Could a South Carolina county council cut the salary of an appointed clerk of court during the unexpired term?

Plain-English summary

In 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General reaffirmed an earlier opinion that a county council could not lower a clerk of court's salary for the remainder of an existing term when someone new was appointed to fill a vacancy. The requester reported that Greenwood County had reduced the salary attached to the office after his appointment. The AG found the statute protecting clerks' salaries during their terms essentially unchanged since the 1985 opinion.

The office also cited later opinions applying the rule that a prohibition on changing compensation during a term continues to protect an appointee who fills that term. It suggested sending those opinions to the county manager and county attorney for review.

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

Appointed clerks of court

The AG said the earlier salary-protection opinion remained valid for a clerk appointed to finish someone else's term. The vacancy appointment did not create a new term in which the council could reduce the office's compensation.

County councils and attorneys

The opinion treated the statute's no-diminishment language as controlling during the unexpired term. It advised the requester to forward copies of the cited opinions to county management and counsel for review.

Common questions

Could the county pay a replacement clerk less for the rest of the term?
The AG said no under the statute and prior opinions it discussed.

Did appointing a new person reset the clerk's salary?
No. The office said a compensation restriction during an existing term also applied to someone later appointed to fill that term's vacancy.

What was the reported salary change?
The requester said the previous clerk's salary was $46,592 and the council had reduced it to $35,000. The opinion did not determine any additional compensation owed.

Background and statutory framework

The requester asked whether a 1985 AG opinion still applied. The opinion quoted Section8-21-300 as providing that clerks of court receive salaries that shall not be diminished during their terms. The office found the provision essentially unchanged and noted consistent opinions from 1986.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Section8-21-300 and 1985 Op. Att. Gen. No. 85-107.

Official title

Questioning whether 1985 Op. Att. Gen. No. 85-107, which indicates that a county council was not authorized to reduce the salary of an individual appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of clerk of court for the remainder of the unexpired term of office remains valid.

Requester

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

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-15-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03oct-15-Brooks.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

1

L

October 15, 2003

The Honorable Emmet F. Brooks
Clerk of Court, Greenwood County
528 Monument Street
Greenwood, South Carolina 29646
Dear Mr. Brooks:

In a letter to this office you referenced that you had been appointed to fill the unexpired term of the clerk of court for Greenwood County. The former clerk's salary was set at $46,592.00. You indicated that your county council had taken action to reduce that salary to $35,000.00. You also indicated that you were familiar with a former opinion of this office, 1985 Op. Att. Gen. No. 85-107, a copy of which is enclosed, which indicated that a county council was not authorized to reduce the salary of an individual appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of clerk of court for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. You have questioned whether that opinion remains valid. The 1985 opinionreferencedS.C. Code Ann. Section8-21-300 (Supp. 2002) which indicates that "(t)he clerks of court... shall receive such salaries for performance of their duties ... which shall not be diminished during their terms of office.... " That provision has remained essentially unchanged since the opinion was issued. I have located copies of two other opinions of this office dated October 6, 1986 and December 12, 1986, copies of which are enclosed, which are in agreement with the 1985 opinion. Those opinions 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 the vacancy of an existing term." Based upon my review, the 1985 opinion remains valid. As to your question regarding the course of action you should take to resolve the issue with the county, I would suggest that you forward copies of the opinions to your county manager and county attorney for their review. Sincerely,

ctJc]t( Ile.~Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures

'-l:'/.J A.-u..L.Ci. ' 'A"d~BUD.DING
'llEMBlllQ"

J .111, ,

•

POST OFFICE Box ll549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970

•

FACS!Mll.E: 803-253-6283