Could an individual Richland County recreation commissioner manage district operations or demand office supplies?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked whether Richland County recreation commissioners could manage the district's daily operations and whether the district had to provide commissioners office space, supplies, and equipment. In 2008, the South Carolina Attorney General's office said the commission's statutory power to govern the district included daily management. But that authority belonged to the commission acting together, not to an individual member acting alone.

The enabling law did not expressly require the district to provide members with office resources. The opinion said such spending could be implied from the commission's powers if necessary to district operations and used for district purposes. The commission as a body, rather than an individual member, had to make that spending decision.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2008. 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

Could one commissioner direct daily district operations alone?

No. The AG said the commission could manage the district's operations, but individual members could not separately exercise the body's powers.

Was the district automatically required to provide each commissioner an office and equipment?

The opinion found no express statutory requirement. It said the commission could authorize such expenditures if necessary for district operations and in furtherance of district purposes.

Who had to decide on commissioner supplies?

The commission as a body. The opinion applied the same collective-action rule to spending decisions as to management.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion traced the Richland County recreation district's enabling acts and the commission's powers to govern the district, acquire property, spend money, contract, and appoint employees. It cited Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart for a statutory body's express and implied powers and Vulcan Materials Co. v. Greenville County Bd. of Zoning Appeals for the rule that commission powers belong to the body, not individual members. It found authority for necessary operational expenditures by implication, subject to collective approval.

Citations and references

• Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart, 319 S.C. 124, 131, 459 S.E.2d 876, 880 (Ct. App. 1995): express and implied statutory powers.
• Vulcan Materials Co. v. Greenville County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 342 S.C. 480, 492, 536 S.E.2d 892, 898 (Ct. App. 2000): commission action as a body.

Official title

Concerning the organization and authority of the Richland County Recreational District (‘the District”). Specifically, management of day-to-day operations and the responsibility of providing supplies and equipment.

Requester

The Honorable Jimmy C. Bales, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-7-2008/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/bales-j-c-os-8669-11-07-08-richland-county-recreation-district.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY M CM ASTER
ATIORNEY GENERAL

November 7, 2008

The Honorable Jimmy C. Bales
Member, House of Representatives
1515 Crossing Creek Road
Eastover, South Carolina 29044
Dear Representative Bales:
We understand from your request letter that you desire an opinion of this Office on the organization and authority ofthe Richland County Recreational District (the "District"). Specifically you pose to us the following two questions: Do members of the Commission, authorized by the Act, have the authority to manage the day-to-day operations of the District? Is the District responsible for providing office space, supplies, equipment or other items to Commission members? LawI Analysis As you explained in your letter, the Legislature created the District via act 873 of 1960. 1960 S.C. Acts 2010. According to this act, "[t]he district shall be governed by a commission to be known as the Rural Recreation Commission of Richland County ...." Id. In addition, you noted that section 5, under the act, gives the Com.mission specific powers including the power to sue, be sued, adopt and use a corporate seal and bylaws, acquire property and equipment, expend money, proscribe mies for the use of District facilities, charge fees, enter into contracts, appoint agents and employees, and issue bonds. Id. The Legislature amended the District's enabling legislation on several occasions. Notably, the Legislature gave the Commission the authority to levy taxes, amended the provision allowing the Commission to issue bonds, and changed the name of the District and Commission to the " Recreation District and the recreation Commission ofRichland County." 1965 S.C. Acts 563; 1969 S.C. Acts 441; 1970 S.C. Acts 1995; 1971 S.C. Acts 1685; 1973 S.C. Acts 1494; 1969 S.C. Acts 382. However, we note no other changes to the authority given to the Commission. As a creature of statute, the Commission has only has those powers that are specifically granted to it by statute or which may be reasonably implied therefrom. Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart, 319 S.C. 124, 131 , 459 S.E.2d 876, 880 (Ct. App. 1995); Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., January REMBERT c. DENNIS B UlLOING • POST OFFJCE Box Ll549 •

C OLUMB J. . SC 292 LI -1549

•

TELEPHONE 803-734-3970

• FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

The Honorable Jimmy C. Bales
Page2
November 7, 2008
29, 2007. Therefore, we look to the authority specifically given to the Commission by the Legislature. As mentioned above, the Legislature provides that the District "shall be governed by
[the] commission .... " 1960 S.C. Acts 2010. This provision gives the Commission the authority to manage the functions and operations of the District and in our opinion, such authority would include the Commission's ability to manage the day-to-day operations of the District. This determination is further supported by the fact that the Legislature gives the Commission vast authority in the specific powers and duties it set forth for the Commission. Nonetheless, we must point out that the Commission's authority to manage the District's dayto-day operations, like any other power given to the Commission, can only be exercised by the Commission as a whole and not its individual members. Our courts recognize the principle that a commissions must act as a body and the powers and duties of a commission may not be exercised by the individual members separately. Vulcan Materials Co. v. Greenville County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 342 S.C. 480, 492, 536 S.E.2d 892, 898 (Ct. App. 2000); Masseyv. City of Greenville Bd. of Zoning Adjustments, 341S.C.193, 200, 532 S.E.2d 885, 888 (Ct. App. 2000). Accordingly, one member alone cannot exercise the Commission's authority to manage the District's day-to-day operations. Next, you inquire as to the District's responsibility to provide Commission members with "office space, supplies, equipment or other items." While the District's enabling legislation does not specifically place such a responsibility on the District, we believe such could be implied if it is necessary for the operation of the District and such facilities, supplies, and equipment are to be used in the furtherance of the District's purposes. The provision governing the specific powers afforded to the Commission allows the Commission to make expenditures for District functions and to enter into contracts. Thus, these specific powers, along with the Commission's general authority to oversee the District, we believe, would allow for such expenditures if they are necessary for the District's operation. However, for the reasons previously stated, a decision to make expenditures to provide members with office space, supplies, equipment, and other items is a decision which the Commission, not its individual members, must make. Very truly yours, Henry McMaster

~r:m.~
By: V cyfuey M. Milling
CJ
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~'~
oertD:COOk

Deputy Attorney General