Did Georgetown County’s authority to assign and pay election-board staff let its administrator supervise or fire them?

Plain-English summary

A legislator asked the Attorney General to revisit an earlier opinion about Georgetown County's administrator and the county Board of Elections and Registration. The later request pointed to statutory words saying the county governing body would assign and pay board staff. The AG concluded in October 2005 that those words did not change his prior answer: they gave the county a staff-allocation and compensation role, but no supervisory authority over the staff and no power over hiring or firing through the county administrator.

The opinion relied on the board's appointment structure and a prior AG opinion that assigned hiring and firing of a county election commission's clerk or other employees to the commission. Its answer was confined to the effect of the quoted staff-support language in Act No. 591.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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

Did paying election-board staff give the county administrator authority to supervise them?
The AG said no. Funding and assigning staff did not confer general supervisory control.

Who controlled hiring and firing under the opinion's reasoning?
The AG cited a prior opinion placing that authority with the county election commission, rather than the county administrator.

Did this letter reverse the September 2005 opinion?
No. The AG said the newly emphasized statute language gave no reason to change his earlier conclusion.

Background and statutory framework

The response reconsidered a September 2005 opinion in light of Act No. 591's staff-support clause. The AG separated county payment and allocation of staff from supervision and personnel decisions.

Citations and references

• Act No. 591 of 1994: board appointment and staff-support provisions reviewed by the AG.
• Act No. 200 of2005: enactment referring back to the board appointment law, as printed in the source.

Official title

Concerning an opinion dated September 6, 2005 to the Georgetown County Attorney which dealt with the question of the authority of the Georgetown County Administrator over the employees of the Georgetown County Board of Elections and Registration (“the Board”). Specifically, the language in Act No. 591.

Requester

The Honorable Vida O. Miller, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-11-2005-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05oct11miller.pdf

Original opinion text

[

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
li£NRY MCMASTER
AlTORNEY GENERAL

October 11 , 2005

The Honorable Vida 0. Miller
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 3157
Pawleys Island, South Carolina 29585
Dear Representative Miller:
This office issued an opinion dated September 6, 2005 to the Georgetown County Attorney which dealt with the question of the authority of the Georgetown County Administrator over the employees of the Georgetown County Board of Elections and Registration ("the Board"). It was assumed that for purposes of the opinion that the appointment authority for the Board was the Georgetown County legislative delegation. Such was consistent with Act No. 200 of2005 which indicated that appointments to the Board were to be made as provided in Act No. 591 of 1994. That Act provided that members of the Board were to be appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Georgetown County legislative delegation. For reasons stated in the September 6 opinion, this office concluded that the county administrator would have no authority over the employees of the Board. You have asked that we review the opinion especially considering the language in Act No. 591 which states in subsection (3) that Members of the board shall receive compensation as may be appropriated by the General Assembly, which may be supplemented by the county governing body, and any staff support for the board shall be assigned and paid as directed by the county governing body. (emphasis added). Based upon my review of the referenced provision, I see no basis to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the earlier opinion. In my opinion, the quoted provision should be construed to indicate that the county governing body is responsible for the aUocation ofstaffand the compensation ofthat staff but would have no other authority over the staff, such as supervisory authority or decisions regarding hiring and firing. That conclusion is also supported by a prior opinion of this office dated ApriJ 6, 1989, a copy of which is enclosed, which concluded that a county election commission would have the authority to hire and fire a clerk or other employees of a county election commission.

~~POST

OFFICE Box 11549 •

COLUMBIA.

s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Vida 0. Miller
Page2
October 11, 2005

If there is anything further, please advise.
Sincerely,

t

I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~P·~

I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
cc:

[
L

John M. Tolar, Esquire
Georgetown County Attorney
Post Office Box 421270
Georgetown, South Carolina 29442