Did closing an Orangeburg high school require a referendum if students stayed in the same attendance area?

Plain-English summary

A representative asked whether North and Bowman High Schools in Orangeburg County could close and move within their attendance areas without public hearings or a referendum. The Attorney General said the 1998 act required public hearings before a high school closure. Its referendum requirement applied when students from a closed high school would move to a high school in another attendance area; a move within the same area did not trigger that requirement.

The letter distinguished the two procedures based on the act's wording. It also noted attachments concerning an earlier construction referendum, which the AG had not reviewed. It expressed no opinion about that earlier vote's effect on relocation issues.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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: Could a district close an Orangeburg high school without a public hearing?
A: The AG said no under the 1998 act. The hearing requirement covered high school closures even when students stayed in the same attendance area.

Q: Did moving students within the same attendance area require a referendum?
A: The opinion said no. Its reading of the act tied the referendum to relocation into another attendance area.

Q: Did the opinion resolve the earlier school construction referendum?
A: No. The AG said it had not reviewed that referendum and gave no view of its effect.

Background and statutory framework

The letter interpreted the separate hearing and referendum clauses of Act No. (R275), 1998 S.C. Acts. The hearing clause was broader than the referendum clause, which the AG read as limited to moves across attendance-area boundaries.

Citations and references

• Act No. (R275), 1998 S.C. Acts, the school-closing provision quoted in the letter.

Official title

As to whether North and Bowman High Schools in Orangeburg County could be closed and moved to another location in the same attendance area without public hearings and a referendum as to the closings.

Requester

The Honorable Elsie Rast Stuart, Member, SC House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-19-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98june19stuart.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 19, 1998

The Honorable Elsie Rast Stuart
Member, South Carolina House of Representatives Suite 326-D Gressette Building Columbia, S.C. 29211 Dear Representative Stuart: You have requested the Opinion of this Off ice as to whether North and Bowman High Schools in Orangeburg County could be closed and moved to another location in the same attendance area without public hearings and a referendum as to the closings. Act No. follows:

(R275), 1998 S.C. Acts

provides, in part as

... No high school in an attendance area may be closed without the holding of the same public hearings required above for an elementary or middle school provided, that in addition to the public hearings requirement, if a high school in an attendance area that existed before consolidation is to be closed and the students thereof moved to a high school in another attendance area the qualified electors within the attendance area where the high school is to be closed must also first approve the closing by referendum .... (emphasis added).

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

1),,/1,,,L.J ~~

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLU~1BIA, s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

F,\CSIMILE: 803-253-6283

f
I

The Honorable Elsie Rast Stuart
June 19, 1998
Page 2

[

I

Under applicable rules of statutory construction 1 , a reading of the 1998 Act indicates that it requires a referendum only regarding the move of students from a closed school to one in another attendance area; however, this statute does appear to require a public hearing for closures resulting in relocation within the same attendance area. The provisions for hearings are not limited to moves to other attendance areas as are the provisions for referenda. In conclusion, the 1998 Act requires public hearings before a high school in Orangeburg County is closed, but a referendum is not required when the students will be relocated within the same attendance area. 2 This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have further questions, please let me know.

y Smith,
Assistant Depu

Attorney General

JESjr
CC:

The Honorable Elsie Rast Stuart (Pelion address) 1

The "··.primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature. " South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 S.C. 134, 341 S.E. 2d 134 (1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id. 11
[T)he meaning of particular terms in this statute may be ascertained by reference to words associated with them in this statute." Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company v. Windstorm and Hail Underwriting Assoc., S.C.
, 412 S.E.2d 377 (1991).
2

The attachments to your letter reference a previous referendum relating to the construction of a new school where North High School is now located. I have not reviewed that referendum and express no opinion as to what effect it has, if any, on school relocation issues.