Reform gets fragged
in the S.C. Senate
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
“Here we are clinging to this antiquated system just like we clung to segregation, just like we clung to Jim Crow. I don’t mean to equate them, but in South Carolina it takes a long time to get over bad ideas.”
— Sen. Greg Gregory
ONCE AGAIN, the Senate has rejected the idea of letting voters decide whether they want to have a governor they can hold accountable for what state agencies do, or nine separate little governors pulling the state apart.
Not all of the Senate, mind you. Just enough of them to ensure failure, to keep government fragmented so that it can’t ever get its act together.
Whom can we hold accountable? Well, I can’t tell you. It was done in such a classic, befuddled manner that it is virtually impossible to fix blame. That, of course, is the hallmark of the Legislative State.
We must applaud in spite of ourselves. It was a thing of great subtlety, even beauty, if you’re the
sort who is turned on by stagnation: “The Senate, Now More Than Ever,” as the old bumper sticker said the last time senators deflected and diluted reform.
It’s poetic. The problem with having the adjutant general, superintendent of education, agriculture commissioner, etc., all elected separately from the governor is that there is no coordination between their agencies and the rest of the state government. So when roads are falling apart, rural schools aren’t educating kids, prisons are about to burst, we have more state colleges than neighboring states but none as good as they do, and so forth, we can’t hold anybody responsible. (Is it any wonder so few South Carolinians bother to vote?)
Some senators like fragmentation, so they “fragged” the plan to do away with it. And no one can tell who threw the grenade.
A majority of senators voted to put the elected schools chief, the ag commissioner, the adjutant general and secretary of state on the chopping block — but they needed a two-thirds majority. Having the governor and lieutenant governor run on the same ticket didn’t even get 50 percent. The only office a sufficient number of senators were willing to risk a public vote on was comptroller general, and that’s just because he “asked for it.” Afterwards, even some of the reform-minded were saying, ah, what’s the use of changing just one of them. So we might not even get that. A true muddle.
Just for fun, just so we can fully appreciate this ancient art, let’s try to fix blame (this will at least amuse the senators):
- Start with the easy part: the 10 who didn’t support reform on any of the votes — Robert Ford, Darrell Jackson, John Land, Phil Leventis, Gerald Malloy, John Matthews, Yancey McGill, Kay Patterson, Clementa Pinckney and Glenn Reese. But others had to join with them, in shifting coalitions, to deny the supermajority in the half-dozen votes.
- Was it Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, who had promised the governor a quick vote on the matter — and delivered just that, a vote without debate, held before the votes were lined up? He would be a prime suspect, given his history as a defender of legislative prerogative. Do we really believe that he of all people would have so mishandled the matter accidentally? But we can’t prove that, and must therefore give him credit for being sincere. People do change, you know.
- Was it Senate Democrats, who have become convinced that the only statewide office a member of their party can aspire to is superintendent of education, and they don’t want to give that up? Or were the Dems just trying to stick it to a Republican governor? Well, all 10 above were Democrats, but the Senate just isn’t partisan enough to make it that simple. There were Republican “nays” on some votes. Besides, Vincent Sheheen voted for all the changes, and surely, he is a Democrat.
- Maybe it was just the small-“d” democrats who believe that the people shouldn’t have the right to vote on every minor official taken away from them? Certain senators did wrap themselves in that. But it’s just not credible that they really believe it. Try this: Ask the next 10 voters you meet to name the nine statewide officers, and then ask yourself: If they don’t know who they are, how are they supposed to hold them accountable? The long ballot dilutes the will of the voters, and that’s the only thing it does efficiently. Besides, if you care so much about the people’s will, why won’t you at least let them vote on whether they want to change?
- The Senate is more about personal relationships than about party. So-o-o … was it yet another case of friends of one constitutional officer making deals with the friends of other constitutional officers, plus senators who might themselves want to be constitutional officers someday, in order to get just barely a large-enough minority to kill the thing? That’s always worked in the past. But where do you grab ahold of that kind of multidirectional backscratching so you can stop it?
Well, you don’t. You can’t. Truth is, you can’t blame any of the above causes, because it was most likely several of them, working together. You can’t blame any one phenomenon, party, faction or ego. If you try to fight it, you’ll be overwhelmed by Lilliputians before you decide which way to swing your sword.
Now mind you, I’m not saying there should be any one person running the Senate (sorry, Sen. McConnell). A legislative body should represent and balance diverse views on the way to making laws.
But an executive branch should not be that way. Once everybody’s had their say, and the law is a fact, somebody needs to be charged with carrying it out. At the point of execution, diverse interests are a distraction, an obstacle, a waste of money. We have all that and more in South Carolina.
And there’s nobody to blame — except maybe you, if you continue to sit still for this.
For how they all voted, click on this.
Related Posts
Brad, good editorial. But please keep those thoughts in mind the next time the governor is castigated for not working hand-in-hand with this bunch in the legislature. And you pointed to Jake Knotts as the disloyal GOP opposition. Remember this tub of lard was poised to run against the governor in the primaries so disloyal he is all the time. I see the group of black Dems are against restructuring. That is ironic because if a governor (any governor) had to appoint all of those department heads, we all know the blacks would get one or a few of the appointments. So they reject that and the departments stay all white. That is what I call stuck on stupid. But hey, this is gubmint in SC. Very sad.
No one, and I mean no one, can underestimate the effect of special interest lobbying on the Senate. I have some first hand knowledge about this…and people would be SHOCKED at what goes on.
Operation “Lost Trust” is a mere distant and vague memory. Lobbying reform should be everyone’s first effort. But it will not happen.
When we debate petty partisan points of argument, from the possible usage of a state mini van to speeding tickets to silly postings on a Porsche web site, we miss the larger questions of governance. We fail to move the debate forward…and so we fail at the central point of the exercise.
Chris
Brad,
Nice article. It is truly a sad day when elected representatives vote to deny citizens the opportunity to vote. One wonders how many “yea” votes were given with the knowledge that the bills would fail.
I once had a debate with a “screaming liberal” who, in a fit of pique, called our State House something like the house of boobs who could not be relied on to do any smart or proper thing if their life was on the line. Sadly, at least on this issue, I must agree with her.
Why not a petition from the people to force an amendment? This ill informed voter does not know if we can even attempt such a thing.
As you accurately pointed out on today’s editorial page, we are living with Ben Tillman’s constitution. Why not, therefore, start a grassroots movement to write a new constitution for South Carolina. Even with amendments, reforms, and good intentions, very little can be accomplished with a mule-drawn wagon of a constitution.
That’s what some authorities advocate. However, the formation of a constitutional convention would be in the hands of the Legislature, and it’s distinctly possible that they’d come up with something worse than what we have.
And it’s not just the Ben Tillman constitution. Tillman just resumed a trend that had started with the Lords Proprietors — a state set up to be run by, and on behalf of, a narrow, self-interested elite. That political culture is so ingrained that I think a Con-Con might be extraordinarily dangerous. So many things could go into a new constitution before the voters at large could learn about them and rise up against them. I don’t know. Maybe it’s the thing to do; but it worries me.
Walter Edgar advocated a convention in 1990, and in fact, the series of essays he and Blease Graham wrote back then on the subject were what inspired me, and The State, to embark on this whole restructuring project back in 91. It’s been our big cause that has undergirded many other stands we’ve taken ever since. Incidentally, Gov. Sanford based his restructuring platform on a copy I gave him of a reprint of our 1991-92 project on the subject, “Power Failure: The government that answers to no one.” Our platform is somewhat broader than the governors, but we have not yet embraced the convention idea. I still think we have a better chance putting the Legislature on the spot very publicly to make these changes, in partnership with voters. But I don’t entirely dismiss the possibility that the convention might be worth the risk.
Why don’t you make this the next crusade for the State editorial page? You know, months and months of at least 2 editorials a day on the subject? Lord knows, this one would make much more sense than many of the harebrained issues you guys have crusaded for or against in the past.
Brad – great editorial today. And we are loving the youtube vidoes. Keep it up!!
– The Shot
I agree with Lex. Instead of the typical payday lender, seat belt, mini-bottle, Iraq war, etc. drivel, pick ONE key theme like restructring and hammer on it every single day. Name names. Point fingers. Expose the backroom antics. Shine the light on these hucksters and make them accountable. Rants about Iraq will have 0.0% chance of doing anything. Putting local politicians on the spot will.
The 1992 restructuring legislation was hailed as a huge victory for the taxpayers. Until his dying day Governor Campbell scoffed at any suggestion that the restructuring effort was anything less than a resounding success. The State Newspaper likewise hailed it as a huge triumph for SC. But the truth is far more complicated. The current DOT was once part of the larger South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Restructuring eventually created three separate agencies. The South Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) included DMV for a while. DPS was housed for a long time in what amounted to a trailer slum. Those things were very energy inefficent and eventually DPS moved to Blythewood. This has created it’s own set of problems given the long distance away from other state agencies. And the painfull and expensive steps to get to the current situation were extrodinary. Some people moved 10 times in as many years. A huge amount of resources were devoted to these endless moves. The support units had to be created out of thin air. Three Human Resources, Three ITs, Three Procurement Offices were needed where only one existed before. And DPS was a disaster of inefficiency for more than a decade. There were certainly no shortage of scandals during this time.
As for DMV, the much ballyhooed shortening of the lines would have been accomplished much more quickly and efficiently had the 3 agencies remained together. A plan was far advanced to create the needed changes. But after re-structuring there simply was no money available for this project for the next 10 years.
I could go on and on about the wasted resources resulting from the first re-structuring. But the bottom line is this: it did not streamline state government. At least not for the 3 agencies created out of the old SCDHPT. We have fewer DMV counter workers, fewer troopers and fewer maintenance workers as a result of the restructuring. And yet there are more employees among these 3 agencies than ever before.
So before everyone jumps on the restructuring bandwagon just remember this: Whatever emerges may have unintended and very expensive consequences. So rather than accepting the State Newspapers account of what happens following the implementation of one of their pet projects do your homework. You may find out that the press can hide information as well as provide it.
Having said all of the above, I’m in favor of a GOOD re-structuring. But the 1992 plan was far from good. If we’re not going to do it right let’s just leave it alone.
I think it’s funny that people on here are accusing the D’s of denying citizens the opportunity to vote when Sanford is the one wanting to make all of the positions appointed. I use to agree with this restructuring idea, but after seeing SCarolinians elect a very unqualified and misleading governor to a 2nd term, it’s def a good thing that the rest of the positions are elected, and not appointed.
For the love of Krispy Kreme doughnuts, Sanford wanted to appoint Ralph Norman to head of DHEC. If he had the power to appoint education, treasurer, and etc…. Bozo would be our spt of education and Barney Fife would be our Attorney General. Come on guys, don’t hook, line, and sinker to this restructuring idea like I once did.
Doug, you’re absolutely right that we have the opportunity to have much more effect by hammering at statewide issues. And we do. In fact, about 95 percent of our staff-written copy is about S.C. issues, and Restructuring has been the Big Dog for us ever since 1990.
(I’m talking about the actual NEWSPAPER here, the thing I spend 60 hours a week on, not the blog. The blog very deliberately goes on tangents — partly because I go where y’all seem to want to go, and partly because I just need the relief from the usual to keep from going insane. But I also try to use the blog to support our main causes in ways we don’t have room to do — such as giving how-they-voted lists and such. I’ll be doing more of that, either on the blog or on the editorial portion of thestate.com.)
I spent a year of my life — 1991 — working on nothing but that. Of course, to me “restructuring” means a lot more than just getting rid of those elected constitutional offices or putting DOT, DMH and education (K-12 and higher) under the governor, so as to create a real executive branch, with true accountability.
It’s about devolving authority from the state to local governments, which are now weak satellites of the Legislature. It means reforming budgeting, taxing and spending COMPREHENSIVELY, so as to create a rational system that efficiently addresses the state’s real needs with money that is raised in a fair and sustainable manner — instead of just talking about the “new money” and leaving the base budget alone, and touching taxes only when a particular constituency (say, affluent homeowners, as in 2006) is hollering loudly). We’ve got to look at the big picture, and reform the way we do everything — reduce the number of school districts, pay teachers according to performance rather than their accumulation of diplomas, and other sacred cows.
But I repeat myself. Funny thing about that, though. No matter how many times I have said the same things over and over for the past 16 years and more, it doesn’t register on people. It’s complicated; it’s abstract. Voters aren’t beating legislators about the head and shoulders to do something about it, so they don’t. Every once in a while, you get an opportunity to relate it to something people can care about — such as the DOT mess — that perfectly illustrates the need for restructuring. And we hammer it, and hammer it, and lawmakers immediately start compromising, and compromising with the compromise, until you have a “solution” that does nothing. So we hammer on THAT, and try our best to make people aware of it.
Help us out; talk it up. It’s long past time for South Carolina to wake up to the fact that the system is structured to fail, and of course to preserve itself.
Brad, I’d like to give you and the State the benefit of the doubt on the many, many failures of the 1992 restructuring legislation and your lack of reporting these problems. Perhaps you were just not aware of what a disaster unfolded following that event. Especially disturbing was the events that surrounded the South Carolina Department of Public Safety during the dark days of the mid to late 1990s. But believe me, from first-hand experience I can tell you that agency was out of control. It was far worse than anything that’s gone on at the DOT.
The size of the Highway Patrol shrank steadily over about a 10 year period. Money, and lots of it, was squandered on pet projects that benefited no one but the Agency Director. Cronyism was rampant. Employees worked in fear. Turnover was very high. Working conditions inside the trailer park slum was appalling. We had to put up with a disgusting bathroom odor inside our trailer for months until we finally threatened to call DHEC. The IT office had to be built from scratch and the growing pains were enormous. That was part of the reason for the serious line problems at the DMV. Headquarters moved from Park Street to the Broad River Road slum to Outlet Point and finally to Blythewood over an 8 year period. And speaking of moving, some people changed offices as many as 10 times. And, as my dad used to say, then came the depression.
Seriously, SCDPS is much better now with sound leadership and a growing level of trooper strength but for 10 years that agency was the bastard child of state government, and the State newspaper, for the most part, ignored it. Could it be that the State had a vested interest in hiding any failings of it’s pet project, restructuring, from the public? I hope that’s not the case. But since you like to talk about accountability how about the accountability of the state’s largest newspaper to report legislative failures that it has endorsed? I don’t think accountability stops at the door of the state house. It includes us all, including the media.
Here is the single best way SC can reform its government:
Limit the legislature to an 8 week session.
There are many states that have legislative sessions that are that short– or even shorter if states have biennial budgets.
How will that reform government?
First and foremost, it will attract a better class of legislator. Successful professionals like lawyers, doctors, business owners, farmers could afford to leave their jobs for 8 weeks. But they can’t under the present system that ties state officials up for six-months at relatively no pay.
Another benefit is that the limited time brings focus. You must use your time wisely. Sure, it’s fast paced and hectic, but there is no time for the nonsense we read about every day. No time for the endless receptions and “bull” that we all know dominate the legislative calendar. It also keeps legislators home more– reminding them where they came from and whom they serve.
When David Wilkins was speaker, he used to talk about the benefits of a shorter session. I don’t think anyone would listen. Maybe The State could consider this idea, and rekindle the idea.
A shorter legislative session would be the fastest, most effective way to reform state government in SC.
To the contrary — the Legislature doesn’t spend nearly enough time studying the issues before making decisions.
Read Cindi Scoppe’s column tomorrow.
You would be shocked at how little the average lawmaker — delegated by the voters to go do the kind of study not everyone has time for — knows about what’s going on.
And bud, to be clear, we have yet to restructure government in South Carolina.
When you say, "The State Newspaper likewise hailed it as a huge triumph for SC," I think you’re remembering our advocacy, which continues today, for full, comprehensive reform.
As to what the Legislature actually DID in 1993, here’s what I had to say
about it.
For those who don’t take the time to click on the link: I was less than thrilled. Mildly encouraged, but less than thrilled.
Here’s the key quote from Brad’s 1993 article.
“By the standards of the Power Failure resolutions, the restructuring of 1993 falls far short. It reduced fragmentation somewhat, but ultimately failed to drastically simplify government.
But by the standards of the South Carolina Legislature, it is a stunning achievement.”
No kidding it ‘failed … drastically …’. So how do you translate ‘failed drastically’ into a ‘stunning achievement’. You were right the first time. It created chaos and ineffiency on a huge scale for the agency(s) I worked for. Had the State not been such a cheerleader for change maybe they would have seen the ‘Power Failure’ that was unfolding during the 1990s. Frankly, bad legislation is far worse than no legislation. I’m not going to hold my breath for good legislation on the restructuring issue.
As our president likes to say: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, uhhhh, I won’t get fooled again.”
The average legislator may not know much, but that’s because the average legislator is ill-informed and self-centered.
A shorter session would encourage a better class of legislator– one that would make the effort to fulfill his/her responsibilities.
Most legislators don’t seem to know much because they don’t make the effort.
The few smart ones are on top of things. There just aren’t enough of them.
Until there in meaningful lobbying reform, the length of the session matters little.
Lobbyist rule this state. The rest of us just pay the bills.
Chris
We should consider returning to the Constitution prior to James Orr-at least that way the General Assembly can pick someone that they are able to work with on issues. And should bring back the Inspector General as an elected position by the people to keep an I on everyone and the LAC.
Thanks for taking the time and effort in creating this content to share your knowledge with all of us.