AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 33-36-1330, RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS, SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD AND TO CHANGE THE APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE.
Summary
H. 3933 amends South Carolina law governing public service districts created from converted corporations. The bill changes Section 33-36-1330(B) to establish that the governing board of such a district will be a seven-member board, rather than a board that can vary between five and nine members based on the predecessor corporation’s size. It also revises the appointment process for successor board members, requiring appointments to be made through county legislative delegations based on the distribution of district customers across counties, with the board submitting recommendations before terms expire.
The bill preserves staggered four-year terms, limits members to two consecutive terms, and keeps the existing process for filling vacancies for the remainder of an unexpired term. It takes effect upon approval by the Governor. In practical terms, the measure standardizes board size and clarifies how representation is allocated among counties served by the district, while leaving the basic public service district governance structure in place.
Impact
The bill would directly amend Section 33-36-1330 of the South Carolina Code, narrowing the board-size flexibility for converted public service districts and replacing the prior appointment framework with a seven-member structure tied to county legislative delegation appointments. This affects how board seats are allocated, how successors are nominated and appointed, and how representation is balanced among counties based on customer counts. The measure primarily impacts public service districts, county legislative delegations, and district customers by changing governance and appointment authority rather than operational utility rules.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little opposition. The House passed the bill 107-0, and the Senate advanced it on second reading 41-0, indicating strong consensus that the governance changes were acceptable. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed as a routine or technical governance adjustment rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the provided materials. The only potentially sensitive issue is the shift in appointment mechanics: the bill gives county legislative delegations a defined role in appointing board members based on customer distribution, while also requiring the board to submit recommendations. That structure could raise questions about local control, representation, and the balance between board input and legislative delegation authority, but the unanimous votes indicate those concerns did not generate visible opposition in the legislative process shown here.