Would signing the 1994 budget before June 30 keep South Carolina’s dentistry and opticianry boards from sunsetting?

Plain-English summary

The governor's counsel asked how a pending reauthorization bill interacted with a provision in the 1994–95 appropriations act that would end automatic sunsets for state boards and commissions. The two boards at issue were dentistry and opticianry, then facing a June 30, 1994 sunset date.

The AG concluded that if the governor signed the budget provision before June 30, it would take effect immediately, replace the existing sunset schedule, and make separate reauthorization of those boards unnecessary. The boards would continue unless a later review process led to their termination. The opinion's answer was conditional on approval before the deadline; it did not separately resolve the alternative scenario of a later signature.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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 opinion say the boards needed the separate reauthorization bill?
Not if the budget provision was signed before June 30. Under that condition, the AG said the sunset deadline would have no legal effect.

Was the governor's signing date important?
Yes. The letter's conclusion expressly assumed approval before the June 30, 1994 deadline.

Would the boards become permanent beyond all review?
No. The AG described continued existence subject to the State Reorganization Commission's later review authority.

Did the letter decide what happened if the budget was signed after June 30?
No. It answered on the assumption of a pre-deadline signature and did not work through the alternative.

Background and statutory framework

The reauthorization bill would have continued the dentistry and opticianry boards under the former scheduled-sunset statute. The appropriations provision would instead replace that automatic schedule with a review process. The AG applied the provision's stated effective date and plain language to the pending deadline.

Citations and references

• § 1-20-50: the board-sunset statute that the budget provision would replace.

Official title

Seeking clarification of a bill pending the Governor’s signature in conjunction with a proviso in the 1994-95 Appropriations Act.

Requester

Mark R. Elam, Esquire, Senior Legal Counsel to the Governor

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-29-1994-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1994jun29elam.pdf

Original opinion text

T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

ATTORNEY GENERAL

POST OFFICE BOX 11549
COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211
TEI.EPHONE: 803· 734-3970
FACSIMILE: 803· 253-6283

June 29, 1994

Mark R. Elam, Esquire
Senior Legal Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 15, 1994, you have sought clarification by this Office of a bill pending the Governor's signature in conjunction with a proviso in the 1994-95 Appropriations Act.

i

Sections 10 and 11 of H.4631, R-597 reauthorize the existence of the State Board of Dentistry and the State Board of Opticianry, respectively. These two boards would be sunsetted out of existence if they are not reauthorized by June 30, 1994, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-20-50 (1993 Cum. Supp.). These boards would then have one year to wind up their activities before they were actually nonexistent. 1 Part II, Section 117 of the 1994-95 Appropriations Act would amend S.C. Code Ann. § 1-20-50 ( 1993 Cum. Supp.) so as to eliminate the automatic sunsetting of boards and commissions on a set schedule. Instead, the State Reorganization Commission would have the authority to conduct agency reviews and determine which agencies shall be terminated. Section 117 is to take effect upon approval by the Governor. With the foregoing in mind, you have asked whether Section 117 effectively preempts the June 30, 1994, sunset provision. If it does, you asked whether there is a need for reauthorization by the General Assembly. If it does not, you asked whether the

1

The remainder of H.4631, R-597 relates to the practice of podiatry and is not relevant to your inquiry.

Mr. Elam
Page 2
June 29, 1994
General Assembly would be able to reauthorize these boards during the next legislative session during the boards' wind up period. In construing any statute, the primary objective of both the courts and this Office is to determine and effectuate legislative intent whenever possible. Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980). Words used in a statute must be given their plain meaning. Bohlen v. Allen, 228 S.C. 135, 89 S.E.2d 99 (1955). Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning must be applied. State v. Goolsby, 278 S.C. 52, 292 S.E.2d 180 (1982).

i

Applying these and other rules of statutory construction, it is the opinion of this Office that the General Assembly intended to preempt the June 30, 1994 (and succeeding) sunset provisions by the adoption of Section 117. Assuming that the 1994-95 Appropriations Act is signed prior to June 30, 1994, Section 117 would, by its plain language, take effect upon signature by the Governor; new Section 117 would completely replace § 1-2050 as that statute presently exists, so that the June 30, 1994 deadline specified in § 1-2050 would be of no legal effect. The effect of gubernatorial approval of Section 117 before June 30, 1994 would be to extend indefinitely the Boards of Dentistry and Opticianry until such time as the State Reorganization Commission might determine, pursuant to § 1-2050. In such event, there would be no need for reauthorization as would be contemplated by H.4631, R-597. We trust that the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry. clarification or additional assistance should be needed. With kindest regards, I am

("'

'

Sincerely,
L(J~.f)

lifwcu.o

Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
PDP/an
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions

Please advise if