Could McCormick County Council cut funding for its veterans affairs office despite the officer's submitted budget?

Plain-English summary

McCormick County's veterans service officer asked what he could do after county council reduced his office's budget to about half the prior year's amount. In May 1995, Assistant Attorney General Patricia Petway said she found no veterans affairs law or McCormick County local law requiring a particular county appropriation. She concluded that county council retained discretion to decide the office's county funding.

The officer pointed to a 1945 act involving county veterans officers. Petway read its disbursement provision as giving the county legislative delegation a role in distributing funds that had been appropriated, without giving it power to set the amount or order county council to appropriate a specified sum. She noted that state funding for the office was a separate matter and, according to the request, was being received in full. The letter suggested that the General Assembly could consider a general law specifying how county appropriations for these offices should be made.

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.

Historical summary

County veterans service officers

The response did not identify a procedure to reverse the McCormick County budget cut. It said the laws Petway examined did not supply the requested guidance or require council to fund the office at a particular level.

County councils and legislative delegations

Under the law as Petway read it in 1995, county council decided appropriations for county offices unless another law assigned the duty elsewhere. The 1945 provision gave legislative delegations authority over disbursement of funds once available, a different decision from setting the appropriation.

Common questions

Did the submitted office budget bind county council? No. The letter concluded that county council had discretion over the extent of county funding; it identified no law compelling adoption of the submitted budget.

Could the legislative delegation order a particular county appropriation? The Assistant AG said the 1945 act's disbursement language did not give the delegation authority to set the funding level or direct council to appropriate a particular amount.

Was the officer also missing state funding?
The letter said the dispute concerned county funding. It recorded the officer's statement that his office was receiving the state funding to which it was entitled.

Background and statutory framework

The letter examined the veterans affairs provisions beginning at §25-11-10 and a 1945 act concerning county veterans officers. It placed county appropriations with council under §4-9-140 absent a contrary statute. It contrasted statutes requiring county support for magistrates' and probate courts, and suggested lawmakers could consider a comparable general law for veterans offices. The writer expressly called this an informal opinion that the Attorney General had not personally reviewed or formally published.

Citations and references

• §25-11-10: beginning of the veterans affairs provisions the letter reviewed.
• §4-9-140: county council appropriation authority discussed in the letter.
• §22-8-30 and § 14-23-1130: examples of laws requiring county support for other offices.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-8-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995may8baggett.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 8, 1995

Curtis E. Baggett
Veterans' Service Officer
McCormick County
Post Office Box 356
McCormick, South Carolina 29835
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Baggett:
By your letter of April 11, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you sought an opinion or advice on what procedures to follow or steps to take to remedy the situation with respect to funding for the Veterans' Affairs Office for McCormick County. You have advised that in April 1994 you received your letter appointing you to the position of Veterans' Affairs Officer, effective June 30, 1994. In April you submitted a budget to McCormick County Council for the office; you advised that council did not consider the budget you submitted and in fact cut the budget to an amount which was half of last year's budget. You feel that you and the veterans of McCormick County are being discriminated against, as no other county agency budget was cut. 1 I have examined the laws relative to the Department of Veterans Affairs, S.C. Code Ann. §25-11-10 et seq. (1976, revised 1989), and have not located any laws which would provide the guidance which you seek. I have not located a local law relative to the Veterans' Affairs Officer of McCormick County and thus assume that one does not exist. I was referred to Act No. 78 of 1945 relative to amendment of certain Code prov1s1ons relative to Veterans' Affairs Officers (formerly known as County Service

1

I understand that the problem exists with respect to funding from the county and not in receiving funding from the State of South Carolina. You have indicated that your office is receiving all of the state funding to which it is entitled. RE~1BERT

c. DEN!!S BCILDlNG

•

POST OrncE Box ! !549

•

COLUMBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803- 734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-628'.'

Curtis E. Baggett
Page 2
May 8, 1995
Officers), appropriations therefor, appointment of the county officers, and other provisions concerning veterans' affairs. One sentence in that act provided: "The funds appropriated for the use of each county in the State of South Carolina shall, immediately upon becoming available, be transmitted to the respective County Treasurers in each County in the State, and the disbursement of such fund shall be determined by the Legislative Delegation from each county." This sentence appears to provide disbursement authority to county legislative delegations but does not appear to give the delegations the authority to determine to what extent such office shall be funded or to direct a county council to appropriate.a specific amount of funding for such office. Without question, the appropriation of money is a legislative function. At the county level, that function rests with county council, as to county agencies. §4-9-140,
_ S.C. Code Ann. (1976, revised 1986). I am of the opinion that county council has discretion to determine the extent to which a county office will be funded, in the absence of a statute reposing that responsibility in some other entity. Since the Veterans' Affairs Officer is one whose appointment is made by an authority outside county government, perhaps consideration could be given by the General Assembly to adoption of a general law specifying how appropriations for the office of the Veterans' Affairs Officer is to be accomplished. (By way of contrast, I would refer you to S.C. Code Ann. §22-8-30, requiring each county to "provide sufficient facilities and personnel for the necessary and proper operation of the magistrates' courts in that county" and § 14-23-1130, requiring the governing body of each county to provide, inter alia, office space, additional support personnel, books, and the seal of the court for the probate court of that county.) Unless and until such a statute is adopted for the benefit of the counties' Veterans' Affairs Officers, appropriations will, in my opinion, remain within the discretion of each county council to handle as that body determines to be appropriate. 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 kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General