper construction of the statutory language is, that it requires that you perform your duties as Director to the exclusion of any other work for pay

aCVJ/l£ Xiata

§°R;.~FRT C' l)s=NNIC\ R 11t1 t'\1Mr.:

•

P l"\t""rf'..-r-11·•r

o ~v 11 <.cn

•

re.,.. .. ... ...

""_,.. ...... . .

· - · ....

Dr. Stroup
Page 2
April 26, 2006

that would divert your time or attention from your work as Director. Normally, other work engaged in outside regular working hours would most probably not hamper or restrict the performance of your statutory duties, but each case must depend upon your individual judgment and discretion. It is likely that the de minimus principle would be applicable to public speeches and the like for which honorariums are received.

I

As stated in a prior opinion of this office dated December 10, 2002, it is well established that the General Assembly is presumptively aware of opinions of the Attorney General and, absent changes in the law following the issuance thereof, the legislature is deemed to have acquiesced in the Attorney General's interpretation. See also: Op. Atty. Gen. dated April 22, 1998. I am unaware of any statutory changes to Section 60-11-60 since the issuance of Mr. McLeod's opinion. Consistent with such, in my opinion, you may teach a course on material culture in the Public History Program at U.S.C. and receive the $2,500.00 honorarium if your teaching the course would fall within the guidelines outlined by Mr. McLeod. In considering the offer, I would recommend that your also contact the State Ethics Commission for their review of the proposal. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-320 (11), the Commission is given the responsibility and duty of issuing advisory opinions construing provisions of the State Ethics Act, S.C. Code Ann.§§ 8-13-100 et seq.

With kind regards, I am,
Sincerely,

cfu.1.,rt(IZ1 a42,~

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

/lr_g_J 2)' G,,i~

kObert D. Cook

Assistant Deputy Attorney General