Could someone sit on both a county transportation committee and a regional higher-education commission?

Plain-English summary

The University of South Carolina–Sumter dean asked whether one person could serve on the Sumter County Transportation Committee and the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education. The Assistant AG applied the state constitution’s dual-office prohibition, which turned on whether both posts were public offices exercising part of the state’s sovereign power.

Prior office opinions had treated county transportation committee membership as an office, though not entirely free from doubt. The Mid-Carolina Commission was created by Act No. 468, with gubernatorial appointments, stated terms, and powers that included creating higher-education facilities and entering agreements. The author considered those powers similar to other higher-education commissions previously classified as offices. He therefore concluded that simultaneous service would most probably create a dual-office problem. His qualified wording reflected the office-status analysis rather than a court ruling about these particular appointments.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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 transportation committee service definitely an office? A: The author said prior opinions had treated it as an office, although they acknowledged some doubt.

Q: Why might the education commission seat count as an office? A: Its creating act gave members defined appointments, terms, and public powers comparable to other commissions the office had previously analyzed.

Q: What was the author’s conclusion about holding both seats? A: He said a dual-office problem would most probably arise.

Background and statutory framework

Article XVII, Section IA supplied the dual-office rule. Sanders v. Belue and State v. Crenshaw supplied tests for public-office status. Act No. 468 created the Mid-Carolina Commission and set out its appointment structure and functions.

Citations and references

Authorities discussed: Article XVII, Section IA; Act No. 468. Cases discussed: Sanders v. Belue; State v. Crenshaw.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-19-1997-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/97june19carpenter.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 19, 1997

C. Leslie Carpenter, Dean of the University
University of South Carolina-Sumter
200 Miller Road
Sumter, South Carolina 29150-2498
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Dean Carpenter:
Your recent opinion request has been f01warded to me for reply. You ask whether membership on a Sumter County Transportation Committee and the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education constitutes dual office holding. Article XVII, Section IA of the State 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 public 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). As to the Sumter County Transportation Committee, this Office has previously opined that although not entirely free from doubt, it appears that one who would serve on a county transportation committee would hold an office for dual office holding purposes. Ops . .Afiy. Gen. dated December 18, 1996; July 23, 1996; and May 16, 1995. As to the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education, this body was created by the General Assembly by Act No. 468. The Commission is to consist of nine members

f)

REMBERT
A A

1.IAA

c. DEN~IS ~UILDING

'I.-~-"'~---

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLCMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Dean Carpenter
Page 2
June 19, 1997

l
I

from the member counties, appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of a majority of the legislative delegations from the member counties. A term of four years and until one's successor is appointed and qualifies, is specified. No compensation or oath is mentioned in the Act. Certain powers and duties are specified in the Act, including encouraging higher education in the member counties, establishing facilities for higher education in the member counties, entering into contracts and agreements, and negotiating with educators and educational institutions. This Office has previously examined membership on county higher education commissions, concluding that such membership would constitute an office for dual office holding.purposes. Ops. Any. Gen. dated October 14, 1994 and March 27, 1992. The duties and powers of the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education are very similar to those exercised by like commissions and appear to involve an exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the State. Therefore, it is this Office's opinion that one who serves on the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education would most probably hold an office for dual office holding purposes. To summarize the foregoing, if an individual were to simultaneously serve on the Sumter County Transportation Committee and the Mid-Carolina Commission for Higher Education, a dual office holding problem would most probably arise.

i

~

'

I

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

faA J(olt
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General