Did a South Carolina budget proviso give the Agriculture Commission control over its own funding?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina's Commissioner of Agriculture asked whether a 2002 budget proviso changed the relationship between his department and the Agriculture Commission. The Attorney General said it did not. The proviso required continued funding of commissioners' per diem and subsistence when the department's General Fund appropriation was reduced, unless a commissioner voluntarily waived the payments.

The letter said the proviso protected those payments but granted no new authority to the commission. The commissioner remained responsible for administering the Department of Agriculture's budget, including funds allocated to commission activities. The opinion reaffirmed an earlier AG view of the commissioner's role as head of the department.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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 budget cuts eliminate commissioners' per diem under the proviso? A: The AG said the proviso protected the payments during a General Fund reduction unless an individual commissioner waived them.

Q: Did the proviso create a separate commission budget? A: No. The opinion said commission funds remained within the department's budget under the commissioner's administration.

Q: Did the Agriculture Commission gain new powers?
A: No. The AG said the proviso did not enlarge its authority.

Background and statutory framework

The letter interpreted Proviso 22.6 in the 2002 appropriations law and reiterated the office's earlier opinion on the Commissioner of Agriculture's constitutional and departmental role. Its interpretation was specific to that budget provision.

Citations and references

• Proviso 22.6: payment protection during a General Fund reduction.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-29-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02aug-29-tindale.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

August 29, 2002

I

L
The Honorable D. Leslie Tindal
Commissioner
SC Department of Agriculture
Post Office Box 11280
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1280

r •.

Dear Commissioner Tindal:
You have requested an opinion as to the "proper interpretation of Proviso 22.6 of the Appropriations Act." You note that Proviso 22.6, which relates to the Department of Agriculture, provides as follows: 22.6 (AGRI: Commissioners' Funding) In the event the department receives a General Fund reduction, the department must continue to fully fund per diem and subsistence payments to commissioners as provided by law, unless an individual commissioner opts to voluntarily waive those payments. By way of background, you provide the following infonnation:
[t]he Agriculture Commission does not have a separate budget. Its operations are funded with monies appropriated to the Department. In years past, funds for subsistence and per diem were paid from amounts allocated by the Department in its budget submission to the General Assembly. Requests for expenses in addition to these payment[ s] were considered and approved by the Commissioner on an individual basis. This was done in accordance with your prior opinion to me regarding the role of the Commissioner of Agriculture vis a vis the Agriculture Commission, and the opinion of Attorney General McLeod, which stated that the budget of the Department of Agriculture was a matter solely within the purview of the Commissioner. Law I Analysis

Several principles of statutory construction are pertinent. First and foremost, the elementary and cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the actual intent of the
,
1r A A

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

. ,,. .<.J..

r-U.-.-

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable D. Leslie Tindal
Page 2
August 29, 2002

General Assembly. Horn v. Davis Elec. Constructors, Inc., 307 S.C. 559, 415 S.E.2d 634 (1992). A statute as a whole must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design and policy of the lawmakers. See, Caughman v. Cola. Y.M.C.A., 212 S.C. 337, 47 S.E.2d 788 (1948). Words used must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Bryant v. City of Chas., 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 (1988). Any statute must be interpreted with common sense to avoid unreasonable results or absurd consequences. U.S. v. Rippetoe, 178 F.2d 735 (4 1h Cir. 1950). I

L.

I

In my opinion, the referenced Proviso does not alter in any way the relationship between the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Agriculture Commission which you accurately describe in your letter. The Proviso simply insures that members of the Agriculture Commission will not lose their iw: diem and subsistence payments established by state law as part of any General Fund reduction in the state budget. However, the Proviso does not expand the powers or authority of the Commission or its members nor does it change the fact that funds for the Commission are allotted through the Department of Agriculture and are under the direction and control of the Commissioner in accordance with state law. You reference the earlier opinion of Attorney General Condon in your letter. A review of that opinion is appropriate here.

I
'

I

I

In an opinion dated May 3, 1999, Attorney General Condon reviewed the legal relationship between the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Agriculture Commission. That opinion stressed the fact that the Commissioner of Agriculture is a constitutional officer. That opinion noted that the people of South Carolina, in adopting the Constitutional Amendment in 1982 (ratified in 1983), "made the Commissioner of Agriculture a constitutional office with the full knowledge and understanding that the basic and essential function of that office was to oversee and administer the Department of Agriculture." There, the Attorney General wrote:
[i]n my judgment, the essential duties of the Commissioner of Agriculture are to serve as head of the Department of Agriculture, a function which the Commissioner has exercised since the office of Commissioner was first created. The fact that the Commissioner is now a constitutional officer means that this essential function of the office cannot be assumed by another person or body, including the Commission. The Commissioner's basic authority as chief of the Department, therefore, cannot be removed or undermined without a change in the Constitution. That opinion remains the opinion of the Office. As Attorney General Condon concluded in the 1999 opinion, any effort by the General Assembly to undermine or remove authority from the Commissioner of Agriculture as head of the Department of Agriculture would be contrary to the State Constitution.

The Honorable D. Leslie Tindal
Page 3
August 29, 2002

In this light, we deem the referenced Proviso as nothing more than a direction by the General Assembly to preserve the members of the Agriculture Commission's Qg diem and subsistence in the wake of massive state budget cuts. As noted above, the Proviso does not alter the relationship between the Commissioner as head of the Department of Agriculture and the Agriculture Commission, as discussed above, nor does it expand the Commission's powers. As you have correctly stated in your letter, the Commissioner, as the chief executive officer of the Department, remains the person who is responsible for and administers the Department's budget, including those funds which are allocated to the Commission as part of that budget.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/an