Hood v. Jasper County

• Decision Date: 06 September 2017
• Docket Number: 2017-UP-355
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: George M. Hood, Appellant, v. Jasper County, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015-000310

George M. Hood, Appellant, v. Jasper County, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000310

No. 2017-UP-355

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

September 6, 2017

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR.

Heard May 1, 2017

Appeal From Jasper County J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Nancy Bloodgood and Lucy Clark Sanders, both of Bloodgood &amp Sanders, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant.

Christopher Wofford Johnson and T. Foster Haselden, both of Gignilliat Savitz & Bettis, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal arising from the termination of George Hood as the Deputy County Administrator of Jasper County, Hood appeals arguing the trial court erred in: (1) holding article I section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution does not apply to counties; (2) holding a county council operating under the council-administrator form of government can abolish the deputy county administrator position; (3) not addressing the propriety of Jasper County's budget amendment enacted midyear for the purpose of abolishing the county job position; and (4) holding a county council can terminate the employment of an employee who reports to the county administrator because he is an at-will employee. We affirm.

1. Hood argues the trial court erred in holding article I, section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution does not apply to counties. When interpreting the state constitution, the appellate court applies rules of construction similar to those used to construe statutes. State v. Long, 406 S.C. 511, 514, 753 S.E.2d 425, 426 (2014). We agree with the trial court that Jasper County Council's actions did not violate the state constitution's requirement of separation of powers, and we adopt the trial court's order as to this issue.

2. Hood argues the trial court erred in holding a county council operating under the council-administrator form of government can abolish the deputy county administrator position. "The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature." Lambries v. Saluda Cty. Council, 409 S.C. 1, 10, 760 S.E.2d 785, 789 (2014) (quoting Charleston Cty. Sch Dist. v. State Budget & Control Bd., 313 S.C. 1, 5, 437 S.E.2d 6, 8 (1993)). "Where the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning." Id. at 10-11, 760 S.E.2d at 790 (quoting Media Gen. Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 388 S.C. 138, 148, 694 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2010)). We agree with the trial court that Jasper County Council had the authority to abolish the deputy county administrator position, and we adopt the trial court's order as to this issue.

3. Hood argues the trial court erred in not addressing the propriety of Jasper County's budget amendment enacted midyear for the purpose of abolishing the county job position. Hood asserts Jasper County never enacted an ordinance adopting a job description for the deputy county administrator position thus, Jasper County's ordinance eliminating Hood's position is null and void and without effect. As explained above, a county council has the authority to establish and abolish positions. The Jasper County Council voted to fund the...