Could a fire district commissioner vote on pay and grievances affecting firefighter relatives?

Plain-English summary

St. Paul's Fire District asked whether a commissioner who volunteered as a firefighter and had two brothers and a son employed by the district could vote on salaries, personnel policies and grievance appeals. The Attorney General did not decide whether those votes were allowed. It said the State Ethics Commission was the proper body to interpret the State Ethics Act, noted that the former general state nepotism statute had been repealed, and directed questions about the district's own manuals to its attorney, who had access to the full provisions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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 this AG letter clear the commissioner to vote on relatives' pay?
A: No. It did not decide the Ethics Act question and referred that question to the State Ethics Commission.

Q: Did the AG decide what the fire district's personnel manuals required?
A: No. It said the excerpts supplied concerned employment of relatives rather than commissioner conflicts, and recommended consulting the district's attorney with access to the full manuals.

Q: What did the opinion say about a general state nepotism ban?
A: It said the former state statutory provision had been repealed as of 2004 and that the described issue could instead arise under the State Ethics Act.

Background and statutory framework

Section 8-13-320 (11) assigned advisory opinions construing the State Ethics Act to the State Ethics Commission. The AG applied that allocation of authority and did not independently decide whether the commissioner could participate in any particular personnel decision.

Citations

• Section 8-13-320 (11)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-12-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04july-12-Alston.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
AlTORNEY GENERAL

July 12, 2004
" 1, ..

John Alston, Jr., Chairman
St. Paul's Fire District
P. 0. Box 66
Hollywood, South C~rolina 29449-0065
Dear Mr. Alston:

In a letter to this office you indicated that an individual has been appointed to the St.

l

i .

Paul's Fire District Commission ("SPFD") who is also a volunteer firefighter with the SPFD and who bas two brothers and a son who are paid employee-firefighters with the SPFD. You have asked whether the commission member may vote on matters before the Commission, specifically personnel policies and employee salaries, and participate in the appellate review of firefighters ' grievances without violating any provision of the State Ethics Act, state statutes dealing with a conflict of interest or nepotism or the SPFD regulations in its employee reference manual or its operational manual. In reviewing ypur question, as to any potential conflicts with the State Ethics Act, you should contact the State Ethics Commission for its review of your question. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-320 (11) (Supp. 2003), the State Ethics Commission is directed to issue advisory opinions construing the State Ethics Act. Therefore, that body is appropriate body to issue opinions construing situations that may arise under the State Ethics Act. You may write the Commission at 5000 Thurmond Mall, Suite 250, Columbia, S.C. 29201. As to any other conflict of interest or nepotism violations, there is no State statute prohibiting nepotism inasmuch as the provision formerly governing such, S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-5- 10 has been repealed. Therefore, any situations related to such could be covered in the context of the State Ethics Act. As to conflicts with SPFD regulations in its employee reference manual or its operational manual, I suggest that you contact your attorney who bas fu1J access to these provisions and would be in a better position to advise you on any of these provisions and how they may impact on the situation you addressed. The sections you forwarded to this office only dealt with employment of relatives and do not comment on

./)
li£MB_ag-r o. DENNIS Bun.DINO • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • CotUMJllA, S.C. 29211-1549 k:Pr.:>..r./AtY: c::::tr,#T/,

• TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • f ACSIMU.e: 803-253-6283

Mr. Alston
Page 2

July 12, 2004
conflicts of interest of members of the Commission as to matters that may come before the Commission. l·iJ

•

With kind regards, I am,
Very truly yours,

cdt.J/~ff Ill J_____

I
I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

R~I@&_

o ert . oo
Assistant Deputy Attorney General