Respondent SGM had such a pertinent question, expressed so well, on my last post that I feel compelled to highlight a large part of his comment — and then answer it gladly — in this separate item.
Here’s an excerpt from what he wrote:
Since you bring up the Karen Floyd race for Superintendent of
Education, what a fine example of just how fragmented and weak our
state’s executive branch is. (It seems like the same principle is also
applied to the structure of most local mayors’ offices.)
It almost seems like the state constitution was written explicitly
to make the executive branch as diluted and powerless as possible.
Oh, wait a minute, I get it now, it was deliberate…
OK. So does your UnParty have a platform position on this issue?
Seems to me that it would be in the interest of all (except the
state legislature) to have a stronger, unified governor’s office.
From a political point of view, it would make the race for governor
actually mean something and allow both parties to run broader, more
intense campaigns. They could actually offer platforms that were
comprehensive and had actual chances of getting things done their way.
Seems like the big party machines would look at this as an economy
of scale issue. Instead of spending campaign money and resources spread
out over several candidates with diverse issues and constituencies,
they could consolidate their efforts into a single race which might
engage more of the electorate.
From the voters point of view, it would go a long way to giving us
some real accountability. We might get some representation that would
have actual authority to get things done and that we could hold
responsible if it’s not effective.
As it stands now, nobody can be held responsible because they can
all point their fingers at other offices and claim that the authority
to take action has been withheld from them.
Amen, SGM! And yes! Maybe I can’t speak for the whole Unparty, but this Unpartisan could not agree more with your assessment of what is wrong with S.C. government. I spent the whole year of 1991 on a special project documenting exactly the problems of fragmentation that you outline. That series helped lead to the partial restructuring of the executive branch in 1993 — a reform that went a lot farther than many expected the Legislature to go, but not nearly far enough. Last year (trying once again to get some reform rolling in the Legislature), we ran a mini-series of editorials updating that project, which was on line, but disappeared. As we revamp our online editorial presence, I intend to restore those pieces.
Until then, here are some pieces that serve as a sort of primer on the issue, starting with a very few of the more than 100 articles in the original 1991 series:
- Main kickoff piece — 5/5/91
- Legislative state history — 5/5/91
- Single-member districts — 5/12/91
- Weak governor — 5/19/91
- Choosing magistrates — 5/26/91
- Highway department — 6/16/91
From our 2005 recap:
- Overview editorial from 1/16/2005
- Overview column by me from 1/16/2005
- Too many state agencies — 1/19/2005
- The long ballot — 1/26/2005
- School control too fragmented — 1/30/2005
- Local government hamstrung — 2/6/2005
And for a big finish, here’s the whole text of a column I wrote for 2/6/2005 as part of that recap series:
THE STATE
SHARDS OF POWER
Published on: 02/06/2005
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
BY BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
YOU WANT the bumper-sticker version of what’s wrong with government in South Carolina?
Fragmentation.
At every level and in almost every area, government is chopped up into so many little shards that power is never sufficiently concentrated to allow any of those mini-governments to get much done. This so confuses and dissolves the lines of political accountability that voters seldom have any way of really knowing whom to blame for failure.
At the state level, we have at least 85 agencies, many with overlapping responsibilities. A few are part of the governor’s Cabinet, but that’s only about a third of the government as measured by spending. Most of the rest are run by boards and commissions made up mostly of people you and I did not elect. A few are even run by people who are elected separately from the governor, and therefore have no political or legal mandate to cooperate with the governor or any other part of state government.
Last week, opponents of fixing that last problem raised the usual specious argument that letting the governor appoint such specialized functionaries as the secretary of state and agriculture commissioner takes away the people’s right to choose their leaders. Try this: Go to the mall and ask the first 10 intelligent-looking adults you see to name the secretary of state and explain what he does. How many could do it? I thought so. Then ask them to name the governor. Now, whom do you suppose they’re going to be able to hold accountable when something goes wrong?
Fortunately, the House passed the measure. The bad news: It only lets the governor appoint two of the eight separately elected state agency heads. Worse, this is the most substantive move the Legislature plans to take toward restructuring this year. The other two bills that have a chance – one that theoretically puts the governor in charge of administrative functions and the other that claims to reduce fragmentation in health care and a few other areas – do even less.
The worst news: The Legislature isn’t even contemplating addressing the fragmentation of local government.
There are no plans to do anything about the 85 school districts – every one with its own expensive administrative structure – in our 46 counties. The same with the other 800 or so local governments (no one is really sure how many there are) that make it nearly impossible for voters to keep track of who is setting their property taxes.
So why do we have a system that seems to be designed not to get things done? That could be answered in a complicated way, but here’s the simple way: It was designed not to get things done. The basic organizing principles of government in South Carolina were established to serve the interests of the antebellum slaveholding elites. They wanted a system that resisted change, and that’s what they created. There have been changes over the years, but it’s basically the same structure we’ve always had.
In a column several weeks back, I quoted from the 1990 series of columns by USC professors Walter Edgar and Blease Graham that helped inspire the original Power Failure series. I didn’t have room for this gem:
"It makes no sense for the 130 residents of Pelzer to be subject to the taxing authority of six different governing bodies and service districts."
No, it doesn’t. And it makes no sense for the people of Richland and Lexington counties to be subject to more than 20. But that’s the way it is.
And nobody’s doing anything about it.
I’ve got plenty more where that came from if you want it.
Related Posts
And yet, Brad, you support allowing the government revenues to increase by at least Pop Growth + Inflation. Cutting the size of government won’t happen until we cut the revenue. What is more likely to happen is that some consolidation might occur but, surprise, the money saved will be spent elsewhere on other pet projects.
I’d love to see The State get the superintendents of Richland 1 and Richland 2 or Lexington 1-X to explain why each county needs multiple school districts.
This isn’t about the size of government, Doug. It’s about having effective, accountable government, rather than the fragmented mess we have now.
Go back and read the links, and you’ll see what I mean.
And how do you propose to influence all these government agencies to become more accountable and effective if it means many government employees will lose their jobs and benefits? Do you think they’re going to do this simply because you tell them it’s the right thing to do?
I prefer cutting the budget to the point where consolidation is a necessity, not a choice.
Brad,
Here’s a potential candidate for the UnParty (this is from 2004):
“State Sen. Luke Rankin of Horry County has proposed legislation to cut the number of school districts in South Carolina from 85 to 46. The Horry County representative would limit each county to a single school district.”
That quote comes from an editorial written by the Spartanbury District 4 Superintendent who opposed the bill.
Editorial Opposed to School District Consolidation
Here’s the type of “logic” and scare tactics that those opposed to school district consolidation will use (from
the editorial):
“However, what the proposed legislation does not address are the other additional benefits created by smaller school districts. These smaller school districts allow local communities to shape school achievement directly through: 1) a strong sense of personalization, 2) clear, open lines of communication between the school and the surrounding community, 3) local ownership — where all board members of the district actually reside in the attendance areas of the schools they serve, 4) greater access to administrators, teachers and support staff via local markets, churches, banks, etc., 5) less bureaucracy, 6) safer schools, and 7) greater opportunities for participation in co-curricular activities based on smaller student population and multiple team opportunities.”
Safer schools? Less bureacracy? Strong sense of personalization? Huh????
You’ll never overcome the PR machines that the school districts have been allowed to put in place. Sorry, Don Brad Quixote… find another windmill.
Actually, our bigger political problem is outside the school district offices. Yes, they have an interest in protecting their structures and control, but lawmakers would go for consolidation if they weren’t afraid of the voters. That’s why we need someone elected statewide to push for it, and push hard. Sanford has mentioned it as a goal, but hasn’t really worked for it. He’s preferred to spend his energy pushing for PPIC.
The political problem has to do with the biggest, hairiest issue in S.C. politics — race. Affluent white districts with good tax bases and good schools don’t want to be merged with poor black districts. Black districts don’t want to be swallowed up by the white power structure.
You don’t have to go far to see how this works. If you want to freak out Richland County voters, talk about merging the two districts. Richland Two has a good thing going, and folks out there don’t want Richland One’s problems. Richland One is probably the largest center of black political power in the state, and those exercising that power and their allies aren’t about to give that up.
The irony — and where my simple explanation gets complicated — is that Richland Two is a lot blacker and poorer than a lot of people think. This goes unnoticed by many because the district does a better than average job educating poor and minority kids.
The two districts ought to be merged. We ought to have no more than 46 districts in this state. Good for Luke Rankin for stepping forward (even though he isn’t taking all that much of a risk doing so, since his county is already consolidated). We need a lot more politicians to step forward on this. Interestingly, in recent years, I’ve heard more and more candidates say in endorsement interviews that we need to consolidate, which is encouraging. But they don’t do anything about it once in office.
I think the leadership is going to have to come from the top — from somebody who is not elected from a district, and can afford to take the statewide view. If the governor and superintendent of education would get together on it and really push, we might have a chance.
And now we will have on more school district, the statewide charter school district.
Here are a couple of possibilities:
P1. We end up with a three tiered public education education system:
Tier 1 – Top performing Charter Schools
Tier 2 – OK performing Public Schools
Tier 3 – Low performing schools that sued the state in Abbeville vs South Carolina
P2. The statewide Charter School District simply takes on the characteristics and problems as the rest of the current public school system and declines accordingly. But, education will cost more with this new entitiy.
Why should we believe that our state government can do any better job of managing this new Charter School System than they are currently doing with the existing Public School System?
Cackalacky:
“Why should we believe that our state government can do any better job of managing this new Charter School System than they are currently doing with the existing Public School System?”
That’s the whole problem with state-wide government anything. There’s no accountability by any one elected official.
Our public schools are horrid by almost any objective measure you care to use, but who can you blame? What individual has the actual power and authority to make real changes? Nobody, that’s who.
If she’s elected, Karen Floyd will no more be able to effect real change than Innez Tennenbaum was over the years that she was in the position. Why? Because the State Superintendent of Education is nothing but a figurehead. Who does she work for? Who is her boss? Who sets her BUDGET?
Who has all the real power? The state legislature does. It controls the purse strings, and if the State Superintendent of Education wants anything (i.e. if the people who elected her want anything), she will have to beg it from the legislators. That’s just the way the legislators like it too. (The same should be said for the State Governor.)
That’s why it takes a decade-long law suit and millions of tax dollars (that could have certainly been better spent than on the government suing itself!) to make a pretty straight up change like was ordered by the judge in Abbeville.
On one hand, the editors argue that local school boards should be able to borrow money and raise taxes to pay the interest without taxpayer referendums, on the specious claim that local governments are more accountable to the voters, whom they seek to disenfranchise.
On the other hand, they claim that an elected State Superintendent of Education has no power and is not accountable, so they want to have them appointed by our weak governor, and be less accountable to the voters.
Actually, Lee, I think the Governor’s weak because he doesn’t appoint his de facto “cabinet” or control the budgets of most of what should be considered the offices of the executive.
It’s no wonder that he so ineffective. The wonder is that he gets anything done at all. Accountability has two parts: authority and responsibility. It’s futile to hold anyone responsible for something they have no authority to control. Voting to put someone in a powerless office is also a form of disenfranchisement.
Your point about the local school boards has some merit, though.
Merely having the govenor appoint a cabinet will not do anything to improve performance, other than being able to fire them before the end of a term.
Voter recall elections would accomplish the same, and more.
The State Superintendent of Education is not powerless. They can take over failing schools. They could do real research, report real numbers, and manage a process of best practices at all levels. None of them have taken the initiative to do anything meaningful that would rock any boats.
Unlike the corporate or military model, the state super can’t fire or discipline the local superintendents. So far, none of them have even had the courage to criticize a district until it gets to the point of seizing control.
As with all state government, the core problem is a lack of ability and desire to do the job.
Nothing here that total school choice couldn’t fix.
So, Lee, you don’t think that giving the governor the authority to hire and fire the heads of state departments along with executive control over their budgeting would do nothing to improve the performance of those same departments?
Voter recall elections are slow, cumbersome, and subject to the same intense partisan politics that regular elections are (probably even more so, really). In the end, all you get is another politician in the job who probably has no more “ability and desire to do the job” then his or her predecessor.
I would say that the source of your position that the state super doesn’t even have the courage to “criticize a district” is a result of his or her political circumstances. Their abilities and desires are first and foremost getting elected and staying in office, not making political enemies.
Giving the governor the constitutional authority to appoint and fire state department heads who are professionals in their fields and who then answer directly to him goes a long way towards allowing those same people to concentrate on doing their jobs instead of stumping for their next election. If they’re incompetent and lazy, let him fire ’em or suffer the political consequences. If they need to ruffle a few feathers, let him take the political heat.
Give the governor the tools he (or in the future, she) needs to set a unified executive branch agenda and the ability to prioritize its resources and efforts. If that agenda fails or doesn’t meet the desires of the electorate, let him or her be held accountable by the voters.
Surely you’re not advocating for the current system and status quo.
I just criticized the current system. Appointing the same sorts of people, rather than electing them, will improve nothing.
The culture of state government is such that competent, honest people don’t want to run for office. Some of them might accept an appointed job, but those require running for appointment out of the sight of the people.
If it were a business, most of the departments and agencies of state government would go out of business. But they are monopolies which stay open without regard to actual service to their customers.
Well, if the current system is broke (and I agree with that assessment)…
And if unifying all the various and sundry elements of the executive branch under a single leader answerable and accountable to the voters won’t make any improvement…
What do you suggest?
You know, I’m really not quite the Polly Anna that I’m starting to sound like here. I certainly don’t think that making (even fundamental) changes in the governor’s office and the executive branch are the be-all-end-all and the solution to every woe, but you gotta start somewhere.
Whatever changes are made, they probably need to be drastic, in order to shake the state out of its complacency. Reform has to be undertaken by radicals, because they are the only ones who will bring a new attitude necessary to roll back the last 50 or more years of government being a place to hang out for 30 years of drawing paychecks.
The rot is at the top. Putting in place real budgets with no tax increases would be a start, so that everyone knows they have to get it done without just writing checks for the taxpayers to cover. There has to be a way to reward, punish and fire bureaucrats that is not political.
The solution in the state is to outsource everything to private industry. All prisons, all highway maintenance, all education, health departments, state parks, etc. Sanford has begun some of it, but it has to go much further to be effective. Without taking that action, you are simply shuffling the same deck of cards and getting the same hand.
Dave,
you’re absolutely right. We need to get out of the middle class “bennie” business ASAP. Let’s subsidize services for the truly poor. Everyone else better get ready to pay their own way – accompanied, of course, by a drastic reduction in taxes so people will have more money to pay their own way.
Government-run parks and recreation especially never made any sense to me. People don’t hesitate to spend a hundred dollars or more to see a concert or sports game, or to attend a theme park, yet they scream bloody murder if they are asked to pay $5 or $10 to visit a state park. Again, let’s take care of the poor who truly can’t afford the price of admission but for the other 90+% why shouldn’t they pay a few dollars for the services they actually use? If nothing else, it would make it quite obvious which services are truly in demand and which are only there for the benefit of the state employees.
I used to not believe in government parks, but I do believe in common places, public lands, especially until we can abolish all property and estate taxes. Otherwise, whatever party is in power will sell off the land to their cronies for real estate development.
I agree with charging a small access fee, but not in letting bureaucrats build little fiefdoms off access fees. The so-called Three Rivers Greenway is a case study in how not to plan, and manage the taking of access to wild areas from the people and convert it into a subsidy program for real estate developers.
A lot of government programs should not be bid out to private contractors, but simply abolished altogether.
Is everyone aware that the state owns 2 golf courses? One in Cheraw and the other upstate. State employees dream jobs. Hang around a golf course for 8 hours and get paid for doing it, and a nice pension. Not bad work if you can get it. Unfortunately, Sanford has been stopped and derailed again and again at pruning back the tax waste in this state. And it’s not just the democrats stopping him. The big spenders in the GOP are against the programs also.
The land at Cheraw as a gift to the state to preserve a unique wildlife area which is home to a wide variety of migrating birds, and to provide hunting, fishing, and hiking opportunities of all citizens of the state.
Clear cutting for golf courses were not in the original vision.