Category Archives: South Carolina

WHO is the city attorney’s client?

I’d like to add my agreement to this morning’s editorial in The State, and elaborate on it:

IT HAS BECOME almost routine that when Columbia city attorney Ken Gaines speaks, the City Council listens — behind closed doors….

With citizens across Columbia following City Council’s deliberations over a possible curfew for teens, Mr. Gaines refused to discuss concerns he had in the open, saying that if he did so, he would violate attorney-client privilege. City officials were concerned about such questions as who would retain custody and whether the city would be liable for the safety of children who were taken into custody for breaking the curfew if their parents refused to pick them up.

Likewise, during a recent work session on a proposed ban on texting while driving, Mr. Gaines said he wanted to meet with City Council members in a closed-door session to discuss “legal issues” about potential problems with the restriction.

Mr. Gaines’ thoughts undoubtedly could affect the council’s actions. It does the public a disservice when policy is being shaped behind closed doors instead of in full public view.

We understand that the council will sometimes go into executive session to receive advice on active lawsuits — or even pending ones. What’s problematic is when closed-door meetings are held to receive information from the city’s lawyer about whether to approve or change a policy or ordinance the public must adhere to….

But we don’t believe for a second that this [the council’s interpretation] is what the Legislature had in mind when it wrote this law. After all, legislators routinely receive legal advice in open meetings about bills they are debating — because they understand that the advice is first and foremost part of the debate, which needs to be public. Apparently local officials need some help understanding this. The Legislature should change the law to make it clear that local bodies can lock out the public to talk to their attorneys only to discuss an actual legal challenge — not one that they or their lawyer imagine might someday be brought if they adopt a certain ordinance.

In the meantime, Columbia City Council and other local governments would do well to remember that while the law allows public bodies to go behind closed doors to discuss legal matters, it doesn’t require them to. City Council members should direct Mr. Gaines to share information affecting public policy in the open.

Amen. Now, here’s a thought I’d like to see further developed…

Who is the city attorney’s client? I would say it is the citizenry. I’m simply basing this assertion on reason and my understanding of representative democracy, not on a technical legal reading. But I’d love to see someone test it in court.

And even if what I’m saying is not the way it is, I’m quite sure that’s the way it should be.

As I see it, council members are the citizens’ agents, and not the principals, in this attorney-client relationship. Under this interpretation, the only way there would be attorney-client privilege allowing for closed doors (under the canons of the profession, not the FOI statute specifically) would be when the attorney is representing council members as individuals, because they have been specifically named in a lawsuit. (And then we could have a separate debate about whether the city attorney should be representing them, as opposed to their engaging private counsel. I’d be inclined to say that we the people should extend them that help when they are sued for actions performed as part of their official duties, but depending on the case, I could see debating the point.)

Bottom line, there is no justification for privilege in these policy discussions (the specific cases cited in the editorial), either under FOI law or the rules of professional responsibility.

Would any lawyers like to jump in on this? Perhaps not, after the scary warnings I heard the other day from Barbara Seymour about the dangers to attorneys’ engaging in social media, but I can always hope…

Where we’re headed: Pack heat, or else

Have y’all seen this?

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A House panel on Thursday will take up a bill that would allow anyone who can legally own a firearm in the state to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

The move to loosen gun laws comes in the wake of the Jan. 8 Arizona shootings that killed six and left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords recovering from a gunshot wound to the head, as well as a Dec. 14 incident in Florida where an armed man threatened school board members before he was fatally shot by security.

But rather than seeking to tighten gun restrictions, as some Democrats have urged President Barack Obama to do on the federal level, South Carolina lawmakers are looking at how to make it easier to carry weapons for protection…

Yes, it said LOOSEN our concealed carry law. You know, the one that I had thought had been already been made looser than a gang-banger’s waistband by previous legislation.

Why do we see legislation like this every couple of years? Because we get NEW ideologues in the Legislature who weren’t part of the previous liberalization, and felt left out, and are trying to make their mark and prove to constituents and posterity that THEY, personally, love guns more than anyone.

You know where this is going, don’t you? Another couple of election cycles with heavy Tea Party involvement, and we’ll have legislative newbies pushing legislation requiring us all to go armed at all times. (And if anyone complains that such compulsion violates their rights, they will blame Obama for starting the whole mandate trend with his health care thing.)

I don’t know if I’ll be able to afford it. Have you seen what guns cost these days? It’s not like in Lee Harvey’s day.

I say it again: City doing what it has to do on buses

As we saw yesterday:

Columbia residents — homeowners and renters, churches and nonprofits, businesses and schools — will pay for the area’s struggling bus system through an increase on their power bills

City Council approved the increase Tuesday night with a 5-2 vote after a contentious, two-hour public hearing that included a retired Detroit cop calling council members “enlightened despots” and a retired federal prosecutor asking council members to slap him if he got too excited “because I promised my wife I would behave up here.”

The city charges SCE&G a 3 percent franchise fee for the right to run power lines in the public right of way. SCE&G passes that fee along to its customers. Tuesday night, City Council members increased the fee to 5 percent. The amount of the fee varies by customer, depending on the size of a customer’s bill. A charge of $100, for example, would be assessed a $5 franchise fee.

Hey, at least the ex-cop called them “enlightened,” huh? She thinks the city’s leaders don’t get it, saying, “Voters told you ‘no’ to a tax hike. You lost.” What she doesn’t get is that the city has a responsibility to provide this service, and if one way of paying for it doesn’t pan out, the council has to find another way. Besides, as Tameika Devine explained, voters in the city voted for the referendum.

Anyway, as I said before, the slight majority of Richland County voters who turned down a perfectly workable, practical way of paying for the service left city council with little choice. No, I take that back: The city could have chosen to be irresponsible, and let county council continue to carry the burden with its unpopular vehicle tax. But that would not have been a long-term solution. And by “long-term,” I mean a solution that lasts until the referendum is placed on the ballot again, and passes.

NC disses SC as the obvious path NOT to follow (and who can blame them for seeing us that way?)

Thought y’all might find the above interesting. Samuel Tenenbaum sent it to me.

It hurts, but NC has room to talk. They’ve invested, while we’ve wallowed in self-destructive ideological wrangling — an argument that we, the people of South Carolina, have been on the losing end of, every time. While NC pulled farther and farther ahead of us.

In case you have trouble with the embed, here’s a link to the site of the group that did the video.

Tom Davis has the right approach on cameras

Sen. Tom Davis is my favorite Sanfordista, because while he believes some unlikely things with which I disagree, he at least takes a reasonable approach to things. He has a laudable willingness to engage with people with other views, and to avoid letting his ideology blind him:

BEAUFORT, SC (AP) – Beaufort Sen. Tom Davis wants a commission to study automated traffic cameras like the ones being used in Ridgeland on Interstate 95.

Ridgeland’s use of the cameras to catch speeders has prompted a senator to offer a bill to outlaw the cameras, as well as a federal lawsuit challenging the use of the cameras.

Davis wants a panel of members of state government, law enforcement and the South Carolina Bar Association to report to lawmakers by Nov. 1.

Bonneau Sen. Larry Grooms wants to ban traffic tickets based on photos and to require police to give tickets to drivers within an hour of a violation.

Ridgeland has mailed tickets to more than 8,000 drivers since last summer.

Some Beaufort County House members have offered a bill to ensure the traffic cameras are legal.

Yes, study it. While I vehemently defend the local government’s right to do this without being stepped on by the state (that subsidiarity thing again), I’d like to know more. I have my own reservations. For instance, don’t you lose a deterrent effect when the speeder is not stopped at the time of the offense (which tends to slow him down, at least for a time). Is that deterrent loss offset by the signage warning drivers of the camera’s presence? I don’t know.

But the standard should be, What works? Not vague anti-gummint ideology, or the preferences of the defense lawyers who represent speeders, or the perverse urge to frustrate local communities’ desire to govern themselves without state interference, or any of the other factors that tend to predominate in our XGR.

Cheese it! The speaker’s following us!

Maybe it’s the exclamation point. Whenever I get a message such as the one that came into my IN box an hour ago:

Bobby Harrell is now following you on Twitter!

Bobby Harrell (@SpeakerHarrell) is now following your tweets (@BradWarthen) on Twitter.

… I always feel like it’s meant to be a warning of some kind. WATCH OUT!

Maybe I feel that way particularly because I spent a couple of hours today listening to Barbara Seymour, the Deputy Disciplinary Counsel to the Supreme Court of South Carolina (author, for instance, of “Eight Simple Ways to Lose Your Law License by Email“), speak eloquently, cogently and in great detail about how dangerous social media can be.

Of course, she was speaking specifically to the dangers (ethically, professionally, etc.) of social media to lawyers and their firms — this was a meeting of the SC chapter of the Association of Legal Administrators (I was there because ADCO works with a number of law firms) — but it was still pretty scary. I might write a post about it later — or rather, a post about a long-standing topic of interest to me: What does it mean to be a “friend” on Facebook? How “social” are these media? What are the implications (social as well as legal and ethical) of the connections thus formed, and how should one express oneself in such venues? Etc.

Interesting stuff (to me). But I digress.

Here’s where that path leads, Lindsey

Just to elaborate a bit on that last post, in which I wrote about how once-sensible Republicans are dancing with madness these days…

I’d just like to point out to Sen. Graham where all this “hate Obamacare to the point that we’ll hurt actual South Carolinians by blowing it up” stuff leads.

Continue down that path, and you cease to be that voice of reason you’ve always been in Washington, that Gang of 14 guy, the guy who took a bullet for comprehensive immigration reform, the guy who at least for a time fought for the Energy Party platform at great personal political risk, the guy who could get President Obama to listen to reason on national security. You cease being all that (which is a national tragedy, because the nation NEEDS you to play that role), and you end up being state Sen. Lee Bright. I mean this guy:

Sen. Lee Bright: SC should coin its own money

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina’s independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

Bright’s joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1.

The Federal Reserve System has come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come, according to the legislation.

“If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians,” Bright said in an interview Friday.

“If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup.”

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency…

Thank Bud for bringing that to my attention. I hadn’t seen coverage of it. But the Boston Globe has noted it. And these guys are applauding it. (This really embarrassing stuff tends to come to my attention this way. While SC media is trying to look the other way — or rather spending its time covering legislation that might actually pass, which sounds better — the rest of the country is chortling. When Mike Pitts proposed doing away with the Yankee dollar and replacing it with gold and silver, I first learned about it from Burl Burlingame and The Onion.)

Sen. Bright, by the way, was last seen pushing broader legislation to protect South Carolina’s “rights” (which rights were under siege was unclear, but then it usual is) from encroaching federal power in general. You may or may not recall that I wrote about it in a post headlined “These guys cannot POSSIBLY be serious.” I led with a reference to that scene from “Gettysburg” with the Confederate prisoners speaking nonsensically about fighting for their nonspecific “rats.” You know how I like movie allusions.

Anyway, that’s where you could end up.

You don’t want to go there, do you, Lindsey? I didn’t think so. But that’s where this “seceding from Obamacare” stuff leads…

If SC “opts out” of Obamacare, you will definitely have stepped over the line

I say that because, between the two of them — him and Nikki Haley — I figure he’s the one more likely to listen to reason. At least, I would normally think that, although his recent behavior on this subject injects a large measure of doubt.

Here’s what I’m on about:

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Gov. Nikki Haley on Monday opened the S.C. front in the Republican Party’s battle to roll back health care legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama last year.

At a State House news conference, Graham and Haley took turns blasting the law as an expensive federal takeover of the nation’s health care system. Graham said the law, which won 60 votes in the 100-member U.S. Senate, was passed through a “sleazy” process that offered no opportunity for GOP input.

Graham also said he has introduced legislation to allow South Carolina and other states to “opt out” of the law, which is being challenged in federal courts.

“I’m confident that, if given the chance, a large number of states would opt out of the provisions regarding the individual mandate, employer mandate and expansion of Medicaid,” Graham said, referring to requirements in the law that individuals buy insurance, companies offer it and Medicaid be expanded to cover those without insurance. “As more states opt out, it will have the effect of repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

Last time, I was sort of seriocomic in warning Sen. Graham that he was goin’ to messin’, with my “Lindsey, fill yer hands; I’m a callin’ you out” post.

It’s not funny any more.

In fact, this is the one thing that leading Republicans (or anyone else who got such a notion) could do that would be totally beyond the pale, truly unforgivable.

Look, I get it: You don’t like Obama. No, scratch that: What I get is that your constituents don’t like Obama (in some cases for reasons that don’t bear a lot of scrutiny), so you’re playing to that. I doubt Nikki has any strong feelings toward the president one way or the other (she never even had occasion to think about him until she decided to become the Tea Party’s Dream Girl last year) and for his part Lindsey is perfectly happy to work with him in a collegial manner. But they’re trying to stay in the game with Jim “Waterloo” DeMint, and this leads to trying to fake the symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I fully get the fact that since the defeat of November 2008 (when, it you’ll recall, I endorsed both John McCain and Lindsey Graham), the Republican Party has gone stark, raving mad, having concluded that its problem in ’08 was that it wasn’t extreme enough, not wacky enough, causing it, as it wandered lost in the post-apocalyptic landscape, to embrace the Tea Party in its lonely desperation. I get all that.

But that is a disgusting, absurd, inexcusable, disgustingly irresponsible reason to try to prevent the people of South Carolina — who have perhaps more need for health care reform than people in any other state — from deriving any benefit that might accrue from the federal health care legislation.

No, the thing dubbed “Obamacare” doesn’t accomplish much; it’s a bit of a Frankenstein of a bill. But it actually would do SOME people SOME good. And it at least has the one essential element that one would have to have in any attempt to address the crisis in paying for health care in this country, the national mandate — which, absurdly, is the ONE thing you object to most vehemently. (We’ve discussed in the past how there’s no point in talking about “reform” unless you start with the premise that everybody has to be in the game for it to work, so I won’t go on and on about it now.)

Yep, Obamacare is pretty inadequate. But you have NOTHING to replace it with, nothing in the wings (with any chance of passing, or any chance of doing any good if it DID pass) to do what little good Obamacare will do.

So trying to tear it down is nothing but an act of pure destruction. And the thing you’re destroying is the ONE thing that’s been done lately to address the one greatest domestic need in this country.

I expect this kind of nonsense from Nikki Haley (the Tea Party Nikki Haley that is, not the promising young House member I used to know). But Lindsey Graham is fully smart enough to know better.

Fine, have your little press conferences and make your symbolic gestures. But if you actually start to make this “opt-out” thing a reality, that will be unforgivable.

Ought to be the shortest show EVER…

Had to smile when I saw this Tweet from Teow0nna Clifton:

Teowonna Clifton

@ThatTeowonnaTeowonna Clifton
Diversity in the Governor’s Cabinet Pt.2 on OnPointX will air 02/15.http://tobtr.com/s/1549521#BlogTalkRadio

First thought: Diversity in the governor’s Cabinet? There’s so little of that that I’m surprised you could get one show out of it, much less two

Script for the show:

— Hi, we’re here to talk about diversity in the Haley administration.

— OK, let’s do. What ABOUT diversity in the Haley administration?

— Well, the governor herself is Indian-American?

— And?

— And she named one black nominee to her Cabinet. But that nominee withdrew. So she named another black nominee to take her place.

— And?

— And that’s the end of our show! Thanks for being with us…

Dang. Wish I’d had that a little earlier, for Health and Happiness

Just to remind you how outrageous the benefit for legislators is…

Back on my last post, I gave you a link to one of Cindi Scoppe’s periodic columns reminding us all just what an appalling boondoggle the retirement benefit for SC legislators is. In case you didn’t follow the link, I’ll make it easier for you by posting this relevant excerpt (note that I’ve boldfaced the best bits):

There are many things that make this pension system extra special, from the fact that such a thing even exists for part-time employees to the fact that former legislators can keep building up credit in it at super-subsidized rates even after we kick them out of office. but the worst thing about it is those super-subsidized rates: For every dollar that state legislators contributed to their pensions last year, state taxpayers contributed $3.33. By contrast, for every dollar regular state employees contributed to their own pensions last year, taxpayers contributed a relatively paltry $1.43.

The reason taxpayers have to contribute so much is that legislators’ pensions are quite generous. Regular state employees who work 30 years can receive a pension equal to 43 percent of their final salary. A legislator (or former legislator) who contributed to the system for 30 years could receive a pension equal to 1.45 times his legislative salary. Yes, you read that right: Legislators can draw pensions that are nearly 50 percent more than their salary.

There is no justification for any sort of legislative pension system, much less one that taxpayers subsidize so much more than the one for the full-time career employees who put the laws the Legislature passes into action, and still less one that allows defeated legislators to get the same benefit as those who actually are serving us. If legislators need to be compensated better — and I think a case can be made that they do — that compensation needs to come while they’re actually serving us, and it needs to be aboveboard where everyone knows about it, in their salary.

Federal pension laws require the state to pay benefits to everyone who already has retired under this system; they might even require the state to pay benefits to everyone who is vested. But there’s nothing — other than the legislators themselves — that requires us to keep giving those super-subsidized rates to current members, or to enroll new ones.

The very next thing that column said was, “You’d think that as tight as the legislative budgets are, someone would at least bring up that topic…”

And the good thing about the bills I wrote about back here is that their sponsors ARE at least bringing it up, even though it’s tucked away in the much-larger issue of retirement for actual state employees. So give them snaps for that.

But don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s a completely separate issue, and one that could be handled much more simply, by eliminating the legislators’ benefit altogether.

Anyone want to close the state retirement system (to new employees)? Discuss.

Well, now, here’s an interesting bill I haven’t heard about (although Kathryn may point out that everyone else knew about it but me):

S 0531 General Bill, By Campsen, Ryberg, Grooms, Bryant, Rose, Campbell, Shoopman, Davis and Bright Similar(H 3568) A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-5, 9-8-5, 9-9-5, 9-11-5, AND 9-20-5 SO AS TO CLOSE THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND THE STATE OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM TO EMPLOYEES HIRED OR OFFICERS TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012, AND TO PROVIDE THAT OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES HIRED OR TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012 MUST BE ENROLLED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT INVESTMENT PLAN; BY ADDING CHAPTER 22 TO TITLE 9 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT INVESTMENT PLAN AS A DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN AND PROVIDE FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS; AND TO REPEAL, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017, CHAPTER 22, TITLE 9 RELATING TO THE STATE OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM.

02/09/11 Senate Introduced and read first time (Senate Journal-page 7)

02/09/11 Senate Referred to Committee on Finance (Senate Journal-page 7)

The boldfaced parts are my own enhancement. Oh, and here’s the House version:

H 3568 General Bill, By G.M. Smith and Ballentine Similar(S 531) A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 9-1-5, 9-8-5, 9-9-5, AND 9-20-5 SO AS TO CLOSE THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR JUDGES AND SOLICITORS, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND THE STATE OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM TO EMPLOYEES HIRED OR OFFICERS TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012, AND TO PROVIDE THAT OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES HIRED OR TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012 MUST BE ENROLLED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT INVESTMENT PLAN; BY ADDING CHAPTER 22 TO TITLE 9 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT INVESTMENT PLAN AS A DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN AND PROVIDE FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS; AND TO REPEAL, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2017, CHAPTER 22, TITLE 9 RELATING TO THE STATE OPTIONAL RETIREMENT PROGRAM.

02/02/11 House Introduced and read first time (House Journal-page 57)

02/02/11 House Referred to Committee on Ways and Means (House Journal-page 57)

02/08/11 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Ballentine

OK, so they were just alike. I just gave you both so you could get the names of the legislators responsible. You’ll note I provided links to each. I live to serve.

And to cause trouble, of course. Hard to imagine anything more likely to stir up one of the largest and most politically alert demographics you’re likely to find, state employees — even though it would not apply to them, but only to new hires.

Of course, there’s one thing that IS politically appealing here: Getting rid of the grossly overgenerous retirement system for legislators. That said, it seems that should be addressed in a separate bill, because the two things should not be mentioned in the same breath: the legislative system is SO much more generous, and offered in return for SO much less service, that the two things are like night and day. The state retirement system is a fiscal challenge. The legislators’ benefit is an outrage (read one of Cindi’s ever-popular columns on the subject, to remind you how outrageous). Changing what retirement looks like for future state employees may or may not be a great idea, or at least something that needs to be done whether its a great idea or not. Eliminating the legislators’ benefit is something that most would think is a great idea on its face.

Here’s how my thoughts went as I read the bill:

  • “Close the South Carolina Retirement System…” Whoa! There’s a bombshell.
  • … to employees hired or officers taking office after June 30, 2012…” Oh, OK. Still, that’s a huge issue that needs infinitely more discussion than it’s gotten.
  • Require new hires to “be enrolled in the South Carolina Retirement Investment Plan.” Huh. Well, I’ve never heard of that. Is it a viable option? How’s it doing? How has it performed? Can we have confidence in it as a viable option to a defined benefit?
  • “…establish the south carolina retirement investment plan…” So it doesn’t exist yet? OK, tell me more. Lots more.

And indeed, there are details below, although not quite enough — that is, not enough for a nonfinancial guy like me to tell whether the idea is viable.

What this looks like on its face is just what private employers have been doing for about a quarter-century and more: Moving employees out of pension plans, and into investment plans such as 401ks.

It’s worth talking about. A lot. Let’s start.


Who am I? Butch Bowers? You might think so…

Following up on this bit of silliness last night…

I never did see either of my appearances on WACH last night, but Lora was kind enough to shoot video with her iPhone, which she shared with me. Unfortunately, when I converted it, the sound was gone, so I’m just giving you a screenshot above. You’re seeing that as the announcer says, “His attorney, Butch Bowers, says the letters are routine inquiry, and nothing more than routine paperwork and filing matters.”

Viewers were hearing that, while seeing the above footage from the lieutenant governor debate I moderated back during the fall — leaving them to assume, not without reasons, that I am Butch Bowers.

That’s a hoot. I need to tell Butch about it.

More encouraging evidence that local leaders GET the need for regional approach

Mayors Bailey, Benjamin, Halfacre and Partin.

To me, the most memorable thing about Columbia Regional Business Report’s “Power Breakfast” this morning at Embassy Suites, where a cross-section of the business community heard a panel of Midlands mayors (Columbia’s Steve Benjamin, Lexington’s Randy Halfacre, Cayce’s Elise Partin, and Blythewood’s Keith Bailey) talk about our community’s future, was this tidbit:

Steve Benjamin said a study has determined that the city of Columbia has 400 more employees than it should have for its size and what it does. Maybe this has been widely reported (perhaps while I was in England) and everyone but me knew it. Anyway, the mayor said the city is trying to reduce payroll by carefully examining every open position, and not filling any that it can possibly do without. The exceptions to this reduction strategy are police, fire and economic development, where he envisions the city spending more, not less.

Of course, that wasn’t the only important thing said, by far. A wide range of critical issues were covered. But the one overall impression I came away with was this: Local elected leadership is more committed to regional approaches — to growth, services, and everything else of importance — than ever. I didn’t just gain that impression this morning, of course. It’s been forming for some time, and it’s very encouraging. Its what the actual economic community of Columbia (as opposed to the much smaller political entity of that name) has needed, more than anything else, for at least a generation. As I was telling restaurateur Bill Dukes afterward, that’s why, the whole time I was heading The State‘s editorial board, we always grilled candidates for local office about their commitment to regional cooperation. With the kind of governmental fragmentation that afflicts us, bridge-building is essential to community improvement. So this trend we’re seeing is extremely gratifying, and bodes well.

What reinforced that impression today? Not so much any one thing they said, but the way they said almost everything, combined with their confident ease in each other’s company (a small thing, but something you might not have seen very often in the past).

Now rather than try to tell you everything else that was said, I’m going to share this excerpt from Mike Fitts’ report. Why should I do all the reporting myself? I have a long-established habit of delegating things to Mike, who once served on my quarterdeck as ably as Tom Pullings or anyone else you care to name (and I can’t say fairer than that), and I see no reason to stop now:

… Two other mayors emphasized that handling current growth is among their current concerns. Lexington Mayor Randy Halfacre said the town is launching a major program to deal with “a huge problem with traffic congestion” downtown. Phase 1 of the project will cost $12 million, more than half of which will be spent to buy right of way easements, Halfacre said.

Blythewood has prepared a master plan to handle what looks like major growth in the next 20 years, Mayor Keith Bailey said. That includes beautification of the main exit off Interstate 77, which he called “a front door” for the Midlands.

This kind of growth needs to be planned for, Halfacre said.

“If we don’t get a handle on it now, it’s going to slip away from us,” he said.

Cayce Mayor Elise Partin said her town has a different challenge: getting the word out about the community and its opportunities. Its many longtime residents love it, she said, but others don’t know about amenities such as the riverwalk, she said.

“Pride in our area and our city is strong,” she said.

The loss of Southwest Airlines to two other in-state markets showed the need for regionalism, Halfacre said. At a recent meeting with Southwest, Columbia Metro Airport Executive Director Dan Mann was told, “We did not see your region, your area, working together.”

Two new groups are seeking to remedy that, Halfacre said. He has helped put together an alliance of midstate chambers of commerce, and West Columbia Mayor Bobby Horton is chairman of a new group of Midlands mayors. These groups should help build teamwork and draw legislative attention when necessary, Halfacre said.

Benjamin said the community needs to work on the big picture — a regional master plan. He recounted some of the area’s assets but said that the vision to tie all these things together has been lacking.

“We need to start moving aggressively forward,” Benjamin said.

Overall, it was a good session, like the others I’ve attended under CRBR’s auspices.

What are you trying to say, Wesley?

The other day I ran into Wesley Donehue at Starbucks (see that, Starbucks? yet another product placement you’re not paying for), and we talked briefly about my appearing on “Pub Politics” again, which would make me a member of the Five-Timer Club. I’m totally up for it, particularly since I’d like to discuss this aptly titled “rant” on Wesley’s blog.

I think I want to argue with him about it, but first I have to get him to explain more clearly what he’s on about.

I say “rant” is apt because it seems to come straight from the gut, without any sorting or organization from the higher parts of his cortex — and Wesley is a smart guy. The problem I have is that his thought, or emotions, or impulses or whatever, don’t add up. They just don’t hang together.

He makes the following unconnected points:

  1. Where does the media get off making like it’s a champion of transparency?
  2. How dare WACH-Fox defend itself from a slur leveled at it by Gov. Nikki Haley on Facebook?
  3. The media are just lashing out, because they are becoming irrelevant in the new media age, when politicos can go straight to the people.
  4. “Transparency” doesn’t mean going through the MSM, so the media have no legitimate excuse to criticize the gov.
  5. Any problems the media have are their own damn’ fault, for failing to be relevant and keep up with the times.

Did that cover everything? I may have missed an unrelated point or two.

Here, respectively, are my problems with his points:

1. Golly, Wesley, the MSM may be guilty of a host of sins, but suggesting they are somehow an illegitimate, insincere, incredible or inappropriate advocate for transparency is most illogical. They’re kinda obsessive about it, and this might be a shock, but they were into it a LONG time before Nikki Haley ever heard of it. Finally, the media are the one industry in society that actually have a vested, selfish interest in transparency (unlike certain politicians who TALK about it, but belie their commitment to it with their actions) — they kinda rely on it in order to do what they do — so I’ve just gotta believe they really mean it.

1a. Furthermore, what does this have to do with the ongoing talk about the gov’s failures to be transparent? What did I miss? This seems to me to be about the TV station defending itself from the governor’s insult. The transparency issue — the one that I hear folks in the media talk about, anyway — has to do with everything from Nikki not wanting to disclose questionable sources of income and refusing to release her e-mails back during the campaign, all the way up to meeting with two other Budget and Control Board members while excluding the others. I’m missing the connection in other words, between this incident and your complaint that the media are going on inappropriately about transparency.

2. Well, let’s see. The governor wrote “WACH FOX 57 is a tabloid news station and has no concept of journalism.” Wesley, I don’t care whether the governor said that on Facebook, or through an interview with the MSM, or in a campaign ad or by use of skywriting. The choice of medium does not take away from the fact that that was an extraordinary thing for a governor to PUBLISH (and that’s what she did; if governors and other empowered “ordinary” folks are going to take it upon themselves to communicate directly with the people without the offices of the MSM, perhaps they need to take a little seminar on the difference in significance between merely muttering something to your friends, and publishing it). Next — are you really suggesting that WACH or any other business does not have the right to defend itself when maligned by the governor? I assert that they have that right under the 1st Amendment, whether they are Joe Blow’s Used Cars or the MSM.

3. This one’s really interesting. I’ll grant you, WACH looks pretty lame technologically when it fails to provide a direct link to the FB post with which it is disagreeing. (Here you go, by the way.) But beyond that, let’s talk about the new rules. Here’s the kind of thing that happens in this wonderful, marvelous new world in which anyone can publish their thoughts and don’t have to go through the stuffy ol’ MSM. In the old, benighted days, a former employee of the governor (and of the last governor) might go around muttering about having had an illicit personal relationship with the governor, but he would have been ignored. Now, thanks to the wonders of modern technology that you extol, he can publish it himself with practically zero effort or investment. So it’s out there — because, you know, those bad old editors can’t keep it away from the people. And then it starts affecting the political campaign, and therefore becomes news. Now, let me ask you — when that same blogger follows that up by publishing salacious details related to his allegation, having already caused it to be a news story, what are the media supposed to do? Well, I don’t know, and others aren’t sure either. Me? I ignored it. WACH made the call that it made. Did the governor have the right to get ticked and trash WACH because of it? Yes, she did. (Although it was, as I say, pretty extraordinary for a sitting governor to say something like that about a business in her state.) Did WACH — that poor, pathetic institution that’s falling apart as you say, have the right to defend itself? Of course it did.

4. Who said it did? I missed that. Maybe you have a link to it; I’d be interested to read/hear that argument.

5. The problems that the media have result from a massive restructuring of the way businesses — the ones they relied upon for the advertising revenue that underwrote the gathering of the news — market themselves to the public. The long-term trend has been away from mass-media advertising on the local level, and to more targeted approaches. Nothing about what the media have reported or not reported, or positions they have taken, have anything to do with it. The public is lapping up news and commentary more hungrily than ever — from the MSM as well as other sources. But the business model that supported newsgathering — the model that’s falling apart — has nothing to do with that; it’s a whole separate transaction from the one between a medium and its readers/viewers/listeners. So you’re way off base there.

Anyway, have me on the show and we’ll talk further. Keep the beer cold.

Also, there’s the fundamental issue of accountability

I’ve always been in favor of charter schools, and so has the editorial board at The State. (Some would think those two points are redundant, and some of my former colleagues would say the same, but I continue to insist that the board under my leadership operated by consensus and was not an autocracy. So my opinion and the board’s during that period were not the same thing. And that’s the way it was, because I say so, speaking ex cathedra. None may say me nay.)

Today’s editorial explaining why local districts shouldn’t fund state-chartered schools made me go “huh?” for a second, because I hadn’t really thought about that aspect of it (and I guess I missed when the issue came up).

But only for a second. Once I thought about whether such funding should come from DISTRICTS, I could think of all sorts of reasons why that was a bad approach to an otherwise good idea.

And many of those reasons were set out ably in the editorial. An excerpt:

What’s not reasonable is the plan before the House to force school districts to take local property tax money away from the schools they are responsible for and give it to charter schools that are completely independent of the districts. Unlike district-sponsored charter schools, many state-sponsored schools were set up over the objections of the local districts, and they do not receive local property tax funding.

The idea of forcing local schools to subsidize the state charters is particularly unreasonable today, when we are calling on districts to make difficult choices to reduce their costs. Consider what happened last week: The day after Lexington 2 Superintendent Venus Holland recommended closing one of the district’s 10 elementary schools to save money, the House Education Committee voted to make her district — and the rest of the state’s districts — spend money to keep the doors opened at a dozen schools over which it has no control. Although the timing isn’t so dramatic, the situation is even more absurd in Abbeville, where the legislation would force the district to pay for a school that opened in a high school that the district had shut down to save money.

In addition to the districts’ need to make these sorts of difficult decisions, there’s this very practical problem: Property taxes are set based on the number of students the districts expect to have in the schools they operate — not in the schools over which they have no say and whose enrollment they have no way of guessing.

In defending the plan to make local districts fund state-chartered schools, House Education Chairman Phil Owens claimed it “creates parity and equality.” But it does no such thing: To the contrary, it highlights the “parity and equality” problem we have throughout our public schools, because it requires each district to contribute whatever amount of money it spends per student for each local student who attends one of these schools. That varies widely from district to district, based on how wealthy each is and how much the people who live there value public education…

But the one main, critical, essential, fundamental reason why it was a bad idea was left out, or only implied, and it is this: As stewards of taxpayers’ money, districts shouldn’t have to fund something that they can’t hold accountable.

The districts run the schools under their jurisdiction, holding them accountable — with varying degrees of success — for the appropriations provided. That’s the essence of responsible government: You elect people to make decisions about raising and spending tax money (as well as other essentials of government). Taxes are levied on the local level specifically for the purpose of running those schools.

The whole idea behind charter schools is that they are free from being held accountable by that local district structure. There’s no way that local districts should be allocating any portion of the finite, limited funds (a demagogue would throw in, “taxpayers’ hard-earned money”) to any entity that is not answerable to that body for what it does.

The state charters these schools, and should be responsible for any funding that comes from public sources.

To elaborate… the editorial also made the very important point that ultimately, school funding is a state responsibility. And it is. And eventually, we need to get to the point where schools are not dependent on taxes raised locally — a practice that only exacerbates the gross inequities in quality of education available statewide.

This issue — the local funding and governance of schools — is one on which my opinion has changed over time. As one who believes in the principle of subsidiarity, my general tendency is toward pushing governmental responsibilities down to the smallest, most local level (the federal government should do far less than it does, and states should leave more up to local governments — in South Carolina, that means the Legislature getting off the necks of local governments and letting them serve their citizens unhampered).

That’s in general. But subsidiarity holds that functions should be performed by the smallest possible entity competent to perform them. And increasingly, I’ve started to think in recent years that the state (or at the very least, the county) is about as small an entity that can both fund and administer schools competently. Mind you, I think the SCHOOLS should enjoy more autonomy than they do, in terms of principals being more free to run them — particularly in terms of freedom to hire and fire. But to the extent that there has to be administration above the school level, that doesn’t have to be nearly as local as it is, and there are a number of reasons why it shouldn’t be (including the fact that while school boards are elected, the overwhelming majority of voters don’t have the slightest idea who’s running for school board, or which would do a better job, and you often get the kind of governance you would expect from that — and there is NO WAY these little-known entities should be levying taxes, as they do in some districts). A good start in making that less local is what I’ve advocated strenuously for 20 years: Consolidate school districts. But the ultimate goal, perhaps (I’m not 100 percent on this yet), should be statewide administration.

But I’m getting off the subject. Bottom line: Charter schools are a state creation (and it’s a good thing the state has created them, I continue to think). The state should pay for them, to the extent that they should be publicly funded. Legislators should deal with that, rather than trying to dump the problem on the overstressed districts.

Nobody can insult BOTH blacks and whites like Robert Ford

Well, here we go again. The AP story has already been picked up by The Seattle Times and The Houston Chronicle, just for starters:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — An African-American lawmaker in South Carolina said Tuesday that stricter illegal immigration laws would hurt the state because blacks and whites don’t work as hard as Hispanics.

State Sen. Robert Ford made his remarks during a Senate committee debate over an Arizona-style immigration law, eliciting a smattering of nervous laughter in the chamber after he said “brothers” don’t work as hard as Mexicans. He continued that his “blue-eyed brothers” don’t either.

Once his ancestors were freed from slavery, he said, they didn’t want to do any more hard work, so they were replaced by Chinese and Japanese.

“We need these workers here. A lot of people aren’t going to do certain type of work in this country,” said Ford, D-Charleston. “The brothers are going to find ways to take a break. Ever since this country was built, we’ve had somebody do the work for us.”

He recalled to senators that four workers in the country illegally showed up on his lawn and finished mowing, edging and other work in 30 minutes that would take others much longer, and only wanted $10 for the job. He went on to say he recommended the workers to his neighbors, and one local lawn care businessman lost work — a story one senator remarked was hurting, not helping, his case.

Both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Association for the Advancement of White People — no wait; that second one should be the GOP — are less than pleased by the remarks. The latter is even less pleased than the former.

For my part, the senator from Comic Relief provokes several thoughts:

  • He just really says what he thinks, doesn’t he? I think he’s bucking for the Fritz Hollings Appalling Outburts Award, but he’s trying too hard. (And he’s not nearly as funny.)
  • After those immigrants did all that hard work on his land for a pittance, did they break out in a stirring rendition of “Cielito Lindo,” to let the boss man know how happy they were? That’s about all that’s missing from that anecdote, to make it complete.
  • Illegal immigrants have a warm-enough time of it with all the enemies they have in SC politics. They really, really don’t need a friend like Robert Ford.
  • Of blacks and whites, he said “Everybody in America finds ways to take a break.” Maybe it’s time that Sen. Ford took a permanent break from service in our Legislature.

Robert Ford, of course, has been causing both blacks and whites to roll their eyes for years. Remember his proposal to keep the Confederate flag atop the State House, but add to it a Black Liberation Flag? Nothing like that for unifying our state — a flag for the white folks (or some of them) and one to keep the black folks happy, too. What joy. (As he put it, “They would keep their flag, we would get a flag and we would keep our mouths shut.”) Oh, and how about when he and fellow senator Glenn McConnell did their act where Robert would wear a dashiki and Glenn one of his many Confederate uniforms? Those crazy cutups.

My uncomfortable “yeah, but…” about Nikki’s (apparently) illegal meeting

I started my career in a state with a real Sunshine Law… Tennessee.

The expectation was clear there, back in the heady post-Watergate 1970s, that the people’s business would be done in public, and that government documents belonged to the people as well.

This led to a lot of awkwardness. For instance… I well remember a school board meeting I attended in Humboldt when I was covering several rural counties for The Jackson Sun. Humboldt was the closest sizable town to Jackson, and I knew my predecessor (who was now my editor) had regularly covered that body’s meetings. Trouble was, they were regularly scheduled on the same night as several other important public bodies’ meetings in my coverage area, and for the first few months I was on that beat, they always had something going on that demanded my attention.

Mondays were brutal. There were regularly several meetings I needed to go to across two or three counties, plus other breaking news. It was not unusual for me to start work early Monday morning, work through regular day hours, cover two or three meetings that night, spend the whole night writing five or six or more stories, get some final questions answered in the morning, make calls on another breaking story or two, and then file my copy at midmorning. Actually, I had a secretary in my Trenton office who laboriously transmitted each of my stories, a character at a time, on an ancient teletype machine while I finished the next story. If I was lucky, I could grab a nap in the afternoon. But Tuesdays were often busy as well.

I think the Humboldt school board meetings were on a Monday, but perhaps my memory fails me.

Anyway, I finally managed to make it to one of their meetings — and almost felt apologetic for not having been before. I sort of hated for the good folks of Humboldt to think the Gibson County Bureau Chief didn’t think them important. I didn’t know what was on the agenda; I had just been meaning to come, and finally, here I was.

Often, when I’d show up to cover meetings in these small towns, the chair would recognize me in a gracious manner, which tended to embarrass me. I mean, I wasn’t their house guest, I was a hard-bitten newspaper reporter there to keep a jaded eye on them. Of course, this graciousness was also a handy way of the chair warning all present that there was a reporter in the room.

But at this one, it would have been nicer to be formally welcomed than to experience what happened.

It was a singularly boring meeting — I kept wanting to kick myself for having chosen THIS one to finally make an appearance. They were approving annual contracts for teachers (you know, the kind of thing reporters would be excluded from in SC, as a “personnel matter”), one at a time, and it went on and on and on. There was NOTHING at the meeting worth reporting, and as I rose to leave I was regretting the waste of time.

Then this one member comes up to me with a swagger, and I smiled and started to introduce myself, and with a tone dripping vitriol, he sneered, “Bet you’re sorry you came to this meeting. We didn’t give you any controversy for you to splash all over the paper.” I mean, I’d never met this guy, and he frickin’ HATED me for some reason I could not imagine. What the hell? I thought: I come to your stupid boring meeting, sit all the way through it, and this is the reward I get? I didn’t know what to say to the guy.

It took me a day or so to figure out that the year before, my predecessor had covered a nasty fight over a teacher’s contract — one I had either not focused on or forgotten, since that wasn’t my turf then. It had been a HUGE deal in that town, and left a lot of raw feelings — many of them caused by board members’ deep resentment of having to have personnel discussions in public. This bitter guy assumed that the only reason I had come to the meeting, when I usually didn’t, was because teacher contracts were being discussed. When, in actuality, if I’d known it, I’d have found something to do that night in another county.

But I digress.

All that is to say, I came up with certain expectations of openness in government. Which means I was in for a shock when I came home to South Carolina to lead the governmental affairs team at The State. Barriers everywhere. An FOI law full of exceptions. A Legislature that cherished its right to go into executive session at will. Anything but a culture of openness.

I’m afraid I was rather insufferable toward Jay Bender — the newspaper’s lawyer and advocate for press issues before the Legislature — the first time he met me back in 1987. He had come to brief editors on the improvements he had helped get in state law in the recent session. My reaction to his presentation was “WHAT? You call that an Open Meetings law? You settled for THAT?” I was like that.

And I saw it as my job to fight all that, and crack things open at every opportunity. I was sometimes a bit insufferable about it. One day, I went to the State House (I was an unusual sort of assigning editor in that I escaped from my desk into the field as often as possible) to check on things, and learned that there was a committee meeting going on somewhere that wasn’t being covered (there are a LOT of those these days). I thought it was behind a closed door leading off the lobby. I charged, ostentatiously (I was going to show these complacent folks how a real newspaper ripped aside the veil of secrecy), with a photographer in tow, and reached resolutely for the doorknob.

One of the many folks loitering in the lobby — many of whom had turned to watch my bold assault on that door — said, “There’s a meeting going on in there,” in an admonitory tone. I said, right out loud for all to hear, “I know there is. That’s why I’m going in there.”

And I threw open the door, and there were two people sitting having a quiet conversation, suddenly staring at me in considerable surprise. No meeting. No quorum of anything. I murmured something like “excuse me; I thought this was something else” and backed out — to the considerable enjoyment of the small crowd outside.

Anyway, I take a backseat to no one when it comes to championing open government, and so it is that I say that Nikki Haley should not have met with two fellow members of the Budget and Control Board without the participation or knowledge of the other two officials. Curtis Loftis was right to protest, and Nikki’s chief of staff was entirely out of line to scoff at his protest.

That said, I had to nod my head when my colleagues at The State said this about the breach:

But here’s the thing: This was a meeting, and a conversation, that we want Ms. Haley to have with Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman and House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper. After what we’ve been through for the past eight years, having these three officials even on speaking terms, much less meeting to talk through our budget problems, is a breath of fresh air.

Amen. That was indeed my first reaction: Nikki’s having a heart-to-heart with some key lawmakers? Good. At least, it offers me hope.

Maybe it wasn’t kosher. OK, it wasn’t, period. Totally against the rules as I understand them. And yeah, it’s easy to characterize it as hypocritical for Ms. Transparency to do something like this. But hey, Nikki persuaded me some time ago that she wasn’t serious about transparency when applied to her. That was a huge part of my discomfort with her as a candidate, and no shock now. But… at least MAYBE she made some progress toward overcoming another serious deficit in her qualifications to lead our state — her penchant for going out of her way not to get along with the leadership.

Maybe. I don’t know; I wasn’t in the room — which brings us back to the problem with closed meetings. Which is why I oppose them. But you know, the older I get, the more certain I am that stuff like that is way more complicated than it seemed when I was a young reporter.

The irony in the Lexington Medical/Duke deal

Something about this development perplexes me:

Now after a 10-year struggle to receive a certificate of need from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to provide heart surgeries, Lexington Medical has signed an agreement with Duke Medicine to provide cardiovascular services at the hospital.

Lexington Medical Center will affiliate with Duke’s internationally recognized heart program to begin procedures including open heart surgery and elective angioplasty at Lexington Medical Center in 2011.

Through its affiliation, Lexington Medical will benefit from Duke’s clinical expertise and services to build a comprehensive heart program. Duke University Hospital, recognized as one of the top 10 heart hospitals in the nation by U.S. News and World Report, will help recruit cardiovascular surgeons and cardiac anesthesiologists to work at Lexington Medical Center.

Duke will assist with the recruitment and training of nurses and staff, design of the open heart surgery operating room, implementation of policies and procedures as well as comprehensive oversight of quality and development for all cardiovascular services at Lexington Medical.

Marti Taylor, associate vice president of cardiovascular serviced at Duke University Health System, said Duke had been in discussions with Lexington for about six months. It currently has affiliations with 11 other hospitals from Florida to Virginia.

She said Duke comes into a collaboration with three objectives: to expand its cardiovascular services; expand the Duke brand; and to provide patients access to tertiary services available at university hospitals.

Dr. Peter Smith, professor and chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Duke University, is charged with getting the heart program up and running. He has been involved with opening six other heart surgery programs, he said…

That sounds great and all, and I wish everyone concerned the best, but I can’t help remembering… all those years that LexMed was arguing, fussing and fighting with Providence, Palmetto Health, DHEC and the editorial board of The State over whether it would be allowed to do open-heart, there was a consistent refrain we heard from folks in Lexington County, which went something like this:

Lexington Medical is a great hospital. We have the expertise to do open-heart. We’re ready to do open-heart. You people on the other side of the river are acting like we in Lexington County aren’t good enough, or smart enough, to run a heart hospital. You’re dissing us, and we’ve had enough of it.

This sentiment, oft expressed, packed the full weight of the painful identity divide that runs down the middle of our community.

Of course, we were doing nothing of the kind. We (at the newspaper, anyway, and I had no indications anyone else thought anything different) that LexMed was indeed a wonderful hospital. It wasn’t about good enough or smart enough or being ready. It was about the fact that with such procedures, a team needs to be able to do a certain number of them to be and stay proficient, and if open-heart got spread and scattered across THREE local hospitals (when it really shouldn’t even have been spread across two), NONE of those facilities are likely to be doing enough procedures to be as good as they should be.

So now that Providence quit fighting this, now that LexMed is poised to move forward… it has to call in the Pros from Dover to take the next steps?

Very ironic, it seems to me.