Do local South Carolina Foster Care Review Board volunteers get mileage and per diem for community events, virtual trainings, or driving across town to attend a virtual case review in person?

Plain-English summary

South Carolina's Foster Care Review Board sits on top of 43 local volunteer boards that review the case file of every child in foster care. The local volunteers are unpaid, but state law allows mileage, per diem, and subsistence reimbursement, and the Division asked the AG to settle four practical reimbursement questions.

The AG drew a sharp distinction between the State Board (S.C. Code § 63-11-700(C), which allows reimbursement "while engaged in the work of the board") and the local boards (S.C. Code § 63-11-740, which limits reimbursement to "attendance at board meetings"). That language difference is intentional, and the local board's reimbursement window is narrower.

What that means in practice:

• Community events: Local board members attending community outreach events do not qualify for reimbursement. Those events are not "board meetings."
• Monthly virtual trainings (optional): The AG declined to give a categorical answer. A training might count as a "board meeting" depending on the facts, particularly whether the board is convening to discuss agency business, but an optional one-hour virtual session that is also available as a recording is a closer call. The AG left it to the agency to apply the facts.
• Restricting reimbursement amounts: Yes. S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 allows the agency director to make travel and subsistence rules more restrictive "as dictated by agency requirements." The Division has explicit authority to cap reimbursement.
• Driving to a virtual meeting site in your own county: No, if the agency has not authorized in-person attendance. The AG concluded that voluntarily showing up at a co-worker's office to watch a virtual review on a screen is not "officially justified" travel under S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.01, and even if the agency had not formally prohibited it, the reimbursement claim still fails because the trip was not authorized.

What this means for you

If you serve on a local Foster Care Review Board

You can claim mileage, per diem, and subsistence for actual board meetings, the case-review sessions you are convened to attend. You cannot claim them for community events you attend on the board's behalf, even if the Division asks you to be there in some informal capacity.

If you choose to attend a virtual case review in person at someone's office or workspace, you almost certainly cannot claim mileage for the trip. The AG was clear: if the Division has moved to virtual-only case reviews and you opt to gather in person anyway, that travel is not "officially justified."

For optional virtual trainings, especially short ones that you can also watch as a recording, do not assume you will get per diem. Ask the Division before you participate and put the request in writing.

If you administer the Foster Care Review Division

You have explicit authority to set tighter reimbursement rules than the state-employee default. S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 is a direct authorization for the agency head to make travel and subsistence "more restrictive ... as dictated by agency requirements." Use it to manage the budget unpredictability the Division flagged in its question.

Be explicit in writing about which activities are reimbursable. "Board meetings" alone is the statutory floor, but you can spell out further: in-person attendance at remote-format meetings is not reimbursed, optional trainings are not reimbursed, community events are not reimbursed (this last point is already required by § 63-11-740). The clearer your written policy, the less ambiguity at reimbursement time.

When you tell a board that case reviews are now virtual only, that decision is itself a regulatory restriction. Volunteers who attend in person despite that decision are claiming mileage on travel the agency has not authorized.

If you are a state agency attorney advising a volunteer board

The structural distinction the AG drew, "engaged in the work of the board" vs. "attendance at board meetings", is portable to other boards too. When the General Assembly uses different reimbursement language for a state-level board and its local subordinate boards, treat that as deliberate. The narrower phrase signals tighter eligibility.

S.C. Code Regs. 19-101 (the State Disbursement Regulations) is the default rulebook for state-employee travel, and § 19-101.07 lets agency heads add tighter rules. Volunteer board members are treated as state employees for reimbursement purposes per the Comptroller General's policies.

If you are a foster parent, advocate, or citizen interested in the board's work

The opinion will not affect the Division's core function (case file reviews), but it does signal that the volunteer boards are operating under tight reimbursement rules. Volunteers may decline to attend community outreach events if they cannot get mileage. The Division can address this by allocating budget for outreach travel through a different mechanism, but not by reimbursing it under the case-review board's authority.

Common questions

Q: What can a local Foster Care Review Board member be reimbursed for?
A: Mileage, per diem, and subsistence for attending board meetings. That includes case-review meetings. Other activities (community events, voluntary trainings, attending virtual meetings in person) generally do not qualify under § 63-11-740.

Q: What is the difference between a State Board member and a local board member in terms of reimbursement?
A: State Board members are reimbursed "while engaged in the work of the board" (§ 63-11-700(C)), which is broader. Local board members are reimbursed only for "attendance at board meetings" (§ 63-11-740). The narrower local-board language was a deliberate legislative choice.

Q: Are optional virtual trainings reimbursable?
A: The AG would not give a categorical yes or no. It depends on whether the training functions as a board meeting (a convening of the board for board business) or as a one-way information session. Short optional trainings that are also available as recordings lean toward "not reimbursable," but the agency makes the factual call.

Q: Can the Division cap how much we can claim?
A: Yes. S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 explicitly allows the agency director to set more restrictive travel and subsistence rules. The Division can use this to manage budget predictability.

Q: I drove from my house to a co-worker's office to watch a virtual case review on a screen. Can I claim mileage?
A: Probably not. The AG concluded that if the Division has moved to virtual-only case reviews, voluntarily attending in person is not "officially justified" travel under S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.01. Even before considering whether the agency prohibited in-person attendance, the trip itself does not meet the reimbursement standard.

Q: What if I just have a question about my specific reimbursement claim?
A: The AG explicitly declined to adjudicate factual questions ("this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions"). Take the dispute to the Division's policy office or, if it cannot be resolved internally, to court.

Background and statutory framework

The Foster Care Review Board exists under Title 63, Article 7 of the South Carolina Code. The structure is hierarchical: a seven-member state Board of Directors, plus 43 local boards composed of citizen volunteers appointed by the Governor. The local boards do the case-by-case work of reviewing files for every child in foster care; the State Board sets policy and oversees the local boards.

The legislature wrote two different reimbursement clauses for these two layers:

• § 63-11-700(C) governs the State Board. Members receive per diem and subsistence "as provided by law for members of boards, commissions, and committees while engaged in the work of the board." The phrase is broad: anything the Board does counts.
• § 63-11-740 governs the local boards. Members "may not receive compensation for their services but must be allowed mileage, per diem, and subsistence as provided by law for state boards at board meetings." The phrase is narrow: only attendance at board meetings counts.

Both provisions reference the State of South Carolina Statewide Disbursement Regulations, which the Comptroller General administers. Under those regulations (and as the Comptroller General's policy makes explicit), board, commission, and committee members are treated as state employees for reimbursement purposes.

Two regulations did the work in this opinion:

• S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.01 requires that travel expenses be "officially justified" and consistent with "good management practices."
• S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 authorizes agency heads to impose stricter travel and subsistence limits than the default.

The AG also leaned on standard statutory-interpretation principles: when a statute is clear on its face, give the words their plain meaning (Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 642 S.E.2d 751 (2007)). And the cardinal rule is to ascertain legislative intent (Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015)). The Office defined "meeting" using Black's Law Dictionary's "convening of a deliberative assembly to transact business" definition, which lined up with the case-review function.

For the practical questions that turned on facts ("does this specific training count?" or "did the agency formally prohibit in-person attendance?"), the AG declined to act as a fact-finder, citing Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006). Those determinations are for the Division to make.

Citations

• S.C. Code § 63-11-700(C) (State Foster Care Review Board per diem)
• S.C. Code § 63-11-740 (local board reimbursement)
• S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.01 (travel must be officially justified)
• S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 (agency may impose stricter limits)
• Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 770 S.E.2d 391 (2015)
• Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 642 S.E.2d 751 (2007)
• Op. S.C. Att'y Gen. 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006)
• Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024), "meeting"
• SC Comptroller General, Accounts Payable Policies and Procedures, Disbursement Regulations (June 2024)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-addressing-issues-concerning-mileage-per-diem-and-subsistence-for-members-of-local-foster-care-review-boards/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/xd0jbn2m/hayess-os-11007-final-opinion-4-28-2025.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 28, 2025

Shayla R. Hayes
General Counsel
S.C. Department of Children's Advocacy
Foster Care Review Division
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 441
Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Ms. Hayes:

Attorney General Alan Wilson has referred your letter to the Opinions section. Your letter requests an opinion addressing the following:

The Foster Care Review Board consists of a state board of directors with seven board members and 43 local boards composed of citizen volunteers appointed by the Governor. ...

S.C. Code § 63-11-700(C) provides that members of the State Board shall receive per diem, and subsistence as provided by law for members of boards, commissions, and committees while engaged in the work of the board.

S.C. Code § 63-11-740 states that members of local boards may not receive compensation for their services but must be allowed mileage, per diem, and subsistence as provided by law for state boards at board meetings.

State of South Carolina Statewide Disbursement Regulations permit members of state boards whose duties are not full-time and who are paid on a per diem basis, to be allowed reimbursement for actual expenses incurred while away from their places of residence on official business of the State.

1. Is the Foster Care Review Division required to pay (or reimburse) local board members for mileage, per diem, and subsistence for participation in events that constitute official business that extend beyond board meetings (i.e. community events)?

2. In addition to mandatory annual trainings, the Foster Care Review Division offers monthly virtual trainings that last about an hour. Attendance to the virtual trainings is not mandatory, and recordings are available to view any time on a secured portal online. Are board members entitled to per diem and/or subsistence payments for attendance to a virtual, hour-long training?

3. Unlimited payments to board members participating in board meetings, official business and trainings make it difficult for the Foster Care Review Division to predict budgetary expenses associated with disbursements. Is the Foster Care Review Division allowed to restrict, in any way, the amount of funds paid to any board member for the number of board meetings they attend or their participation in any other official business?

4. All case review meetings by local boards (and any substitutions for local board members by state board members) are held virtually; however, in one county, local board members have chosen to gather in-person and view the other virtual participants on a screen at a board member's workplace. The workplace is located in the same county as their homes. This board was notified that current Foster Care Review Division policies no longer authorize case reviews to be held in-person. Those board members who have chosen to meet in-person for the virtual reviews have requested reimbursement for mileage from their homes to the board member's workplace. Are local board members who have chosen to meet in-person at a location within their county of residence for a virtual review entitled to mileage payments or are mileage payments restricted to travel outside of the board member's county of residence?

Law/Analysis

It is this Office's opinion that S.C. Code § 63-11-740, concerning meetings of local boards, limits the allowable mileage, per diem, and subsistence for members of local foster care review boards to "attendance at board meetings." As your letter notes, the members of the State Board are granted per diem, mileage, and subsistence for a broader range of circumstances "while engaged in the work of the board." S.C. Code § 63-11-700(C). This distinction demonstrates that the General Assembly intended to permit these payments to local board members in more limited circumstances. Therefore, it is this Office's opinion that a court would hold mileage, per diem, and subsistence are not authorized for local board members at community events.

"Board meetings" is not a defined term within the statutes governing the Foster Care Review Board in Article 7 of Title 63. The primary rule of statutory construction requires a determination of the General Assembly's intent. Mitchell v. City of Greenville, 411 S.C. 632, 634, 770 S.E.2d 391, 392 (2015) ("The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible."). The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that when the meaning of a statute is clear on its face, "then the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning. The words of the statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation." Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. State, 372 S.C. 519, 525-26, 642 S.E.2d 751, 754 (2007) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted). Black's Law Dictionary defines "meeting" as:

meeting n. (14c) 1. A coming together or gathering of people, whether few or many. 2. An assembly, convention, or congregation. 3. Parliamentary law. A single official gathering of people to discuss or act on matters in which they have a common interest; esp., the convening of a deliberative assembly to transact business.

MEETING, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024); see also Merriam-Webster Online, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meeting ("an act or process of coming together"). A board meeting for purposes of the local boards would include a convening of the board for case review. Whether the receipt of information in a training, occurring virtually or in-person, could be considered a board meeting will depend on the facts in a given case. See Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (April 4, 2006) ("Because this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions").

The South Carolina Code of State Regulations authorizes agencies to place further limits on travel and subsistence. See S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.07 ("Travel and subsistence limitations may be made more restrictive by the agency head or director as dictated by agency requirements."). Whether the Division has already implemented such a restriction on the local board by notifying that case reviews are no longer authorized to be held in person is a question of fact which is beyond the scope of this Office's opinions. See Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., supra. However, even if a restriction has not been implemented, travel expenses are authorized "only when officially justified and by those means which meet State government requirements consistent with good management practices." S.C. Code Regs. 19-101.01. It is this Office's opinion that a court would not find mileage reimbursement at State expense is permitted for unauthorized in-person case review because it would not be officially justified.

While this regulation is listed within the Travel Regulations for State Employees, the State of South Carolina Statewide Disbursement Regulations clarify, "Board, Commission and Committee members are considered State employees for the purposes of filing for travel reimbursement." SC Comptroller General, Accounts Payable Policies and Procedures, Disbursement Regulations, at 13.

Sincerely,

Matthew Houck
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General