Could a Limestone College trustee also serve on the South Carolina State University board?

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Attorney General concluded that simultaneous service on the Limestone College Board of Trustees and the South Carolina State University Board of Trustees did not violate the constitutional prohibition on holding two public offices. The opinion reaffirmed a March 2005 AG opinion: service on the state university board was an office, while service on the Limestone board was not. The AG found no change in law or clear error that would justify departing from that earlier conclusion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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

Q: Could one person serve on both the Limestone and South Carolina State University boards? A: The 2006 AG opinion said yes, because only the state university trusteeship counted as a public office under its earlier analysis.

Q: Did the AG treat a Limestone College trusteeship as a public office? A: No. The opinion reaffirmed its March 2005 finding that the Limestone position was not an office for dual-office purposes.

Q: Was this a new decision about how college boards exercise power? A: No. The AG relied on its earlier opinion about these same two board positions and said the applicable law had not changed.

Background and statutory framework

The inquiry came from a legislator acting for the committee that screened candidates for state college and university boards. Rather than conduct a new analysis of each board’s powers, the AG referred to its March 24, 2005 opinion addressing the identical combination of trustee seats. It quoted the office’s practice that it would not overrule a prior opinion “unless clearly erroneous or unless applicable law has changed.” The 2006 response found neither reason to change its answer.

Citations and references

The opinion relies on its March 24, 2005 interpretation of the dual-office prohibition.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-13-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06oct13-Phillips2.pdf

Original opinion text

HENRY MCMASTER
ArroRNEY GENERAL

I

October 13, 2006

I
The Honorable Olin R. Phillips
Member, House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Representative Phillips:
We understand you seek an opinion ofthis Office on behalf ofthe Joint Committee to Screen Candidates for Boards ofTrustees of State Colleges and Universities concerning dual office holding. Specifically, you ask:
·
l

L..

If an individual serves on the Limestone College Board of Trustees and is elected by the General Assembly to the South Carolina State University Board of Trustees, would that be a violation of the dual office holding clause of the constitution?

VI!'·
,.~ ..

In our review of this issue, we discovered an opinion of this Office issued in March 2005 addressing your question, a copy of which we enclosed. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., March 24, 2005. In that opinion, we discussed whether an individual serving on the Limestone College Board of Trustees who was elected by the General Assembly to the South Carolina State University Board of Trustees would be in violation of the dual office holding prohibition contained in article XVU, section IA of the South Carolina Constitution. Id. Although this Office consistently has held a position on the South Carolina State University Board of Trustees is an office, we determined a position on the Limestone College Board of Trustees is not an office. Id. Thus, we concluded an individual holding both positions is not in violation of the dual office holding prohibition. Id. As we stated on numerous occasions, this Office "will not overrule our p1ior opinions unless clearly eIToneous or unless applicable law has changed." Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., September 8, 2005. Finding

The Honorable Olin R. Phillips
Page2
October 13, 2006

no changes in the law and regarding our 2005 opinion as not erroneous, we believe an individual's simultaneous service in these positions would not violate the dual office holding prohibition. Very truly yours,

~m.~
I
I

Cydney M. Milling
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

fu!),~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

iI

L

~
I