Could a Charleston County planning commissioner also sit on South Carolina’s coastal appeals panel?

Plain-English summary

A county attorney asked whether one person could serve on both the Charleston County Planning Commission and South Carolina's Coastal Zone Appellate Panel. The 2000 informal opinion said that would violate the state constitution's dual-office prohibition. Earlier AG opinions had classified county planning commissioners as public officers. The AG also treated appellate panel members as officers because the panel was created by law, its members were chosen by the legislature for defined terms, and it exercised significant quasi-judicial authority over coastal permit appeals.

The conclusion concerned simultaneous service in those two positions. It did not address other coastal advisory roles or every kind of planning-board appointment.

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: Why was the planning commission seat treated as an office?
A: The AG cited earlier office opinions consistently classifying county planning commissioners as public officers for dual-office purposes.

Q: Why was the coastal panel seat also an office?
A: The opinion noted its statutory creation, fixed terms and discretionary appellate role in coastal permit matters.

Q: Did the AG permit one person to hold both seats?
A: No. It concluded that simultaneous membership would violate the constitutional rule against holding two public offices.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied the state court's sovereign-power test and other markers of a public office. It regarded the panel's review of administrative permit decisions as a quasi-judicial exercise of discretion, then combined that classification with its established view of county planning commission service.

Citations and references

• Sanders v. Belue and State v. Crenshaw, on public-office characteristics.

Official title

Asking whether a dual office holding situation exists if a member of the Charleston County Planning Commission simultaneously serves as a member of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Appellate Panel.

Requester

Mr. Joseph Dawson, III, Esquire

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-3-2000-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00aug3dawson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLIE C O N D ON
AITO RNE Y G EN ER A L

August 3, 2000

Mr. Joseph Dawson, III, Esq.
Deputy County Attorney
2 Courthouse Square, Room 401
Charleston, South Carolina 29401

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Dawson:
By your letter of July 31, 2000, you have asked whether a dual office holding situation would exist if an individual were to serve simultaneously on the Charleston County Planning Commission and the South Carolina Coastal Zone Appellate Panel.

F' '.

~

Article XVII, Section lA of the South Carolina Constitution, provides that "no person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time ... ,"with exceptions specified for an officer in the militia, a member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or a notary public. As concluded by Attorney General Daniel McLeod in an opinion dated April 26, 1977, "[t]o determine whether a position is an office or not depends upon a number of circumstances and is not subject to any precise formula." The South Carolina Supreme Court, though, has held that for this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two offices which have duties involving an exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171 , 58 S.E. 762 (1907). "One who is charged by law with duties involving an exercise of some part of the sovereign power, either small or great, in the performance of which the public is concerned, and which are continuing and not occasional or intermittent, is a public officer." Id., 78 S.C . at 174. Other relevant considerations, as identified by the Court, are whether statutes, or other authority, establish the position, prescribe its tenure, duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (l 980).

R E:l.1B F RT

c. D EN;),dS B 1 II.DIN< ; •

. e4/.i_od x~/

POST O FFICE B ox 11 549

•

COLL M BIA, S.C 292 11-1 549

•

T ELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

F ACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Dawson
Page 2
August 3, 2000

Prior Opinions of this Office have consistently concluded that a member of a county planning commission would hold an office for dual office holding purposes. See, e.g., Ops.
£\ID:. Gen. dated August 6, 1991; January 10, 1990 and January 23, 1989. Therefore, it must be determined whether membership on the South Carolina Coastal Zone Appellate Panel would likewise constitute an office. As you know, the Coastal Zone Appellate Panel was created by S.C. Code Ann. §4839-10 et seq. Pursuant to §48-39-10, panel members are elected by the General Assembly, and their terms of office are for four years and until successors are appointed and qualify. In addition to other duties, §48-39-l 50(D) provides,"( a]ny applicant having a permit denied or any person adversely affected by the granting of the permit has the right of direct appeal from the decision of the Administrative Law Judge Division to the Coastal Zone Appellate Panel." Thus, the Panel is imparted with significant quasi-judicial responsibilities. This Office has concluded on numerous occasions that members of bodies whose duties are quasi-judicial in nature and involve the exercise of discretion are office holders. See, e.g., Ops. Atty. Gen. dated August 6, 1991; and June 1, 1984. Therefore, based upon the reasoning and conclusions of these earlier opinions, a member of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Appellate Panel would be deemed an office holder for dual office holding purposes. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a member of the Charleston County Planning Commission may not simultaneously serve on the South Carolina Coastal Zone Appellate Panel without contravening the dual office holding prohibitions of the State Constitution. I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry and that you will not hesitate to contact me ifl can be of additional assistance. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opm10n. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours,

Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General
ZCW/an