Could a South Carolina school board appoint more than thirteen members to its health education advisory committee?

Plain-English summary

In 2000, a South Carolina school-board chair asked whether its local health education advisory committee could have more than thirteen members. An assistant deputy attorney general cited an earlier opinion concluding that it should not: the statute called for a thirteen-member committee with specified representation.

The chair also asked about votes taken by an oversized committee. The letter did not declare every such vote invalid. It pointed to another earlier opinion about an unauthorized chairperson's vote: whether the entire vote or only the unauthorized vote was affected depended on whether that vote could be identified, with the public body judging identifiability. The author said that reasoning might guide the treatment of extra members' votes here. The letter identified itself as an informal opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 a school board enlarge the local health education advisory committee beyond thirteen members? A: The letter cited a previous Attorney General opinion concluding that membership should not exceed the thirteen members specified by the statute.

Q: Were all votes of an oversized committee automatically invalid? A: The letter gave no categorical answer. It suggested an earlier vote analysis might help: the result depended on whether an unauthorized member's vote could be identified.

Q: Who judged whether the extra vote could be identified? A: In the earlier opinion described in this letter, the public body itself judged whether the unauthorized vote was identifiable.

Background and legal framework

The letter quoted S.C. Code Ann. §59-32-30 (B) of the Comprehensive Health Education Act as directing each local school board to appoint a thirteen-member local advisory committee. It relied on an opinion dated March 2, 1993, and another earlier opinion about unauthorized voting. It did not set out the facts of any particular committee vote or decide the validity of one.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §59-32-30 (B): committee-size provision quoted in the opinion.
• Attorney General opinion dated March 2, 1993, and an earlier opinion about unauthorized voting: described in this letter.

Official title

Asking whether more than thirteen members may be appointed to a local advisory committee pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §59-32-30 of Comprehensive Health Education Act.

Requester

Ms. Elizabeth Alston, Chairman, Charleston County School Board of Trustees

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-27-2000/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00april-27-alston.pdf

Original opinion text

('
'l

I

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

April 27, 2000

IL

I
Ms. Elizabeth Alston
Chairman
Charleston County School District Board of Trustees
7 Calhoun Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Dear Ms. Alston:

I

You have asked whether more than thirteen members may be appointed to a local advisory committee pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §59-32-30 (B) (1990) of the Comprehensive Health Education Act. This part of that Act provides that " ... each local school board shall appoint a thirteen-member local advisory committee ... " with the representation specified in the law. A previous opinion of this Office concluded that the membership should not consist of more than thirteen members. Ops. Atty. Gen (March 2, 1993). You have also asked about whether votes taken by a committee with more than thirteen members are valid. A previous opinion of this Office addressed a similar issue in the instance of a chairperson voting when he lacked authority to do so. Ops. Atty. Gen (August 29, I 98-1). The Opinion concluded that whether the entire vote of the body was invalidated or just the chairperson's vote depended upon whether the chairperson's vote was identifiable. The public body itself would be the judge of whether the vote was identifiable. Id. This opinion may be of guidance here as to the votes of the additional members. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been wTitten 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.

4~:;;r ~~-IJl~H;

•

l'osr 011

in

81J\

1l'i.+'1

•

Co11·MHL. S.C

21J21 l-l'i-+9

•

T1.1.11·H1>1\I·.: X03-7.\4-.1lJ70

•

F\1.\1\tll t·

S03-253-il2X3

Ms. Elizabeth Alston
April 27, 2000
Page 2
If you have further questions, please let me know.

j
L"

I

Enclosures