Did Beaufort County's library trustees have to report to the county administrator?

Official title

Concerning the Beaufort County Library Board of Trustees (“Board”), this Office determined that the Board reported to and was accountable to the county administrator and not to the county council.

Requester

Leesa Benggio, Interim Director, South Carolina State Library

Plain-English summary

The State Library asked the Attorney General to reconsider an earlier opinion saying Beaufort County's library board was accountable to the county administrator. The office changed that conclusion. It said the administrator's statutory power covered departments the county council controlled, while the library board's powers came from the statewide county-library statute.

The opinion reasoned that making the board report to the administrator would interfere with the uniform operation of county library systems required by state law. It amended the March 2014 opinion only to the extent that it had found the board accountable to the administrator; the rest of that earlier opinion remained valid.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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 the library board have to answer to the county administrator? A: The reconsidered opinion said no. The administrator did not control the board under the statute the office applied.

Q: Did the AG withdraw the entire March 2014 opinion?
A: No. It changed the conclusion about accountability to the administrator and left the remainder valid.

Q: Why did statewide library law matter?
A: The office said county library systems had to operate uniformly and a county could not force a library board to report to the administrator in conflict with that structure.

Background and statutory framework

The office compared the administrator's responsibility for county departments that council controlled with the statute vesting county library management in a board of trustees. It revisited earlier opinions on the county-library law and relied on statewide uniformity in explaining why the board did not fall under the administrator's supervision.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-28-2014/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Benggio-Leesa-OS-9771-07-28-2014-00392940xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

Alan Wilson

south c'

Attorney General

July 28. 2014

Leesa Benggio

Interim Director
South Carolina State Library
PO Box 1 1469

Columbia. SC 2921 1
Dear Ms. Benggio:
In a prior opinion dated March 27. 2014 (On. S.C. Ally. Gen.. March 27, 2014 (2014 WL 1284637)) concerning the Beaufort County Library Board of Trustees ("'Board"), this Office determined that the Board reported to and was accountable to the county administrator and not to the county council.

You

have asked us to reconsider our conclusion.

LAW/ANALYSIS:

Both the South Carolina Code and our prior opinions are pertinent in our reconsideration.

Beaufort

County has a council-administrator form of government. The county administrator is given the following authority: The

council

shall

employ

an

administrator

who

shall

be

the

administrative head of the county government and shall be responsible for the administration of all the departments of the county eovernment which the council has the authority to control.

S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-620 (1976 Code, as amended) (emphasis added). Section 4-9-35 governs the establishment and operation of county public library systems. It states: (A) Each county council shall prior to July

I,

1979, by ordinance

establish within the county a county public library system, which ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of this section; provided,

however, notwithstanding any other provision of this

chapter, the governing body of any county may by ordinance provide for the composition, function, duties, responsibilities, and operation

Rembert C. Dennis Building

• Post Office Box 11549

• Columbia SC "W 1 1 i sao

1-1549

•

t

Telephone 803-734-3970

•

Facsimile 803-253-67M

Leesa Benggio
Page 2

July 28, 2014

of the county library system. County library systems created by such ordinances

shall

be

deemed

a continuing

function

of county

government and shall not be subject to the provisions of § 4-9-501 except as state funds are specifically appropriated under other provisions of law. (B) Each county library system shall be controlled and managed by a

board of trustees. . .appointed by the county council

S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-35 (1976 Code, as amended).
In a prior opinion, we determined that the chief librarian reported to the library board and not to the county administrator based on the following rules of statutory interpretation: '[sjections which are part of the same statutory law of the State must be construed together. 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. Statutes pertaining to the same

subject matter must be harmonized if at all possible.' In Interest of Doe. 318 S.C. 527, 531-32, 458 S.E.2d 556, 559 (Ct. App. 1995)(citations

omitted). However, '[wjhere there is one statute addressing an issue in general terms and another statute dealing with the identical issue in a more specific and definite manner, the more specific statute will be considered an exception to, or a qualifier of, the general statute and given such effect.' Capco of Summerville. Inc. v. J.H. Gavle Constr. Co.. Inc.. 368

S.C.

137,

142,

628

S.E.2d

38,

41

(2006).

Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. July 1 1 , 2008 (2008 WL 3 1 98 1 22).

We further opined:
by the provisions contained in sections 4-9-35 et seq., the Legislature removed some authority from the County when it created county public

1 Section 4-9-50 provides:
Whenever the General Assembly shall provide by general law for the use of county personnel, facilities or

equipment to implement such general law or rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, the State agency or department responsible for administering such general law shall provide sufficient funds for county implementation from appropriations to that agency of department; provided, that this section shall not apply to construction of or improvement to county capital improvements or other permanent facilities required by the provisions of the general law or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-50 (1976 Code, as amended).

Leesa Benggio
Page 3

July 28, 2014

library systems. . .the Legislature specified that county public library systems are to be "controlled and managed" by their boards of trustees.

S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-35(B).
Id.
While the general law provides for the county administrator to be in charge of all departments "controlled" by the county council, section 4-9-35 empowers the library board of trustees to "control and manage" the county public library systems. Since section 4-9-35 specifically applies to county public library systems, it is an exception to the general law and it means that the county council does not control the library system. Since the county administrator does not have greater authority than the county

council, the county administrator is not responsible for the administration of the library board of trustees.

It is true that the library board has to submit a budget to the county council to fund the operation and programs of the library system; annually file a report of its operations and expenditures with the county council; and have all contracts and agreements as well as conveyances and purchases of real property approved by county council.

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 4-9-36, 4-9-37 (1976 Code, as amended).

These

requirements would seem to indicate that the library board is being controlled by the county council. However, county councils are granted certain powers under section 4-9-30 of the Code.

provides:

each county government within the authority granted by the Constitution and subject to the general law of this State shall have the following enumerated powers which shall be exercised by the respective governing

bodies thereof:
(2) to acquire real property by purchase or gift; to lease,

sell or otherwise dispose of real and personal property;

and to acquire tangible personal property and supplies;
(3) to make and execute contracts. . .

(5)

to.

.

.make

appropriations

for

functions

and

operations of the county, including, but not limited to,
appropriations for. . . libraries. . .

S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-30 (1976 Code, as amended).

Certain powers cannot be delegated to others. We have formerly opined: It is well recognized that:

[t]he right of a county board to delegate its authority
depends on the nature of the duty to be performed.
Powers involving the exercise of judgment and

Section 4-9-30

Leesa Benggio
Page 4

July 28, 2014

discretion are in the nature of public trusts and cannot be
delegated to a committee or agent. Duties which are
purely ministerial and executive and do not involve the

exercise of discretion may be delegated by the board to a
committee or to an agent, an employee, or a servant.
20 C.J.S., Counties, § 89.

While

Another treatise similarly states:

legislative or discretionary powers or trusts

devolved by charter or law on a council or governing

body, or a specified board or officer cannot be delegated
to others, it is equally well established that ministerial or
administrative
subordinates.

functions
The

law

may
has

be

delegated

to

always

recognized

and

emphasized the distinction between instances in which a
discretion must be exercised by the officer of department

or governing body in which the power is vested, and the
performance of merely ministerial duties by subordinates
and agents.

McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 10.41.
Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. March 10, 2004 (2004 WL 736933).
Section 4-9-30 expressly provides that the powers granted within the statute to counties shall be exercised by the county councils subject to the State constitution and general laws.

Making appropriations for

county entities, entering into contracts, and acquiring and disposing of real estate are clearly duties which require discretion and judgment. Since county councils are not permitted to delegate these duties to the

library boards or to other county entities, the county councils are not controlling the library boards. What is also significant is that "all funds appropriated, earned, granted or donated to the library system or any of its parts shall be used exclusively for library purposes." See S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-37, supra.

We opined in another opinion that the Legislature intended for county library systems to be uniform. In Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. May 23, 1983 (1983 WL 181894), we stated:

[tjhere is ample evidence that the General Assembly intended county library systems to be uniform throughout the State. As noted above. Section 4-9-35(A) provides that county library systems 'shall be consistent with the provisions of this section.' The title to Act No. 564 of 1978, which enacted Sections 4-9-35 through 4-9-39, provides: An Act To Amend The Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, By Adding Section 4-9-35, 4-9-36, 4-9-37, 4-9-38 And 4-9-39, So As To Provide For The Establishment By County Council Of County Library Systems On A

Uniform

Basis.

Provide

For

the

Powers

and

Leesa Benggio
Page 5
July 28, 2014

Responsibilities of County Libraries and The Governing
Bodies Thereof. (Emphasis added.)
It is well settled that the title or caption of an act may be considered to

aid in the construction of a statute and to show the intent of the Legislature. Lindsay v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.. 258 S.C.

272, 188 S.E.2d 374 (1972). University of S.C. v. Elliott. 248 S.C. 218, 149 S.E.2d 433 (1966). It is clear from the title to Act 564 and the first sentence of Section 4-9-3 5(A) that the General Assembly intended to create uniform county library systems and, therefore, provided that such libraries would be managed by a board of trustees whose duties were

further delineated by the General Assembly.
Also, we have opined that "the 1978 legislation was intended to provide for a mandatory county library system to be uniform throughout the State." See Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. April 3, 1979 (1979 WL 42903).

We have explained in a prior opinion that the Legislature intended for county library systems to be

uniform even though the language of section 4-9-352 appears to be contradictory: Did the General Assembly intend by adding the proviso to Section 4-9 35 to permit County Councils to establish for library systems different from those established by the General Assembly? We think not. First, it must be recognized that exceptions or provisos in a statute should be strictly construed. See, Barringer v. Dinkier Hotels Co.. 61 F.2d 82 (4th Cir. 1932). The proviso and the main provision of a statute are to be read

together with a view to carry into effect the whole purpose of the law. Gasaue. Inc. v. Nates. 191 S.C. 271, 2 S.E.2d 36 (1939). It would be absurd to conclude that the General Assembly would provide in the same

sentence that counties shall establish by ordinance county library systems 'which ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of this section' and then include a proviso that the counties could by ordinance change their system to be inconsistent with the state statute. Moreover, it would defeat the stated purpose of the statute to create 'uniform' library systems. It is the opinion of this office that the proviso in Section 4-9-

! As stated above, section 4-9-35 provides:
(A) Each county council shall prior to July 1, 1979, by ordinance establish within the county a county public library system, which ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of this section; provided however, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the governing body of anv county mav bv ordinance provide for the composition, function, duties. responsibilities, and operation of the county library system S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-35, supra (emphasis added to proviso).

Leesa Benggio
Page 6

July 28, 2014

35(A) merely permits the County Council to further delineate the duties and responsibilities of the Boards of Trustees consistent with the state statute and does not permit County Council to remove duties conferred on the Boards by state law. 3 Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. May 23, 1983, supra.

Since the Legislature requires county library systems to be uniform, it is our opinion that requiring the library board of trustees to be responsible to the county administrator would interfere with the operation

of library systems on a uniform basis.
It should also be noted that the county does not have constitutional authority to interfere with the uniformity of the county library system. S.C. Const, art. VIII § 14 provides: In enacting provisions required or authorized by this article, general law

provisions applicable to the following matters shall not be set aside. . .(6) the structure and the administration of any governmental service or function, responsibility for which rests with the State government or which requires statewide uniformity. Brashier v. S.C. Dept. of Transportation. 327 S.C. 179, 490 S.E.2d 8 (1997) (overruled on other grounds

by Pon. LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant. 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000)) explains: Article VIII, section 14 "precludes the legislature from delegating to

counties the responsibility for enacting legislation relating to the subjects encompassed by that section." Robinson v. Richland County Council,

293 S.C. 27, 30, 358 S.E.2d 392, 395 (1987). When construing Article VIII, section 14, this Court has consistently held a subject requiring

statewide uniformity is effectively withdrawn from the field of local concern. See, e.g., Davis v. County of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 76, 470

S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996) ("Article VIII, § 14 limits the powers local governments may be granted"); Kramer v. County Council, 277 S.C. 7 1 ,

282 S.E.2d 850 (1981) (per curiam); Douglas v. Mcleod, 277 S.C. 76, 282 S.E.2d 604(1981).

1 In Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. May 23, 1983, supra, we had the following footnote: Our conclusion is not altered by language in § 4-9-36, that the Board's powers shall not be inconsistent with the 'general policies' of the county governing body. Instead, this language is indicative of the legislative intent 'to define the relationship between county government and county library systems and to insure the continued operation and support of such libraries on a uniform basis.' Act No. 564 of 1978, § 1. The above provision in § 4-9-36 thus was simply intended to preserve the county governing body's authority where § 4-9-35, ej

§£&> is not controlling. See also. § 4-9-37(b).

Leesa Benggio
Page?

July 28, 2014

Our former opinions have made it clear that statewide uniformity is required of the county library systems.

Since the county library systems involve a statewide function, the county does not have the

authority to force the library board of trustees to report to the county administrator.

CONCLUSION

This Office concludes:

1.

Since the county council does not "control" the library board of trustees pursuant to section 4-9

620, the county administrator is not responsible for the administration of the library board of trustees.

2.

Our former opinions have made it clear that statewide uniformity is required of the county library systems. Since the county libraiy systems involve a statewide function, the county does not have the authority to force the library board of trustees to report to the county administrator.

As a result of the aforesaid, we amend our March 27, 2014 opinion to the extent that the Beaufort County Library Board of Trustees is not accountable to the county administrator. The remainder of our former opinion remains valid.

Sincerely,

^

Elinor V. Lister
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

D. Cook

Solicitor General