Could South Carolina State University use public funds for sympathy gifts or a student representative’s wardrobe?

Official title

Seeking as to whether certain expenditures of public funds by South Carolina State University might meet the “public purpose” test as required by Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.

Requester

Leroy Davis, Interim President, South Carolina State University

Plain-English summary

South Carolina State University asked whether several expenditures met the state constitutional public-purpose requirement. The 1995 informal opinion said the university’s cards and flowers for births, hospitalizations, and deaths might create goodwill, but the public purpose of those expenditures remained difficult to demonstrate.

The AG did not decide whether a wardrobe for Miss SCSU served the public. It described the identity of the primary beneficiary as a factual question and suggested giving supporting information to the committee conducting the management review. It likewise declined to decide whether canteen funds could support staff and student events, an office computer, a music scholarship, or books about university history, because the answer depended on who primarily benefited.

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 letter approve public spending on sympathy cards and flowers? A: No. It acknowledged possible goodwill but said a resulting public purpose was difficult to demonstrate.

Q: Did it decide that a wardrobe for Miss SCSU was lawful? A: No. The opinion said who benefited from that purchase was a factual question and suggested presenting supporting information to the review committee.

Q: Did the AG authorize the proposed canteen purchases? A: No. It said each proposal required factual determinations outside the scope of the opinion.

Background and statutory framework

The university responded to a management review that had questioned several expenses. The letter referred to the public-purpose requirement in Article X, Section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution. It did not restate earlier constitutional analysis and limited its response to the specific spending questions presented.

Citations and references

• Article X, Section 5 of the South Carolina Constitution, as identified in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-12-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995sept12davis.pdf

Original opinion text

=zo 61J3ct I s?1s

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

September 12, 1995

I
I

Leroy Davis, Interim President
South Carolina State University
300 College Street Northeast
Orangeburg, South Carolina 29117
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear President Davis:

',.By your letter of August 10, 1995, to Attorney General Condon, you have sought an opinion as to whether certain expenditures of public funds by South Carolina State University might meet the "public purpose" test as required by Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. You have indicated that a preliminary report containing a Management Review of certain expenditures by the University has been prepared for the University by the Compliance Review Committee of the State Reorganization Commission. Certain of the examined expenditures were deemed "questionable" by the Committee. The University takes exception to the questioned expenditures; you have sought an opinion as to use of the funds for bereavement acknowledgements, and further for a wardrobe for Miss SCSU. At the conclusion of your letter, you asked additional questions about the expenditure of canteen funds for a variety of purposes, as well. ' You are already aware of the opinions of this Office relative to expenditure of public funds for a public purpose, as well as certain court decisions which expound on that constitutional requirement. Thus, it is not necessary to reiterate those principles at this time. You have asked that we take certain information into consideration, however, with respect to the "questionable expenditures." As to bereavement acknowledgements, you have advised that the University acknowledges births, hospitalizations, and deaths by sending cards of acknowledgement RD!BERT

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

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLL'\IBIA. S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

r
Leroy Davis, Interim President
Page2
September 12, 1995
or flowers. These acknowledgements are sent on behalf of the University, rather than a particular individual. Thus, you feel the entire University population benefits, because the acknowledgement has been sent on behalf of the University.

l

L
I
I

I understand that such acknowledgements create good will within the University and within the greater community. It still remains difficult to demonstrate the overall public purpose resulting to the public or the University by such an expenditure, in my

view.
As to a wardrobe for Miss SCSU, you advise that Miss SCSU represents the University at various functions, both off and on campus. Further, you advise that it is important to the University's image that Miss SCSU appear in a positive light, as an unfavorable appearance by Miss SCSU will result in a negative image of Miss SCSU. According to your letter, the University concedes that Miss SCSU will benefit from the use of the wardrobe; however, you believe the benefit that the University derives from promotmg Miss SCSU outweighs any benefit that Miss SCSU would obtain.

a

.

1-,·
.

Who benefits from this expenditure would be question of fact. I would suggest that you provide such supporting information to the Committee which is producing the Management Review in an effort to demonstrate that a public purpose is being served by this expenditure. Finally, you have asked whether the University may expend canteen funds for a reception activity for staff, employees, and students; for a Christmas party for University staff, employees, and students; for purchasing a computer to be used in the President's office; for a scholarship to a music student who will be expected to perform consistently at college activities on behalf of the University; and for the purchase of books containing the University's history in an effort to cultivate prospective donors. I would advise that such a determination would involve a determination of questions of fact as to who is primarily benefitting from such expenditure; determination of que$tions of fact are outside the scope of an opinion of this Office. Op, Att'y Gen. dated December 12, 1983. I would suggest that counsel for the University be consulted, taking into account legal guidance already given by prior opinions, for guidance on these matters. If questions still remain, perhaps a declaratory judgment action in the Court of Common Pleas would be advisable to obtain definitive guidance.

.\

f
Leroy Davis, Interim President
Page 3
September 12, 1995

With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

[

I
I
[

I
b
I
~

i

!

;

;