Can the same South Dakota county official serve as County Director of Equalization and as a school board member at the same time?
Plain-English summary
Mr. Sebastian asked whether one person could serve both as County Director of Equalization (the county officer who sets property values for tax assessment) and as a school board member.
AG Mark Meierhenry concluded no.
SDCL 13-7-3 bars elective county, municipal, or state officers and "the holder of any other office, the duties of which are incompatible or inconsistent with the duties of a school board member," from school board service. The County Director of Equalization is appointed, not elected, but the statute's "holder of any other office" language reaches appointed positions whose duties create incompatibility.
The substantive incompatibility is direct. The Director of Equalization, under SDCL Chapter 10-3, determines the assessed value of taxable property in the county. School districts rely on property tax revenue (derived from those assessed values) to fund their operations. A school board sets budgets and operates a system funded by property taxes; a Director of Equalization sets the values that the school district's tax levy multiplies against to produce revenue. The same person on both sides creates a tension that the incompatible-offices rule is designed to prevent.
The AG referenced his earlier opinion 85-23, which had analyzed the same kind of incompatibility in the context of a city mayor wanting to serve on the school board. The mayor case involved a different official but the same structural concern: an official involved in the tax system serving on a tax-dependent governing body.
The opinion is short and conclusory; it relies on the obvious functional conflict rather than walking through the four-part incompatible-offices test that AG opinions sometimes use.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in the mid-1980s by AG Mark Meierhenry. 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. SDCL 13-7-3 and SDCL Chapter 10-3 have been amended in various ways since the mid-1980s. The County Director of Equalization position's specific duties may have evolved. The fundamental incompatibility analysis likely still applies, but specific factual situations should be checked against the current statutes and any modern AG opinions or court decisions on dual office-holding.
What the opinion meant at the time
For sitting County Directors of Equalization considering a school board run, the opinion was a clear stop sign. The Director could not run for and serve on a school board while continuing as Director.
For school boards reviewing candidate eligibility, the opinion provided a clear ground for finding a candidate ineligible: if the candidate held the Director of Equalization position, they failed SDCL 13-7-3.
For county commissioners hiring Directors of Equalization, the opinion didn't directly restrict who they could hire; it restricted the Director from simultaneous school board service.
For state's attorneys advising counties and school districts on incompatible-offices questions, the opinion provided a key data point: Director of Equalization is on the "incompatible" side of the line. The broader principle is that officials with assessment or revenue-collection authority generally cannot simultaneously serve on bodies that spend or depend on the revenues those officials determine.
Common questions
Q: What does the County Director of Equalization actually do?
A: Under SDCL Chapter 10-3, the Director values taxable property in the county for assessment purposes. The Director's valuations are then used by the various taxing entities (counties, school districts, municipalities, special districts) to calculate tax revenue.
Q: Could the Director resign from the Director position to serve on the school board?
A: Yes. The opinion bars simultaneous holding of both positions; it doesn't bar a person who previously held one from later holding the other. A former Director could run for school board with no problem.
Q: What about a deputy or staff member in the Director's office?
A: The opinion specifically addressed the Director, who is the office holder. Deputies or staff are employees, not office holders. The 2024 AG opinion 24-03 (on a Public Information Officer serving on a school board) confirmed that employee positions don't trigger the SDCL 13-7-3 bar absent specific statutory designation.
Q: Does this opinion apply to other county tax-related positions?
A: The opinion specifically addresses the Director of Equalization. Other tax-related positions (county treasurer, who collects taxes; county auditor, who oversees tax administration) would need their own analysis. The general principle (incompatibility between assessment/revenue offices and tax-dependent governing bodies) would likely apply to similar positions.
Q: What was Opinion 85-23 about?
A: It addressed whether a city mayor could simultaneously serve on a school board. The AG concluded no. Both the mayor (controlling city tax decisions) and the school board (governing a tax-funded entity) are involved in the local tax structure in ways that create incompatibility. The same reasoning extends to the Director of Equalization.
Q: Does this matter for voters?
A: If a candidate for school board also holds the Director of Equalization position, the candidate is statutorily ineligible. The candidate's name may stay on the ballot if eligibility issues weren't raised in time, but if elected, the candidate would face a challenge. Voters concerned about the issue should check whether candidates hold any incompatible offices.
Q: Could the Legislature change this?
A: Yes. SDCL 13-7-3 is a statute; the Legislature could amend it to allow the Director of Equalization to serve on school boards. There's no constitutional bar that the AG identified.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota uses property taxes as the primary funding source for local government, including school districts. The architecture has several officials: assessors (typically Directors of Equalization) value property; treasurers collect taxes; the governing bodies (county commissions, school boards, city councils) levy and spend the revenue.
The incompatible-offices doctrine protects the integrity of this system by preventing officials from sitting on both sides of the same fiscal transaction. A Director who simultaneously serves on a school board has a built-in incentive to value property in ways that benefit the school district (higher values, higher revenue), even when those values aren't accurate. The structural conflict undermines public confidence in both the assessment process and the school board's budget decisions.
SDCL 13-7-3 codifies this principle for school boards specifically. It uses two clauses: a bar on elective county, municipal, or state officers, and a bar on holders of "any other office" with incompatible duties. The second clause reaches appointed offices like Director of Equalization.
The AG's earlier opinion 85-23 (mayor and school board) and this opinion together established a pattern of treating tax-system officials as categorically incompatible with school board service. Later opinions, including 24-03 (Public Information Officer), refined the analysis by clarifying that employee positions outside the formal officer structure do not trigger the bar.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL Chapter 10-3 (county director of equalization duties)
- SDCL 13-7-3 (school board eligibility)
Prior AG opinions:
- Official Opinion No. 85-23 (Meierhenry; mayor and school board)
Source
Original opinion text
Compatibility of Offices
Dear Mr. Sebastian:
You have requested my opinion concerning whether the same individual could hold the office of a school board member and County Director of Equalization given the requirements of SDCL 13-7-3. The statute provides:
No elective county, municipal or state officer or the holder of any other office, the duties of which are incompatible or inconsistent with the duties of a school board member, shall be eligible for such membership. [Emphasis supplied.]
In my opinion, the answer to your question is NO.
Given the duties of the County Director of Equalization set out, inter alia, in SDCL Ch. 10-3, I do not believe it would be appropriate for the person charged with determining the valuation of property for tax purposes to be a member of a governing body dependent upon tax revenues to carry out its plans. I would refer you to my discussion of this question as it relates to the mayor of a city and school board membership set out in Official Opinion No. 85-23. I adhere to that opinion and the opinions cited therein. While the County Director of Equalization is not an elected official, it is my opinion that he is the 'holder of any other office, the duties of which are incompatible or inconsistent with the duties of a school board member.' SDCL 13-7-3.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark V. Meierhenry
Attorney General