Who filled a Saluda School District 1 board vacancy after a trustee died in 1995?

Plain-English summary

After a Saluda School District 1 trustee died before his term ended, Representative Molly Spearman asked how the vacancy should be filled. Assistant Attorney General Patricia Petway concluded in April 1995 that the Governor should appoint a replacement for the unexpired term on the recommendation of the resident members of the county legislative delegation. That procedure came from section 11 of a 1972 act specific to the district.

The district elected its seven trustees from single-member areas under a federal court order following a voting rights case. Petway examined that order and found no replacement appointment rule in it. She also rejected a special-election timetable and a general school-board vacancy provision as governing this particular vacancy. She left a separate question about Spearman's role under ethics law to the House Ethics Committee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Historical summary

Saluda district officials and residents

For the vacancy described in 1995, the letter treated the 1972 local act as the operative rule. The court order changed the election arrangement but did not state a new method for filling this vacancy.

Governor and county legislative delegation

The appointment mechanism described by the opinion gave resident delegation members the recommendation role and the Governor the appointment role. The appointment would cover only the deceased trustee's remaining term.

Common questions

Did the district have to hold a special election after the trustee died? Petway said no authority she found allowed a special election for this vacancy. The general special-election timetable did not itself supply that authority.

Did the federal voting-rights order change how the vacancy was filled? The writer found no provision in the order replacing the existing vacancy rule. The order referred one type of vacancy back to the law then in effect.

Did the letter decide whether the requesting legislator could participate in the recommendation? No. Petway said that ethics issue had been referred to the House Ethics Committee and expected that body to address any remaining question.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared the local 1972 act, the federal court order, and several general vacancy statutes. It regarded the district-specific act as controlling over a general school-board provision and found no identified later local act to displace it. The opinion was informal and expressly lacked the Attorney General's personal review and formal publication.

Citations and references

• Act No. 1244 of 1972: local act containing the district's vacancy method.
• Section 7-13-190: special-election timetable the writer found inapplicable.
• Section 59-19-60: general board-vacancy law the writer found inapplicable.
• Holloway: federal court matter whose order established single-member board elections.
• State v. Cutler: authority cited for applying a specific statute over a conflicting general one.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-6-1995-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995apr6spearman.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON

ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 6, 1995

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Member, House of Representatives
335-D Blatt Building

• Columbia, South Carolina 29211
  RE: Informal Opinion
  Dear Representative Spearman:
  By your letter of April 3, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion as to how a vacancy on the Saluda School District 1 Board of Trustees is to be filled. You advised that a trustee died recently; his was a four-year term which would expire November 1996. You further advised that Saluda District 1 is presently governed by a seven-member board elected according to a single-member district plan approved several years ago after settlement of a voting rights action. You inquired as to the proper method to fill this vacancy. Act No. 1244 of 1972, in section 11, provides for membership on the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1 in Saluda County, as well as voting areas. Section 11 also provides: "Vacancies on the board shall be filled by appointment of the Governor upon recommendation of the resident members of the county legislative delegation for the unexpired term." We have not located a more recent act of the General Assembly, relative to Saluda District No. I, which would provide a means for filling a vacancy on the board of trustees. We have examined the Order of the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr., United 'states District Judge, dated October 20, 1988, in Holloway, et al. v. Board of Trustees for School District Number One in Saluda Countv, South Carolina, et al., C.A. No. 9-88-638-3, in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Greenwood Division. The Order enjoined elections at large for members of the Board of Trustees and created a REMBERT c. DENNIS BL.!LDING

•

POST OFFJCE Box 11549

•

COLL'MBIA, s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSL.llLE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Page 2
April 6, 1995
seven-member board to be elected from single-member districts as drawn in the Order. The only apparent provision therein pertinent to filling a vacancy is on page 3 of the Order, in part (5), which states: "Any trustee who moves his residence from the district that he represents shall automatically terminate his office, and the vacancy shall be filled as presently provided by law." There is no indication within the Order as to the present provision of law, however. Other statutory provisions have been examined to determine their possible applicability to this situation but have been rejected. Section 7-13-190, S.C. Code Ann. (1993 Cum. Supp.), provides a timetable for special elections to fill vacancies in elective offices when such vacancy occurs by reason of death, resignation or removal and the vacancy in office is one which is filled by a special election to complete the term of office; this statute is not applicable here because no authority has been located which

• would allow for a special election to be held to fill the vacancy. Section 59-19-60
  provides a means for filling vacancies on boards of trustees; this statute appears to be inapplicable for several reasons, in that Act No. 1244of1972 is a more recent expression of legislative will as to filling a vacancy than is §59-19-60, Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Com'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943)(last expression of the legislature is the law]; furthermore, §59-19-60 is a general law, whereas Act No. 1244 of 1972 is an act specific to Saluda District No. I. State v. Cutler, 274 S.C. 376, 264 S.E.2d 420 (1980)[in case of a conflict between a general statute and a specific statute, the specific statute prevails]. Sections 1-3-220 and 4-11-20 provide mechanisms to fill vacancies in county offices, but a trustee on the Saluda District No. I board would most probably not be considered a county officer since the board has less than county-wide jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the cited portion of section 11 of Act No. 1244 of 1972 would provide the mechanism for filling a vacancy on the board of trustees of Saluda District No. I. The vacancy referenced above would be filled by appointment of the Governor upon the recommendation of the resident members of the county legislative delegation for the unexpired term. I understand that inquiry has been made of the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives as to the propriety of your role in this decision, considering the requirements of the Ethics, Government Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991. I trust that an;' questions remaining unanswered by this informal opinion will be resolved by the House Ethics Committee. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the

The Honorable Molly M. Spearman
Page 3
April 6, 1995
Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I trust that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry and that you will advise if clarification or additional assistance should be needed With kindest regards, I am Sincerely, 'P~.0.~

Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General