Could someone serve on Bamberg’s city economic development board and county hospital board at the same time?

Plain-English summary

A Bamberg official asked whether one person could serve on both the City Economic Development Board and the County Hospital Board. The economic development board recruited industry and made recommendations to city officials; the hospital board set policy and made operating decisions. The AG concluded that simultaneous service did not violate South Carolina’s constitutional bar on holding two offices at once.

The hospital board seat likely qualified as an office. On the facts presented, the economic development seat did not: its advisory work did not exercise the state’s sovereign power. One sentence in the analysis refers to a “Bamberg County Economic Development Board,” but the request and the opinion’s conclusion identify the City board.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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

Did the AG consider the county hospital board an office?
Yes, likely. The letter relied on earlier AG opinions treating county hospital board members as officeholders for this purpose.

Why did the two seats not violate the dual-office rule?
The city economic development board made recommendations and recruited industry. The AG found no exercise of sovereign power by that board on the supplied facts, so the person was not holding two qualifying offices.

Did the conclusion apply to every economic development board?
No. The opinion relied on the board’s described functions and expressly qualified its analysis by the absence of contrary facts.

Background and statutory framework

The AG applied Article XVII, Section IA of the South Carolina Constitution, which barred simultaneous holding of two offices of honor or profit. The opinion explained that the dual-office test turned on whether both positions exercised a portion of the state’s sovereign power; formal creation, duties, pay, qualifications, and oath requirements were additional considerations.

Citations and references

The original text cites Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 (1907), and State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980), for the public-office inquiry.

Official title

Concerning dual office holding, specifically serving on the Bamberg City Economic Development Board may simultaneously serve on the Bamberg County Hospital Board.

Requester

Stuart B. Watson, Clerk/Treasurer, City of Bamberg

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-1-2005-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05june1watson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

I
I

June 1, 2005

Mr. Stuart B. Watson
Clerk/Treasurer, City of Bamberg
P.O. Box 300
Bamberg, South Carolina 29003
Dear Mr. Watson:
By letter, you requested an opinion concerning dual office holding. In your letter, you inquire as to whether an individual presently serving on the Bamberg City Economic Development Board may simultaneously serve on the Bamberg County Hospital Board without violating the state Constitution's dual office holding prohibition. You note that the Mayor and the Chairman of the Commisioners ofthe Board of Public Works appoint members ofthe Economic Development Board. Furthermore, you indicate that Economic Development Board members actively recruit industry and make recommendations to the City Council and to the Commissioners of the Board of Public Works. With respect to the County Hospital Board, you state that the Bamberg County Council appoints members. Finally, you explain that Hospital Board members set policy and make decisions concerning the operation of the Bamberg County Hospital. Following review of your inquiry, this Office advises that an individual simultaneously serving on the Bamberg City Economic Development Board and the Bamberg County Hospital Board would not violate the dual office prohibition. Law/Analysis Article XVII, Section IA of the South Carolina Constitution provides that "no person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time ... " with exceptions specified for an officer in the militia, member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or notary public. For this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two offices which have duties involving an exercise of some portion of the sovereign power of the State. Sanders v. Belue, 78 S.C. 171, 58 S.E. 762 (1907). Other relevant considerations are whether statutes, or other such authority, establish the position, prescribe its duties or salary, or require qualifications or an oath for the position. State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d 61 (1980). Furthermore, "[O]ne who merely performs the duties required of him under an express contract or otherwise, though such persons themselves be public officers, and though the employment be in or about a public work or business, is a mere employee." Sanders. supra, 78 S.C. at 174 .

./J
. ·~-Ru.DUifflsBUil.DING. PoST0FFJCEBoxll549. COLUMBIA,S.C.29211-1549. TELEPHONE:803-734-3970. FACS!Mll.E:803-253-6283
~~,.nil!

Mr. Watson
Page2
June 1, 2005

On numerous occasions, this Office has advised that a member serving on a county hospital board would hold an office for purposes of dual office holding. See, Ops. S. C. Atty. Gen. April 20, 2004; January 11, 1999; January 7, 1997; January9, 1992; April 5, 1991; September 12, 1983. Thus, it continues to be our opinion that an individual serving on the Bamberg County Hospital Board likely holds an office for purposes of dual office holding.

I

We have consistently advised that an individual serving on a county economic development board does not hold an office for purposes of dual office holding. See, Ops. S. C. Atty. Gen. May 21, 2004 (Barnwell County Economic Development Board); November 7, 2003 (Allendale County Development Board); March 19, 2003 (Hampton County Economic Development Board); January 31, 1994 (Bamberg County Economic Development Commission); June 12, 1997 (Marlboro County Development Board); August 9, 1991 (Dillon County Development Board); April 5, 1990 (Florence County Development Board). In each of these instances, we found that membership on the various boards did not constitute an office because the sovereign power of the State was not being exercised. Generally speaking, such boards make recommendations to the governing authority. While each board possesses a slightly different name, the principal function of each remains the same, to promote economic development. Absent any specific facts to the contrary, we advise that a member on the Bamberg County Economic Development Board does not hold an office for dual office holding purposes.

Conclusion
Because we conclude that membership on the Bamberg City Economic Development Board does not constitute an office for dual office holding purposes, it is our opinion that the dual office holding prohibition is not violated by an individual simultaneously serving on the Bamberg City Economic Development Board and the Bamberg County Hospital Board.
~

Ii

V ery;;r;trul
yours,

/>----

,)i
v

i·_r

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General