Posted on Thu, Oct. 05, 2006

email this

print this

reprint or license this

State Supreme Court hears arguments in recreation commission lawsuit

By JOEY HOLLEMAN

jholleman@thestate.com

Chief Justice Jean Toal referred to special purpose districts as “constitutional dinosaurs” during arguments Wednesday before the S.C. Supreme Court in a case that could substantially alter one of those creatures.

Lawyers for five members of the Richland County Recreation Commission want the state court to overturn a law that allows commission members to be appointed by the Richland County Council, and not the county’s legislative delegation.

They claim the law violates the Home Rule Act because it applies only to the appointment of the recreation commission in Richland County.

Lawyers for Richland County Council and Gov. Mark Sanford claimed the legislation does what home rule intended, taking power from the State House and giving it to local officials.

While the attorneys could point to legal precedent that backs each side, Toal came down solidly on County Council’s side.

The recreation commission is one of more than 120 special purpose districts that handle such things as local recreation, water and fire departments. Policy decisions for most of the special purpose districts are made by boards or commissions appointed by state legislators who represent their home districts.

Most special purpose districts were formed before home rule, which didn’t explicitly change how they are run.

One way to solve this constitutional dilemma would be to turn over the power to select board members of all special purpose districts to local counties, but many legislators are reluctant to give up that power. “There’s no way there’s ever going to be a statewide act that will deal with these constitutional dinosaurs,” Toal said.

Tired of dealing with recreation headaches, Richland County’s legislative delegation in 2005 decided to give that power to County Council. They got a law through the Legislature that does just that, but five members of the recreation commission challenged the law’s constitutionality.

Since then, two of the commissioners who sued were replaced as their terms ran out and another was removed because he no longer lives in the district. In July, the newly constituted commission voted to drop the lawsuit, but the five original litigants continued the suit as individuals.

The justices seemed less interested in whether the five individuals have standing in the case than they are in the constitutional issue involved.

Richard Briebart, representing the five commissioners, cited a 1991 case involving the right to appoint commissioners to the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority. The court ruled that change was a violation of Home Rule because it affected only one county.

Emory Smith, representing the governor, said it’s obvious Home Rule was written to give more power over local entities to local authorities. Taking power over the commission from state government and giving it to county government seems to make common sense, he said.

The justices didn’t indicate when they expect to rule on the Richland County case, though they expedited hearing the arguments, recognizing the importance.

Reach Holleman at (803) 771-8366.