Should a South Carolina school district follow state board guidance on local funding effort while the rule was disputed?

Plain-English summary

In a 1996 informal opinion to a school superintendent, an assistant deputy attorney general addressed a disputed local funding effort calculation. An earlier letter had said reasonable views differed on whether revenues exceeding budget estimates had to become the next year's base. That question, the author repeated, might require a declaratory judgment or legislative clarification.

The superintendent asked whether to follow State Board of Education guidelines in the meantime. The author suggested doing so. The board monitored and audited education funds and decided whether a district complied with the local-effort requirement for eligibility to receive Education Improvement Act funds, subject to statutory waiver. Its interpretation would therefore affect a district's compliance determination. The letter did not settle which interpretation of excess revenue was legally correct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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 AG decide whether unexpected revenue must raise the next year's funding base?
A: No. The letter said the issue remained disputed and could require a court declaration or legislative clarification.

Q: Whose guidance did the letter suggest following in the meantime?
A: It suggested the State Board of Education's construction because the board monitored compliance and education-fund disbursement.

Q: Why did the board's view matter to a district?
A: Under the law discussed, a noncompliant district could not receive Education Improvement Act funds without a board waiver, and the board determined compliance.

Background and statutory framework

The Newberry County superintendent followed up on an earlier AG letter about maintenance of local funding effort. The author pointed to the State Board's audit, monitoring, and waiver responsibilities and explained why its construction of §59-21-1030 would affect funding decisions. He treated that practical role as a reason to follow the board's view while the underlying statutory dispute remained open.

This was an informal opinion signed by an assistant deputy attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• Local-effort provision: §59-21-1030.

Official title

Regarding the maintenance of local effort requirements for school districts set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 59-21-1030 (Supp. 1995) which was addressed in an informal opinion dated September 30, 1996.

Requester

The Honorable TEC Dowling, Superintendent, Newberry County School District

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-15-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96dec15dowling.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
A'ITORNEY GENERAL

December 15, 1996

The Honorable TEC Dowling
Superintendent
Newberry . county School District
P.O. Box 718
Newberry, SC 2910~
Dear Dr. Dowling:
You have requested an opinion regarding the maintenance of local effort requirements for school districts set forth in s.c. Code Ann. S 59-21-1030 (Supp. 1995) which was addressed in an informal opinion from me to you and the Honorable Harriett Rucker on September 30, 1996. That letter discussed the issue of whether revenue in excess of budget estimates must be used as a base for calculating the local effort requirements for the following fiscal year. It stated that this issue remains the subject of differing opinions and may need to be resolved by a declaratory judgment action or legislative clarification. You have asked to be advised whether to continue to follow the State Board of Education's guidelines untii' any declaratory judgment or legislative action clarifies this matter. The State Board and State Department of Education have substantial responsibilities with respect to auditing of funding for the schools. See§§ 59-20-60 and 59-21-1020 (Supp. 1995). In particular, S59-21-1020 provides that the State Board must monitor and audit the disbursement of Education Improvement Act (EIA) funds and §59-21-1030 provides that no schoo,l district that has not complied with its terms may receive EIA funds unless a waiver is granted by the State Board under the terms of that statute. These provisions necessarily give the State Board the authority to

~~. ~~ • PosTOFFICE Box 11549 •

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMll.~: 803-253-6283

The Honorable TEC Dowling
December 15, 1996
Page 2

determine compliance with §59-21-1030. 1 Accordingly, the Board's construction of §59-21-1030 will affect that determination of compliance. Therefore, this authority suggests that, until legislative or judicial clarification is forthcoming, the StateBoard 's construction of §59-21-1030. should be followed . Th~s letter is an informal opinion. It has been written 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.

Yours very
_,-, truly,

-~~:;:7 -
.-~·:·:·? . · . . -~)

_,J ~- -·1 'iorj,._smi th, Ji~.

-· Assistant Depu~y Attorney General
CC:

The Honorable Harriett L. Rucker

JESjr

1

The " ••• primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 s.c. 134, 341 S.E. 2d 134 (1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning. 11 Id.