Source: https://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Legal-Services/Legal-Opinions/Opinions/Lawfulness-of-Environmental-Management-Commission.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:42:11+00:00

Document:
Re: Advisory Opinion: Lawfulness of Environmental Management Commission (EMC) Members' Offices and Actions of Commission; N.C.G.S. § 143B-283.
Thank you for your inquiry whether it is unlawful for members of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to be appointed to consecutive terms and whether an unlawfully sitting member invalidates the Commission's actions. Your questions arise from the recent reappointments of three EMC members by the Governor.
One who shall, at the time of appointment, have special training and scientific expertise in freshwater, estuarine, marine biological, or ecological sciences.
G.S. § 143B-283(a). In order to ensure that the EMC membership continues to represent these specific professions and areas of knowledge, the General Assembly provided, “At the expiration of each member's term, the Governor shall replace the member with a new member of like qualifications.” G.S. § 143B-283(b).
I. G.S. § 143B-283(b) Does Not Prohibit Reappointment of Members to the Environmental Management Commission.
On March 9, 2000, EMC members Daniel Besse, Will Fowler, and David Moreau were sworn in for their second consecutive terms of office on the Commission. You have asked whether G.S. § 143B-283(b) prohibits the reappointment of these EMC members for a second term of office. We believe it does not.
Section 143B-283(b) is ambiguous as to reappointments because it lacks express language prohibiting reappointments, which is present in several other statutes to guide the Governor. In several instances, the General Assembly has chosen to limit terms of service for members of environmental commissions. In these cases, it has done so through express language. For example, G.S. § 143B-299, which governs the selection of members of the Sedimentation Control Commission, provides, “Except for the person filling position number five, no member of the Commission shall serve more than two complete consecutive three-year terms.” G.S. § 143B-299(b). Similarly, G.S. § 143B-301.12, which governs the selection of members of the Well Contractors Certification Commission, provides, “No member shall serve more than two consecutive terms.” G.S. § 143B-301.12(c). See also G.S. § 143B-313.2(b) (Members of North Carolina Parks and Recreation Authority “shall serve no more than two full two-year terms.”) It is apparent that when the General Assembly intends to restrict terms of environmental commission service, it does so through clear and unambiguous language. Accordingly, when the General Assembly has not expressly enacted such a restriction, one should not be read into the statute.
G.S. § 143B-283 allows reappointments of EMC members.
II. The North Carolina Constitution Allows Members to Hold Over in Office.
N.C. Const., Article VI, Section 10. This constitutional mandate is reflected in G.S. § 128-7, which states that “[a]ll officers shall continue in their respective offices until their successors are elected or appointed, and duly qualified.” Under these “hold-over” provisions, commission members remain in office until other appointments are made. Regardless of their ability to be reappointed, since Commissioners Besse, Fowler, and Moreau were properly qualified and duly appointed to the Commission at the time of their initial appointments, under Article VI, Section 10 and G.S. § 128-7 they may continue to hold their positions “until other appointments are made.” Because Governor Hunt has not appointed others to their positions, they continue to be lawful “hold-over” commission members.
III. Actions Taken by a Commission with Unlawful Members are Nonetheless Valid.
Even if it were found that a commission member holds office unlawfully, actions taken by the Commission during the member's time of service are valid. A person who by proper authority is admitted and sworn into a public office is a de facto officer, even if he or she is later determined to have been in office unlawfully. Armstrong v. McInnis, 264 N.C. 616, 142 S.E.2d 670 (1965). A de facto officer is “one whose title is not good in law, but who is in fact in the unobstructed possession of an office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper.” Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323, 46 L.Ed. 552, 566 (1902), adopted by Smith v. Carolina Beach, 206 N.C. 834, 175 S.E. 313 (1934).
Because they have been appointed by the Governor pursuant to G.S. § 143B283 and sworn into office, the three members are, at a minimum, de facto officers.
Any person who shall, by the proper authority, be admitted and sworn into any office, shall be held, deemed, and taken, by force of such admission, to be rightfully in such office until, by judicial sentence, upon a proper proceeding, he shall be ousted therefrom, or his admission thereto be, in due course of law, declared void.
See People ex rel. Duncan v. Beach, 294 N.C. 713, 242 S.E.2d 796 (1978). In particular, until a de facto officer is ousted by proper procedure, his or her acts are valid as to third persons. State v. Porter, 272 N.C. 463, 158 S.E.2d 626 (1968). Therefore, actions of a Commission partially composed of de facto officers would also be valid actions.
We hope we have answered your questions. Please contact us should further inquiries arise.

References: § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 143
 § 128
 § 128
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 143
 v. 
 v.