Could South Carolina’s LLR director refuse state-funded travel for a dentistry board member in 1995?

Official title

Concerning whether the Director of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (LLR) exceeded his statutory authority when he refused to authorize travel at state expense for a member of the S.C. State Board of Dentistry.

Requester

Roxanne D. Wilson, Member, South Carolina State Board of Dentistry, Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

Plain-English summary

A short 1995 South Carolina Attorney General letter concluded that the director of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation had not been shown to exceed statutory authority by refusing state-funded travel for a member of the Board of Dentistry. The restructuring act had incorporated the board into the department and given its governing authority broad power over department operations, administration, and organization.

The author found no express or implied limit on that authority concerning approval of state-funded travel. The letter did not decide whether the trip would have been worthwhile or describe a separate entitlement to reimbursement; it answered the statutory-power question posed by the board member.

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 AG letter require the director to approve the board member's trip? A: No. It said the cited statutes gave the director broad department-management authority and did not restrict his decision on state-funded travel.

Q: Was the Board of Dentistry outside the director's department? A: The letter said the 1993 restructuring act had incorporated the board into the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which informed the authority analysis.

Background and statutory framework

A dentistry board member challenged the director's refusal to authorize travel at state expense. The letter applied the management provisions of the restructuring act and confined its conclusion to whether that decision exceeded the statutory powers described.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-30-10 and 1-30-65

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-15-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995sept15wilson.pdf

Original opinion text

5o6'9 /

5733

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

September 15, 1995

I
I

Mrs. Roxanne D. Wilson
Member, South Carolina State Board of Dentistty
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation
3600 Forest Drive
Columbia, South Carolina 29204
Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Mrs. Wilson:
Thank you for your recent inquiry as to whether the Director of the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (LLR) exceeded his statutory authority when he refused to authorize travel at state expense for a member of the S.C. State Board of Dentistry. South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon has asked me to respond.

As you know, the South Carolina Government Restructuring Act of 1993 (Act No. 181 of 1993) incorporated the Board ofDentistty into the Department ofLLR. (See§ 130-65 (Supp. 1994).) Accordingly, one must examine§ 1-30-lO(D), which delineates the duties of the executive branch's governing authorities, to ascertain whether the Directors actions exceed the scope of his authority. In relevant part, §, 1-30-lO(D) provides, "[t]he governing authority of a department is vested with the duty of overseeing, managing. and controlling the operation, administration. and organization of the department." (Emphasis added.) In interpreting a statute, the primary objective of both the courts and this Office is to effectuate the legislature's intent if at all possible to do so. Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 (1980). Moreover, this Office has long recognized that in the absence of ambiguity, words must be applied literally. State v. Goolsby, 278 S.C. 52, 292 S.E.2d 180 (1982). The plain and unambiguous language of§§ 1-30-10 and 1-30-65 grant the Director plenary authority to oversee, manage, and control the operation, administration, and REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Mrs. Wilson
Page2
September 15, 1995
organization of the Department of LLR into which the Board of Dentistry has been transferred, and incorporated. Therefore, since these statutes neither expressly nor implicitly limit the Director's authority in regard to approving or disapproving state authorized travel, this Office cannot say that the Director's actions in this matter exceed the powers conferred by the Legislature.

I
I

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Deputy 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. Again, thank you for contacting the Office of the Attorney General. I trust the above information is responsive to your inquiry. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours,

/dtJt/~
Zeb C. Wi11iams, ill
Deputy Attorney General
j

1,

ZCW,Ill/an