Could a South Carolina school district offer its own employee cafeteria plan alongside the state plan in 1995?

Plain-English summary

In February 1995, Horry County's school superintendent asked whether the district could offer its own cafeteria benefits plan in addition to the state plan, with different benefits and no competition with state health insurance. A Deputy Attorney General said an earlier AG opinion interpreting § 9-1-60 barred that arrangement. He reviewed a later amendment and found that it did not make the prior interpretation clearly erroneous or otherwise change the result for school districts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Historical summary

School districts and benefits administrators

The writer treated the Retirement System plan as the only cafeteria plan available to a school district under the 1995 statute, even for the noncompeting supplemental arrangement described by the requester. He distinguished a temporary statutory allowance for a transportation department's independent plan as consistent with, rather than an exception for, school districts.

Common questions

Did offering different benefits make the district's separate plan permissible? No. The request included that feature, and the writer still adhered to the prior opinion barring the separate plan.

Did the 1993 amendment change the school-district answer? The writer said no. It addressed conversion of transportation employees to the state plan and did not alter the earlier school-district conclusion.

Background and statutory framework

The letter applied § 9-1-60 and expressly reconsidered the AG opinion of October 7, 1987. It stated the office's rule for departing from prior opinions and found neither clear error nor a relevant legal change. Its answer concerned the particular school-district plan described in 1995.

Citations and references

• § 9-1-60: cafeteria-plan provision interpreted by the earlier and current letters.
• October 7, 1987 AG opinion: prior school-district plan interpretation followed here.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-8-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995feb8smith.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK

REMBERT C. DENNlS DUii.DiNO
POST OFtlCB BOX llS49
COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-IS49
TELEPHONE: 801-734-3970
FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 8, 1995

Gary Smith, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Horry County
School District
1600 9th Avenue
Conway, SC 29526
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Dr. Smith:
You have requested the Opinion of this Off ice as to whether a school district may provide its own "cafeteria" plan for employee benefits under the following circumstances:

r~-·-

1.

The Plan is in addition to the plan provided by the South Carolina System (State Plan).

2.

The Plan offers different benefit programs than the State Plan.

3.

The Plan does not compete with the State heal th insurance plan set forth in s.c. Code Ann. S 1-11710 (Supp. 1993).

As you recognize in your letter, this Office has previously issued an opinion on a similar question. Ops. Atty. Gen., Oct. 7, 1987. That opinion interpreted s.c. Code Ann. § 9-1-60, as added by Act. 170, Part II, § 18, 1987 Acts 1930 as providing " ... that the only cafeteria plan in which school districts may participate is the one offered by the Retirement System." We have carefully reviewed S 9-1-60, a subsequent amendment thereto (Supp. 1993), and the above prior Opinion. That Opinion,

Gary Smith, Ed.D.
Page 2
February 8, 1995
unless overruled, would preclude the operation by a school district of a cafeteria plan under the circumstances set forth in your letter. This Office continues to be guided by a prior Opinion unless the prior Opinion "is clearly erroneous or the applicable law has changed." Ops. Atty. Gen. Oct. 3, 1986. After reviewing this matter, we cannot conclude that the 1987 Opinion is clearly erroneous nor has applicable law changed in a way that would alter the conclusion of the 1987 Opinion. In particular, a 1993 amendment to § 9-1-60 authorizes the former Department of Highways and Public Transportation to continue with its independent cafeteria plan "until such time as the Comptroller General can convert Department of Transportation employees into the State cafeteria plan." This amendment is consistent with the conclusion of the 1987 opinion that the only cafeteria plan in which school districts may participate is the Retirement System plan because school districts fall under the same plan to which Transportation employees are being converted. If you have any questions, please let me know.

J. Emory Smith, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
JESjr:pb