Did South Carolina police retirement benefits give triple credit for unused annual leave at retirement?

Official title

Asking whether the South Carolina Retirement System is correctly calculating the amount of compensation upon which retirement compensation is based.

Requester

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese, Senator, District No. 11

Plain-English summary

A senator asked whether the Police Officers Retirement System correctly counted unused annual leave in average final compensation. The 1995 informal letter agreed with the retirement system's longstanding method: the allowed termination pay for up to 45 days of unused leave went into the compensation calculation before the three-year average was figured. The AG rejected adding the amount afterward so that the leave received triple credit.

The letter called the statute inartfully drafted and accepted that more than one reading could be argued. It gave weight to the system's interpretation, which it said had been followed since the 1978 change. It suggested legislative clarification if that reading did not match legislative intent.

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: Was unused annual leave excluded altogether from the 1995 calculation? A: No. The statute discussed in the letter allowed termination pay for up to 45 days of unused leave to be included.

Q: Could that leave pay be added after the three-year average to increase the benefit threefold? A: The AG agreed with the retirement system that it entered before the average was calculated, rather than being added later for triple credit.

Q: Why did the AG accept that method?
A: The letter found reasonable support in the statutory wording and gave weight to the administering agency's consistent interpretation.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion addressed average final compensation in the Police Officers Retirement System. It distinguished a permitted addition to the compensation base from adding a separate amount after the averaging formula had been applied.

Citations and references

The letter discussed the police retirement definition of average final compensation and decisions on judicial respect for agency interpretations.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-26-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995oct26reese.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLES MOLONY C ON DON
ATTORNEY GEN ERAL

October 26, 1995
i-

I
I

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese
Senator, District No. 11
117 Sun Valley Drive
Inman, South Carolina 29349
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Senator Reese:

i

By your recent letter to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion as to the interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. §9-11-10, as to the inclusion of unused annual leave days in the calculation of retirement compensation for members of the Police Officers Retirement System. In essence, you are asking whether the South Carolina Retirement System is correctly calculating the amount of compensation upon which retirement compensation is based. Section 9-11-10(14), S.C. Code Ann. (1994 Cum. Supp.), defines "average final compensation... . " The General Assembly, by that statute, has authorized that "[a]n amount up to and including forty-five days' termination pay for unused annual leave at retirement may be added to the average final compensation." The phrase "average final compensation ... " is defined by that section to mean "the average annual compensation of a member during the twelve consecutive quarters of his creditable service on which regular contributions as a member were made to the System producing the highest such average [.] " Since 1978, when Act No. 408 of 1978 permitted up to and including forty-five days termination pay for unused annual leave to be added into the calculation upon which retirement pay under the Police Officers Retirement System would be based, the South Carolina Retirement System has consistently interpreted the statute as including the allowed amount of unused annual leave to be included in the calculation before the threeR l .\ IB ERT

c D F~:.;is BL'ILD l~G

•

PosT OmcE Box 11549

•

COLl':>IBJA. S.C. 29211 -1 549

•

TELEPHO~E: 803-734-3970

•

F ACSIMILE : 803-253-6283

The Honorable Glenn G. Reese
Page 2
October 26, 1995

I

~

year average is to be figured and not added so as to give triple credit for the amount of unused annual leave. While it might be argued that this inartfully drafted statute is susceptible of various interpretations, we must acknowledge that the South Carolina Retirement System is the executive agency charged with implementation and enforcement of the retirement statutes. Both the courts and this Office have often stated that the construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled without compelling and cogent reasons. Dunton v. South Carolina Board of Examiners in Optometry, 291 S.C. 221, 353 S.E.2d 132 (1987); Emerson Electric Co. c. Wasson, 287 S.C. 394, 339 S.E.2d 118 (1986); Faile v. South Carolina Employment Security Comm'n, 267 S.C. 536, 230 S.E.2d 219 (1976). Arguably, the absence of legislative amendment to reflect the interpretation placed on §9-11-10 by the Retirement System suggests that the views of the Retirement System have been consistent with legislative intent. ti, Scheff v. Township of Maple Shade, 149 N.J.Super. 448, 374 A.2d 43 (1977). Because, as stated previously, the courts of this State give great weight and deference to administrative interpretations of statutes, this Office is constrained to agree that there is reasonable support for the interpretation given §9-11-10 by the South Carolina Retirement System. Because the statute is inartfully drafted, it might be advisable to have the General Assembly clarify the statute if the interpretation given it by the Retirement System is not consistent with the intent of the General Assembly.

I

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. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General