Can a South Carolina school board set its own compensation under a policy adopted by majority vote, and does failing to reaffirm the policy in a later year invalidate it?
Plain-English summary
A Lancaster County constituent (apparently a single school board member) routed three questions through Representative Richie Yow to the Attorney General. The questions: whether Policy BBBE (which sets board pay at $700 per month, $800 for the chair, with annual increases tied to certified-staff raises) is consistent with state law; whether the Board's failure to reaffirm Policy BBBE in 2022 affects its enforceability; and whether the policy's travel/reimbursement provisions are subject to statutory or constitutional limits.
The Attorney General answered the first question on the merits and reframed the rest. On the merits: Section 59-1-350 uses the word "may" throughout when describing school board compensation, per diem, mileage, and actual expenses. That makes the section permissive. Unless a local law specifically restricts the Lancaster Board, the Board can develop its own compensation policies in conformance with § 59-1-350's parameters. The AG also flagged that, unlike municipal councils (governed by § 5-7-170, which delays salary increases until the next election), school board compensation has no comparable timing restriction.
On the second question (the 2022 reaffirmation), the AG declined to adjudicate. The Board's meeting minutes for November 15, 2022 record a 7-0 vote affirming "the board policies for 2023" with no listed exceptions, but the constituent's letter said BBBE was specifically excluded. The AG cannot resolve factual disputes. The opinion also adopts a process clarification: going forward, the AG will respond to opinion requests from a public body only if the request comes after a majority vote of the body or from the body's attorney. Single-member requests will be handled but will not be relied on for fact disputes.
On reimbursement, the AG points to the SC Comptroller General's published disbursement regulations and § 59-1-350 itself.
What this means for you
If you sit on a South Carolina school board
You have substantial discretion on your own compensation. Three practical points:
- Set up a written compensation policy. Document your decision in board minutes and adopt a board policy similar to BBBE. This is enforceable as long as it stays within § 59-1-350's permissive framework (per diem for attendance at meetings, mileage to and from meetings, actual expenses for board-business travel outside the county or district).
- No automatic-raise problem in school boards. Unlike municipal councils, you don't have to wait for the next election to enact a raise. You can vote it in immediately and it takes effect immediately. That is an unusual feature of SC school board governance and the AG explicitly contrasts it with § 5-7-170.
- The "no pay" default is permissive, not mandatory. Section 59-1-350 says "members ... may serve without pay." The AG reads "may" as permissive. So you are not required to serve unpaid; you have the discretion to set compensation.
If you live in a school district and want to challenge board compensation
Three practical hurdles:
- Find a local law. The general statute is permissive. Your strongest argument would be a Lancaster-specific local act that overrides § 59-1-350. The AG's research found none, but a local act could exist that the AG missed; check legislative records for your district.
- Argue the policy violates its own terms. If BBBE ties annual increases to "certified staff raises" and the staff did not in fact get a raise that year, the board cannot legally implement the increase under its own policy. This is a contract-law type argument, not a statutory one.
- Use elections. School board members are elected. If you think they are paying themselves too much, the political process is a faster fix than litigation.
If you are a school board attorney
Two action items:
- Audit your district's local laws. Some older South Carolina school district enabling acts contain compensation provisions that pre-date § 59-1-350 or qualify it. If your district's enabling act sets a fixed compensation cap or ties compensation to a specific formula, that local law controls and limits the board's discretion.
- Set up a clear opinion-request protocol with the AG. The opinion adopts a new policy: AG opinion requests from public bodies should follow a majority vote of the body at a public meeting or come through the body's attorney. Build that protocol into your board's policies and committees so future opinion requests have authority behind them.
If you are a state legislator
The AG's reading is that there is no timing restriction on school board pay raises. If you think school boards should not be able to raise their own compensation effective immediately, the cleanest fix is to add a provision parallel to § 5-7-170: any salary increase must wait until two or more new members take office.
Common questions
Q: Can a school board pay themselves anything they want?
A: Within the permissive framework of § 59-1-350: per diem for meetings, mileage, and actual expenses for board-business travel outside the district. The statute does not set numerical caps, but the SC Comptroller General's disbursement regulations and the district's available funds act as practical limits. Board pay must also be reflected in the budget the board adopts and is subject to public scrutiny.
Q: Does the AG's "process clarification" mean my school board has to vote before getting a legal opinion from the AG?
A: Going forward, yes, if the board wants the AG to engage substantively. A single member can still write to the AG, but the AG won't adjudicate factual disputes between that member and the board. The board's collective request (or its attorney's request on behalf of the board) is now the preferred channel. This isn't a hard rule, the AG didn't say it would refuse single-member requests, just that they may receive lighter treatment.
Q: What happens if a school board votes itself a raise without following its own policy procedure?
A: That depends on the policy. If the policy requires the change to be made by ordinance or by amendment to the policy, a vote that doesn't follow the procedure is at risk of challenge. The fix is usually to redo the vote with proper notice and in compliance with the policy. The challenger would have to show the procedural defect and (typically) some prejudice.
Q: Is "annual compensation increases tied to certified staff raises" lawful?
A: The AG opinion does not flag this as illegal. It is a discretion-narrowing structure: the board doesn't have to set the rate each year, it just rides whatever increase certified staff get. That is a reasonable policy choice within § 59-1-350's permissive framework. If certified staff get no raise in a given year, the policy implies no board-member raise either.
Q: Why is municipal council pay treated differently?
A: Section 5-7-170 specifically says municipal council salary changes "shall not become effective until the commencement date of the terms of two or more members elected at the next general election." That is a statutory timing protection: voters get to evaluate a council that voted itself a raise before that raise takes effect. The legislature did not adopt a parallel rule for school boards.
Q: What is "Policy BBBE"?
A: A Lancaster County School District board policy adopted in June 2016 setting member compensation at $700 per month, board chair at $800 per month, with annual compensation increases tied to certified-staff raises and reimbursement provisions for travel and conferences. "BBBE" is the South Carolina School Boards Association's policy classification code for board member compensation.
Q: What about ethics laws on board members voting on their own pay?
A: South Carolina's Ethics Reform Act prohibits using one's office for personal financial gain, but voting on across-the-board council/board compensation is generally treated as a legislative function and not a self-dealing ethics violation. The AG opinion does not address ethics, but a careful board attorney would document that any compensation vote applies prospectively to all members and is consistent with the district's overall budget.
Background and statutory framework
Section 59-1-350 is the general statute on school board member compensation, per diem, and mileage. The legislature drafted it permissively across the board ("may" not "shall"), which gives boards significant discretion. The legislature could have written a cap-style statute (X dollars maximum, increases by Y percent, etc.) and chose not to.
The Lancaster County School District is a 1988 creation, Act 777 of 1988 created the district as "a body politic and corporate" and explicitly vested it with "all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities as other school districts possess under the provisions of the general law of South Carolina." Critically, Act 777 did not contain compensation-specific terms. So the general law (§ 59-1-350) applies in full to Lancaster.
The opinion's procedural shift, requiring majority votes or attorney requests for AG opinions from public bodies, is a noteworthy development. Single-member requests have historically been honored. The AG will continue to do so, but with a caution that fact disputes between member and body cannot be resolved in the opinion.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- S.C. Code § 59-1-350 (school board member per diem, mileage, expenses)
- S.C. Code § 5-7-170 (timing restriction on municipal council salary increases)
Local act:
- 1988 Act No. 777 (creation of Lancaster County School District)
Earlier AG opinion referenced:
- Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006) (AG cannot adjudicate factual questions)
Other authorities:
- SC Comptroller General, Accounts Payable Policies and Procedures, Disbursement Regulation 2026
Source
- Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-the-lancaster-county-school-district-board-of-trustee-s-compensation-policy-bbbe/
- Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/gilaaytc/yowr-os-11023-final-opinion-7-10-2025.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.
ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
July 10, 2025
The Honorable Richard L. "Richie" Yow
Member
South Carolina House of Representatives
1105 Pendleton St.
327-C Blatt Bldg.
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Representative Yow:
Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter forwards a constituent's request for an opinion addressing the following:
I am writing to respectfully request an official opinion from your office regarding a matter involving the Lancaster County School Board and the legality of Policy BBBE, which addresses board member compensation.
In June 2016, the Lancaster County School Board adopted Policy BBBE (issued June 28, 2016), which sets compensation for board members at $700 per month, with an additional $100 per month for the board chair due to additional responsibilities. The policy also includes provisions for annual compensation increases tied to certified staff raises, as well as reimbursements for travel and conference expenses.
In October 2022, the school board reaffirmed all of its policies-except Policy BBBE. This omission has raised concerns, particularly given that the authority for board members to set or receive compensation may conflict with the state statute that established the consolidated school district in the early 1990s. As I understand it, the original statute may not grant the board the authority to determine its own compensation.
Given these concerns, I respectfully request your opinion on the following:
Whether Policy BBBE, which allows the Lancaster County School Board to set and increase its own compensation, is consistent with the state statutes that govern the authority of the board and the structure of the district.
Whether the 2022 failure to reaffirm Policy BBBE has any legal impact on its current enforceability.
Whether reimbursement and travel-related provisions for board members, as outlined in the policy, are subject to statutory or constitutional limits.
Law/Analysis
This opinion will address your constituent's questions in turn.
1. Whether Policy BBBE, which allows the Lancaster County School Board to set and increase its own compensation, is consistent with the state statutes that govern the authority of the board and the structure of the district.
The Lancaster County School District (the "District") was created by Act Number 777 of 1988. Section 1 of Act 777 states:
There is created the Lancaster County School District, a body politic and corporate with a governing body known as the Lancaster County School District Board of Trustees. The district is vested with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities as other school districts possess under the provisions of the general law of South Carolina. The area and boundaries of the district are the same as the area and boundaries of the county.
Id. (emphasis added). Unlike many local laws that abolish a county board of education and establish a county wide school district, Act 777 did not devolve the county board's powers onto the district. Rather, it specified that the district would have the rights, privileges, and responsibilities provided under the general law of the state. With the repeal of the prior provisions governing the county board member's compensation, the District's board members compensation per diem, and mileage are governed by S.C. Code § 59-1-350. It reads:
Members of the county board of education or board of trustees may serve without pay. Each member of the board may receive a per diem for attendance at board meetings and may be paid mileage to and from such meetings. No member may receive per diem and mileage unless in actual attendance upon a meeting of the board. When any member of a board is directed to travel outside the county or school district on official business of the board, he may be allowed actual expenses incurred as a result.
Id. While section 59-1-350 states that members of a board of trustees "may serve without pay," this language is permissive. In fact, each provision in section 59-1-350 concerning compensation, per diem, mileage, and actual expenses use the permissive "may." Unless there is a local law or other controlling authority to the contrary, a district board of trustees may develop its own policies addressing these topics in conformance with these parameters. Our research for this opinion has not revealed there is such a local law addressing these topics for the Lancaster County School District board of trustees.
Other public bodies are limited by statute concerning when salary increases may go into effect. For example, S.C. Code § 5-7-170 contains the following restriction regarding municipal council compensation.
The council may determine the annual salary of its members by ordinance; provided, that an ordinance establishing or increasing such salaries shall not become effective until the commencement date of the terms of two or more members elected at the next general election following the adoption of the ordinance, at which time it will become effective for all members whether or not they were elected in such election.
Id. There is no similar statutory restriction concerning the timing of compensation increases for members of a school district board of trustees.
2. Whether the 2022 failure to reaffirm Policy BBBE has any legal impact on its current enforceability.
We take this opportunity to clarify our policy concerning when a public body requests an opinion it should do after an affirmative vote of the majority of the body at a public meeting or by a request from its attorney. This policy provides greater assurance that the facts and law that our opinions analyze are accurate representations of the public body's actions, positions, and legal questions. The constituent letter you submitted was written by a single member of the Lancaster County School District board of trustees. The questions therein required research into the local laws applicable to the Lancaster County School District and review of the school district board of trustee's meeting minutes and related documents. There were discrepancies between the letter's characterization regarding reaffirming Policy BBBE and those provided on behalf of the Board. To the extent that this opinion discusses information that conflicts with the description in the constituent's letter, that information was obtained from the Board's meeting minutes or was provided by the Board's attorney in documents which are available to the public.
This Office cannot find facts in an opinion. See Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006) ("Because this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions."). Our opinions will often assume the facts presented for purposes of analysis, but where there are differences between the facts described by a requestor/single-member of a public body and those described by the public body, we are unable to resolve such inconsistencies.
Here, the request letter states the Board "reaffirmed all of its policies, except Policy BBBE" in October 2022. Yet, the Board's meeting minutes for November 15, 2022, state, "A motion to affirm the board policies for 2023 was made by Mr. Stroble and seconded by Ms. Green. The motion passed unanimously (7-0)." The meeting minutes do not list any policies that were exceptions to this vote. A memorandum drafted by J. Alexander Sherard, Esq. for the Lancaster County School Board dated June 24, 2025, regarding the status of Policy BBBE stated that "most policies contained in District Board Policy ... were recommend to the Board for substantive review either through policy additions, revisions, deletions or incorporation into other policies." The memorandum explained, "[I]t does not appear that District Board Policy BBBE was recommended to the Board for revision." If one attempted to harmonize these two seemingly inconsistent positions, it may be that there is a misunderstanding regarding the policy being reaffirmed on November 15, 2022, and that it remained unamended from when it was adopted in June 2016. This opinion makes no determination on these positions because, again, this Office cannot adjudicate factual questions. If the school district would like this Office to address the enforceability of its policies, it is welcome to request an opinion, and we would rely on the facts provided on behalf of the entire body.
3. Whether reimbursement and travel-related provisions for board members, as outlined in the policy, are subject to statutory or constitutional limits.
In addition to the provisions of S.C. Code § 59-1-350 discussed above, the South Carolina Comptroller General's website has published guidance addressing statewide disbursement regulations establishing parameters on per diem allowance, mileage, subsistence, and travel-reimbursement procedures. See SC Comptroller General, Accounts Payable Policies and Procedures, Disbursement Regulations, https://cg.sc.gov/sites/cg/files/Documents/Guidance%20and%20Forms%20for%20State%20Agencies/CGs%20Accounting%20Policies%20and%20Procedures/6-30-25/Accounts%20Payable%20Policies%20and%20Procedures/Disbursement%20Regulation%202026.pdf (last visited July 10, 2025). Reference can be made to this document for specific reimbursement concerns.
Sincerely,
Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General