Could a South Carolina legislator employed by a school district sponsor a school closure bill?

Plain-English summary

In 2007, a South Carolina representative who worked as a public information officer for the Union County School District asked whether he could introduce a bill repealing a local rule that required a unanimous vote to close a county high school. The Attorney General knew of no law that absolutely prohibited him from introducing it. The answer rested on the assumption that passage would not create a prohibited economic interest for the representative or another person or entity covered by the ethics statute.

The opinion quoted the prohibition on using public office or influencing a governmental decision to obtain an economic interest. It also explained why the statute's definition of a “business with which he is associated” did not cover the school or school district in this situation. The AG did not decide whether the bill would actually affect the representative's finances.

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 working for the school district automatically bar the representative from introducing the bill? A: The AG said he was unaware of any absolute prohibition, assuming the bill had no economic impact contrary to the ethics law he quoted.

Q: Was the school district a “business with which he is associated” under the quoted definition? A: No. The AG said the quoted business definition did not apply to a school or school district.

Q: Did the AG determine whether the representative would personally benefit financially? A: No. He expressly assumed the bill would have no personal economic impact and conditioned his conclusion on the absence of a prohibited economic interest.

Background and statutory framework

The requested bill would have repealed local legislation requiring a unanimous vote to close a high school in Union County. The AG discussed S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-700's restrictions on use of office and participation in decisions involving economic interests, together with the definitions in S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-100(4) and § 8-13-100(11).

Citations and references

Statutes: S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-700; S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-100(4); S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-100(11).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-12-2007/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/anthony-m-2-12-07-os-8337-is-there-conflict-of-inte.pdf

Original opinion text

February 12, 2007

The Honorable Mike Anthony
Member, House of Representatives
432-D Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Anthony:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether there is a conflict of interest for you to introduce legislation repealing local legislation that requires a unanimous vote to close a high school in Union County. You indicated that you are employed as a public information officer for the Union County School district. According to you, there is only one school district in Union County and therefore any closing of a high school would impact that district. I am unaware of any laws that would absolutely prohibit you from introducing such legislation. I assume that passage of any such legislation would not have an economic impact on you personally. For instance, S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-700 provides that (A) No public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated1.... (B) No public official, public member, or public employee may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, membership, or employment to influence a governmental decision in which he, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated has an economic interest...

1

The term “business with which he is associated” would not apply to a school or school district inasmuch as such term is defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-100(4) as “...a business of which the person or a member of his immediate family is a director, an officer, owner, employee, a compensated agent, or holder of stock worth one hundred thousand dollars or more at fair market value and which constitutes five percent or more of the total outstanding stock of any class.”

The Honorable Mike Anthony
Page 2
February 12, 2007
The term “economic interest” is defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-100(11) as (a)...an interest distinct from that of the general public in a purchase, sale, lease, contract, option, or other transaction or arrangement involving property or services in which a public official, public member, or public employee may gain an economic benefit of fifty dollars or more. Such provision further states that (b) This definition does not prohibit a public official, public member, or public employee from participating in, voting on, or influencing or attempting to influence an official decision if the only economic interest or reasonably foreseeable benefit that may accrue to the public official, public member, or public employee is incidental to the public official's, public member's, or public employee's position or which accrues to the public official, public member, or public employee as a member of a profession, occupation, or large class to no greater extent than the economic interest or potential benefit could reasonably be foreseen to accrue to all other members of the profession, occupation, or large class. As long as there is no economic impact on you or any other individual or entity contrary to the above legislation, I am unaware of any prohibition to you introducing legislation repealing local legislation requiring a unanimous vote to close a high school in Union County. 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