Did a South Carolina city council member need fuel receipts to receive travel reimbursement?

Official title

Asking us to please clarify what documentation our Office believes is the minimum documentation required for travel reimbursement by a municipality for a municipal councilman.

Requester

The Honorable Robert Williams, Member, House of Representatives

Plain-English summary

In 2013, the Attorney General answered a question about documentation for municipal council travel reimbursement. It said a log listing the trip's purpose, destination, and mileage would be appropriate itemization. Receipts could help verify fuel or other spending, but the office's prior opinions did not require receipts for every reimbursement unless another rule did. A municipality could impose more specific documentation requirements. The underlying expenses still had to be actual expenses incurred in performing official duties.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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 a mileage log enough for municipal travel reimbursement?
A: The opinion said a log showing purpose, destination, and mileage was appropriate itemization for actual travel expenses. It also recognized that a municipality could prescribe more specific requirements.

Q: Were fuel receipts mandatory on every trip?
A: The office said its prior opinions did not require receipts every time, although receipts could be a prudent way to verify expenditures. A local rule could require them.

Q: Could a council member receive a flat travel allowance instead?
A: The opinion described reimbursement for actual official expenses and cited a prior opinion excluding a per diem payment from that category.

Background and statutory framework

S.C. Code of Laws § 5-7-170 allowed payment of actual expenses incurred by the mayor and council members in official duties, within limits prescribed by ordinance. The Attorney General distinguished documentation of actual expenses from estimates. It also quoted an earlier opinion discussing a Kentucky decision about what an officer seeking reimbursement had to show.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code of Laws § 5-7-170, quoted in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-2-2013-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/williams-r-os-9549-7-2-13-municipal-travel-reimbursement.pdf

Original opinion text

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 2, 2013

The Honorable Robert Williams
Member, House of Representatives
2512 Holly Circle
Darlington, South Carolina 29532
Dear Representative Williams:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter of February 5, 2013 to the Opinions section for a response. The following is our understanding of your question presented and the opinion of this Office concerning the issue based on that understanding.

Issue: Would you please clarify what documentation your Office believes is the minimum documentation required for travel reimbursement by a municipality for a municipal councilman? When one looks at South Carolina law, it seems that the minimum requirement for vehicular travel reimbursement should a detailed travel log containing: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The purpose of the trip;
The destination;
The mileage; and
Any fuel receipts.

Short Answer: While a municipality may choose to specify more specific requirements for reimbursement, this Office has previously opined that itemization such as what you suggested (a travel log containing the purpose of the trip, the destination and mileage) would be appropriate. While fuel and other such receipts may not be always required, they may be a prudent means to verify any such expenditures. Law/Analysis: As you mentioned in your letter, this Office has previously addressed similar questions concerning municipal and county councils and compensation. By way of background, the right of a public officer to salaiy or compensation should be authorized by statute, constitution or ordinance. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1980 WL 120651(Februaiy4, 1980) (citing 63 AM.JUR.2d Public Officers and Employees §361at845 (1972). Therefore, let us first look to the portion of South Carolina law discussing reimbursement for municipal councils. It says: The council may determine the annual salary of its members by ordinance; provided, that an ordinance establishing or increasing such salaries shall not become effective until the commencement date of the terms of two or more members elected at the next

R EMBERT

c. D ENNIS B UILDING • POST OFFICE B o x 11549 • COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Robert Williams
Page 2
July 2, 2013

general election following the adoption of the ordinance, at which time it will become effective for all members whether or not they were elected in such election. The mayor and council members may also receive payment for actual expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties within limitations prescribed by ordinance. S.C. Code of Laws § 5-7-170 ( 1976 Code, as amended). Payment to municipal council officers for actual expenses incutTed would exclude a per diem reimbursement. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 2012 WL 5266017 (October 16, 2012) (citing Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1977 WL 24591 (August 10, 1977)). Actual expenses incu1Ted by municipal council members would presumptively entail the ability to substantiate such expenses. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1981 WL 157961 (September 14, 1981 ). By definition actual expenses require documentation. If there were no such documentation, the expenses would be estimated instead of actual. In addition, our State Supreme Court has confirmed common sense interpretations of reimbursement for actual expenses pursuant to S.C. Code Section 5-7-170. Brown v. Wingard, 285 S.C. 4 78, 330 S.E. 2d 331 (1985). However, the Brown case was silent as to whether receipts are required under S.C. Code Section 5-7-170. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1986 WL 192053 (September 9, 1986). This Office also previously opined that "[a]s far as itemization of expenses [for a City Council pursuant to S.C. Code Section 5-7-170] is concerned, .. . any itemization which discloses the actual expenses incurred (e.g., itemizations such as lodging, travel, sem inar fees, books, etc.) would be appropriate." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1977 WL 2459 I (August I 0, 1977). Additionally, this Office has clearly stated for a City Council pursuant to S.C. Code Section 5-7-170 "[n]o opinion of this Office has stated that receipts or other supporting documents would be required, however. By requiring itemization, [a travel payment voucher with the name, department, dates, purpose of trip, charge account number, any advance and expenses broken down by travel, mileage, carrier, lodging, meals, tips, registration, other, explanation of other, total expense, net returned (from an advance) and net due, along with signatures] appears to comport with 1 this opinion." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1986 WL 192053 (September 9, 1986). The test for determining whether an expense should be reimbursed is:
[W]as the act done by officer relative to a matter in which the local [political subdivision] had an interest, or have an affect [sic] upon [the political subdivision's] rights or property, or the rights or property of the citizens which the officer was charged with an official obligation to protect and defend. No expenditure can be allowed legally except in a clear case where it appears that the welfare of the community and its inhabitants is involved and direct benefit results to the public. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1987 WL 245448 (April 24, 1987) (citing McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 12.190.). As the Kentucky Court of Appeals said, "reimbursement 'may be allowed for expenses that are reasonable in amount, beneficial to the public, and not predominantly personal to the officer in the sense that by common understanding and practice they are considered to be personal expenses. ' ... To receive reimbursement, the officer was required to show the amount and purpose of each expenditure, reasonableness, and that each expenditure was in an allowable category as determined by the political subdivision. To determine the latter factor, the 'court will be governed by the consideration of whether the expense is official rather than personal in nature. "' Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., 1987 WL 245448 (April 24, 1987) (citing Funk v. Milliken, 3 17 S. W.2d 499, 506, 507 (Ky. Ct. App. 1958)).

1

However, please note that the State Ethics Act gives specific requirements for state employees and officers to receive reimbursement and therefore, may be helpful as a guide. Id.

The Honorable Robert Williams
Page 3
July 2, 2013

Conclusion: Though it may be prudent to keep receipts for reimbursement, this Office has consistently opined that they are not required each time for reimbursement for members of a municipal council unless otherwise required. However, a municipality may choose to specify more specific requirements for reimbursement. However, this Office is only issuing a legal opinion. Until a court or the legislature specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this Office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter. If it is later dete1mined otherwise or if you have any additional questions or issues, please let us know. Sincerely,

c~.&1W-Anita Smith Fair
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

_.,. l

A

~2&3
ObeftD.Cook
Deputy Attorney General