Could South Carolina emergency management enter its proposed disaster-grant applicant agreement?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina’s Emergency Management Division sent the AG a proposed State/Applicant Agreement for local entities seeking Public Assistance or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding. The AG reviewed provisions on documentation, inspection, a subgrantee’s continuing liability to the grantee, and hold-harmless language. He found no suggestions or criticisms, described the agreement as reasonable, and concluded that the Division could enter it with enforceable terms.

The letter did not reproduce the agreement or analyze each clause in detail. Its conclusion addressed the proposed agreement presented to the AG, not every future grant contract or variation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. 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 find the proposed disaster-grant agreement enforceable? A: Yes. He said the Emergency Management Division had authority to enter the proposed agreement and that its terms were enforceable.

Q: Which provisions did he specifically review?
A: The requester identified documentation, review and inspection, continued subgrantee liability, and hold-harmless provisions; the AG said he had no suggested changes.

Q: Did the opinion publish or interpret the full contract? A: No. The short letter described his review and conclusion without reproducing the proposed agreement’s full text.

Background and statutory framework

The AG noted that his office ordinarily did not interpret contracts it had not helped negotiate. He nevertheless reviewed this proposed cooperative agreement and gave a narrow conclusion about the agency’s authority and the agreement’s enforceability. The letter cited no particular statute or case.

Citations and references

No statute or case was cited in the opinion. The source was the proposed State/Applicant Agreement described in the requester’s letter.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-6-2007/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/osborne-r-c-12-06-07-os-8507-state-applicant-agreem.pdf

Original opinion text

December 6, 2007

Ronald C. Osborne, Director
Emergency Management Division
2779 Fish Hatchery Road
West Columbia, South Carolina 29172
Dear Mr. Osborne:
In a letter to this office you forwarded a proposed cooperative agreement between the State and local applicants who request funding under the Public Assistance (PA) program or the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. You indicated that you refer to these agreements as State/Applicant Agreements for PA or HMGP. You asked for review by this office of such agreement. Ordinarily, this office does not interpret contractual agreements where it has not participated in negotiation thereof. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the proposed agreement and it appears that such is reasonable. In particular, you asked that this office review Articles 6, 18f and 19 of the State/Applicant Agreement dealing with Required Documentation; Review/Inspection; the provision stating that the Subgrantee shall not be relieved of liability to the Grantee by virtue of any breach of Agreement by the Subgrantee; and the Hold Harmless clause. I have reviewed the proposed agreement and can offer no suggestions or criticisms. In the opinion of this office, the State of South Carolina, Office of the Adjutant General, Emergency Management Division has the authority to enter into this cooperative agreement and the terms of the agreement are enforceable.

Mr. Osborne
Page 2
December 6, 2007

With kind regards, I am,
Very truly yours,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General