Tempore of the Senate, id. § 9 — 16—90(A); (3) the State must defend and indemnify the members of the Retirement System Investment Commission, id. § 9-16-370; and (4) an entire title of the Code of Laws of South Carolina is devoted to the extensive regulation of the Retirement System and the Trust. In sum, because of the mixed indications as to control, we conclude that application of the contri factor, if not favoring sovereign immunity, is inconclusive. Accord Oberg, 745 F.3d at 141 (finding that the control factor “present[ed] a close question” in light of the fact that the board of directors was largely composed of “state officials or gubernatorial appointees” but also “exercise[d] corporate powers including the capacity to contract and sue and be sued”); Almond, 612 F.Supp. at 227 (<HOLDING>). Turning to the factor considering whether the
recognizing that the members of the board of trustees are fiduciaries and therefore have a duty to protect the fund and the interests of all beneficiaries thereof which duty must be exercised with due care diligence and skill in administering the trust holding that the control factor did not weigh heavily in favor of either party after noting the detailed statutory regime the political nature of the appointment of the members of the board of trustees the retirement systems corporate status and the boards powers to sue and be sued and to buy and sell property holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review holding that the csu board of trustees and individual trustees sued in their official capacity are a political arm of the state and as such are immune from suit