Could Anderson County Council reject a board appointee chosen by a council district?

Plain-English summary

Anderson County's attorney asked whether a council district's selection for a county board became final automatically, or whether the full council could reject it. The 2001 informal opinion read the local ordinance to require a meaningful county council voice vote to affirm or reject the appointee. The sentence saying no overall-council “election or vote” was required referred to the more elaborate election procedure for other appointments. It did not erase the same provision's express requirement that district appointments be affirmed by voice vote.

The AG also considered the county attorney's account of the council's earlier practice and intended wording. It qualified its conclusion as based on that information and absent contrary evidence of local intent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. 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: Was approval of a district appointee automatic?
A: No. The AG concluded that the full council could vote to accept or reject the nominee under the ordinance it reviewed.

Q: Why did the ordinance say no full-council vote was required?
A: The AG read that phrase as distinguishing district appointments from a separate formal election among multiple nominees, while giving effect to the voice-vote affirmation clause.

Q: Did the AG write or enact Anderson County's ordinance?
A: No. The letter said the office did neither and deferred to local authorities for insight into the drafters' intent.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion interpreted the county's own appointment procedure by reading its subsections together and considering the county's reported prior practice. Its conclusion concerned district appointments under that ordinance, not every county board appointment process.

Citations and references

• State ex rel. McLeod v. Nessler
• Adams v. Clarendon County School Dist. No. 2

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-25-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01jan-25-martin.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 25, 2001

I

Thomas L. Martin, Esquire
Anderson County Attorney
Post Office Box 8002
Anderson, South Carolina 29622-8002
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Martin:
By your letter of January 23, 2001, you have requested an opinion of this Office concerning an interpretation of an Anderson County ordinance. By way of background, you provide the following information:

I

A recently elected member of Anderson County Council has questioned whether the referenced section of county law requires approval by the County Council of Anderson County for appointments, by council district, to Anderson County Boards (other than Committees of County Council). The Council member in question has apparently interpreted the section in question as allowing members of County Council to make district appointments to County Boards and Committees (other than Committees of County Council), which are then subject to automatic approbation by the County Council. ...

I drafted the particular code section in question, based upon a long standing but unwritten policy of Anderson County Council to affirm council district appointments (other than committees of County Council) by voice vote of County Council. At the time of drafting and subsequent enactment of the ordinance adopting the code section in question, it was the intent of Anderson County Council, as expressed to me as County Attorney, to formally state the requirement of Anderson County Council that such appointments be "affirmed" (in the sense of approved or confirmed) by the entire County Council. The language in the section referring to the lack of a requirement for an election and vote refers to the immediately preceding subsection b, which requires a formal election and voting for appointments other than appointments by council district. In sum, you now ask which interpretation of the ordinance is correct: when positions are to be filled

Q

REMBERT c D~N/S Brn.DINC

JVLN ..1 , "''/: · ~LCt:f:z:;LJ

•

POST 0HKE Box 11549

•

COUiMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPtHlSE: 8(lJ - n-1- .1970

•

F.~!'SIMllL 803-25 :l-628 .l

Thomas Martin. Esquire
January 25, 2001
Page 2of3
by County Council district appointment, can the Council affirm the appointment (in effect vote to accept or reject) or must the Council automatically accept the district appointment? The particular provision of Anderson County Ordinance Section 2-38(c)(6)(c) reads:

fI

L

Appointment: When positions are to be filled by county council district appointment, no election or vote by the overall county council is required, but each appointment should be announced in public meeting for public information and record purposes and shall be affirmed by the county council by voice vote. The confusion in interpreting this provision lies in the reconciliation of "no election or vote ... is required" with "shall be affirmed ... by voice vote."

I

In interpreting such a legislative enactment as an ordinance, full effect must be given to each portion of the ordinance, and apparent conflicts must be reconciled and construed harmoniously if at all possible. State ex rel. McLeod v. Nessler, 273 S.C. 371, 256 S.E.2d 419 (1979); Adams v. Clarendon County School Dist. No. 2, 270 S.C. 266, 241 S.E.2d 897 ( 1978). Furthermore, it is well settled that, when interpreting an ordinance, legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used. Restaurant Row Associates v. Horrv Countv, 327 S.C. 383, 489 S.E.2d 641(Ct. App. 1997); Charleston County Parks and Rec. Comm'n v. Somers, 319 S.C. 65, 459 S.E.2d 841 (1995). An ordinance must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers. Id. Reading the above provision in its proper context sheds some light on the question. Immediately preceding subsection (c) on filling appointments is a provision labeled "Election." The Election provision applies when members of boards and committees are filled by the entire Council. The ordinance requires the chairperson to announce the names of all nominees, the clerk to call roll, and each Council member to cast votes equaling the number of vacancies. The nominees with the majority of votes win. By comparison, the appointments provision applies when the positions are filled by district appointment. The name of the district appointment nominee is offered to the Council to be "affirmed." The differences in procedure offer a reasonable explanation of why the phrase "no election or vote by the overall county council is required'' is not inconsistent with ·'shall be affirmed by the county council by voice vote." The entire Council need not choose among multiple candidates and cast multiple votes, as in the Election provision. but must be allowed to voice an affirmation of the appointment nominee, in effect voting to accept or reject the appointment. Although the language of the ordinance arguably leaves some room for confusion, the prior actions of the County Council before the codification of these procedures confirms this interpretation. This Office neither participates in the drafting of ordinances nor attends meetings of county councils at which an ordinance such as this would be discussed. Accordingly, we consistently defer to local authorities to interpret ordinances which were adopted at the local level for any

Thomas Martin, Esquire
January 25, 2001
Page 3of3
additional insight or enlightenment as to the drafters' intent. Based on the information presented for our consideration and in the absence of additional information as to intent to the contrary, I would concur with your opinion that Anderson County intended to enact a procedure when positions are to be filled by County Council district appointment that requires the affirmative vote of the County Council. I also particularly concur with the conclusion and observation on page two of your letter:

L

The proposed interpretation, by the newly elected council member, of the section as mandating approbation by County Council would, of course, obviate the necessity of a voice vote by County Council. In other words, the voice vote by County Council would be a redundancy, since it would be non-discretionary. For all of the foregoing, it is the opinion of this Office that when positions are to be filled by County Council district appointment, the Council must affirm the appointment, in effect, voting to accept or reject the appointee. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I remain

I

Very truly yours,

Susannah Cole
Assistant Attorney General