Could a South Carolina school district employee also serve on that district’s board?

Plain-English summary

A technology-center employee had previously been told he could serve on Spartanburg School District Three’s board because School District Seven was his employer. After District Three became the technology center’s fiscal agent, he said District Three paid him, regarded him as its employee and applied its personnel policies to him. The AG concluded that he could no longer serve on District Three’s board.

The change mattered because the earlier opinion had found no employment relationship with the board on which he served. The AG applied the master-servant conflict principle to the new facts: a person serving as an officer of the same body that employed him faced a conflict. The opinion also quoted a school-trustee pay statute, but its conclusion rested on the described employment relationship.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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: What changed the AG’s answer about this board member? A: District Three became the technology center’s fiscal agent and, according to the facts supplied, paid him, treated him as its employee and applied its personnel policies to him.

Q: Had the AG previously allowed him to serve on District Three’s board? A: Yes. The prior opinion relied on his employment by District Seven, a different district from the board on which he served.

Q: Did the AG say any work at a shared technology center barred board service? A: No. The decisive facts were that the same district whose board he served now employed and paid him and controlled his personnel policies.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion cited the statute barring a school trustee from receiving pay as a teacher of a public school in the trustee's own district, and applied the broader master-servant conflict described in an earlier AG opinion. Its holding was tied to the requester’s changed employment facts.

Citations and references

Statute discussed: S.C. Code Ann. § 59-19-300. Earlier AG opinion discussed: February 28, 2007.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-9-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/dailey-h-a-os-8526-1-9-08-master-servant-conflict-o.pdf

Original opinion text

January 9, 2008

Mr. Harvey A. Dailey
539 Heritage Hills Drive
Spartanburg, South Carolina 29307
Dear Mr. Dailey:
In a letter to this office you referenced a prior opinion to you dated February 28, 2007 which dealt with the question of whether you may hold a position on the Spartanburg School District Three Board while remaining employed as an Industrial Relations Coordinator at the Daniel Morgan Technology Center. That opinion was premised on the understanding that you were employed by Spartanburg School District Seven but served students from both Spartanburg School Districts Three and Seven. That opinion concluded that
...because you are considered an employee of District Seven, you likely receive compensation from District Seven and are subject to its personnel policies. Therefore, District Seven also appears to have some authority over your position and possibly your compensation. The opinion also concluded that in light of such circumstances your service on the District Three Board while remaining at the Technology Center “would not create a master-servant conflict of interest.” As a result, it was the opinion of this office that there was no prohibition to your serving on the District Three Board. You indicated that formerly District Seven was the “fiscal agent” for the Technology Center. However, you have now indicated that Spartanburg School Districts Three and Seven “...have decided to give fiscal agent status to School District Three.” You have now questioned whether the Technology Center’s change of fiscal agent from School District Seven to School District Three changes the master-servant status and your ability to serve as a school board member of District Three. In our telephone conversation, you indicated that by virtue of the change in “fiscal agent” status, you are now paid by District Three. You also are considered an employee of District Three and are subject to the personnel policies of District Three.

Mr. Dailey
Page 2
January 9, 2008

S.C. Code Ann. § 59-19-300 states that it is “unlawful for a school trustee to receive pay as a teacher of a free public school that is located in the same school district of which such person is a trustee.” Also, as referenced in the prior opinion to you, “...a master-servant conflict arises when an individual serves as an employee for the same body to which he or she serves as an officer.” Consistent with such, inasmuch as you are now paid by School District Three, are considered an employee of that district and subject to its personnel policies, in the opinion of this office you would not be permitted to continue serving on the District Three Board of Trustees. If there are any questions, please advise. Sincerely, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General