Did Georgetown County lose its turn on South Carolina's State Board of Education when Horry County's member stayed longer?

Plain-English summary

In 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General said Georgetown County had not lost its place in the rotation for a State Board of Education seat from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. The circuit's legislative delegations had unanimously allowed a Horry County member to continue serving. The AG read that agreement as suspending the normal rotation until the extended term ended, after which Georgetown was next.

The office relied on Section 59-5-10's mandatory rotation language and agreed with Legislative Council's analysis supplied by the requester. The statute permitted unanimous consent to depart from the rotation but did not say such consent forfeited another county's later turn.

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

County legislative delegations

The AG read the statute as requiring the board seat to rotate among the circuit's counties unless the specified unanimous consent allowed an exception. Continuing Horry's member did not erase Georgetown's next place in the sequence.

State Board of Education members

The opinion concerned one circuit's succession after an agreed extension. It did not decide a different circuit's county order or a later appointment dispute.

Common questions

Did Georgetown forfeit its turn by consenting to Horry's extension?
No. The AG said the rotation was merely stayed until the Horry member's term ended.

Who was next after the extended Horry term?
On the sequence described, Georgetown County was next to provide a board member.

Could the normal rotation be changed by agreement?
The statute quoted in the opinion allowed an exception through unanimous consent of the relevant county legislative delegations.

Background and statutory framework

Section 59-5-10 provided one State Board of Education member for each judicial circuit, chosen by its joint legislative delegation, with representation rotated among the circuit's counties. The office interpreted its “shall” language as making rotation mandatory after the agreed Horry extension ended.

Citations and references

The opinion interpreted Section 59-5-10.

Official title

Asking the meaning of S.C. Code Section 59-5-10 as that section applies to the rotation among counties in a judicial circuit with respect to representation on the State Board of Education.

Requester

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

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-14-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03oct-14-Miller.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENR.v McMAsn:R

October 14, 2003

ATIDRNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Vida 0. Miller
Member, House of Representatives
P. 0. Box 3157
Pawleys Island, SC 29585

L

Dear Representative Miller:
You have asked for an opinion as to the meaning of S. C. Code Section 59-5-10 as that section applies to the rotation among counties in a judicial circuit with respect to representation on the State Board of Education. Section 59-5-10 provides that one member shall be elected to the State Board from each judicial circuit and that such member shall be appointed by a majority of the joint legislative delegation of that circuit. However, § 59-5-10 provides for rotation among the counties of the circuit in terms of the appointment of the board members from that circuit. Such provision states in pertinent part that
[r]epresentation of a given judicial circuit on the State Board of Education shall be rotated among the counties of the circuit, except by unanimous consent of all members of the county legislative delegations from the circuit. No member shall succeed himself in office except by unanimous consent of the members of the county legislative delegations from the circuit. Members of the legislative delegation of any county entitled to a member of the Board shall nominate persons for the office, one of whom shall be elected to the Board. Apparently, unanimous consent was given by the delegation of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to allow a member of the State Board of Education from Horry County to continue to hold that office. The question which you now raise is whether by allowing this member to continue to serve, Georgetown County has now forfeited its place in the rotation of membership. You have provided a copy of advice rendered by Legislative Council which concluded that at the end of the Horry County member's extended term, "the rotation goes to the next county. In this case that would be Georgetown." Based upon our reading of§ 59-5-10, we concur with this analysis. Nothing in this statute indicates that Georgetown County would forfeit or give up its place in the rotation system because

REMBW

/A

··-· ·-1-

c. DENNIS BUILDING • POST OFFICE B ox 11549 • C OLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

~~

The Honorable Vida 0. Miller
Page 2
October 14, 2003

of a previous unanimous consent to allow a member from Horry County to continue to serve. Clearly, § 59-5-10, by use of the word "shall" makes rotation mandatory. Here, such rotation was merely stayed or suspended until the end of the Horry County member's term. At the end of such term, however, rotation would be required to allow Georgetown County to take its tum in providing a member on the Board.

7r;;gMdS,

L
I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/ph