Could a Croft Fire District commissioner rewrite the fire chief’s proposed budget in 1995?

Official title

Inquiring whether it is proper for a commissioner of the Croft Fire District to reject a proposed budget as written by the Fire Chief and inform the Chief that the Commissioner will write the budget himself.

Requester

The Honorable Carole C. Wells, Member, House of Representatives

Plain-English summary

A representative asked whether a Croft Fire District commissioner could reject a proposed budget written by the fire chief and write one himself. The 1995 informal opinion said the enabling act did not resolve that question. It gave the board financial powers, including equipment purchases within available funds and setting a tax within the statutory limit, but it assigned the chief only an equipment supervision duty and no express budget preparation role. The author left the chief’s participation in budgeting to board policy and noted that an existing practice or tradition might matter, though the AG office did not know whether one existed. She therefore declined a definitive judgment on the commissioner’s particular action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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 the enabling act give the chief exclusive budget-writing authority? A: No. The letter found no provision assigning the chief a budget role.

Q: Did the AG hold the commissioner’s action proper? A: No. The letter said the act did not allow a definitive answer on that specific dispute.

Q: Who could decide the chief’s role in preparing a budget? A: The opinion treated it as a policy matter for the district Board of Fire Control, subject to any practice the author did not know.

Background and statutory framework

The letter examined the Croft Fire District enabling act’s board finance powers and the chief’s equipment supervision duty. Neither provision addressed who had to draft or revise the anticipated budget.

Citations and references

• Act No. 879 of 1960, the district enabling act interpreted in the letter.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-24-1995-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/1995/05/1995may24wells.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 24, 1995

•

The Honorable Carole C. Wells
Member, House of Representatives
530-D Blatt Building
-Columbia, South Carolina 29211
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Representative Wells:
By your memorandum of May 8, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion as to whether or not it is proper for a commissioner of the Croft Fire District to reject a proposed budget as written by the Fire Chief and inform the Chief that the commissioner will write the budget himself. The Croft Fire District was established pursuant to Act No. 879 of 1960, as amended by Act Nos. 177of1961and1956of1972. As to financial matters, section 5(a) of Act No. 879of1960 provides that the Board of Fire Control (sometimes referred to as the commissioners) is authorized "[t]o buy such fire fighting equipment as the board deems necessary for the purpose of controlling fires within the money allocated or made available to the board for such purposes." Section 5(h) authorizes the Board to borrow in anticipation of taxes. Then, section 6 provides: The Auditor and Treasurer of Spartanburg County are hereby directed to levy and collect a tax of not more than two mills, to be determined by the Board of Fire_ Control, upon all the taxable property of the district for the purpose of defraying the expenses incurred by the board. All monies collected from this levy shall be credited to the fire district. It appears from the enabling legislation that the question of who may or must propose, or

revise, an anticipated budget is not addressed therein. REMBERT c. St:~:-l!S BuH_D!NG

•

POST OFFICE Box ll549

•

COLUMBIA. s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Carole C. Wells
Page 2
May 24, 1995
As to duties of the fire chief of the Croft Fire District, the only specific reference which I was able to locate was in section 7 of Act No. 879 of 1960: The fire chief or equivalent official of the truck company to which the equipment is assigned shall have complete supervision over its use and operation and it shall be his responsibility to insure that the equipment is readily available for use at all times. I did not locate a provision within the enabling legislation which would assign the fire chief any responsibility in the budgetary process.
•
Because the enabling legislation is silent as to what part the fire chief is to play in the budgetary process, I am of the opinion that such would be a matter of policy for the Board of Fire Control to resolve. 1 The Board could certainly seek the input of the fire chief, for instance. Thus, I am of the opinion that the enabling legislation does not permit a definitive answer as to the propriety of a commissioner of the Croft Fire District rejecting the proposed budget as written by the fire chief and informing the chief that the commissioner will write the budget himself; such is simply not addressed in the enabling legislation of the District. 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. I trust that the foregoing has responded as satisfactorily to your inquiry as is possible under the circumstances. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

t..p~OJ·~
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General

1

There may well be a policy or at least a tradition in place already that would suggest that input from the fire chief into the budgetary process be sought. This Office would have no way of knowing whether that is the case.