Could someone on a county First Steps board also take another local board appointment in 2000?

Plain-English summary

The Anderson County legislative delegation asked whether people already serving on First Steps, county-appointed, or governor-appointed boards could take another delegation appointment. The 2000 informal opinion said a county First Steps partnership board was organized as a private nonprofit, and its directors did not hold a public office for the dual-office rule. The First Steps enabling law also did not bar a second board seat. The other board's enabling law still had to be checked.

For people serving on a county council-appointed or governor-appointed board, the AG knew of no blanket prohibition. It said each pair of positions had to be evaluated for a dual-office problem or another legal impediment. The letter did not evaluate a specific second board or appointee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. 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 a First Steps board seat count as a public office?
A: The AG said no for the county partnership boards described, while acknowledging that the nonprofit-board classification had been a close question in earlier opinions.

Q: Could a First Steps director accept any other board seat automatically?
A: The First Steps law did not prohibit another seat, but the opinion said the second board's enabling law might impose a restriction.

Q: Was there a blanket ban on combining county- or governor-appointed board seats?
A: The AG said it knew of none. It said each proposed combination required review for dual-office holding or another impediment.

Background and statutory framework

The letter identified Section 59-152-70(E) as requiring county First Steps partnership boards to be organized as private nonprofit corporations. It relied on prior AG opinions classifying directors of such entities as outside the dual-office prohibition, then separated that First Steps question from other board combinations whose powers and enabling laws were unspecified.

Citations and references

• Section 59-152-70(E), the private nonprofit organization requirement discussed in the opinion.

Official title

Informing this Office that the Anderson County Legislative Delegation  will be making appointments to several boards  and commissions on June 26, 2000.

Requester

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend, Chairman, Anderson County Legislative Delegation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-21-2000-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00june21townsend.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 21, 2000

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Chairman, Anderson County Legislative Delegation
P.O. Box 8002
Anderson. South Carolina 29622
Informal Opinion

RE:

Dear Representative Townsend:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You have informed this Office that the Anderson County Legislative Delegation will be making appointments to several boards and commissions on June 26. 2000. You have asked for an opinion on the following questions: 1)

If a person is serving on the County First Steps Board. is he or she eligible to serve on another board appointed by the County Delegation at the same time?

2)

If a person is serving on a local County board. appointed by the County Council, is he or she eligible to serve on a board appointed by the County Delegation at the same time?

3)

If a person is serving on a board appointed by the Governor. is he or she eligible to serve on a board appointed by the Delegation at the same time?

In regards to your first question. County First Steps Partnership Boards are established under S.C. Code Ann. §59-152-10 et seq. Pursuant to Section 59-152-70(E). these boards must be private nonprofit corporations organized under Section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This Office has previously concluded that \vhile a close question, members ofa board of directors of a private nonprofit corporation do not hold an office for dual office holding purposes. Ops. Attv. Gen. dated March 17. 1995. October 18. 1988. and November I 0. 1983. In addition. the County Partnership Boards· enabling

R1.\1111'1<T C. D!·'- '-!S B 1 !!.IJL'-<;

•

P "s r0 HK !: 13, ,,

115.111 •

Cou !llL·\ . S. C. 2•J21 l - l:i4'1

•

TH l' l'!l< l'IF: Xil-1 -71 4 -39 70

•

h cs i.,m .F : Xll3-.2.'i .1 -o2 K.l

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Page 2
June 21, 2000

legislation does not preclude a member from serving on another board. Therefore, the only remaining question is whether the other boards prohibit a member from serving on another board. This can be answered by analyzing the enabling legislation of the board in question. In regards to your second and third questions, I am unaware of any absolute prohibition against such appointments. However, each situation would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there is a dual office holding problem or some other legal impediment to such simultaneous service. 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 best personal regards, I am Sincerely yours,

f.j). f.J

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General

I
I