Did relatives on a Charleston County school board violate a state nepotism rule by voting to hire a vice principal?

Plain-English summary

A Charleston County school trustee asked whether two relatives' votes to hire a new vice principal violated nepotism or conflict rules. The Attorney General concluded in 2005 that none of the specific provisions presented to him covered that hiring vote. The state statute cited in the request concerned hiring teachers and did not apply to a vice principal. The quoted local policy provisions concerned discipline of immediate family members and direct supervision of family members, not a board's hiring vote.

The AG did not settle the separate state ethics question. He said the State Ethics Commission had authority to interpret the ethics laws and directed the requester there for a determination about the votes. His finding that the cited nepotism provisions did not apply should not be read as an ethics-law clearance.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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

Did the cited teacher-hiring statute govern a vice-principal hiring vote?
The AG said no. The statute addressed employment as a teacher, while the request concerned a vice principal.

Did the local policy clauses quoted by the AG cover the vote?
No. He read them as addressing discipline and direct supervision of family members.

Did the AG decide whether the votes violated the state ethics laws?
No. He identified the State Ethics Commission as the body responsible for interpreting that law.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared the hiring facts with a repealed general nepotism law, the school teacher provision, a local employee-ethics document, and the state ethics laws. Only the ethics-law issue remained for the commission to evaluate.

Citations and references

• § 59-25-10: teacher employment provision found inapplicable to the vice-principal hire.
• §§ 8-13-700 et seq.: ethics provisions referred to the State Ethics Commission.

Official title

Questioning whether votes by relatives to hire other relatives on the board of trustees is a conflict of interest or violation of any nepotism provision.

Requester

Reverend Calvin Morris, Constituent Board of Trustees

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-3-2005-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05oct3morris.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER

I

I
I

ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 3, 2005

The Reverend Calvin Morris
Constituent Board of Trustees
District 9 Charleston County
Post Office Box 87
Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina 29487

Dear Reverend Morris:

L.

In a letter to this office you indicated that at a meeting of the Constituent Board of Trustees of District 9 of Charleston County in August a vote was taken by four of the seven members present as to the hiring of the new vice principal for the Haut Gap Middle School. The vote was three to one in favor of the hiring. You also stated that relatives of the new hire constituted two of the votes in favor of the hiring, one member who cast a vote in favor is married to the new hire's sister while another board member voting in favor of the hire is the sister of the new hire's husband. You have questioned whether such votes by the relatives on the board of trustees is a conflict of interest or a violation of any nepotism provision. Please be advised that there is no State statutory provision dealing with nepotism. A fonner statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 8-5-10 dealing with such has been repealed. Another statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 59-25-10 states that No person who is a member of the board of trustees or a member of the immediate family of a member of the board of trustees of any school district shall be employed by the board as a teacher w ithout the written approval of the board of trustees of the district and, when applicable, of the board of education of the county, or unless a majority of the parents or guardians of the children attending the school for which such teacher is employed requests such employment in writing. The provisions ofthis section shall not apply to any teacher who was employed prior to the time he or bis family member became a board member. For purposes of this section, the immediate family of a member of the board of trustees shaUinclude only his parents, children, brothers or sisters. Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to school bus d1ivers. (emphasis added). Inasmuch as the hire questioned by you did not involve the hiring ofa teacher, such provision would not be applicable.

The Reverend Calvin Morris
Page2
October 3, 2005
As to questions of conflict of interest, the only other relevant State statutes which may be applicable are the State Ethics laws, S.C. Code Ann.§§ 8-13-700 et seq. As to any questions of whether the votes referenced in your letter constitute violations of the State Ethics laws, you must contact the State Ethics Commission as that agency is specifically granted the authority to interpret these laws.

I
I

You also forwarded a copy of a document titled "Employee Ethics/ Conflict of Interest". The first portion of that document deals with activities of employees which may constitute a conflict of interest and is not applicable to actions by members of a board of trustees. The next provision deals with nepotism stating Neither a board member, county or constituent nor an employee may participate in an action relating to the discipline of his/her immediate family member. (emphasis added). The superintendent shall not place an employee in a position wherein an employee shall exercise direct administrative or supervisory authority over a member ofhis/her immediate family. Based upon my review, neither of these provisions are applicable to actions by a member of a board of trustees in the hiring of a vice principal. The other provision cited in such document is Section 59-25-10 referenced above which I indicated is irrelevant to your situation.

I
~

Based upon my review, none of the provisions cited deal with the situation involving the hiring of a vice principal by a board of trustees and, therefore, would not be applicable. Of course, you may wish to contact the State Ethics Commission for their review of the hiring. If there are any questions, please advise.

i

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

/J
/ fi!!A~ <[), C:--JL

RJbert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General