Could a South Carolina legislative delegation advertise for public-service district board candidates beyond the district board's nominees?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina representative asked whether the Anderson County legislative delegation could follow its normal vacancy procedure when recommending public-service district directors. The procedure he described included a one-day newspaper advertisement, a two-week application period and selection from the applications. The Attorney General's informal 2002 opinion said that approach appeared fair and reasonable because the statute did not limit the delegation to the district board's nominees.

The board still had a role. Under the provision quoted in the letter, it had to send recommended names and an explanatory letter at least forty-five days before a member's term expired. The delegation had to consider that list even when it gathered other candidates. The AG did not describe the board's recommendations as binding or approve ignoring them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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

Legislative delegations

The opinion said the delegation could receive candidates through the proposed advertisement and application process. Its own recommended person did not have to come from the district board's list, but its selection process had to include consideration of that list.

Public-service district boards

The quoted statute required the district board to submit names before a term expired and provide a letter explaining its recommendations. The opinion treated that submission as something the delegation had to consider, rather than as a restriction to those names alone.

Common questions

Could the delegation seek applications outside the board's nominees? A: Yes. The AG said the proposed advertisement and application process appeared fair and reasonable under the statute's silence about gathering other candidates.

Could the delegation disregard the district board's recommendations? A: No. The letter said the delegation's consideration of additional candidates had to be in conjunction with considering the board's list.

Was the delegation required to choose someone the board named? A: No. The statutory language quoted in the opinion said the delegation was not limited to the board's submitted names for its own recommendation.

Background and statutory framework

The question concerned §33-36-1330(A), governing recommendations for public-service district board appointments. The AG read the provision's required board submission and its express freedom for the delegation to choose other names together. The letter labels itself an informal opinion by a Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Citations and references

• §33-36-1330(A): board submission and delegation consideration rules discussed in the opinion.

Official title

Candidate-selection procedure for Anderson County public-service district boards.

Requester

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-8-2002/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02may8townsend.pdf

Original opinion text

'
The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON

May 8, 2002

ATIORNEY GENERAL

L
I},

ii

HAND-DELIVERED
The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Member, House of Representatives
429 Blatt Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29211
Dear Representative Townsend:
You have asked a question as to the procedure the Anderson County Legislative Delegation may follow in its appointment of board members of public service districts pursuant to §§33-36-1310, et seq., specifically the procedures outlined in §33-36-1330(A). The pertinent language of §33-361330 states as follows: (A)

The existing board of directors and officers shall serve until the expiration of their present terms. Thereafter, and not less than forty-five days prior to any expiration of the term of a board member, the board of directors shall submit to the county legislative delegation the name or names of a person or persons recommended for appointment or reappointment. A letter of recommendation by the board stating why the name or names are recommended shall accompany the submission. The county legislative delegation shall consider the recommendation of the board but are not limited to make a selection for its own recommendation from among those submitted . . . (Emphasis added).

You have asked if the language of §33-36-l 330(A) would allow the delegation to follow its standard procedure in filling vacancies on boards or commissions. You have stated that your standard procedures would be to advertise a vacancy in a newspaper for a period of one day, accept applications per the advertisement for a two-week period, and make your selection to fill a vacancy from a pool of applications received during the specified time.

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

O::tu_,:vtBIA, S.'C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

I'

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Page2
May 8, 2002

As §33-36-1330(A) states, your recommendation is not limited to the selection submitted by the board of directors of the public service district. The statute is silent as to the procedures the delegation may follow if it should choose to consider other candidates other than those submitted by the board of directors. The procedure that you have outlined for the delegation to receive candidates for its recommendation appears to be fair and reasonable. However, please be advised that the requirements of the statute mandate that the Jist of candidates that delegation may receive "for its own recommendation" must be in conjunction with considering the list of candidates provided by the board of directors of the public service district. This is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been persona11y reviewed by the Attorney Genera] nor has it been officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. urs,

C. H · d Jones, Jr.
Sem r Assistant Attorney Genera]

CHJJr/rho
cc:

The Honorable Danie] T. Cooper (Hand-Delivered)

.--- -