Could Westminster's police chief also serve as city administrator under South Carolina's dual-office rule?

Plain-English summary

Westminster's police chief asked whether also serving as city administrator would violate South Carolina's ban on holding two public offices. The May 2000 informal opinion said the arrangement did not appear to violate the ban. The AG treated a police chief as an officer but drew on an earlier opinion that a town administrator under the council form of government was most probably not an office.

The letter reasoned that the statute left the administrator's duties, qualifications, oath, salary, and tenure to council, while council retained legislative and administrative authority. Because the second role appeared to be a staff position rather than a separate public office, the two roles did not appear to trigger the constitutional prohibition.

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 the AG regard a police chief as a public officer?
A: Yes. It cited earlier opinions and a state Supreme Court decision treating a chief of police as an officer.

Q: Why was the administrator role different?
A: The AG said council retained sovereign governmental powers and the statute left the administrator's terms and duties to council.

Q: Was the conclusion categorical for every city administrator?
A: No. The letter framed the administrator classification as probable and the Westminster arrangement as one that did not appear to violate the dual-office rule.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied Article XVII, Section IA and the public-office test in Sanders v. Belue. It cited Edge v. Town of Cayce for police chief status and discussed §5-11-40 in connection with Westminster's council form of government and its administrator.

Citations and references

• Article XVII, Section IA, South Carolina's dual-office rule.
• §5-11-40, the municipal administrator provision discussed in the letter.
• Sanders v. Belue and Edge v. Town of Cayce, cited on office status.

Official title

Asking whether a dual office holding situation exists if the Westminster City Police Chief simultaneously serves as the City Administrator.

Requester

William Strachan, City Administrator/ Chief of Police, City of Westminster

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-24-2000-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/00may24strachan.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON

May 24, 2000

ATTORNEY GENERAL

William Strachan, City Administrator I Chief of Police
City of Westminster
P.O. Box 399
Westminster, South Carolina 29693

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Chief Strachan:
By your letter of May 16, 2000, you have asked whether a dual office holding situation would exist if a city police chief were to serve simultaneously as the city administrator. As you know, Article XVII, Section IA of the South Carolina 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, a member of a lawfully and regularly organized fire department, constable, or a notary public. As concluded by Attorney General Daniel McLeod in an opinion dated April 26, 1977, "[t]o determine whether a position is an office or not depends upon a number of circumstances and is not subject to any precise formula." The South Carolina Supreme Court, though, has held that for this provision to be contravened, a person concurrently must hold two 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). "One who is charged by law with duties involving an exercise of some part of the sovereign power, either small or great, in the performance of which the public is concerned, and which are continuing and not occasional or intermittent, is a public officer." Id., 78 S.C. at 174. Other relevant considerations, as identified by the Court, are whether statutes, or other authority, establish the position, prescribe its tenure, 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). This Office has advised on many occasions that a police officer or police chief would be considered an office holder for dual office holding purposes. See Ops. Atty. Gen. dated

Chief William Strachan
Page 2
May 24, 2000

February 4, 1994 and November 2, 1994. Moreover, in Edge v. Town of Cayce, 187 S.C. 171, 197 S.E. 216 (1938), the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that a chief of police was a public officer. Therefore, having determined that a police chief is an office holder within the meaning of Art. XVII, Sec. IA, it is necessary, then, to address whether serving as city administrator would likewise constitute an office. According to the 2000 South Carolina Municipal Association Directory p. 130, the City of Westminster operates under the council form of government as provided for in S.C. Code Ann. §5-11-10 et seq. Section 5-l l-40(a) of the Code states, "(t]he council may hire an administrator to assist the council." This Office, in an opinion dated October 18, 1988 (enclosed), observed that"[ n ]o duties, qualifications, oath, salary, or tenure are provided for by statute and thus are left to the discretion of ... Town Council. Because the Town Council is vested with all legislative and administrative powers needed to operate town government and the determination of policy is vested in council, it would appear that all of the sovereign power is most probably being exercised by council instead of the administrator." For this reason, we concluded that the position of town administrator as contemplated by §5-11-40 is "most probably not an office for dual office holding purposes." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Office that the City of Westminster's arrangement whereby the Chief of Police serves simultaneously as City Administrator does not appear to violate the dual office holding prohibitions of the State Constitution.
~~

al

I

I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry and that you will not hesitate to contact me ifI can be of additional assistance. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opm1on. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours,

Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General
ZCW/an
Enclosure