How must the SC High School League apply the new 2024-25 budget provisos on appeals, forfeit fines, and private-school enrollment?
Official title
Opinion addressing issues related to Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget Proviso 1.49 and Budget Proviso 1.118.
Requester
Requested by Dr. Jerome P. Singleton, Commissioner, S.C. High School League.
Plain-English summary
The Commissioner of the South Carolina High School League asked the Attorney General how to apply two new state budget provisos that condition state education funding on how interscholastic athletics are run. Proviso 1.49 bars a public school district from supporting any athletic association unless the association's rules include certain features, and the 2024-25 version added new requirements. Proviso 1.118 was added in full and lets some private-school students try out for public-school teams under set conditions. The Commissioner raised three specific questions.
On the first, the new appeal-stay language in Proviso 1.49(A)(3)(d) ("an appeal stays the determination of a sanction ... pending the outcome of the appeal"), the AG concluded the stay applies to all sanctions, even the League's minimum sanctions. The plain language does not distinguish among classes of sanctions, so once an appeal is filed, the proviso apparently requires treating all sanctions as stayed, regardless of severity. The League had hoped the stay might apply only to sanctions above the minimum, but the AG found nothing in the text supporting that limit.
On the second, the forfeited-game fine in Proviso 1.49(A)(5), the AG concluded a court would hold the League cannot set a flat "standard fine" if that fine could be lower than the non-forfeiting team's actual costs. The proviso says the fine must "at a minimum" equal the cost incurred for officials, tickets, and concessions, so the amount must at least meet those actual costs (and may exceed them). The AG agreed with the League that the proviso does not require non-forfeiting schools to submit an itemized accounting in every instance; the League can use a formula or estimate, but the result cannot dip below actual costs.
On the third, the enrollment-count timing under Proviso 1.118(A)(2), the AG found the proviso does not state any date or method for measuring a private school's grades 9-12 enrollment against the 200-student cap. The opinion calls this an ambiguity that may need legislative or judicial clarification, and suggests that, in the meantime, it may be appropriate for the League to use the date the student gives written notice of intent to try out, which the proviso already requires.
What this means for you
South Carolina High School League and member schools
The opinion reads Proviso 1.49(A)(3)(d) to stay all sanctions on appeal, including minimum penalties the League's own rules say cannot be reduced, which means a student could keep playing while an appeal is pending. For forfeit fines under 1.49(A)(5), the League may design a formula but cannot set a standard fine below the non-forfeiting team's actual costs for officials, tickets, and concessions. For private-school eligibility under 1.118, the League may pick a consistent measurement date for the 200-student cap, and the AG suggested the student's written notice date as a reasonable choice.
Public school districts
Because these provisos condition state funding on the athletic association's rules, the opinion's reading affects what districts can support. A district's chosen association needs an appeal-stay rule covering all sanctions and a uniform forfeit-fine system meeting the actual-cost floor to stay within the provisos.
Private (independent) school students and parents
The opinion explains the conditions for trying out at a public school under Proviso 1.118: the student must reside in the public school's attendance zone, and the private school must be a non-member of the League with grades 9-12 enrollment not exceeding 200. It flags that the proviso does not fix the date for measuring that enrollment, so timing could affect eligibility until the point is clarified.
Common questions
Does an appeal pause even a one-game minimum suspension?
Under the AG's reading, yes. Proviso 1.49(A)(3)(d) stays the determination of a sanction pending appeal and draws no distinction by severity, so even a minimum sanction is stayed once an appeal is filed.
Can the League charge a flat forfeit fine?
Only if it is not lower than the non-forfeiting team's actual costs. Proviso 1.49(A)(5) sets a floor "equal to the cost incurred for officials, tickets, and concessions." The League can use a formula, but a standard fine that could fall below actual costs would not comply.
Does a school have to itemize costs after every forfeit?
No. The AG agreed the proviso does not require non-forfeiting schools to submit a proposed accounting in every instance. The League just cannot set the fine below the actual costs incurred.
When is a private school's enrollment measured for the 200-student cap?
The proviso does not say. The AG called it an ambiguity that may need legislative or judicial clarification and suggested the League could use the date of the student's written notice of intent to try out.
Background and statutory framework
Budget provisos are temporary law attached to the annual Appropriations Act. Proviso 1.49 conditions a public school district's financial support of any interscholastic athletic association on the association's rules containing specified features, including an appeals process, an appeal stay, and a uniform forfeit-fine system. Proviso 1.118 conditions distributed funds so that districts may not deny certain independent-school students the chance to try out for public-school teams when the residency and enrollment conditions are met.
The AG analyzed the provisos using standard statutory-construction rules, whose primary goal is the General Assembly's intent (Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015)). Where statutory language is plain, the text is the best evidence of legislative intent (Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)), and a statute must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consistent with the lawmakers' purpose (State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9, 774 S.E.2d 458 (2015)). Reading the text plainly, the AG concluded the appeal stay reaches all sanctions, the forfeit fine cannot fall below actual costs, and the enrollment-count proviso sets no measurement date, leaving the League room to apply a uniform date such as the student's notice date until the point is clarified.
Citations
Provisos:
- Budget Proviso 1.49, including 1.49(A)(3)(d) (appeal stays sanctions) and 1.49(A)(5) (uniform forfeit-fine system)
- Budget Proviso 1.118, including 1.118(A)(2) (private-school enrollment condition)
Cases:
- Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015)
- Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533 S.E.2d 578 (2000)
- State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9, 774 S.E.2d 458 (2015)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-issues-related-to-fiscal-year-2024-2025-budget-proviso-1-49-and-budget-proviso-1-118/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/x1nejksa/singletonj-os-10959-final-opinion-9-20-2024-pdf.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
September 20, 2024
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Commissioner
S.C. Highschool League
P.O. Box 211575.
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Dr. Singleton:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter
states the following:
As Commissioner of the South Carolina High School League (“League”), I am
writing to request an advisory opinion regarding the application of 2024-2025
budget Proviso 1.49, and Budget Proviso 1.118, with respect to three new changes
added to this year’s Budget Proviso for the Department of Education. These new
changes have created some uncertainty as to how the League should apply its
governing rules in order comply with the provisos.
By way of background for these changes, the 2024-2025 Annual Appropriations
Act contains a budget proviso (Proviso 1.49) for the Department of Education that
contains the following provisions, and I have highlighted the new language below
in question:
1.49. (SDE: Interscholastic Athletic Association Dues) (A) A public
school district supported by state funds shall not use any funds or
permit any school within the district to use any funds to join, affiliate
with, pay dues or fees to, or in any way financially support any
interscholastic athletic association, body, or entity unless the
constitution, rules, or policies of the association, body, or entity
contain the following:
an Wel Mpc ~ A iy ve CAN PY, owe, “Geis
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 2
September 20, 2024
(3)(a) an appeals process in which appeals of the association, body,
or entity are made to a disinterested third-body appellate panel
which consists of seven members who serve four year terms, with
one person appointed by the delegation of each congressional
district;
(d) an appeal stays the determination of a sanction made by the
association, body. or entity, or staff member of such. pending the
outcome of the appeal;
(5) a uniform system applicable to all member schools establishing
fines for the cancellation of a scheduled game regardless of if the
game is in or out of region. At a minimum. the school canceling the
scheduled game must be fined an amount equal to the cost incurred
for officials. tickets. and concessions. If the game is rescheduled or
cancelled for a documented health or safety reason. the school shall
not be fined;
Budget Proviso 1.49 (emphasis added).
Additionally, Proviso 1.118 was added in its entirety to the 2024-2025 Annual
Appropriations Act, and the highlighted provision is of concern to the League:
1.118.(SDE: Interscholastic athletics) (A) No funds appropriated or
authorized in this act that are distributed to a school district may be
used to deny individual students who attend independent schools in
this State the opportunity to try out for and, if selected, participate
in an interscholastic athletic program offered at a public school in
the district if the:
(1) student resides within the attendance zone boundaries of the
public school;
(2) independent school that the student attends is not a member of
the South Carolina High School League and the private school's
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 3
September 20, 2024
enrollment for grades nine through twelve does not exceed two
hundred students; ...
Budget Proviso 1.118 (emphasis added).
Sanctions Stayed by an Appeal
The first change is the provision added to Proviso 1.49 that states “an appeal stays
the determination of a sanction made by the association pending the outcome of the
appeal.” I would like to know if this requirement of a stay would apply to the
minimum sanction applicable under the League bylaws and rules and regulations.
For example, under the Unsportsmanlike Conduct provisions of the League’s Rules
and Regulations, an athlete who is ejected for using abusive language, flagrantly or
maliciously contacting another person, making obscene gestures to opponents or
spectators, shall be ineligible for a minimum of the next contest (i.e. 1 game) to the
maximum of one year depending on the seriousness of the violation. Furthermore,
under the League Constitution, the League’s Executive Committee “shall not
reduce any program sanction or fines below the established minimum for verified
League violations committed by member schools.”
The new language in the Proviso could now result in a student athlete being allowed
to continue to participate while pursuing an appeal of a minimum sanction, despite
the fact that the League’s bylaws do not allow the Executive Committee (first level
of appeal) to provide relief from the minimum sanction. We are concerned about
the impact on our efforts to promote good sportsmanship and fair competition when
the appeal process could be clearly manipulated to delay a student athlete from
serving a minimum suspension, particularly when the League does not allow the
Executive Committee to provide relief in such an appeal.
Therefore, we would like to know if the League would still comply with this new
provision of Proviso 1.49 if the stay were only to apply to the appeal of sanctions
in excess of the minimum penalty that could be imposed.
Uniform System for Fines of Forfeited Games
The second change to Proviso 1.49 requires the establishment of a “uniform
system” for establishing fines for the cancellation of a scheduled game. It also
requires that the school cancelling the scheduled game must be fined an “amount
equal to the cost incurred for officials, tickets, and concessions.” Our concern is
that it would be difficult to establish a uniform system for determining the amount
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 4
September 20, 2024
of a fine given the variability of costs depending on the individual circumstances
of the cancellation.
For example, if the forfeiting team is the home team, there would be very few costs
incurred by visiting team, provided the forfeit occurs before the day of the game.
The visiting team aggrieved by the forfeit would not have incurred costs for travel,
tickets, or concessions. On the other hand, if the forfeiting team is the visiting team,
the amount of ticket sales and concession sales would be purely speculative. We
also would like to avoid the possibility of a home team that receives a forfeit from
being able to artificially inflate the “cost incurred” for tickets and concessions. The
League also anticipates that the forfeiting school may disagree with another
school’s calculation of an “amount equal to the cost incurred for officials, tickets,
and concessions.”
In our view, the best way to establish a uniform system for fines of forfeited games
is to set a standard fine that would apply whether the forfeiting team is the home
team or the visiting team. Even with a standard fine for forfeitures, there will be
times when the fine may exceed the actual costs incurred by the non-forfeiting team
and times when the fine may be lower than the actual costs incurred by the non-
forfeiting team, However, the League's concern is that there could potentially be a
big disparity in determining a fine when the forfeiting school is the home team (i.e.
minimal actual costs incurred by the non-forfeiting team) versus when the forfeiting
team is the visiting team. Even in the latter situation, the League has concerns as to
how a non-forfeiting home team would calculate their anticipated Financial loss
due to lost ticket sales and concession sales.
Therefore, we would like to know if the League would comply with this new
provision of Proviso 1.49 if it established a standard fine to be paid to the non-
forfeiting school instead of requiring non-forfeiting schools to submit a proposed
accounting of costs incurred for officials, tickets, and concessions in every instance.
Determination of Enrollment Count for Private Schools
Finally, under the new Proviso 1.118, private school students are allowed to
participate on sports teams at public schools under certain conditions. One of those
conditions is that the “independent school that the student attends is not a member
of the South Carolina High School League and the private school’s enrollment for
grades nine through twelve does not exceed two hundred students.”
The League seeks clarity as to how to determine the point in time at which the
private school’s enrollment count of less than two hundred students will be
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 5
September 20, 2024
reviewed. For example, the League could use any number of dates for determining
whether a private school student meets the criteria of attending an independent
school below this required enrollment count, such as:
- The first day of school for the independent school
- The first day of fall, winter, and spring sports seasons for the public school
-
The first contest of a particular sports team at the public school
-
The date on which the private school student notifies the superintendent of the
public school district in writing of his intent to try out for a particular sport at the
public school (required by Proviso 1.118)
The League’s concern is the fluctuating enrollment counts could impact a student’s
eligibility based on the point in time at which the private school’s enrollment count
is considered. Therefore, the League would like to know if Proviso 1.118 mandates
the point in time to consider the private school’s enrollment count. Ifnot, we would
like to know if the League complies with this new provision by choosing a specific
point in time for the determination of an independent school’s enrollment count and
applying it uniformly to all private school students who may wish to obtain
eligibility under this Proviso.
Law/Analysis
In order to address your questions, this opinion will analyze the provisos according to the
principles of statutory construction. When interpreting legislation, the primary goal is to determine
the General Assembly’s intent. See Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 634, 770 S.E.2d
391, 392 (2015) (“The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the
legislative intent whenever possible.”), Where a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, “the
text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative intent or will.” Hodges v. Rainey,
341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). Further, “Ta] statute as a whole must receive a
practical, reasonable and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of
lawmakers.” State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9, 14, 774 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2015). With these principles
in mind, this opinion will analyze the provisos to address the questions raised in your letter.
I. Sanctions Stayed by an Appeal. FY 2024-25 Budget Proviso 1.49(A)(3)(d)
It is this Office’s opinion that Budget Proviso 1.49(A)(3)(d) requires that stay of all
sanctions until an appeal process is finalized. The plain language of the proviso states “an
appeal stays the determination of a sanction ... pending the outcome of an appeal.” Id. Its
Dr. Jerome P. Singleton
Page 6
September 20, 2024
plain language does not demonstrate legislative intent regarding classifications of
sanctions. Regardless of the severity of a sanction, once an appeal is filed, the proviso
apparently requires treating all sanctions as stayed.
II. Fines of Forfeited Games. FY 2024-25 Budget Proviso 1.49(A)(5)
It is this Office’s opinion that a court would hold Budget Proviso 1.49(A)(5) does
not permit establishing a “standard fine” if that fine “may be lower than the actual costs
incurred by the non-forfeiting team.” The proviso establishes that “at a minimum” the fine
must be “equal to the cost incurred for officials, tickets, and concessions.” Id. The plain
language of the proviso requires the amount of the fine to at least meet those listed actual
costs and may exceed those costs. It appears the Legislature intended the fine to act as a
deterrent to schools that would cancel a game unless it is rescheduled or cancelled for a
documented health or safety reason. As you suggest, we agree that the proviso does not
require non-forfeiting schools to “submit a proposed accounting of costs ... in every
instance.” The League may develop a formula to estimate costs or otherwise determine the
amount of a fine, but that amount cannot be lower than the costs incurred by the non-
forfeiting team.
UI. Determination of Enrollment Count for Private Schools FY 2024-25 Budget
Proviso 1.118(A)(2)
Budget Proviso 1.118(A)(2) does not expressly state nor suggest a date by which
the enrollment of an independent school for grades nine through twelve is determined.
Legislative or judicial clarification may be necessary to resolve this ambiguity with
certainty. In the absence of a stated date or methodology to determine a date, it may be
appropriate for the League to refer to the date of the student’s written notification of his
intent to try out as required by subsection (A)(5). See State v. Henkel, supra.
Sincerely, f
Matthew Houck: —
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWBD AND APPROVED BY:
Solicitor General