Did Lexington-Richland School District Five have to use outside facilitators for annual plan updates?

Plain-English summary

Lexington-Richland School District Five asked whether annual updates to its comprehensive long-range plan had to use a “strategic planning process” with committees and outside facilitators. The Assistant Deputy AG said Section 59-139-10 and Regulation 43-261 addressed plan components but did not mandate a particular preparation method. The regulation favored shared decision-making and a cooperative consensus approach while expressly saying no single planning format was required.

The district proposed that its superintendent prepare an annual update, the board hold town meetings for public comment, and the board formally adopt the result. The author said that process appeared consistent on its face with the statute and regulation. He declined to resolve factual questions about how it would actually operate. The letter was informal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Were outside facilitators or committees mandatory? A: The AG said no; the cited law prescribed no particular method for creating annual updates.

Q: Did the regulation contain any process guidance? A: Yes. It favored shared decision-making and cooperative consensus, while allowing more than one planning format.

Q: Did the AG approve the proposed town-meeting plan without qualification? A: He said it appeared consistent on its face but would not decide fact-specific compliance.

Background and statutory framework

The letter read Section 59-139-10 with Regulation 43-261 on long-range district planning. It distinguished required plan content and broad participation guidance from a mandated committee structure.

Citations and references

Statute and regulation discussed: Section 59-139-10; Reg. 43-261.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-30-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/97sept30eckstrom.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 30, 1997

David C. Eckstrom, Esquire
Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs and Pollard
1441 Main St.
Suite 1500
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear David:
As Chairman of the Board of Lexington-Richland School District Five, you have asked for advice as to whether S.C. Code Ann §59139-10 (Supp. 1996) or Reg. 43-261 (Vol 24 of the Code (Supp. 1996)) requires a school district to use a "strategic planning process" to develop annual updates to the District's comprehensive, long-range plan. In particular, you question whether a District must use committees with "outside facilitators" in developing the updates. Section 59-139-10 and Reg. 43-261 are lengthy provisions addressing comprehensive, long-range planning. Although these provisions address components of the Plans, they do not set forth a procedure for a District to follow in developing its plan. As follows, Reg. 43-261 contains some broad guidance as to the development process, but sets forth no particular method that must be followed in that process: Although no one single planning format is required, it should be understood that shared decision making is central to the formulation of a functional plan. Therefore, a cooperative consensus building approach should be used in the development of long-range school and district plans. The regulation does not define or set forth requirements as to how "shared decision making" should be implemented. In the absence of any requirements in Reg. 43-261 as to who may share in the decision making, and given the absence of any related requirements in §59139-10, the District appears to be given discretion to determine how to conduct the process. The above committee approach does not appear to be required.

REMBERT

;fJ o /] "

c. DENNIS BUILDING
,i.,

1-

•

r"V _--rt-, .

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

David c. Eckstrom, Esquire
September 30, 1997
Page 2
You have asked whether District 5 may follow a procedure by which the District Superintendent would prepare an annual plan for the consideration of the Board and the public. The Board would then conduct town meetings to solicit public comment after which the Board would take formal action to adopt the update. Fact questions are beyond the scope of opinions of this Off ice (Ops. Atty. Gen., December 12, 1983), but the above procedure, on its face, appears to be consistent with Reg. 43-261 and §59-139-10. The town meeting format appears to be a means by which the district can observe the above quoted guidance in Reg. 43-261.

I

This letter is an informal opinion.
It has been written by
the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have further questions, please let me know.

_,/

JESJr.

(i/i!i

~: