Did Spartanburg County have to keep letting election-board members buy health insurance through its plan?

Official title

As to whether Spartanburg County (the “County”) must continue to provide members of the County Election Commission and the Board of Registration with the option to purchase health insurance through the County’s insurance program.

Requester

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese, Senator, District No. 11

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked whether Spartanburg County had to keep offering election commission and registration board members the option to obtain coverage through the county plan. The Attorney General found no state provision requiring the county to keep supplying insurance benefits in addition to the compensation set by law. It likewise found no general bar on ending those benefits during the members' terms.

The answer was conditional. If the county had promised the benefit for the rest of an appointed term through an ordinance, agreement, or similar act, that commitment might matter. Without such a promise, the office called the issue a policy choice for county council.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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 state law guarantee health-plan access to these election officials? A: The opinion identified no state requirement to continue the supplemental insurance benefit.

Q: Could county council end the benefit during an appointed term? A: The opinion found no general prohibition, but conditioned the answer on there being no promise to continue the benefit through that term.

Q: Did the opinion set the county's future benefits policy?
A: No. It said county council had discretion to choose whether to continue the benefits absent a binding commitment.

Background and statutory framework

The office compared state-set board compensation with the county's supplemental insurance arrangement. It concluded that the legal answer depended on the absence of a specific county promise to preserve coverage.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-23-2014-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/reese-g-g-os-9726-1-23-14-health-insurance-sburg-county-election-commission-00167760xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON

A TIORNEY GENERAL

January 23, 2014

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese
Senator, District No. I I
P.O. Box 142
Columbia, S.C. 29202
Dear Senator Reese,
You seek an opinion of this Office as to whether Spartanburg County (the "County") must continue to provide members of the County Election Commission and the Board of Registration with the option to purchase health insurance through the County's insurance program. By way of background, you state the County "has always provided this insurance to these Board Members until January 1, 2014."

Law/Analysis
S.C. Code § 7-27-415 provides that "[t]he Spartanburg County Election Commission and the Spartanburg County Board of Registration must have their members appointed and powers of their board and commission as provided by Sections 7-5-10 and 7-13-70." Members of the County Board of Registration are appointed to two year terms each even-numbered year by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. §§ 7-5-1 O(A), -30. Members of the County Election Commission are appointed at least ninety days before an election by the Governor upon the recommendation of the County's senatorial delegation and at least one-half of the County's Representatives. § 7-13-70(A). The compensation of members of county election commissions and boards of registration is typically set forth in a proviso in the annual appropriations act which, for at least the past several years, has provided: The amounts appropriated in this section for "County Registration Board Members and County Election Commissioners," shall be disbursed annually to the County Treasurer at the rate of $ 1,500 for each member, not to exceed $ 12,500 per county. The County Treasurer shall use these funds only for the compensation of County Registration Board Members and County Election Commissioners. Any funds not used for this purpose shall be returned to the State Treasurer .... 2013-2014 Appropriation Act, Part IB § 100.1; 2012-2013 Appropriation Act, Part lB § 79.1; see also§ 7-5-40 ("Each county shall receive an annual supplement from the State to help defray the expenses of personnel in keeping the registration office open"); § 7-23-10 ("Each commissioner of state and county general elections shall receive as expenses an amount as appropriated in the annual state general

REMBERT c. DENNIS BUILDING •

POST 0FACE Box 11549

• COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese
Page2
January 23, 2014
appropriations act, payable quarterly, and is entitled to election-day mileage as provided by law for state employees"). With the above in mind, the question presented is essentially whether the County may effectively decrease the overall amount of compensation provided members of the County's Registration Board and Election Commission by ceasing to make payments on their behalf to the County's insurance program. As to the compensation of public officers in general, § 8-15-10 states: Except as otherwise provided or as prohibited by the Constitution of this State, the compensation of all officers and employees of the State or any political subdivision, department or agency thereof shall be as from time to time provided by the General Assembly or the particular political subdivision, department or agency concerned, as the case may be.
§ 8-15-10.

Generally, the compensation of a public officer may be changed by proper authority during his or her term in the absence of constitutional or statutory prohibitions or limitations to the contrary. See. e.g., 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 490 ("In the absence of any prohibition or restriction, the compensation of a municipal officer may be changed by the proper authorities, and such change may apply to officers then in office as well as to those thereafter selected"); 67 C.J.S. Officers § 396 ("In the absence of a constitutional inhibition, the compensation of public officers ... may be changed even during their term of office"); 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 285 ("The legislative or other body which creates a public office has the power, except as otherwise prohibited by some constitutional provision, to alter the compensation for such office whenever it may choose to do so"). In South Carolina, constitutional and statutory provisions prohibit changes or reductions in the salary or compensation of certain public officers during the terms they were elected or appointed to serve. See. e.g., S.C. Const. Art. VI, § 7 (providing for election and terms of constitutional officers and stating "their compensation shall be neither increased nor diminished during the period for which they shall have been elected"); § 4-9-30(7) (stating, with regards to powers of county government, "[t]he salary of those officials elected by the people may be increased but may not be reduced during the terms for which they are elected"); § 8-21-300 (providing salaries of county clerks of court and registers of deeds "shall not be diminished during their term of office"); § 22-1-IO(A) ("Each magistrate's ... compensation ... must remain the same throughout the term of office"); § 22-2-40(C) ("a magistrate's compensation must not be decreased during his term in office"). Here, the Legislature has fixed the compensation of each member of the County's Registration Board and Election Commission at $1,500 annually. We are unaware of any constitutional or statutory provision which obligates the County to provide these officers with insurance benefits in addition to the compensation set forth by the Legislature. 1 Nor are we aware of any constitutional or statutory provision 1

We note that the granting of extra compensation to a public officer in addition to that which the officer is legally entitled is unconstitutional. See S.C. Const. Art. III, § 30 ("The General Assembly shall never grant extra compensation, fee or allowance to any public officer ... after service rendered, ... nor authorize payment or part payment of any claim under any contract not authorized by law"); see also § 4-11-170 ("No member of the governing body of any county shall vote for an extra allowance to any person who is paid by salary"). However, we

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese
Page 3
January 23, 20 14
expressly prohibiting the County from ceasing to provide these officers with such suppl emental benefits during the terms to which they were appointed. Accordingly, in the absence of any promi se lo continue providing members of the County's Registration Board and Election Comm iss ion such insurance benefits through the expiration of their term s2 - whether by ordinance, resolution, contract, agreement, or otherwise - we do not believe State law prohibits the County from effectively decreasing the overal l compensation of such officers by ceasing to make payments on their behalf to the County's in surance program. Thus, we believe the question of whether to continue or cease providing these officers with such insurance benefits is a policy matter to be determined within the sound discretion of the County Council.3

Harrison D. Brant
Assistant Attorney General
D AND APPROVED BY:

I~
Solicitor General

have advised that payments made by a public body on behalf of its officers and/or employees toward prem iums for a group health insurance plan in which the public body participates are generally permissible under State law and do not constitute "extra compensation" for purposes of S.C. Const. Art. 111, § 30. See. e.g., Op. S.C. Att'y Gen ., 20 13 WL 3762704 (July 8, 2013). 2

See. e.g., 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 265 ("there is some authority for the view that promised compensation creates a contractual right which, once vested, cannot be eliminated without unconstitutionally impairing the contract obligation").

3

We note that the prudence of any such policy decision is a matter beyond the scope of an opinion of this Office. See. e.g., Ops. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2013 WL 6699948 (Dec. I0, 20 13) (stating this Office generally defers to a county governing body's determination as to how it should handle discretionary matters and will not attempt to micromanage the county's affairs); 201 1 WL 22 14062 (May 11 , 201 1) ("When rendering opinions, this Office may not give a view regarding policy decisions"); 1992 WL 575683 (June 26, 1992) (stating this Office on ly addresses legal questions and will make no comment "as to policy matters or as to the wisdom of the undertaking").