Could a South Carolina county cut the clerk of court salary just before appointing someone to finish the term?

Plain-English summary

In November 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General said Greenwood County Council could not lower the clerk of court's salary for an unexpired term by taking its vote before appointing the interim clerk. The office reiterated its October opinion that a salary protected against reduction during a term remained protected when a new person filled a vacancy in that term.

The source letter refers to two different section numbers when explaining that rule. Its conclusion is clear about the proposed timing of the pay cut; this page leaves the citation discrepancy as it appears in the PDF.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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

Interim clerks and county councils

The AG treated the salary restriction as attached to the ongoing term, not just to the individual originally holding office. Moving the council vote ahead of an appointment did not change the result.

Common questions

Could the council lower pay before naming the interim clerk?
No. The AG said the vote's timing was of no significance during the existing term.

Did the interim appointment start a new pay term?
No. The appointee filled the remainder of the unexpired term for which the salary was protected.

Did the letter name the statute consistently?
No. It mentioned Section 8-21-300 when quoting the rule and Section 8-21-200 later in the response; the linked PDF preserves that wording.

Background and statutory framework

After an earlier opinion on a salary reduction following his appointment, Greenwood County's clerk asked whether a pre-appointment vote changed the analysis. The AG said it did not and restated the rule against reducing clerk compensation within the same term.

Citations and references

The opinion refers to Section 8-21-300 and Section 8-21-200; the two section numbers appear in different parts of the source letter.

Official title

Asking additional questions following up on an opinion dated October 15, 2003, that was issued in response to the reduction in your salary following your appointment to the unexpired term of the clerk of court for Greenwood County.

Requester

The Honorable Emmet F. Brooks, Clerk of Court, Greenwood County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-4-2003-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/03nov-4-Brooks.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMASTER

November 4, 2003

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Emmet F. Brooks
Clerk of Court, Greenwood County
528 Monument Street
Greenwood, South Carolina 29646
Dear Mr. Brooks:
You have raised additional questions following up on an opinion of this office to you dated October 15, 2003. That opinion was issued in response to the reduction in your salary following your appointment to the unexpired term of the clerk of court for Greenwood County. The opinion concluded that county council was not authorized to reduce the salary of an individual appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of clerk of court for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. The opinion referenced the general rule that " ... where a change in compensation during the term of an officer is prohibited, a change cannot affect one subsequently appointed to fill a vacancy of an existing term." Referencing such, you have questioned the impact of a county council vote to reduce the existing clerk of court's salary prior to the appointment of the interim clerk of court. Such a vote is of no significance. As stated in the prior opinion, pursuant to Section 8-21-300, "(t)he clerks of court ... shall receive such salaries for performance of their duties ... which shall not be diminished during their terms of office.... " Therefore, county council would not be authorized to reduce the existing salary of the clerk of court prior to or after the appointment of the interim clerk.

( ,,,

You next asked whether Section 8-21-200 is violated when county council reduces the salary for the clerk of court position before the interim clerk of court is appointed. Again, such provision is quite specific in stating that the salary for the clerk of court shall not be diminished during his term of office. Again, it is the opinion of this office that a county council is not authorized to reduce the salary of an individual appointed to fill a vacancy in the office of clerk of court for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. A reduction in the salary of the clerk of court prior to the appointment of the interim clerk of court would be inconsistent with Section 8-21-200.

SinW
il~--~les
H. Richardson

Senior Assistant Attorney General

)

-~...d,._

1 , ~';"j /Zl-r:
amENNIS BunDING • Po.5T OFFICE Box 11549 • CoWMBJA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

,,/ j},,, ' '-/--