Could a Springfield town council member also take a paid water-and-sewer job with the town in 1995?

Official title

Concerning that the form of government in Springfield is mayor-council and that the member of council has no authority for Town decisions and expenditures without the approval of the Mayor.

Requester

The Honorable Kathleen Fanning, Mayor, Town of Springfield

Plain-English summary

The 1995 South Carolina Attorney General letter concluded that Springfield could not put a sitting town council member on its payroll as a water-and-sewer supervisor during his elected term. The mayor had explained that the council member had useful maintenance experience, the town needed the work, and paid employment would make him eligible for insurance. The letter found no statutory exception allowing that municipal employment alongside council service.

The author also flagged a possible common-law conflict from a council member serving as both part of the town's governing body and an employee. It did not need to decide that issue because the statutory employment bar resolved the proposed arrangement. It suggested consulting the State Ethics Commission about separate ethics questions if the town nevertheless proceeded.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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: Did the mayor's authority over staff make the council member's paid job permissible? A: No. The letter said the statutory ban on council members holding municipal employment during their elected term applied to the proposed water-and-sewer supervisor role.

Q: Did the need for maintenance work or insurance create an exception? A: The letter acknowledged those facts but found no law authorizing the proposed simultaneous council service and town employment.

Q: Did the letter decide every possible ethics-law issue? A: No. It resolved the employment question under the statute, raised a possible common-law conflict, and referred separate ethics questions to the State Ethics Commission.

Background and statutory framework

Springfield's mayor described a council member willing to do paid water-and-sewer maintenance for a small monthly salary. The letter read the statute restricting municipal employment by elected council members and discussed the distinct master-servant concern under common law.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §5-7-180, §5-9-30, and §5-9-40

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-2-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/1995/10/00148536.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AlTORNEY GENERAL

October 2, 1995

L
I
I

The Honorable Kathleen Fanning
Mayor, Town of Springfield
Post Office Box 31
Springfield, South Carolina 29146
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mayor Fanning:
By your letter of September 27, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion on a matter facing the Town Council of the Town of Springfield. You have advised that the Town has a financial problem and a water and sewer system requiring extreme maintenance. One of the present members of council has valuable experience in water and sewer maintenance. He has agreed to serve as water and sewer supervisor for a small salary per month. By being on the payroll he would be eligible for insurance coverage through the State of South Carolina. You have further advised that the form of government in Springfield is mayor-council and that the member of council has no authority for Town decisions and expenditures without approval of you as Mayor. You further advise that the Town needs his services in the maintenance and you feel that he should be allowed insurance coverage. Your letter presents several issues to be addressed. First, I advise that S.C. Code Ann. §5-7-180 requires consideration; that Code section provides: Except where authorized by law, no mayor or councilman shall hold any other municipal office or municipal employment while serving the term for which he was elected. I am not aware of a provision of law which might fall within the first phrase of §5- 7-180, "Except where authorized by law," so as to authorize the type of municipal employment RDIBERT

c. DE:-;:-;1s BLILDJ:-;G

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLCMBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Kathleen Fanning
Page 2
October 2, 1995
in question. Therefore, I am of the opinion that §5-7-180 would be violated if a member of the Town Council were also to be employed by the Town simultaneously. Such simultaneous service would also cause some concern based on the common law doctrine of the master-servant relationship, which is summarized as follows:

[

I
I

[A] conflict of interest exists where one office is subordinate to the other, and subject in some degree to the supervisory power of its incumbent, or where the incumbent of one of the offices has the power of appointment as to the other office, or has the power to remove the incumbent of the other, or to punish the other. Furthermore, a conflict of interest may be demonstrated by the power to regulate the compensation of the other... . The offices may be incompatible even though the conflict in the duties thereof arises but on rare occasions... . In any event, the applicability of the doctrine does not turn upon the integrity of the officeholder or his capacity to achieve impartiality....

I
~

I

67 C.J.S. Officers §27. While the mayor in the mayor-council form of government is empowered to appoint and suspend municipal employees, see §5-9-30, members of council do have certain responsibilities pursuant to §5-9-40 (1994 Cum. Supp.); it is possible that the common law master-servant doctrine or the common law conflict of interest could arise in the situation described in your letter. Because §5-7-180 considerations are also present, it may not even be necessary to consider the common law doctrines, but I am of the view that you should be advised of the existenc~ of the doctrines. Should the Town Council and/or you as Mayor proceed with employment of this Town Council member, notwithstanding the plain language of §5-7-180, there may be certain ethics laws which require consideration. You may wish to consult the State Ethics Commission for information on the ethics laws by writing to that agency at Post Office Box 11926, Columbia, South Carolina 29211, or by calling (803) 253-4192. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. I trust that it has been responsive to your inquiry and that you will advise if additional assistance or clarification should be needed.

The Honorable Kathleen Fanning
Page 3
October 2, 1995
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,

~fl).(/~

IL

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

I
L

I

[

l

<