I very much appreciate the insights provided by new correspondent Rushmore, who, based on intimate knowledge with the subject, begs to differ with some of my observations.
I have a few things to say in response to his/her last remarks on this post, and they’re sufficiently involved that I decided to make it a separate post, to raise the profile of this debate at a critical moment (DOT reform comes back up in the Senate Tuesday).
First, I want to say to Rushmore that I’m sorry if I seemed dismissive. I’m just extremely impatient because after all these years, we have a good chance to change, fundamentally, the relationship between this agency and the people of South Carolina for the better.
To toss aside that chance for the sake of promises that whoever runs it, it will make better decisions in a particular operational area is to miss the opportunity, and they don’t come around that often.
One can push new criteria for setting road priorities ANY time. It’s a highly worthwhile procedural reform, but it doesn’t have nearly the potential for sweeping, positive change that fundamental restructuring has.
The problem may lie in our metaphors. I’ve only met Elizabeth Hagood once, and was quite favorably impressed. Very smart lady. But she and I have gone back and forth on the suitability of her "fix the car" metaphor. As she put it in the video I posted:
If you’ve got a car that’s not working, and you change drivers, you’ve still got a car that’s not working.
She considers restructuring to be the equivalent of changing the driver. I don’t. I say that restructuring is a fundamental change in the kind of vehicle you have — as basic as shift from the internal combustion engine to electric (just to plug another of my videos).
By contrast, implementing new priority-setting protocols is more like deciding what sort of map you’re going to use in determining where the car is going to go. That’s very important, no doubt — no point in having a car if it doesn’t take you where you want to go.
But if I’ve got a chance to get a new car, a better car, that will better suit what a car should be — say, if I could trade in my ’97 Buick for a new Toyota Hybrid Camry (slobber) … well, I’m going to grab that chance, and talk about what sort of map to use and where I want to go after I leave the showroom.
The League and its allies determined early that they would, in Rushmore‘s terms…
… stay out of the debate over DOT’s
management restructuring because addressing this issue would place
conservation groups right in the middle of the eternal and ridiculous
turf war between the Senate and the Governor
That misses the point. The choice in restructuring isn’t between the Legislature and the governor and what they want. It’s between good government and bad, between an agency that is accountable to the people of South Carolina and one that isn’t. The idea that getting the structure of government right is "ridiculous" would be a terrible shock to James Madison.
Anyway, my great hope is that the folks in that coalition, and other reformers such as Vincent Sheheen, will give John Courson’s proposal — which now includes all the things the coalition has worked hard for — a serious look when he presents it again tomorrow.
Let’s not look a gift car in the mouth. Or grill. Or whatever.
Related Posts
The public scandal at DOT is only PART of the problem. The larger part of plains ineptitude by all levels is astoundingly absent from this debate.
Phantom hours worked by AWOL employees, undocumented leave, excessive attendance at conferences, meetings, and other “away from supervisor prying eyes”, poor work habits and lack of mission are far bigger issues…but the scared cow of the “state employee” can not be slain…so we continue to loot the taxpayer. Nothing new in this…so the public snoozes…
And while I am on the subject…why don’t you FOI the DOT head’s time and phone records, and those of her lieutenants…and see how they spend their time. I guarantee…you would be amazed!
Brad,
I in turn appreciate your thoughtful responses, and apologize myself for the harsh tone of my first post. I also share your frustration. But I just don’t feel that the conservation community’s approach hindered reform efforts, as your column explicitly states. So while you saw a missed opportunity at the State House, I saw one in your column. It appears I haven’t moved you about the best uses of the conservation community’s resources, but you might ask any one of those Senators, no matter how their voted, whether they desire or expect the coalition’s input on the administrative restructuring of DOT. You’ll find a unanimous vote there.
Further, I want to emphasize that personally, with respect to the structural issue, I would be as shocked as James Madison himself if I ever found myself suggesting that getting the “structure of government right” is ridiculous. I stated rather that the turf war is ridiculous, and still believe that the coalition was right to avoid it in favor of creating dialogue and consensus around aspects of DOT reform that really do matter, whether or not one places them before or after fixing the structure, or whether one feels these priorities can be put forth “ANY” time. (Perhaps a debate for another day . . .)
We do agree on one point: this week will be pivotal with respect to DOT reform in the Senate. So if I enjoyed writing skills and political power equal to a State editor I’ve long admired, here’s what I’d focus on: holding those primarily responsible for structural reform, i.e. the Senators, accountable for the votes they cast this week; and exhorting all factions to include the five recommendations of the conservation community in the final bill. Thanks and best wishes.
Once again,(as I commented last year)I have to agree with you on this one, Brad. The need for structural reform in our state’s government is urgent and long overdue.
I can appreciate the “conservation community’s” desire to pursue those agenda items that are dear to them, but also feel that, while the effort was not wasted (it is, after all, what democracy is all about), they missed an opportunity. Their ultimate goals would be much more attainable if they were able to apply pressure to a single responsible member of the body politic rather than having to appeal to the good nature of the amorphous “committee” or legislature.
However, I do heartily agree with “Rushmore’s” final point, The State Newspaper would do us all a great service if you (Brad, since you’re the embodiment of the thing) would hold our representatives’ collective feet to the fire by making very public the votes they cast this week. The legislators subverting the executive’s authority, in pursuit of their own individual political agendas, is what this issue has always been about.