Did a Clarendon County charter school need county school-board approval after the district board approved its application?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina legislator asked whether a Clarendon County school district could approve a charter-school application and file it with the State Board of Education without another approval by the county board of education. The 1999 informal opinion said the charter-school statutes gave the local district board the review role. After that board approved an application, a copy of the charter was to be filed with the State Board; the statutes did not give the county board a separate review or appeal role.

The writer acknowledged more general provisions on county boards’ powers but treated the newer, more specific charter-school provisions as controlling. He qualified the conclusion: a conflicting local statute could change it, though he had located none for Clarendon County.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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: Who reviewed a charter-school application under the statutes the AG examined? A: The applicant submitted it to the local school district board of trustees, which made the local approval decision.

Q: Did the county board of education get a second approval step? A: The writer said the charter statutes gave it no such review authority, absent a controlling local statute.

Q: Where did an approved charter go?
A: The statute quoted in the letter said a copy was filed with the State Board of Education after local-board approval.

Q: Could a denied applicant appeal to the county board?
A: The opinion pointed instead to the statute’s appeal route to the State Board when the local district board denied an application.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read provisions on application submission, local approval and appeal together. It identified “local school board” with the local district board of trustees, and observed that the charter provisions did not mention review by a county education board. A footnote addressed the general county-board statutes cited in an attachment to the request. The signed closing was restored from the official PDF page image where the text layer was garbled.

Citations and references

• Section 59-40-70(E): Filing an approved charter with the State Board of Education.
• Section 59-40-70(D): Appeal to the State Board following local-board denial.
• §59-40-60(D): Application submission to the local district board, as quoted in the letter.

Official title

Whether a Clarendon County school district could approve and file a charter school application without county-board approval.

Requester

The Honorable Alex Harvin, III, Majority Leader Emeritus, South Carolina House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-26-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99jan26harvin.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 26, 1999

The Honorable Alex Harvin, III
The Majority Leader Emeritus
House of Representatives
304-C Blatt Building
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Representative Harvin:

:
I

l,n

You have asked whether a local school district in Clarendon County may approve a charter school application and file it with the State Board of Education without the approval of the County Board of Education. The statutory provisions discussed below indicate that the County Board has no review authority as to the charter application. S.C. Code Ann. §59-40-60(D)(Supp. 1997) provides, in part, that a charter school applicant " ... shall...submit a written charter school application to the local school board of trustees for the school district.. .. " Section 59-40-70(E) further provides in part, that "[i]f a local school board approves the application, ... [a] copy of the charter shall be filed with the State Board of Education." The term "local school board" is used interchangeably with the term "local school district board of trustees" in §59-40-70. Section 59-40-70(D) states that a charter applicant may appeal to the State Board of Education "[i]fthe local school board of trustees denies [the] application .... " No mention is made in these statutes of review by or appeal to a county board of education. Given the context of the above referenced statutes and according the words their plain meaning 1 indicates a legislative intent that school district boards of trustees are to have the above

l

Applicable rules of statutory construction include the following authority: " ... [T]he meaning of particular terms in this statute may be ascertained by reference to words associated with

/)

~• RE~BE~ ;· ~EN:;.i,s Bt;IUllN<i

K./~.,~~/

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLlJMUIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

Ti'LEPHO'do: S0.1- 73-k1970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Alex Harvin, III
January 26, 1999
Page 2
duties of reviewing a charter application and that no further review is given by any other local governmental body. Although you have attached a letter to your request which references general statutes regarding the powers of county boards of education2, the above charter school related statutes should be controlling as they are the more recent and deal with the subject in a more specific way. 3

Accordingly, absent a conflicting local statute that is controlling, a school district board of trustees would have the authority to review a charter school application without the subsequent review and approval of the county board of education. I have located no local statutes for Clarendon County that would change this conclusion for that county.

I
I

them in this statute." Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company v. Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Assoc., S.C., 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991). "In construing statutory language, the statute must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory law must be construed together and each one given effect, if it can be done by any reasonable construction." State v. Alls, Op. No. 24788, (S.C. Sup. Ct. 5-18-98) The "... primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department ofHighwys and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 S.C. 134, 341S.E.2d 134 (1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id. 2

See~· §59-19-10 (1990), a statute originating in 1919 which provides that school districts

are under the management and control of school districts subject to the supervision and orders of the county board of education. Section 59-19-510, et seq. provides for appeals of matters of local controversy. 3

"General and specific statues should be read together and harmonized if possible But to the extent of any conflict between the two the special statute must prevail." Criterion Insurance Co. v. Hoffman, 258 S.C. 282, 188 S.E. 2d 459 (1972); Ops. Attv. Gen. (7-12-85). The last passed statute will prevail if the statutes are incapable of any reasonable reconcilement. Yahnis Coastal, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery, 295 S.C. 243, 368 S.E. 2d 64 (1988). Although arguably the general provisions for county boards of education could be given effect together with the specific charter school provisions to provide for review by the a county board of education, the General Assembly indicated no intent in the charter school law for any local body to have review authority other than the board of trustees.

(

J
The Honorable Alex Harvin, III
January 26, 1999
Page 3
This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Yours very truly,

J. Emory Smith, Jr.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General