One of the great benefits of reading this blog is that you sometimes get little glimpses into really choice stuff coming up on the editorial page, such as this letter on tomorrow’s page, which I hereby quote in its entirety:
Get off Elizabeth Mabry’s back! She deserves a retirement party as much as anyone. The money collected is for the cost of the party. I had one when I retired, and a fee was charged.
What’s the big deal?
Anybody want to tell this gentleman what the big deal is?
What gentleman, you ask? Well, for that, you’ll have to read the paper. One thing I won’t use this blog for is to hold people up to ridicule for writing letters to the editor. At least, not personal, specific, individual ridicule.
Although that one really is a corker.
Let’s see — she took full advantage of the unaccountable commission system to run her own little queendom over at what we euphemistically call the "state" Department of Transportation, and resigned last year in disgrace over such trifles as having deceived the Legislature to the tune of millions of dollars.
Then the Budget and Control Board "spent $40,074.57 to buy the remaining service time Mabry needed to be eligible for full retirement benefits," which I think means that we taxpayers spent over 40 grand for the privilege of pretending that she’s worked more time than she has, so that we might have the further privilege of sending her pension checks for the rest of her life. I’m not smart about money matters, but I think that’s right.
Then lawmakers who had defended her strenuously and said any reports of less-than-admirable conduct at DOT was purely a matter of that scoundrel the governor trumping up nonsense changed their tune to: She’s gone now, so that solves the problem, we don’t have to reform the agency.
Then … oh, I don’t even want to go again into all the machinations that have occurred in the House and Senate to try to protect the status quo, except to point out this quote from Sen. John Land in today’s paper:
"This Senate would rue the day that you turn that billion-dollar agency
over to one person, and that’s what this bill does. It would be
terrible for South Carolina."
Mind you, he was reacting to a lame compromise that would keep the commission — which, with its multiple members provides multiples of multiple ways for powerful people to reach in and influence the agency’s running without leaving fingerprints — but give the governor the ability to get rid of members who really get out of hand a way that it can’t be missed. It most assuredly does not do what any sane state would do, which is put the elected chief executive in charge of this huge, expensive executive agency, so that voters can hold somebody responsible to some extent.
We wouldn’t want to put anybody in charge, oh no. Things are much better without that — better for Sen. Land and his peers, that is.
That’s all I can stand on this subject for today. By the way, here’s a copy of the invitation to Ms. Mabry’s party, in case you didn’t get one. I didn’t get one either. I guess that‘ll teach me to stay off that poor woman’s back. (And remember, folks, that RSVP address is celebratemabry@gmail.com.)
Here’s the bottom line: I don’t care about that. Throw her a party. Build her a palace, as long as you do it with your own money. May she live 1,000 years of pure ecstasy, day after day, while the rest of us and our descendants work for our livings.
What I care about is that we fix the problem with the way we run this agency — and plenty of other state agencies, this is just the mess we’re focused on at the moment. And that — fixing it — continues to seem highly unlikely.
Related Posts
That people like the “un-named gentleman” don’t get it is EXACTLY the problem underlying all of this. If people did get it they’d pressure their state senators to fix it. The reason that John Land and the rest can get away with this year in and year out is that they are under NO pressure from constituents to change things. That, and the fact that their power and influence are increased to the extent that they can control these agencies, and their best chance for that is when the agencies have committees of good old boys at the top. Ed
The only cure to this disease is to cut off funding. Cut taxes significantly and you’ll see the rats gnawing on each others’ legs for the smaller hunk of cheese.
Another solution? Term limits. Politics should not be a career. Tenure turns into power which leads to influence which leads to corruption.
Or, we could, like, reform the agency so that it’s accountable for the money it spends.
That way — and excuse me for sounding like such a radical — we can have roads to drive on and stuff like that.
> Or, we could, like, reform the agency so
>that it’s accountable for the money it
>spends.
And who’s going to do that? The same ones who can’t take down the flag? The same ones who can’t do a damn thing to improve education in this state? The same ones The State endorses year after year?
Face it, Brad – they do what they want, when they want. As long as there’s a big pot of other people’s money to spend, it will go into the pockets of politicians.
Here’s the curious thing about that — the transportation department is actually underfunded — objectively speaking (last time I looked, we spent less per mile than other states). There’s been a movement in the business community the last couple of years to get lawmakers to increase the funding, since our secondary roads are falling apart.
We have opposed such an increase for two reasons — and this is before the audit precipitated the recent controversy (the move for more funding did not surface this year, because of that):
— It would necessitate an increase in the gasoline tax, and while I’m not philosophically opposed to that (it would help foster conservation, however marginally), we are opposed to tax increases or decreases outside of comprehensive tax reform (our one exception being the cigarette tax hike, which we believe should be raised not for revenue reasons, but to cut youth smoking).
— We should not funnel more money to any agency as unaccountable as this one. As I’ve pointed out before, this is an old issue for us, predating all the current talk. It’s a structural problem, rooted in the commission itself. This agency is set up to be irresponsible, no matter whether Betty Mabry or somebody else is the director.
Doug, does that have something to do with “Who Moved My Cheese”?
Maybe we can take up a collection to get her a driver and security gaurd.
I’ve known Mabry for years. Anyone who REALLY knows this person is not surprised at all about what took place at SCDOT. She conducted her professional life like she does her personal life. Ask any of her FOUR husbands or any of her immediate neighbors.
Why did Mabry received the $40,074.57? She kept her mouth shut and did what she was told to do. The State paper don’t have a clue of what’s happening here in SC. Especially some of it’s..”reporters?” But, nobody pays any attention to the State. No big deal.
Brad…
Good job on the outrageous expenditures of tax payer money to purchase the retirement for Ms. Mabry, and equally good job on the retirement party affair…Thanks!
But I promise you this…the affairs of state government, now, are such that if you posted two hardnosed reporters to the “criminal and unethical” side of it…in one years time you would have an evidence that makes Operation Lost Trust look like a school boys play. Your paper, and possibly it alone, has the ability to drastically change the political life of SC. Will you do it?
Think big Brad…think Pulitzer!