Category Archives: Government restructuring

Chip Huggins, S.C. House District 85

Sept. 10, 2 p.m. — Chip Huggins has represented this Irmo-Chapin district since 1999. And folks there must like him pretty well, because in all that time he hasn’t had opposition for re-election. And in that area (think District 5 school board, the battles over development in northwest Richland County), not many officeholders can say that.

Since he’s the Republican in this race, given the district, I suspect he’s about to get elected again.

But perhaps because he hasn’t had occasion to explain or defend his positions on issues in past election years, he doesn’t communicate very well where he stands, or where he is likely to stand in the future. It’s difficult to tell at times for certain whether he’s just not all that good at communication, was having a bad day (nervousness, which is common enough in a first interview, could account for some of the mangled syntax that kept posing a barrier for me) or he just did not want to be pinned down on anything. Unfortunately, by the end of the interview, I felt quite sure that that last explanation was most valid — he seemed to have a tremendous aversion to taking definite stands.

The most definite thing he said to us — the most specific, helpful fact that he provided with regard to his record — had to do with how he voted on Mark Sanford’s video of the cigarette tax increase. He indicated that he favored the tax increase (which contrasted with his general belief, also clearly stated, that he believes South Carolinians are overtaxed), and indeed voted for it. In light of that, I asked him, what were we to make of the charge by his challenger, Jim Nelson, who told us Mr. Huggins had supported the governor’s veto of that legislation? He said quite clearly that what Mr. Nelson said was incorrect — that in fact he had voted to override. He offered to get the clerk’s office to back him up on that, but I said no need. Of course, Cindi will check that out to confirm, but it seems highly unlikely that he would assert that so definitely were it not the case — especially since he was so loathe to be pinned down on much else. (Cindi speculated that this could have been an honest mistake all around, because she had noted that the VoteSmart organization, which she normally swears by, had reported that vote in a confusing way. She noted that she has informed VoteSmart, and they’re supposed to be doing something about it.)

As for the rest of the interview — well, I deeply regret that I was having multiple technical difficulties today. I had lent the camera with which I usually shoot video to one of my daughters; I didn’t realize the memory in my digital sound recorder was full until after the interview started, and after shooting three still photos and three short, low-quality clips with my Treo, it refused to record any more, claiming that it, too, was full. (And my dog ate my homework.) But let me try to give you a sense of what it was like.

Early in the interview, he indicated that he favored Gov. Sanford’s campaign to restructure state government, which was fine by us, of course: The governor’s positions on that subject are almost word-for-word straight out of our "Power Failure" agenda. But later I asked him to be a little more specific, and ran into a wall of reluctance: He had no specific ideas about how the government’s structure could be improved, beyond a vague desire to avoid "duplication." So I asked him to tell me, specifically, which of the constitutional officers did he think should be appointed rather than elected? When none seemed to be forthcoming, I started listing them: The commissioner of agriculture — should that be appointed (that seemed like the easiest on to start with)? How about the adjutant general? The attorney general?

He wasn’t saying. "There’s just a lot of duplication," he said. "Going to continue to look at that. I’m not going to be specific about that." When I looked for this quote in my notes, at first I started to copy from the wrong page, because on the page before that, talking about education, he had said, "I don’t have any direct answer on that… continue to look at that."

Mr. Huggins is hardly alone in his fondness for the phrase "look at that" — it’s a favorite among candidates (especially incumbents) who don’t want to take a position, as in "We’ll continue to look at that." It may be a defensible way to talk about a complex issue that’s just come up and you haven’t had time to study in adequately. But there’s no excuse to answer that way about issues that you yourself cite as important, and which have lain more or less unchanged on the table before you for years on end. And Mr. Huggins did that repeatedly. When candidates do that, I tend to think What do they think this is, a weather report? I don’t want their predictions of what the Legislature will continue to look at, I want to know what they think the Legislature should do.

The more frustrating exchanges, for me, were later in the interview, after my Treo was full. But I think you can get the idea if you watch the phone video clip below (again, I apologize for the quality). About halfway in, we get to the subject of the state’s automobile sales tax cap. Mr. Huggins seems to want the cap changed in some way, a way that would be "fair," but when we try to find out what he believes would be fair (simply tax the full value of cars at the rate at which we currently tax the first $6,000? exempt the first $6,000, but charge the full rate on the value over that? some other approach?), but he avoids answering.

And, as I say, that was the pattern of most of the interview. I came away knowing that he disagrees with his opponent’s politically suicidal assertion that we don’t pay enough taxes, but not much else.

Usually I find these interviews quite helpful in forming an impression of a candidate. This time, not so much. If anyone has any further information to offer regarding Mr. Huggins or his opponent, now would be a good time to bring it to my attention. Because we’re continuing, as one might say, to "look at that…"

How SC gummint looks from the outside

What I wrote about SPDs in 1991

16 Replies

Things don’t change in South Carolina; they just don’t. If you doubt me, read this piece I wrote in 1991. It was in connection with the 13th installment of the Power Failure project that I directed that year, when I was still in The State‘s newsroom. I quoted from it in my Sunday column.

For those of you who don’t remember, I spent that whole year (except for brief stints when I pulled away to help with our national desk with coverage of the Gulf War and the Soviet coup) running this project that delved very deeply into the fundamental, structural problems with government on the state and local levels in South Carolina. Before that, I had been The State’s governmental affairs editor. After, I took on other, temporary editing assignments as I awaited my chance to join the editorial board. Power Failure had pretty much ruined me for news work.

The piece I refer you to was a little invention of mine that I called the "thread." After the first installment or so of the series (there were 17), I realized that each installment threw an awful lot at people. I wanted to make sure that there was some consistent feature, from installment to installment, that linked that day’s installment with all the previous ones, making sure readers saw the themes that ran through them all. The threads were very short columns by me — about 11 inches long — that essentially answered the questions, What do I need to get out of this installment? How is it related to the rest of the series?

Anyway, I call your attention in particular to this passage. As I noted in my Sunday column, we always have to deal with supporters of SPDs acting like we’re after them personally when we criticized the continued existence of these anachronistic little governments. One of their favorite defenses is to cite the fine work they do providing needed services — as though the same services couldn’t be provided under more sensible governing arrangements. And yet, from the very start, I had anticipated and moved past such objections on their part:

Now before we go further, let’s get one thing straight: There are no bad guys here. Or rather, there might be a few bad guys here and there, but they’re not the problem.

There’s nothing sinister about special-purpose districts per se. They were all established with good intentions. They were set up to provide essential services to people who otherwise would have had to do without. Generally, they continue to perform those services.

The problem is that many — although not all — of them have outlived their usefulness, and their very existence means that government on the local level is more fragmented and less accountable than necessary.

That ran in our paper on Oct. 10, 1991.

Come to think of it, I’ll just make this easy for you and reproduce the whole "thread" for that day here, in case you’re at all interested:

THE STATE
HOW MANY GOVERNMENTS DO WE NEED?
Published on: 10/20/1991
Section: IMPACT
Edition: FINAL
Page: 1D
By Brad Warthen
Memo: POWER FAILURE: The Government That Answers to No One Thirteenth in a series

Do we really need this much government?
Apart from the mess at the state level — such as an executive branch split into 133 completely independent entities — South Carolina has 46 counties, 271 towns and 91 school districts.
And about 500 special-purpose districts.
Maybe we do need this much government. But do we need this many governments, separate and frequently competing?
Now before we go further, let’s get one thing straight: There are no bad guys here. Or rather, there might be a few bad guys here and there, but they’re not the problem.
There’s nothing sinister about special-purpose districts per se. They were all established with good intentions. They were set up to provide essential services to people who otherwise would have had to do without. Generally, they continue to perform those services.
The problem is that many — although not all — of them have outlived their usefulness, and their very existence means that government on the local level is more fragmented and less accountable than necessary.
These districts are part of the legacy of the Legislative State, and point to some key characteristics of that odd system:

Legislative dominance. Until "Home Rule" was passed in 1975, only legislators had the power to solve local problems, such as providing services to unincorporated areas. Rather than empower local governments, legislators did what they always did — set up separate entities that drew their power from the lawmakers, not from voters.

Our rural past. Once, most people lived in the country. Now, most people live in or around towns. In many areas, more conventional elected local governments can provide the services SPDs provide — if allowed to. Special- purpose districts deny the urban present and affirm the rural past, as does legislative government itself.

That "personal" touch. Government by personal political connection is a hallmark of the Legislative State, and it finds expression here. Individual legislators protect and support special-purpose districts, and those interested in preserving the districts support the legislators.

The bottom line is that, on the local level as well as on the state, policymaking and service delivery are fragmented, and we’re paying for more administration than we need. No one is in charge.
Only the Legislature can solve this problem. It can start by setting up a procedure for dissolving SPDs, when and where warranted.
Then, if it can stop listening to the interests who profit from fragmentation, it can do what voters said 19 years they wanted it to do — allow local government to be consolidated and simplified.
According to the main lobbyist for the SPDs, "It appears that proponents of consolidation just want power." He’s right; they do. And so do the opponents.
And so do the people, who have waited for it long enough.
All content © THE STATE and may not be republished without permission.
All archives are stored on a SAVE™ newspaper library system from NewsBank, inc.

Oh, one thing that has changed, slightly. The Legislature did, after this series, finally pass enabling legislation to allow for consolidation of governments. Not that we’ve seen that happen much since.

And we still have more than 500 SPDs. And still, no one knows the exact number.

Forget business. In S.C., it’s always personal

4 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
“Forget about business; it’s personal.”
— what Michael Corleone would have said in “The Godfather,” had he been a South Carolinian

EVERY WORD of the following paragraph, which I wrote in 1991 about our state government, remains true today:
Government by personal political connection is a hallmark of the Legislative State, and it finds expression here. Individual legislators protect and support special-purpose districts, and those interested in preserving the districts support the legislators.
Special purpose districts are difficult to talk about to anyone who is not personally involved with them. A quick primer:
Until 1975, county councils did not exist in South Carolina. State legislators ran everything; lawmakers from a given county made all the local decisions that in most other parts of the country would be made by local government. They provided local services such as recreation, sewerage and fire protection with tiny, ad hoc mini-governments called “special purpose districts.” The districts generally did not follow county lines; often there were several for the same purpose within a county.
Even after county councils were formed in the ’70s, lawmakers refused to do away with SPDs, leading in many cases to conflict and duplication, and to confused lines of responsibility (confusing to the average voter, that is; insiders knew how things worked). There are more than 500 SPDs in the state today. No one knows the exact number, not even the S.C. Association of Special Purpose Districts.
The continued existence of these extra little governments, which derive their power from the Legislature, is one of the ways that state lawmakers keep county government weak and ineffective.
If SPDs ceased to exist today (not likely, by the way), some would and should quickly be reconstituted because they address purposes that go beyond the reach of a single county — such as the body that governs the Columbia airport, or Riverbanks Zoo. But most need to be eliminated, and their duties absorbed by elected city and county governments.
Whenever we on this editorial board say this, folks who work for or derive some measure of power from SPDs get very upset with us. They take it very personally. But for us, it’s not personal; it’s strictly business — the business of good government.
In America, we like to say that we have a government of laws and not of men (or of women, either, if you want to be pedantic about it). But our small state’s Byzantine governing arrangements militate in the opposite direction.
I was reminded of this when the head of the state association of SPDs, Mike Hancock, came to visit us last week. His purpose was to let us know that the folks who run SPDs weren’t monsters; his goal was easily achievable because we’ve never thought anything of the kind — we just disagree with them. But while he knew he wasn’t a monster — in point of fact, he seems a very nice man — he apparently wasn’t so sure about us. He admitted to being uneasy, apparently because he did not have a personal relationship with us. To address that, he had brought along his attorney, Jay Bender, who just happens to be this newspaper’s longtime attorney. Personal.
Mr. Hancock did try to establish something of a bond at the start of our conversation, reminding us that several years back when my colleague Cindi Scoppe and I spoke to the SPD association, he moderated, and did his best to prevent us from being ridden on a rail. I had not remembered his being there. The only person I clearly remember by name from that confab was a lady who asked us to do that gig — an old and dear friend of my longtime friend and colleague Lee Bandy. Personal.
At one point in the conversation, we were talking about the fact that under current law, it’s impossible to eliminate one SPD; you’d have to disband them all (which, once again, isn’t about to happen). Cindi noted that this will continue to be the case unless Chief Justice Jean Toal gets another ally on the Supreme Court who believes the state constitution allows the SPDs’ individual dissolution. Personal.
A moment later, Mr. Hancock was expressing uncertainty about his association’s legislative strategy (chief goal: protecting SPDs), noting that with Bill Cotty retiring, he didn’t even know who his own state representative was going to be, which put him at a disadvantage. Personal.
But in South Carolina, Mr. Hancock and his association truly have the advantage in their campaign to preserve SPDs.
It’s like with the adjutant general. Every other state in the union holds to the principle that military officers should be apolitical. But in South Carolina, we elect the head of our National Guard. That is unlikely to change because lawmakers defer to the preferences of Guard members, and Guard members generally tend to be closely tied to their current commanding officer (which is how it works in banana republics; the U.S. military avoids this by transferring officers frequently), who is always totally invested in the system “that brung him” — popular election. Personal.
Similarly, with more than 500 SPDs, there are thousands of people personally invested in their continued existence. This makes for a huge constituency for the status quo. There are, after all, only 46 counties.
Mr. Hancock has nothing to worry about, no matter what we busybodies on the editorial page may say about SPDs. He seems to be a very nice guy, and he’s allied with a lot of other nice folks. And over at our State House, it’s always personal.

Fabulously Hot

9 Replies

Being shorthanded and having much to do, we don’t have as much fun as we used to in our morning meetings — gotta get out, get to it. But silliness can insinuate itself no matter how brisk and businesslike we are, especially if we try to go a little too fast.

This morning, as he was quickly moving through a list of things he might write about, assuming we achieved consensus on them, Warren mentioned the new "Fabulously Hot" slogan for the Columbia metro area.

Wait, I said — I think you’re confusing this promotional campaign with another one.

Of course, the real challenged faced by the Midlands isn’t communicating a clear, unified sense of place to the rest of the world. For folks who are not here, we are Columbia, the capital of South Carolina. Whether we are in Cayce (slogan: "Lebensraum"), Irmo ("Where Referenda Go to Die") or Richland Northeast ("Halfway to Florence"), folks elsewhere see us as being in Columbia.

The problem is that we can’t get our act together to capitalize upon that, or accomplish much anything else, because of our balkanized system of many tiny, competing governments. As Warren said later in the meeting: Sure, it’s hot — thanks to all the friction between the many little governments.

Yeah, but what’s ‘normal?’

23 Replies

Just now had to run downstairs to make a change in a Friday editorial because I got this release from DHEC to the effect that test results "from the Saluda River in Columbia indicate water quality has returned
to normal following the discharge of partially treated wastewater last
week."

DHEC further says it’s taken down the warning signs that everybody was ignoring, so I guess it has a lot of confidence in the tests.

Personally, I’m not going to run down the river and jump in quite yet, partly because of my heavy dignity as eminence grise of the editorial board, and partly because, after I dragged my old behind back up the stairs after updating the editorial I got to conjurin’ (which is "Firefly" talk for "figuring"): Do they mean "South Carolina" normal, or "states with the kinds of safeguards in place to make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the first place" normal?

Mind you, I’m not putting the blame on DHEC here — or rather, I’m only assigning to them their fair share of it. The whole way we provide such basic local services as sewer in this state — a fragmented, often overlapping mishmash of local gummints, special purpose districts and private providers — is such a mess it’s hard for anybody to keep track of it.

Maybe Mayor Bob ought to go ahead with pulling his summit together. With all these little local fiefdoms along the river counting on its waters to attract untold wealth to the region, I expect they’ve all got some more conjurin’ to do.

(Oh, and for those of you who conjure that Mayor Bob, or someone in local gummint, should have been able to deal with this without meeting with a bunch of other folks — well, you just don’t understand how weak and fragmented local gummint is in our state. You can thank the Legislature for that, by the way. They never miss an opportunity to keep things this way.)

S.C. reform site seeks constitutional convention

22 Replies

Still catching up from the past couple of weeks (first, I had a three day week because I was driving to Memphis on Thursday the 26th, then had another three-day week because I drove back on Monday, and the 4th was Friday), and that means this message from Mattheus Mei is a tad late for Independence Day.

But the message has little to do with the Fourth, since it’s about changing the S.C. constitution — something we’ve been pushing for, whatever the day of the year, since 1991. So while we have never gone so far as to call for an actual convention, it’s certainly an option that should be on the table. (You may be interested to know that the impetus for our 1991 "Power Failure" series came from a series of op-ed columns by Walter Edgar and Blease Graham that did call for such a convention; we adopted the reform agenda without the convention part.) Here’s what Matthew wrote to me:

Brad, I’m starting a petition. With all the "change" in the air, isn’t it time we take an active role in changing how things are done in Columbia, or better yet changing the whole darned system itself! Care to sign, and join me in my personal quest to arouse the rebel yell deep within the SC electorate and let our elected officials with their internecine bickering an inability to pass meaningful legislation? I’d appreciate any support or words of encouragement on what is both a quixotic and yet slightly cynical quest of desperation for the plight of our state.

~Matt

And here’s a link to his site.

How they voted on (sort of) restructuring

21 Replies

As outrageous activity goes, this isn’t nearly as much so as the failure to overrided Sanford’s veto on the cigarette tax. It’s just sort of run-of-the-mill pitiful, what you come to expect from our General Assembly.

This note sent to me by Cindi describes how Senators failed to keep alive the modest Vincent Sheheen proposal to sorta, kinda move in the general direction of rational structural (and functional) reform of state government:

Here’s Tuesday’s Senate vote on a motion to set the legislative restructuring/Department of Administration bill (about which we wrote this morning) for special order. It needed a two-thirds vote but fell short. The bill will not be debated unless it is set for special order.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

MOTION FAILS

H. 3590 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3590&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3590.doc> version) — Reps. G.R. Smith, Bowen, Duncan, Haskins, Littlejohn, Lowe, Bedingfield and Stavrinakis: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2007" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY ADDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; BY ADDING SECTION 1-30-125 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AS AN AGENCY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO BE HEADED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO TRANSFER TO THIS NEWLY CREATED DEPARTMENT CERTAIN OFFICES AND DIVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, AND OTHER AGENCIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE; BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 1 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS A SEPARATE DIVISION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURPOSE, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITY OF THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "EXECUTIVE AGENCIES" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WITHIN EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT; BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 1 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DIVISION OF THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE HEADED BY THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DIVISION; TO CREATE A JOINT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS CASE REVIEW PANEL, AND AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARCHITECTURE OVERSIGHT PANEL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE AND PANELS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-1580, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-10-10, 1-11-20, AS AMENDED, 1-11-22, 1-11-55, 1-11-56, 1-11-58, 1-11-65, 1-11-67, 1-11-70, 1-11-80, 1-11-90, 1-11-100, 1-11-110, 1-11-180, 1-11-220, 1-11-225, 1-11-250, 1-11-260, 1-11-270, 1-11-280, 1-11-290, 1-11-300, 1-11-310, 1-11-315, 1-11-320, 1-11-335, 1-11-340, 1-11-435, 2-13-240, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 3; 10-1-10, 10-1-30, AS AMENDED, 10-1-40, 10-1-130, 10-1-190, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 10, 10-11-50, AS AMENDED, 10-11-90, 10-11-110, 10-11-140, 10-11-330; 11-9-610, 11-9-620, 11-9-630, 11-35-3810, 11-35-3820, 11-35-3830, 11-35-3840, 13-7-30, 13-7-830, ALL AS AMENDED, 48-46-30, AS AMENDED, 48-46-40, AS AMENDED, 48-46-50, 48-46-60, 48-46-90, 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, AND 44-96-140; AND TO ADD SECTION 1-11-185 ALL RELATING TO VARIOUS AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT PROVISIONS SO AS TO CONFORM THEM TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OR TO SUPPLEMENT SUCH PROVISIONS.

Senator MARTIN moved to set H. 3590 for Special Order.

Senator MARTIN explained the Bill.

Senator MALLOY spoke on the Bill.

The "ayes" and "nay" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

AYES

Alexander                Bryant                   Campbell
Campsen                Ceips                   Cleary
Courson                Cromer                   Fair
Grooms                   Hayes                   Jackson
Lourie                   Martin                   Massey
McConnell                Peeler                   Rankin
Reese*                   Ritchie                Ryberg
Scott                   Setzler                Sheheen
Thomas                   Verdin

Total–27

NAYS

Anderson                Drummond                Ford
Hawkins                Hutto                   Knotts
Land                   Leatherman             Leventis
Malloy                   Matthews                McGill
O’Dell                   Patterson                Pinckney
Short                   Williams

Total–17

*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

The necessary two-thirds vote having not been received the motion failed.

Aunt Joy’s Cakes

3 Replies

Here’s another excellent example of the places you can go when you combine an attention deficit problem with the magic of hypertext links.

I was reading the comments on this post, and decided to answer some points Peter brought up. In particular, I took issue with this assertion:

From the problems at Corrections, Health and Human Services, Commerce
and others, the blame ALWAYS stays at the agency and never seems to
rise to the governor….

In part, I said:

As for Corrections, please tell me what problems you think there are
that stem from the administrative side. The problem with Corrections is
deep, profound, fundamental, and lies with the Legislature. It is this:
That our lawmakers embrace locking people up when it is unnecessary,
and refuse to fund Corrections sufficiently to imprison that many
people effectively and safely, much less do anything in the way of
rehabilitation.

It’s an enormous waste of money to lock up nonviolent offenders,
people who pose no physical threat to the citizenry. In their own
perverse way, lawmakers agree with this equation. So they lock them up
anyway (because of some atavistic urge they have to do so), and just
don’t appropriate the money. The results are predictable.

Or were you suggesting there is something wrong with what Ozmint and
Sanford have done with the situation handed them? Personally, I don’t
see any failings on their parts that pose even a measurable fraction of
the systemic problem our laws create. (Ozmint’s greatest sin is
refusing to criticize the underlying situation more forcefully and on
the record, although he has recently begun to crawl out of that shell.) Here’s a column I wrote about that problem , back in 2005. Things have not changed since then…

There’s more, but I won’t bore you further, but will move on to the fun, ADD stuff.

Looking for links to support my assertions without having to go into even greater detail (yes, my comment was, unfortunately, much, much longer than that — as was Peter’s let me hasten to add), I ran across this old post.

I found myself rather frustrated in reading the comments on that one, because … well, for the usual reason that I get frustrated. I had simply noted that something Jon Ozmint had said was like something the Captain had said in "Cool Hand Luke." I thought that was cool in and of itself. For me the connection is the thing. It releases dopamine in my brain or whatever.

But to some of my correspondents, to whom everything has to be this big black-vs.-white argument, preferably of the ideological variety, my pointing that out was some kind of huge, bleeding-heart whine for the poor criminals or something. Such people ascribe to me an affinity for relevance that I don’t possess.

So, to prove to them that it WAS like what the Captain said (yes, we’re talking Strother Martin here), I went looking for the appropriate clip, and here it is. Now this next part is not my fault, because the YouTube page suggested it under "Related videos." It’s the scene in which the girl whom Dragline dubs "Lucille" washes the car. I had to go ahead and look at it for research purposes.

And then I got to wondering about the um, actress who portrayed "Lucille" with such compelling force. Turns out her name was "Joy Harmon," and she also portrayed a 30-foot-tall woman in "Village of the Giants," which is not to be confused with the 50-foot-woman Maureen Dowd recently referred to.

Now here’s the icing, as it were. Turns out that Wikipedia refers to Joy Patricia Harmon as "a baker and former American actress." It also says she wore a bikini in the famous "Cool Hand Luke" scene, which we know she did NOT do, but then everybody says Wikipedia gets things wrong. (Come on, safety pin — Pop!)

A baker?, you’re thinking. Exactly. So I had to read a little further, and I discovered that after she retired from washing cars and being abnormally tall, Ms. Harmon started a business in beautiful downtown Burbank, and it’s called "Aunt Joy’s Cakes." Really. She started the business because "The demand for her delicious treats became too great for her to do alone in her kitchen." (You hush now; Dragline doesn’t want you talking that way about his Lucille.)

So now you know. And now you see how pointless it is to argue against government restructuring.

Preview: Cindi’s column Sunday explaining restructuring

25 Replies

Something John Rust — a candidate for the Republican nomination in S.C. House Dist. 77 — said during his endorsement interview earlier this week was very familiar. It’s something we hear all the time as to why some people oppose restructuring South Carolina government to put the elected chief executive in charge of the executive branch.

Cindi Scoppe explores this common misconception in her column coming up on Sunday. An excerpt:

When I finally managed to claw my way through my over-stuffed in-box, a reprise of the Rust message was waiting for me:
“I saw, again, in your column, a push for enhanced gubernatorial power in South Carolina. You made reference to a leader with bold ideas that don’t get watered down by the timid legislature. Were you implying that this would protect education from unwise budget cuts? If our present governor’s bold ideas were unchecked, a good portion of our education dollar would be paying private school tuition, even bright kids who read at age five would be getting systematic phonics instruction until they were nine, and Barbara Nielson (sic) would likely be State Superintendent. At least 25% of the income tax burden would have been shifted from upper-incomes to middle and lower incomes.”
Wow.
When you put it that way, no one in his right mind would want to “restructure” government…

You may be able to see where she’s going with that. If you can’t, you need to read the column on Sunday.

And before that, I’ll be putting video of the relevant part of the Rust interview on our new Saturday Opinion Extra…

In fact, you know what? Since y’all are like my extra-special friends and all, I’m going to go ahead and give y’all the video right now:

What is the useful role of CHE?

10 Replies

As foreshadowed in a previous post, we met this afternoon with Garrison Walters, the new (new to us, anyway) head of the state Commission on Higher Education.

Once upon a time, that post was filled by Fred Sheheen — Vincent’s Daddy, for those keeping up with political genealogy — who had an active, aggressive notion of the role the CHE should play in marshaling this poor state’s limited higher education resources to greatest effect. The powers that be, such as those who revere the prerogatives of the godlike boards of trustees of the respective institutions, did not like his style. They moved not only to get rid of him, but to restructure the CHE to make it kinder, gentler and less likely to say "nay" to anything they wished to do — or to have any authority even if it did say so.

Since then, the organization has been a lot more studious and polite — content with a "coordinating" rather than "governing" role. Mr. Walters is aware that our board has long favored a Board of Regents that would treat our collection of public, post-secondary institutions as a system rather than islands. He maintains, as do many who cast doubt on our restructuring fervor (say, the Senate on doing away with the "long ballot," or defenders of the council-manager system in Columbia), that some states with such boards do well, and others do not, while some states without overall governance do fine (he cites Michigan, Illinois and Texas).

My position, as always, is that given a choice between a structure intended to facilitate efficiency and accountability on the one hand, and a structure that one can succeed in those regards in spite of, I prefer the former.

As previously noted, of course, we temporarily have a condition in which our three research institutions, motivated in part by such inducements as the endowed chairs, are pulling at their oars as though they understand that we’re all in the same boat. Mr. Walters made note of that. Our position is to applaud our current state, but to worry about what happens when the current individuals in leadership move on, as Andrew Sorensen is about to do. Below that level cooperation and coordination is less evident, although there are encouraging exceptions to that trend.

Anyway, Mr. Walters held out hope that once a study committee finishes its work in September, we might see a new focus and purpose toward focusing our higher ed efforts. Let’s hope he’s right. In the meantime, I provide a video clip in which I ask our guest what he thinks it will take for South Carolina to get where it needs to go, and what CHE’s role is in that…

South Carolina just got a little smarter

25 Replies

This morning I had the honor of meeting Martin Morad, who plans "to develop the world’s first pacemaker made from living tissue," and to do it right here in South Carolina. He’s the latest extraordinary individual that the endowed chairs program has brought here. (That’s him with Larry Wilson and Harris Pastides above. I think those are Ray Greenberg’s arms folded at left; I don’t know the lady in the background.)

There are a lot of things I could say about this guy, and I hope to come back here and say them later (right now, I’m stealing time from other things that need doing today in order to write this — as usual). For now, read the story that was on today’s front page.

I’ll just mention one thing that may seem small to you, but which marks a huge step in my mind…

If there is one thing that holds South Carolina back economically, politically, socially and in every other way more than anything else, it’s fragmentation. Our government is completely dysfunctional thanks to the fragmentation of authority and accountability in the executive branch. On the local level, you see fractals reflecting the same pattern — Columbia as an economic entity can’t get its act together because it’s split into about a dozen municipalities, two counties, seven school districts, various special purpose districts, etc. Even when you distill it down to the tiny political entity that is technically Columbia, political power is fragmented across a seven-member council with no one, elected individual in a position to be responsible for the big picture.

In the realm of higher education, fragmentation has taken us into some amazingly stupid realms in our recent history. First, there is the fact that each of our colleges and semi-colleges is a political entity unto itself, answerable to no one but each institution’s respective board of trustees, each member of which is elected by the 170 members of the General Assembly. This has led to such things as the battle over supercomputers in the late 80s, right after I came back to SC to work at this newspaper — if USC was going to get a supercomputer, then the political "logic" of this state was what Clemson had to have one, too.

We have the charade of a coordinating body — the Commission on Higher Education — which is, by legislative decree, toothless. (Coincidentally, the new head of the CHE is coming to meet the editorial board this afternoon, which puts this even more immediately in mind.) But there is nothing like, say, a board of regents with real power to assign missions, coordinate and focus resources and avoid duplication.

In the last few years, we have been fortunate in that the three presidents of our research institutions — Andrew Sorensen, Ray Greenberg and James Barker — have formed an alliance to work together on a variety of fronts to accomplish some of the things that a unified, rational system of public higher education was accomplished. One of the greatest factors encouraging this relationship to flourish — giving it an undeniable economic impetus — is the endowed chairs program.

Anyway, here’s the thing about Dr. Morad that is in its way as remarkable for South Carolina as, say, developing a living pacemaker: He is the first faculty member in the history of the state to be simultaneously hired by all three research universities at once. (Why? Because it took all three institutions to come up with the talent he needs to make his project happen — which suggests that maybe we should start referring to the three, and governing them, as one institution; put them together, and you’ve got something impressive.) Therefore he embodies the combination of our resources to achieve great things that our petty divisions have kept us from accomplishing in the past. He is the New South Carolinian, the Adam in our new-tech Garden of Eden.

I’ll stop with the metaphors now. Suffice it to say, his arrival in this, his new home, is a big deal for South Carolina.

The op-ed that came too soon

8 Replies

Speaking of Mayor Bob, as we were earlier… A few days ago, he sent us an op-ed submission. Then he resent it with an additional byline on it — that of Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine. It was about the recent city council retreat.

Trouble is, we had run a piece from him just days earlier — last Friday, as a matter of fact. And that piece wasn’t long after another one from him. We can’t just turn over the space we have for local guest columns to the mayor every time there’s something he wants to respond to — he’s a very responsive guy. We have space most days for one local, nonstaff column. There’s a lot of competition for that slot, most days. So we have a guideline — no more than one piece for the same person within 30 days. And we had already stretched that rule once for the mayor, since his earlier piece had been on Feb. 20. We couldn’t give him yet another pass and still face all the other folks we’ve said "no" to. We’d made the first exception because he was responding to an editorial that had been critical of the city. We could have made another for the same reason, but chose not to.

Instead, I offered to put it on the blog. Here’s the cover note that came with the most recent version of his latest submission:

In light of today’s editorial I wanted to submit again the op ed from myself and Tameika Isaac Devine. The editorial was based on Adam Beam’s story about our retreat. While the editorial and Adam’s story certainly describe legitimate issues, I believe the op ed addresses one issue that has been corrected. The City Council partly as a result of the study cited in the editorial has set specific goals and a specific strategic action plan to implement those goals. Both the goals and the plan will be on our website after the plan is updated from the comments at the retreat.

The editorial specifically addresses the report and lack of goals when the writer says: "The report, based on interviews with dozens of managers in city government, said the City Council set no vision or goals…" The editorial goes on to say: "Council members told the study commission that the 2001 report was accurate. But they declared things had changed under Mr. Austin. Mayor Bob Coble said he thought members followed state law in terms of how they interact with city employees. But the events at the recent retreat say things have gotten no better. The council remains a major culprit in ensuring the city’s government struggles."

Clearly the main thrust of the editorial is the "interferance" (the writer’s term in the opening paragraph) of City Council and the form of government and not the lack of planning. While City Manager Austin would be the one to say what improvements have been made in how City Council interacts with him, I would note that the lack of formal goal setting and planning has been addressed, I believe in fairness the op ed adds an important perspective on whether the City Council took steps to formally address that criticism (instead of using the State of the City for the last six years as the primary vehicle for setting goals as would be the common practice under a strong mayor form of government). Of course the op ed discusses the major issues that were addressed at the retreat in addition to the one that Adam addressed in his story. As always I appreciate your consideration.

And here is the text of the submission itself:

City Council Retreat Friday March 7, 2008
I wanted to give a report on the Columbia City Council Retreat that was held Friday March 7th at the Convention Center. The bulk of the day was spent reviewing the four broad goals that City Council adopted last year. Those goals were:
1. To enhance the quality of life in the City of Columbia for all citizens, customers and visitors.
2. To enhance and protect our natural and built infrastructure.
3. To enhance Columbia’s future role as the flagship municipality in South Carolina through the use of best practices for local government operations.
4. To grow the City’s tax base by facilitating opportunities for citizens and future generations to reach their full economic, social, and cultural potential.
Those broad goals are being implemented through Columbia’s Strategic Operational Plan that staff has developed, and that City Council reviewed at the retreat. Both the goals and strategic plan will be on our website www.columbiasc.net.
While a number of specific issues were discussed at the retreat, I think four were particularly important. First, City Council affirmed our plan for safety and security in Columbia. We established as our top funding priority, the police and fire retention plan to increase salaries by $2.5 million over a three year period. We reaffirmed our commitment to fund a security camera system and the goal of 375 police officers (an increase of 19 officers). Additionally, we are committed to fighting gang and youth violence with the implementation of the recommendations of our gang assessment.
Secondly, we reviewed the progress we are making in correcting the deficiencies in our Finance Department that were outlined in the September 2007 Management Letter. We have retained the Municipal Association of South Carolina to help us establish best practices and online financial reporting.
Thirdly, the City has made a real commitment to climate protection. Implementation of our energy audit, which will be released this month, will be a top priority for the coming year. Columbia must do our part to reduce global warming and protect our environment.
Fourth, we reviewed the implementation of the disparity study that was adopted by Council in August of 2006. City Council reaffirmed our strong commitment to the study’s implementation and the need for accountability in reaching our goal of economic fairness and inclusion for our diverse community.
Columbia City Council established last year our broad goals and the strategic operational plan to implement those goals. This year’s retreat was an important opportunity to review progress and take corrective steps where needed. Columbia is going through the greatest renaissance in our history. Innovista will transform our economy and create high wage jobs. The Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center and Hilton Hotel are bringing in tourists and conventions. We are creating new attractions such as EdVenture, the Three Rivers Greenway, and the historic Bethel AME Church Museum. The heart of Columbia, from the Riverfront, Downtown, Five Points, North Columbia, Two Notch Road to Read Street, has been revitalized. Private investment, both residential and commercial, has exploded. We have stronger neighborhoods with more residents, more homeowners, and greater home values in Columbia. We have achieved this growth with a commitment to diversity and inclusion. We have launched a new effort “Together We Can” to improve our public schools through greater community partnerships. This coming year will be an exciting though challenging time. Clear goals and our strategic plan will help us achieve success.

Thank you,

Mayor Bob Coble
3333 Heyward Street
Columbia, South Carolina

Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine

Top guys at Safety, Highway Patrol out

47 Replies

Not much that I can say about this at the moment — it being late on my worst day of the week, and my not having seen the video yet — but I thought I’d let y’all know what happened today, so you can go ahead and comment if you’re so disposed and ready:

Racial slur video leads to shake-up at Highway Patrol
Heads of the S.C. Department of Public Safety, S.C.Highway Patrol step down
Gov. Mark Sanford announced today the head of the state’s Department of Public Safety and the head of the state Highway Patrol have both stepped down after a video of a 2004 incident surfaced of a Highway Patrolman threatening a motorist and using a racial slur.
Public Safety Director James Schweitzer, who was appointed by Sanford during his first term, had been seeking reappointment to his post. But that was held up by the Legislative Black Caucus, who had obtained a video of the incident and shared it with other lawmakers and Sanford.
Caucus members said the videos, and other issues, were reasons lawmakers should question how Schweitzer ran the department and disciplined officers. Sanford met Thursday with Rep. Leon Howard, D-Richland, who is chairman of the Black Caucus, to discuss the video and problems within the DPS….

Video: Sheheen on his restructuring plan

1 Reply

Not much else to say, except to refer y’all to the previous post on the subject, which has links.

In this clip, Vincent gives an intro as to how he came to present this particular government restructuring plan.

Vincent Sheheen’s plan to revamp state gummint

3 Replies

State Sen. Vincent Sheheen came by to explain his government restructuring plan, which he wrote about recently in this op-ed piece.

The significance of Vincent’s initiative (and I call him “Vincent” on account of knowing his daddy and his uncle before I knew him) is that it constitutes a credible, worthwhile government restructuring approach from within the General Assembly, the place where governor’s plans generally go to die.

Over the years, I’ve generally just given the legislative side of restructuring a lick and a promise when I write about restructuring. In the Legislative State, lawmakers can already do pretty much anything they have a mind to do, whereas the executive has been kept purposefully too weak to perform its constitutional role. Back when I did the Power Failure series, I referred to the fact that the Legislature would need to be more serious about advice and consent, and to a lesser extent oversight, if the executive were empowered to do its job. But that always seemed to me a secondary consideration, one that only became important after you do the executive.

Vincent’s idea is to stress the legislative part every bit as much as the executive, if not more so. His Government Accountability Act of 2008 would formalize lawmaker’s oversight of executive agencies, making legislative hearings looking into agencies’ performance more routine. What would be the virtue in that? Well, everybody about had a cow over the recent legislative probe into the Corrections Department, and with good reason — several good reasons, in fact. The unusual investigation WAS politically motivated, legislators didn’t have the staff to do a relevant critique and the Legislature as a whole hasn’t budgeted responsibly for corrections in many years.

Vincent’s proposal would make hearings standard operating procedure, which would lower the stakes when they happen, and thereby help lower defensiveness. Committees would have staff (an expense, but cheaper than the kind of waste it might prevent) to do a professional job in reviewing agency procedures and budgets. And the committees doing the probing would be the same ones responsible for a rational, programmatic budget for the agency. Rather than having a single committee do all the budget work, the committees with oversight authority would bring their expertise to bear to draft more realistic budgets, agency by agency.

As for the executive revamp, there are three main items:

Create an Inspector General’s office empowered to look into just about anything in the executive branch, with independence from the governor.
Eliminate three constitutional officers — not the ones that it makes the most sense to eliminate (such a list would include Education Superintendent and Adjutant General), but the ones that Vincent thinks most doable, given the proclivities of the Legislature: Comptroller General, Secretary of State, and Commissioner of Agriculture. (Basically, what this would constitute would be a start.)
Takes purely administrative functions away from the Budget and Control Board, and vests them in a new Department of Administration. The constitutionally hermaphroditic board would still, inappropriately, have power to make policy decisions.

There’s a lot I would change in this, and a lot farther I would go, but this plan has one virtue over anything Gov. Sanford or anyone else has proposed lately: political viability.

At least, I hope it does. If we can’t do this much, we’ll never have responsible, accountable government in this state.

Quick thoughts about S.C. State

Mayor Bob looks at the bright side

PATHETIC!

7 Replies

Can anyone see any level on which the failure of the city-government-structure committee to do anything, after years of limbo, is anything other than pathetic?

All the majority was trying to do was pass a watered-down proposal to have the mayor act a little bit like a mayor — not to have the kinds of powers that would justify holding him/her accountable for the city’s executive functions — and it couldn’t even do that.

Sure, the committee was stacked against change from the start — particularly with the three-quarters requirement — but think about it: In the world of committees, why do you delay a day, a week or a month (much less over two years) before having a vote? You do it to get your votes lined up, and make sure your votes can make the meeting.

But they couldn’t even do that. Worse, they couldn’t even pass a compromise to justify the committee’s hyperextended existence.

This is SO Columbia, so South Carolina. I love my state, but it’s the truth.

Mayor Bob reports

2 Replies

Our correspondent Bob Coble offers these observations on two hot city issues.

First, I got this e-mail from him today about City Finances, which, as we know, have been quite a mess lately:

Today at our City Council meeting, our auditor, Bud Addison of Webster Rogers, will present out 2005-06 audit. That will put us back on schedule. The City staff will close the books for 2006-07 by December 31st and Webster Rogers will then complete the audit. Our next steps will be to first make sure the new finance staff timely closes our books for 2006-07 and future years, and then the audits are completed timely. Secondly, the auditor’s management letter (that was presented a few weeks ago-Gina did a story and you an editorial) that outlines the deficiencies and recommendations from 2005 must be completed and implemented. The audit itself today will show the financial health of the City itself is strong.

Three minutes later, I received this addendum regarding the idea of Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott taking over the troubled Columbia Police Department:

I wanted to indicate that I have always supported consolidation of
city county services including law enforcement. State law outlines how that
could occur I believe. I think the current proposal by Kirkman and Daniel needs
to be reviewed (Council has only heard about this from Adam Beam). I do believe
there are serious issues that need to be considered. The combination of a
partisan elected official into city government should be reviewed carefully. It
has implications on the current form of government discussion. As always any
consolidation of services discussions should be divorced from the current
players and current situation and be viewed on a 20-30 year basis.

As for what I think — well, you know what I think: There should be a full-time elected mayor in charge of running the city, and that man or woman should be held accountable for all of the above. Having an unelected manager report to seven bosses — none of whom can be held accountable individually for what happens, since each has only one-seventh say — isn’t working out so hot.

If the way to get an elected person in charge of one critical city function — public safety — is to have the sheriff take over, that’s worth considering. But it’s pretty funky — a person elected by one set of people handling an entity that only serves a subset of that electorate is a very strange way to do accountability. And the mayor’s right — whatever we do on this, it shouldn’t be about current personalities.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits