Category Archives: Working

Harvest Hope off to a good start, with a long way to go

Just an update on Harvest Hope Food Bank’s urgent appeal for operating funds, which I told you about back here.

Since that Tuesday press conference, which ADCO was honored to help with, the media reaction has been gratifying. All four local commercial TV stations showed up and reported — some of them doing followups. As for print — Harvest Hope’s appeal got the lede position on the front page of The State Wednesday, and on Thursday The Greenville News (Harvest Hope also has a significant presence in Greenville) played the story as its front-page centerpiece.

There will be follow-up coverage. But going forward, the ball is in the court of potential donors — some of whom have responded already to the initial repeal to double-match the generous $150,000 match pledge from Mungo Homes.

As of today, the cash raised since Tuesday was $37,477. And I was gratified to hear from Harvest Hope staffer Bryan Rurey that:

We also had an online gift that directly referenced Brad’s Blog!

Cool. Now which one a you crazy lugs did that? Whoever it was, good on you.

Now 37 grand is a great start, but just a start toward the $2 million that’s needed by June. In fact, it’s just a start toward double-matching the Mungo grant. So tell everyone you know, we need this thing to start snowballing.

To recap the salient points:

Each year since the economic crisis began, the need has been greater than the year before. Harvest Hope is now feeding 91 percent more families than it did in 2008.

Fixed costs, aside from food and capital needs, have risen dramatically. It now costs $3,100 a DAY to fuel the vehicles that distribute the food, and that’s only going to go up.

As the need and costs have risen, cash donation have dropped over the last few months. Some regular donors, people who used to give monthly, have even told Harvest Hope that they are just a step away from having to avail themselves of the charity’s services.

For the first time ever, the “giving season” donations that tend to flow in from September to December were not enough to pay off the line of credit that carries HH through the lean spring and summer. Always in the past, that operating debt was paid off by Jan. 1. At the start of this year, the organization was a million dollars in the hole — this despite operational expense cutbacks.

All of that adds up to an urgent need for $2 million to fill that hole, and to cover the expected increase in operating expenses for the next few months.

This is not just Harvest Hope’s problem; it’s a significant challenge to the 22 counties it serves. Because other entities that feed the hungry in those communities — churches, secular nonprofits, what have you, 450 member agencies in all — depend on Harvest Hope to supply the food. This, folks, is South Carolina’s version of an organization that is “too big to fail.”

Finally, I’ll reiterate the political angle. We hear a lot of talk from the dominant political faction in South Carolina about relying on government less and the private sector more when it comes to providing a safety net for the “deserving poor.” Well, folks, in this  part of South Carolina, Harvest Hope IS the private sector’s means of feeding the hungry.

Oh, and at Harvest Hope you don’t find the “culture of dependency” problem that certain politicians like to go on about. Typically, if Harvest Hope is able to take care of a family’s emergency food needs for three months running, it gets them through the crisis so they can get back on their feet. And only 1 percent of clients are on TANF (what remains of “welfare as we knew it”) benefits.

So what are you waiting for? Time to step up, and give. Here’s how:

  • Visit the donor page at www.harvesthope.org.
  • If you have received a mailing from Harvest Hope, please use the convenient reply envelope that came with it.
  • Send a check to Harvest Hope, 2220 Shop Road, Columbia, SC  29201.

Burl reports in from Hawaii: “that bullet we dodged on Oahu parted our hair”

In case you didn’t see his comment on the previous post, our intrepid Pacific correspondent Burl Burlingame (Radford HS Class of ’71) has checked in with this report:

Man, that bullet we dodged on Oahu parted our hair. The surges on Maui and the Big Island were pretty bad, but at least they weren’t carrying that tumbling wall of debris that flattened communities in Japan. We got feet-wet on the neighbor islands — looks like more than a 12-foot surge in Kailua-Kona. The roads there are broken up.
Lots of small-boat and wharf damage on Oahu, but that’s about it. And we’re all sleepy as hell. The critical period was 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. when you had to be ready to run for it.

Good to hear that Oahu escaped unscathed. And I’m sorry that I carelessly speculated earlier that, given the hour of the earthquake, Burl might have slept through the crisis. Of COURSE he was on deck and attending to duty; we should have expected no less of him.

Don’t ya just love the New Normal? It’s like we’re all living on the frontier, making it up as we go along

Just saw this from Wesley Donehue:

The Pub Politics episode scheduled for tonight has been canceled due to the show’s camera being broken. Unfortunately, the problem is one that cannot be repaired before airtime.

The show’s producer will be taking the camera to a shop to be fixed so that next week’s Pub Politics can continue as planned.

Phil and Wesley are sorry for the inconvenience, but hope you understand and will be patient for next week’s show.

For those who still wish to come to The Whig and hang out with the Pub Politics crew, we’ll be there for $2.50 pints.

Pub Politics is a weekly political show featuring Phil Bailey, SC Senate Democratic Caucus Director, and Wesley Donehue, SC Senate Republican Caucus Director, talking to various SC legislators and other leaders. For more information, please visit www.pubpoliticslive.com.

Dontcha just love the New Normal? Instead of the imposing MSM with its vast resources for bringing us news and commentary, we increasingly rely on new media, which is very catch-as-catch-can, very bailing-wire-and-broomhandles, so close to the edge of viability, that a single camera breaking down puts you out of action.

Sort of like what happens to my blog when the laptop acts up.

It’s like the Wild West, folks, or… living on one of the outer planets on “Firefly.” Hey, I know! Maybe Mal and I can buy the Discovery, now that it’s headed to the scrapheap, and get Mr. Universe to do IT for us, and blog and broadcast from out past Reaver territory, where the Alliance can’t stop us…

Except that Mal, mercenary that he is, would demand to know how he was going to make money off of it. And we New Media types haven’t figured out how to do that any more than the MSM has figured out the same problem going forward. If we had, we’d have more than one frickin’ camera…

They’d better get it fixed quickly, so that I can go on and be the first Six-Timer

Harvest Hope needs our help, so it can help others

Director Denise Holland and Harvest Hope board members issue an urgent appeal for funds at a Tuesday press conference.

Running behind today, still catching up on stuff I wanted to write about yesterday…

Such as Harvest Hope Food Bank‘s urgent appeal for operating funds. You may have read about it already in The State today. It was hard to miss, since it was the lede story. That was gratifying not only because Harvest Hope, and the people it serves, need the communities in its 20 counties to know about the situation, but because ADCO was helping the agency get the word out. (When I saw that was the lede this morning, I thought, “Idiot! Why didn’t you put that on your Virtual Front Page yesterday? The reason — I was so close to it, it didn’t even occur to me.)

The situation is this: Harvest Hope needs our help, as it never has before in its 30-year history.

HH is the food safety net for 20 counties in South Carolina – the Midlands, Florence and Greenville. It is a regional food distribution organization that collects, stores, and distributes food and related items. Its 450 member agencies that feed the hungry in these communities – churches, private charities, others – depend on Harvest Hope to provide the food.

The increase in need recently has been startling. In the last six months, the number of families HH has fed has increased by 42 percent over the same period a year earlier. Harvest Hope served 91 percent more families in 2010 than it did in 2008. Another way to put it is that the private nonprofit served 2,037,496 individuals throughout the service area in 2010.

With double-digit unemployment in our state, HH sees no sign of this need abating soon.

While the need has increased, so have unavoidable expenses: Just fueling the fleet of vehicles that deliver food throughout the 20 counties costs $3,100 a day. With unrest sweeping the Mideast, fuel prices are expected to rise, not drop, for the foreseeable future. Harvest Hope has food in our warehouse, but if they can’t deliver it, it does no one any good.

Yet in this time of increasing need and expenses, over the last four months, donations to Harvest Hope have dropped.

Here is how Harvest Hope’s funding cycle typically works: Most of its cash donations come in during the last four months of the year. It gets through each spring and summer by tapping a $400,000 line of credit. HH pays off that line of credit with the money that comes in from September-December. Each year in the past, HH has paid off the line of credit by January 1.

This year, because of the drop-off in financial donations, HH has been unable to pay off the line of credit.

HH has cut most of the expense items it believes it can cut while still serving the needs of the hungry. It has cut back on mailings, switching to e-mail; reduced casual labor to help sort food, bringing in more volunteers for additional shifts on nights and weekends; tried to get food more from within the region to avoid shipping costs; eliminated travel to conferences and staff training; reduced the use of operational supplies. Next, if necessary, would be staff reductions.

Why has giving dropped off? Because regular donors, friends and neighbors who have been so generous in the past, are also hurting in this economic crisis. Some who have given regularly have told Denise Holland and HH staff that they are themselves just a step away from needing Harvest Hope’s help in order to eat.

Harvest Hope needs $2 million between now and the end of June, and as much of it as possible as soon as possible. This number arises from a combination of factors, including the accelerating increase in need, the rise in unavoidable expenses, and the drop-off in cash contributions. In asking for this money, HH is not only trying to pay off the line of credit, but also anticipating a continued greater monthly operating expense going forward. Another way to put it: HH is about a million in the hole now, and extrapolating forward, sees itself going in deeper and deeper if it keeps meeting the need — which it fully intends to do.

Some have already stepped up nobly to help meet this need. Mungo Homes has offered to donate $150,000 if it is matched by twice as much from the community. This is in keeping with a long tradition in the Mungo family of providing material support to Harvest Hope.

But even when that match challenge has been met, HH will need much more, and is hoping other major donors will follow the Mungos’ example and offer similar challenges.

Donations to Harvest Hope are of course tax-deductible, and 98 cents out of every dollar it receives goes directly to feeding hungry families in our area.

By the way — Harvest Hope does not foster a culture of dependency. Typically, if it is able to feed a family for three months in succession, it gets them through their crisis so that they are able to be self-sufficient going forward. During those three months, Harvest Hope frees them from worrying about food so that they can concentrate on the other things they need to do to get themselves out of financial difficulty.

Over the last three years more than 484,000 individuals came to HH for help through its two full-time emergency food pantries, and of those, 86,000 came for the first time. The top reasons? Unemployment, underemployment, and the high costs of shelter.

Less than 1 percent of our clients receive TANF (commonly called “welfare”) payments.

When this economic crisis first hit the nation in 2008, we heard a lot about financial institutions that were “too big to fail.” For the communities it serves, Harvest Hope is the institution that is too big to fail. The hungry of these communities, and the various agencies that feed them, depend on Harvest Hope too much.

And Harvest Hope is not failing. It is not going away. It is getting the job done, despite the challenges before it. But for the first time, it has gone into a financial hole doing so, and needs our help to get out of it, and continue the mission.

Here’s how to give:

•   Visit the donor page at the website: www.harvesthope.org.

•   If you have received a mailing from Harvest Hope, please use the reply envelope that came with it.

•   Send a check to Harvest Hope, 2220 Shop Road, Columbia, SC  29201.

OK, THAT SORT OF ENDS THE OFFICIAL MESSAGE. The above is an adaptation of the talking points that I helped Denise put together before Tuesday’s news conference. In fact, I changed so little of it that I may have missed a couple of places where it says “we,” though I meant to change it to “it” or “they” or “Harvest Hope.” Forgive me; I’m running behind and am in a hurry.

Now, allow me to add an editorial comment of my own:

We hear a lot from folks who subscribe to the ideology that keeps winning elections in our state that they don’t want government taking care of the needy, that they think private charities should take up the slack.

Well.

THIS is how private charities feed the hungry — the “deserving hungry,” for those of you who make such distinctions — in this area. You may see a church or other agency feeding people, but like as not, that entity got the food from Harvest Hope. That’s sort of what I meant about the “too big to fail” thing. This IS the private sector’s response to the existence of hunger in our communities.

So let’s step up.

I won’t sell MY Tweets, either — unless and until someone offers to buy them

Roger Ebert took a stand for principle today:

Roger Ebert

@ebertchicagoRoger Ebert

I will never ever sell my Tweets. Yes, 3-4 times a day I do an Amazon link, with any income going to help my site.http://on.wsj.com/dRm3FN

OK, so it wasn’t MUCH of a stand, what with the Amazon exception (as Jubal Harshaw said, “”So? Minds me of a wife who was proud of her virtue. Slept with other men only when her husband was away.”) I mean, I’m inferring here — I’m not sure what “Amazon links” he’s referring to.

But at least Mr. Ebert, whose Tweets I follow and enjoy, is drawing a line somewhere — unlike Charlie Sheen.

Personally, though, I’m not inclined to close off any potential sources of income, and not only for my own sake. The most important question hovering over the future of journalism in this country is this: How are we going to get paid to keep doing this? The old business model — letting mass-medium print and broadcast advertising pay for it — has collapsed. The new model has not yet emerged. Sure, there are national blogs and websites making money and employing people, but that’s because of the scale of what they’re doing, and the broad appeal of national politics (and yes, celebrity “news”).

But no one’s figured out how to pay people, going forward, to really cover state and local politics, something that is critically important to keeping the electorate connected to what’s going on in their communities. The MSM have scaled back such coverage dramatically, which makes some of the more marginal, shoestring operations look better by comparison than they once did. But no one has really figured out a model for financing the kinds of newsrooms you have to have to really cover a community every day.

Will paid Tweets be the mechanism for doing that? I doubt it. But until we figure out how to link the demand for such coverage (which is as great as ever) to an effective business model, I’m not inclined to close off potential lines of innovation.

Unless, of course, you can argue a compelling argument for why Twitter, in particular, should be sacrosanct. But to me it’s a Wild West medium thus far, and “Twitter” and “integrity” are two words you seldom see in the same sentence. To me, it’s a laboratory, and journalists are still figuring out how it serves their craft, beyond being a headline alert service. Perhaps one of the ways the tool will be useful is as a way of contributing to the revenue stream. I don’t know. But within the fundamental bounds of journalistic ethics (such as, say, telling the truth), I think there’s room for experimentation.

112 ways to spell ‘Gadhafi,’ or whatever that goofball’s name is

I’m almost positive that in the early years of my career, the Associated Press spelled the last name of the dictator of Libya with a “K.” (Or was it a “Q?” It’s been a long time.) Then, at some point the AP Stylebook switched to “Gadhafi.” I sorta kinda remember this because back in the 80s my responsibilities as news editor at The Wichita Eagle-Beacon (since simplified back to The Wichita Eagle) included supervising the national desk (which dealt with national and international news), as well as the copy desk (the final arbiters of how things were spelled in the paper).

And every paper I’ve ever worked at conformed, more or less (there were sometimes local exceptions), to AP style. But some larger news organizations, just to be different and arrogant, have maintained their own, separate style bibles. And it sometimes seems that every one of them asserts its individuality by spelling Col. Moammar’s name a different way.

Me, I’ve been spelling it any way I have felt like spelling it at any given moment here on the blog. Because, after 35 years of following arbitrary rules invented to establish uniformity, I can do whatever I want now. (Freedom, Baby!) My only obligation to you, the reader, is to ensure that you know about whom I’m writing. And there are various ways to communicate that, mostly having to do with context.

And why not do whatever feels right, when there is no consensus among the MSM?

For instance:

As mentioned, the AP spells it “Gadhafi.” Now, anyway. (It’s frustrating that my Google searches have not yet produced the old spelling.)

The New York Times, with its usual “this is the way WE do it, so that, by God, is the way it’s done” manner, spells it “Muammar el-Qaddafi.” Note that they don’t even do the first name the usual way. On subsequent references, they drop the “el-” and go with “Colonel Qaddafi.”

The Times (as in the real Times, of London), spells it “Muammar Gaddafi.” The Jerusalem Post agrees. So, amazingly, does the BBC (an emerging consensus, where I thought there was none?).

The Washington Post agrees with The Times on the last name, but not the first: “Moammar Gaddafi.”

NPR, which isn’t a print medium anyway, sticks to AP style, apparently: “Moammar Gadhafi.”

But folks, that’s just the beginning. ABC, apparently aiming to make print media look ridiculous (which isn’t hard when it comes to something like this), has compiled a list of 112 ways to spell the guy’s name. I’ll give you a few of them, and you can go to the story on the web for the rest:

  • Qaddafi, Muammar
  • Al-Gathafi, Muammar
  • al-Qadhafi, Muammar
  • Al Qathafi, Mu’ammar
  • Al Qathafi, Muammar
  • El Gaddafi, Moamar
  • El Kadhafi, Moammar
  • El Kazzafi, Moamer
  • El Qathafi, Mu’Ammar
  • Gadafi, Muammar
  • Gaddafi, Moamar
  • Gadhafi, Mo’ammar
  • Gathafi, Muammar
  • Ghadafi, Muammar
  • Ghaddafi, Muammar
  • Ghaddafy, Muammar
  • Gheddafi, Muammar
  • Gheddafi, Muhammar
  • Kadaffi, Momar
  • Kad’afi, Mu`amar al- 20
  • Kaddafi, Muamar
  • Kaddafi, Muammar
  • Kadhafi, Moammar
  • Kadhafi, Mouammar
  • Kazzafi, Moammar
  • Khadafy, Moammar
  • Khaddafi, Muammar
  • Moamar al-Gaddafi
  • Moamar el Gaddafi
  • Moamar El Kadhafi
  • Moamar Gaddafi
  • Moamer El Kazzafi
  • Mo’ammar el-Gadhafi
  • Moammar El Kadhafi
  • Mo’ammar Gadhafi
  • Moammar Kadhafi
  • Moammar Khadafy…

That last one, before I stopped to keep myself out of Fair Use trouble, is awfully close to the way I think the AP used to do it. But I can’t say for sure.

So now you know. That is to say, you know that nobody knows.

More on public (and private) employee unions

Started writing a response to comments on my last post, and it just got longer and longer, so I’m turning it into a separate post…

Responding to what several of you have said: Yeah, I’m almost positive we DON’T, and CAN’T, have public-employee unions in SC, and normally I would just say that flat-out. But something I read not long ago confused me on that point.

Here’s what shook my confidence on that (which I was half-remembering when I wrote this post last night — a friend reminded me enough of the details that I was able to look it up)… It was in a story during the city elections in Columbia last year:

VanHouten and three other police officers have formed a chapter of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and their first public act was to endorse Steve Benjamin’s candidacy for mayor…

The police officers say they want to model their organization after the Columbia Firefighters Association, which doesn’t practice collective bargaining or negotiate contracts with the city but does call itself a union. That organization has been active since the 1960s but only recently has begun to flex its political muscle….
This is enough to send me on a whole new rant. Let me see if I have this straight: A few city policemen are forming an organization that will certainly NOT be a union, because there’s no collective bargaining. But they say they want to model it on the firefighters’ organization, which does CALL itself a union, but isn’t one, because of course there’s no collective bargaining.

This boggles the mind: Why on Earth would anyone in South Carolina want to CALL their organization a union — which brings all sorts of calumny and resentment down upon their heads in this right-to-work state, which means they get all the BAD PR from being called that — when they get none of the ADVANTAGES of actually BEING a union, i.e., collective bargaining? You got me.

Anyway, though, I think I can go back now to saying confidently that we DON’T have public employee unions in South Carolina. My point is, we don’t have ’em, and don’t need ’em.

As for Kathryn’s suggestion that you only get lousy employees if you don’t have unions, I disagree: We have many very fine, dedicated, smart people in state government in South Carolina. You just don’t hear much about them because they keep their heads down and do their jobs and try not to draw the attention of the crazies at the State House — the people you DO hear about.

However, let me say that I DO share Tired Old Man’s concern about the fact that in state government, we’ve had a ” series of digressions from past personnel policies that protected state employees.”

I believe strongly in good pay, good benefits and good working conditions for public employees. I think, as an expression of the values of society, we should treat them better in many cases than employees are treated in the private sector (I hear tell that sometimes they even get laid off, ahem). And in the past, we had a consensus for that, in SC and elsewhere in this country — before despising people who dedicate their lives to public service became a political movement. Their pay was never good, but the benefits were, and so was the job security, so there was a balanced tradeoff. Personally, I want any society I’m a party of to treat its employees far better than private companies who lay people off to get an uptick in the stock price. (In fact, I’m marveling at what’s happened to our society that private companies are unashamed to do that. I remember when executives took pride in taking care of their employees. But then, I’m getting long in the tooth.)

That’s what worries me about the proposed pension changes — which I plan to question Nathan Ballentine (a sponsor) about when I see him later this week. There are some public benefits I think are TOO generous — such as full retirement after 28 years. But in general, I want the people loyally working for ME and my fellow citizens to get a decent, fair deal. The last thing I want is to have a union turning that relationship into an adversarial one. Which is what unions do.

By the way, I used to work for a publisher who had a saying, which went something like this: “Companies that get unionized usually have asked for it.” (It was therefore his strategic aim never to give employees such motivation.) I agree. Ditto with public entities, going back to Tired Old Man’s point. To me, when you get to the point that a union comes into your company, something that is essential to civil society is lost. Yes, I realize that the bosses usually started the downward slide in civility, but the formation of a union is to me the last nail in that coffin.

I think it would particularly be tragic for state employees in SC to become unionized. There is already suspicion, and sometimes hostility, between them and the Republicans who run this state. My God, can you imagine how that would be escalated if the anti-government ideologues were actually able to call them, accurately, UNIONS? Warring camps, that’s what we’d have, and the ugliness in the air (already pretty unpleasant after 8 years under a governor who despises the state employees who worked for him for the simple fact that they WERE state employees) would be far worse than anything we’ve ever seen here. The very air of Columbia would smell and taste of bile, permanently. Oh, and for my liberal Democratic friends who think that’s worthwhile, let me clue you in on something: The unionized state employees would LOSE that bitter, adversarial battle. Over and over and over again.

I believe in treating public (and private) employees right, to the point that they don’t want a union. I think that’s smart, but I also think it’s the right thing to do.

There should not BE public-employee unions

At Rotary today, I had grabbed my food (kielbasa today, with peppers and onions, which I love) and was looking for a seat and Jack Van Loan waved me over to his table. He wanted to get my thoughts on this Wisconsin situation.

I sort of had to disappoint him. I explained about my person idiosyncrasy, about how little stock I put in Other People’s Politics (Down With O.P.P., indeed), which in this national-media saturation era (in which partisans across the country see every local controversy as another battle in the titanic war between Good and Evil — with their end of the spectrum being good, of course), we hear WAY too much about. Except that I hear less than others, because I block it out.

That is, I block out all but what I can’t help picking up through osmosis. And on this, the only thing I had picked up was that it had to do with public employee unions.

So all I could offer Jack was this:

I don’t think there should be public-employee unions. So I guess, on this issue, that sort of puts me on the side of that Walker guy. But that’s about all I know.

To me, working for the government — local, state or federal — is PUBLIC SERVICE, and you should have no loyalties except to the public. You know, like those “permanent government” civil servants in Britain, who serve as well as they can the elected officials of whichever party happens to hold power. Or, come to think of it, every employee below the political appointments in this country.

Private sector unions are one thing. I’m not crazy about them, and never wanted to belong to one. I never wanted a third party between me and my employer. (And yep, I still feel that way after being laid off — so much for those of you who think political positions inevitably arise from personal experience. Although, of course, as a vice president of the company I wouldn’t have been in the bargaining unit anyway.)

But at least in the private sector, we’re talking about people being out for themselves and trying to gain some leg up in a disproportionate power arrangement.

With public service, there should be no being out for yourself and whatever advantage that you, or people like you, can gain. It should be about the public service. It shouldn’t be about serving oneself, or a political party, or a union. It should be about serving your community, state or nation — which means serving the people, who ARE the community, state or nation, properly understood.

And to me, unionization gets in the way of that, big-time. It’s kind of an alien concept to me, as a South Carolinian. I was really taken aback when I ran across the historical plaque pictured below in Pennsylvania. Wow. A state that celebrates that. It surprised me. (I was about to make the categorical statement that we don’t HAVE public employee unions in SC, but it seems like I ran into some exceptions to that recently. I just can’t remember where. It was someplace really obvious… Dang it, I’m ALMOST sure there are no such unions here, but…)

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that. (Unless y’all provoke me into saying more.)

They may be right proud of public-sector unions in Pennsylvania, where I shot this, but we don't hold with 'em down heah.

They may be right proud of public-sector unions in Pennsylvania, where I shot this, but we don’t hold with ’em down heah.

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.

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.


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.

Cindi’s column on our epic struggle for accountable, rational government in SC

“It don’t make no difference how foolish it is, it’s the RIGHT way — and it’s the regular way. And there ain’t no OTHER way, that ever I heard of, and I’ve read all the books that gives any information about these things. They always dig out with a case-knife — and not through dirt, mind you; generly it’s through solid rock. And it takes them weeks and weeks and weeks, and for ever and ever. Why, look at one of them prisoners in the bottom dungeon of the Castle Deef, in the harbor of Marseilles, that dug himself out that way; how long was HE at it, you reckon?”

“I don’t know.”
“Well, guess.”
“I don’t know. A month and a half.”
“THIRTY-SEVEN YEAR — and he come out in China. THAT’S the kind. I wish the bottom of THIS fortress was solid rock.”

For some reason, I thought of that exchange between Tom Sawyer (the first speaker) and Huck Finn when I read Cindi Scoppe’s column Sunday about our long, Sisyphean struggle to get our state to adopt a more rational, accountable form of government.

Actually, it wasn’t a column exactly, but a repurposing of remarks she delivered upon accepting Governing magazine’s Hal Hovey-Peter Harkness Award for public service journalism. Remember, I mentioned this the other day.

Whatever you call the piece, it summarized our TWENTY-YEAR effort to change South Carolina government — one in which we’ve made some progress, although it would be pretty fair to say it’s the kind of progress you’d expect to make, digging your way out of a stone dungeon with a case-knife.

One thing I liked about the piece was that Cindi took the trouble to list the bad craziness that was going on in that summer of 1990, when it all started:

Twenty years ago, I had been out of college less than five years, and covering the S.C. Legislature as a reporter for less than two years, when my colleagues and I realized that we were in the midst of a governmental crisis:

•  A tenth of the Legislature was or soon would be under indictment on federal corruption charges.

•  Among the dozen other officials under investigation was the governor’s closest political ally.

•  A separate FBI investigation was looking into bid-rigging at the Highway Department.

•  The director of that agency had forced underlings to cover up a wreck he had in his state vehicle — and his bosses gave him only a gentle reprimand.

•  That same director had himself refused to fire the Highway Patrol commander for personally intervening to get the top FBI official in the state out of a DUI charge.

•  The larger-than-life president of the state’s flagship university had used public funds to secretly purchase lavish gifts for legislators for years while university trustees looked the other way.

I was the governmental affairs editor at the time, and I’ve told the story of what led us to do Power Failure over and over, but I always have trouble remembering all that stuff that was going on. All of those scandals were on my team’s turf, and we were doing a great job of staying ahead of the competition on all of them that summer (going nuts doing it, but still doing it), when one day Gil Thelen, doing his management-by-walking-around thing, plopped into a chair next to my desk and asked a blue-sky question about what it all meant? Was there a way to explain it all to readers, and give them some hope that the underlying problems could be reached. I said I didn’t know, but I’d think about it.

The result was the Power Failure series. The central insight was that NO ONE was in charge. And the thing that caused me to pull it all together was a series of three op-ed pieces written by Walter Edgar and Blease Graham. After reading that, I could see the direction we would need to take in explaining it to readers — something that eventually took well over 100 stories split into 17 installments in 1991.

Of all the reporters I had working with me on that opus, Cindi was the one who took it most to heart and was most dedicated to the ideas the project set out. Which was a large reason why I brought her up to editorial in 1997 — so we could continue the mission.

Cindi’s boiled-down version of the project’s conclusions:

•  Consolidate agencies, and let the governor control them.

•  Write real ethics laws.

•  Dismantle the special purpose districts, and empower local governments.

•  Release the judiciary from its legislative stranglehold.

•  Adopt a rational budgeting process.

•  And make the government more open to the public.

I enjoyed Cindi’s ending, which to me was reminiscent of the last graf of the introductory piece I wrote for the project. Here’s Cindi’s ending:

There’s a little state down South where we’re experts at putting the “dys” into dysfunctional government, and there’s an editorial writer down there who’s been struggling for practically her entire career to get people to buy into a few simple and obvious reforms. And she’s not gonna stop until they do it.

And here’s mine, from the spring of 1991:

South Carolina is becoming less like its old self. An increasingly wary public is tired of being ripped off. Things that weren’t expected to happen under the old way of doing things — such as judges and senators getting indicted — are happening, because law enforcement agencies won’t play ball anymore.

And neither will the newspapers.

What makes them alike? That braggadocio, that personal statement of “I’m on your case now, and I’m not backing down.” (in my mind, I wanted something that would sound to the readers’ ear like the schwing! of a sword being drawn from a scabbard.) Some of the old hands at The State took exception to that language, and other stuff I wrote at about that time, seeing it as too “arrogant.” Yeah, well — I felt like it was time somebody got out of their comfort zone. I felt like it was going to take a lot to blast the state loose from the deathgrip of the status quo.

And I was right.

Which Super Bowl ads are worth watching on Monday morning?

Since I’m now a Mad Man, some of the conversation at the start of this morning’s traffic meeting was about the Super Bowl ads. I missed part of the exchange on account of going down the hall to get more coffee, but I also felt a bit left out since, well, I didn’t see watch the whole game. In fact, all I did was record part of it (I didn’t think to activate the DVR until long after it started), and occasionally flip back to it in hopes of catching a commercial.

Despite the fact that I have been watching some football since I got HDTV, there was no hope of my having any emotional involvement in this one. The Steelers mean nothing to me, and Green Bay — well, they were my team’s (Johnny Unitas’ Baltimore Colts) nemesis back when I cared about such things, but with Bart Starr gone, well, what’s the point? I couldn’t even get interested in cheering for their opponents.

But the ads — well, I found Super Bowl ads interesting even before I became a Mad Man.

Not having seen them all, though, I felt unqualified to say anything about which was the best, or anything like that. I was able to chime in when someone mentioned the beaver one (below). That was awesome. I called my wife into the room and replayed it for her.

So, since I don’t have time to sit here this morning and watch all of these… which did you think was the best, and why? What should I go find and watch? What would be worth my time? Or rather, ADCO’s time, since that’s what I’d be using…

Another funny from Robert

It’s been awhile since I’ve shared one of Robert Ariail’s cartoons with you (I’m mindful that you are free to check them out on robertariail.com, and I hate to be repetitive). But this one cracked me up, so here you go.

And as is often the case, I may disagree with Robert’s dismissal of the importance of the health care issue, but I don’t judge a cartoon by whether I agree with it. It’s just a good cartoon.

And I can laugh even though, as you know, Robert and I know all about needing a job. You have to be able to laugh. I’ve used unemployment for comic effect myself.

Thoughts on the inauguration?

Maybe you, too, are behind on work. But with me, the suspension of activity at the start of this week, which has put everybody at ADCO behind, was piled on top of two full weeks out of action.

So it is that, since coming back to work Wednesday morning, I’ve not had time to stop and pay attention to anything going on that I might have blogged about. That includes the inaugural activities yesterday for governor, constitutional officers and other officials. LAST time around, I was all over it on the old blog (as in years past, I just mention last time because that was the first inaugural when I had a blog). Back then, I had this post and this one and this one and this one, and probably more. THIS time, I not only didn’t get out to any of the events, I haven’t even had time to read any of the coverage of it. I mean, I glanced at The State this morning during a hurried breakfast (and didn’t see much worth commenting on), but was then in solid, back-to-back meetings from 9 until 5:30 today.

So… do any of y’all have thoughts on yesterday’s events — what was said or what was done? If you need fodder, here’s a story that was in The State, and here’s the text of Nikki’s speech, and here’s some reaction to it.

Maybe something y’all will say will inspire me to say something.

I emphatically reject this vicious stereotyping aimed at people like me

Over the weekend, Kathryn F. e-mailed me this link:

Why the “lazy jobless” myth persists – Unemployment – Salon.com

And I have to say, I was appalled at what I found there… I don’t mean this stuff:

During the recent fight over extending unemployment benefits, conservatives trotted out the shibboleth that says the program fosters sloth. Sen. Judd Gregg, for instance, said added unemployment benefits mean people are “encouraged not to go look for work.” Columnist Pat Buchanan said expanding these benefits means “more people will hold off going back looking for a job.” And Fox News’ Charles Payne applauded the effort to deny future unemployment checks because he said it would compel layabouts “to get off the sofa.”

The thesis undergirding all the rhetoric was summed up by conservative commentator Ben Stein, who insisted that “the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities.”

The idea is that unemployment has nothing to do with structural economic forces or rigged public policies and everything to do with individual motivation. Yes, we’re asked to believe that the 15 million jobless Americans are all George Costanzas — parasitic loafers occasionally pretending to seek work as latex salesmen, but really just aiming to decompress on a refrigerator-equipped recliner during a lifelong Summer of George…

I mean that gross, unfair, insensitive photograph. As a guy who spent close to a year unemployed, I deeply resent such a depiction. It’s totally unrealistic. My gut is nowhere near that big. In fact, mine is much better suited structurally to balancing the remote control on while snoozing in front of the Boob Tube. I can prove this. I have demonstrated this, time and again. And besides, I was just monitoring C-SPAN, waiting for Congress to extend my benefits…

John Parish, dean of Tennessee journalism

That’s John in the foreground, preparing to take a picture at The Jackson Sun reunion of 2005.

Today, my friend Kevin Dietrich brought this obit to my attention:

Mr. John M. Parish, age 87, retired newsman and former press secretary to Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, died December 10, 2010….

I had not read it, but I must have received a telepathic message of some sort. Because one day this past week, for no reason, I thought of this unfinished blog post from June 28, 2007. I had started writing it after reading that David Broder piece that it mentions at the start. Then after typing away for awhile, I got sidetracked and never finished it.

But for some reason the other day, I got to thinking about John Parish. And I thought, one of these days I’ll finish it. I had no idea as I thought that that “the Bear” was already gone.

Here’s my belated remembrance of John Parish. Tennessee journalism is unlikely to see his like again…

David Broder’s column on today’s op-ed page begins with this thought:

Years ago, Lamar Alexander, the senator from Tennessee, told me of a lesson he had learned as a young man on the White House staff: It is always useful for the president to have at least one aide who has had a successful career already, who does not need the job, and therefore can offer candid advice. When he was governor of Tennessee, Alexander made sure he had such a man on his staff.

That brought back the memories, even more than seeing fellow Memphis State grad Fred Thompson yesterday.

The man on Gov. Lamar Alexander’s staff who best fits that description is John “The Bear” Parish, who became the new governor’s press secretary in January 1979, after having long established himself as the Dean of Tennessee political journalism. It was a very unusual appointment, since new governors seldom turn to such people. (Although Mark Sanford did in picking Fred Carter as his chief of staff. Mr. Carter left the office early in the Sanford administration to return to his job as president of Francis Marion University in Florence. Just as well, since as near as I could tell the governor wouldn’t listen to him anyway.)

Unlike Lee Bandy, John did not work for the state’s largest newspaper. He wrote for The Jackson Sun. The photograph above is from a 2005 reunion of folks who worked at that paper when I was there, from 1975-85. John is stepping forward to take a picture on his own camera. (That’s me in the striped shirt just over his shoulder. To my left is Richard Crowson, now editorial cartoonist with The Wichita Eagle. [But, since I wrote this, laid off like me.] On the other side of Richard is Mark Humphrey, the photographer who took the shot of me at the bottom of this post back when we were covering the Iowa Caucuses in 1980, and who is now with The Associated Press in Nashville. To my right is Bob Lewis, the former center for the Ole Miss football team who is now with the AP in Richmond. Of course, I could tell a story about each person in the picture, but what do you care, right? Well, it’s my blog, so I’ll wax nostalgic if I choose.)

John was a legend, a uniquely gifted, hard-working journalist who made a big impression on me at an early point in my own career. Frankly, I have never seen his like since. A few points from the rich mine of Parish lore:

  • He got his nickname, “The Bear,” from his days as The Sun‘s city editor, which predates me by a year or two. Office scuttlebutt was that John had been a bit too gruff to all the newbies hired right out of the University of Missouri’s excellent journalism program shortly after the Des Moines Register Co. bought the paper in the early ’70s. By the time I was there, he had definitely found his niche as the associate editor at the newspaper, and the paper was making the most of his exhaustive knowledge of state politics.
  • He wrote four or five news stories in the course of a typical day, plus — and this is the amazing thing — a daily political column on the editorial page.
  • Despite that volume of copy, he never made mistakes. I’m not talking about not having to run a correction in the paper. His copy was the cleanest I’ve ever seen. And in those days, nobody had clean copy. We’re talking IBM Selectric typewriters, not word processors. Not one strikeout or correction. After the first couple of times I read (I had joined the paper as a copy editor) raw copy from John, I asked someone whether he wrote rough drafts first. No. And there was no way he could have, producing a volume like that.
  • He couldn’t type, at least not in the way it’s taught at school. He produced all of that copy hunting and pecking, at blinding speed. It sounded like a machine gun coming from his office (John was the only person in the newsroom who had an office other than the executive editor and managing editor).
  • Sen. Thompson made a passing reference Wednesday to the case that launched his screen career — he represented a whistle-blower who helped bring down the fabulously corrupt Gov. Ray Blanton. But before, during and after that incident, the bane of the Blanton administration was John Parish. Day after day, outrage after outrage, John documented the governor’s gross abuse of power.
  • John’s wife worked for a state agency. The governor went after her to get even with John. He didn’t fire her; he transferred her job to the other end of the state. Her new commute would have been a little less than Tennessee’s full 450-mile length, but not by all that much. So she had to resign. But that didn’t stop John. Nothing stopped John.
  • In 1978, I was working in The Sun‘s Gibson County Bureau — quite a responsibility for a kid three years out of school. I covered everything that happened in several counties, including the one where The Sun had its second-highest circulation, by myself. (Well, actually, I had a secretary, which was my first taste of management.) But what I really wanted to do was cover state politics. That year I got my first chance to do that. Because of John and the high standard he set, the paper — small as it was — covered politics in a big way. The last month of the general election, we had a reporter full-time with each of the gubernatorial (and if I’m remembering correctly, U.S. senatorial) candidates. John no doubt would have preferred to be in four places at once, but since he couldn’t, that meant a big opportunity for me and a couple of other junior people. “Full-time” coverage, by the way, means traveling with them on the plane, in the car, eating meals with them — a kind of up-close-and-personal man-to-man coverage that is unimaginable today (papers don’t spend the money, and candidates don’t let the press that close). 20 hour days, because after the candidates were done, we had to write. Calling in stories and updates to stories from the road (in those days before laptops, we dictated). I spent a week each with Alexander and Jake Butcher, and I learned a great deal. The height of the experience came when John praised one of the stories I wrote from that time (and it WAS a good one).
  • Another point that year, I finagled the chance to help John cover the Democratic Mid-Term National Convention in Memphis. A conversation we had during that has stuck with me. I mentioned that some of our colleagues were in Nashville that weekend to pick up their awards at the annual state press association convention. I may have expressed my disappointment that I couldn’t be there (although I definitely preferred being at the Memphis event, working). John harrumphed. I asked what was wrong. He said he had no use for such awards, or the approval of other journalists. He only cared about the approval of the readers, and the best award they could give him was to buy the paper and read what he wrote with interest. It amuses me now to think how shocked I was at the time at this attitude. Readers? What did readers know? They weren’t professional journalists! They didn’t know what made a story good! (Mind you, I was not long out of journalism school, which fosters such silly, insular notions.) This was the first time I ever distrusted John’s judgment. But of course, he was completely and absolutely right.
  • Of course, Lamar Alexander won that gubernatorial election we had been covering. At Christmastime of that year, I brought my family to South Carolina for the holidays. When I got back, I got a call from my editor, who told me the stunning news — John Parish was leaving journalism to be Alexander’s press secretary. It was a really unusual move for someone of his advanced skill, experience and stature. I don’t remember ever hearing John explaining in my hearing why he made this move. But I guess he wanted to make a difference, and actually help run government instead of just writing about it. Whatever the reason, I immediately spoke up — I wanted the job covering Nashville for the paper. My editor said, “I sort of thought you would.” So I took my shot, went through the interviews. But… I didn’t get it. It went to Jeff Wilson instead (who was about the only person at the paper who maybe wanted it more than I did). Fortunately, my stock was high enough with our executive editor that he did an extraordinary thing, rather than lose me: He created a special position for me. He brought me in from the bureau and basically told me to go out and write about whatever I wanted to. I was my own assigning editor, and went covered every special assignment that interested me, from Tennessee to the Iowa Caucuses at the end of 1979. That was during the week. On Saturdays I became the editor in charge of the paper. This led to my giving up reporting for good and becoming the paper’s news editor (what most papers would call a metro editor, the editor supervising all the news reporters) the following year.

That editor gig worked out well, there and at two other papers, until The State decided it didn’t need me any more last year. In the last years, especially after Lee Bandy retired, I got to thinking that I was finally getting there, I was finally on the verge of becoming that gray eminence that would make me to SC politics what John Parish was to Tennessee’s. But that was wishful thinking. I never came close to being John Parish. No one could.

Another shot from the reunion. John, at right, is chatting with Kevin Barnard of The Tampa Tribune and Mark Humphrey. Mary Reed and Joel Wood are in the background.

Bobby Hitt at Commerce

Pretty much everyone who follows such things has said Nikki Haley’s first big test would be choosing her Commerce Secretary. And now we see how she has chosen. And it is very… interesting.

For the last couple of hours, since I heard that she had picked Bobby Hitt, I’ve been thinking back over my long association with him and wondering what I can legitimately say that is relevant to the situation.

You see, I know Bobby Hitt. I’ve known him for years. I served with Bobby Hitt. And you, senator, are no…

Wait, wrong tape loop…

Here’s the thing: Bobby Hitt used to be my boss, back when he was managing editor of The State and I was the gummint affairs editor. We worked together in a tumultuous time, as newsroom management was in transition from the old, family-owned regime to a new breed that, for lack of a better term, I’ll call the Knight Ridder editors. Bobby was a leading light of the first category, I was the vanguard of the second (I was the first editor in the newsroom from a KR paper — in fact, I think, the first who had ever been an editor outside South Carolina — after KR bought The State). I didn’t feel like an interloper or a spy — as a native South Carolinian, I just felt like a guy who had come home — but a lot of people regarded me as such. And Bobby was the new generation of the old guard. Some sparks were inevitable.

When I came to work at The State in 1987, Bobby was away doing a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard, which sorta told me he was no dummy. When he came back in ’88, he was elevated to managing editor of The State (he had headed The Columbia Record before that). In 1990, Gil Thelen replaced my good friend and Bobby’s mentor, Tom McLean, as executive editor. About a year later, Bobby left the paper. What happened in between is a bit of a whirl in my memory, as it was the year of the Lost Trust scandal, the departure of Jim Holderman from USC, and about a dozen other scandals that had my staff running like crazy to stay ahead of them. (A time Cindi Scoppe alluded to in her column about me when I left the paper.)

Working with Bobby was … interesting. Bobby is a character and a half. He’s intense, and has a manner that works well with folks who think, “This guy will flat get some things done,” and very much rubs others the wrong way.

Bobby went to work for Nelson Mullins when he left the paper, and when BMW came into the state and hired that law firm to represent it, Bobby was delegated to help the Germans negotiate the complexities and peculiarities of public and governmental relations. They were so impressed by the job he did that they hired him away from Nelson Mullins, and he’s been up in Greer ever since, playing a key role at the operation that still stands as the big ecodevo success of the last two or three decades.

His intimate knowledge of the workings of such a business and what they’re looking for in a home should stand him in good stead, and no doubt was a huge factor in Nikki Haley picking him for this job. (An anecdote Bobby told me a few years ago about why BMW picked SC… Two reasons: First, our storied tech school system, which they relied upon to train their workers. Second — a BMW exec went on a driving tour of residential neighborhoods in the Greenville-Spartanburg area. He approvingly noted the neat houses and well-kept yards, and decided that people who took care of their property and community like that were people they could work with. The first is an ecodevo asset we understand and are happy to exploit. The second was intriguingly intangible.) The BMW name is political magic, and she’s no doubt hoping some of that magic will rub off on Commerce.

Oh, one other thing of interest: I can’t really tell you for sure what Bobby’s politics might be. News people didn’t speak to each other about such things. But I know he’s Rob Miller’s uncle. Assuming Nikki knew that, kudos to her for not letting that get in the way.

I’m going to be listening with interest the next few days to what business leaders say about this pick. Not what they’re quoted as saying in the paper, but what they say more informally. They’ve mostly been VERY anxious for a new approach to ecodevo in both the governor’s office and Commerce, which is why a lot of them supported Vincent Sheheen against the Sanfordista candidate. Nikki knows that, and knowing it, she has made a rather bold and unconventional pick.

Bobby is a unique individual, from his thick Charleston accent to that slightly mad, conspiratorial, insinuating grin that explodes out of his scruffy red beard at the least provocation. He’s certainly not the standard-issue CEO type that one expects in the Commerce job. No man in the gray flannel suit is he. I feel confident he’ll grab ‘hold of Commerce with both hands, and make something happen or bust a gut in the attempt. His uniqueness will either blow up in Gov.-to-be Haley’s face, or pay off big time. I hope, for South Carolina’s sake, that the latter is the case. I’ll be rooting for Bobby (and Nikki for that matter — she’s the only governor we’ve got), and if I can ever help him get the job done, I’ll be glad to do what I can. We need a win. We need a bunch of ’em.

A pre-session legislative discussion

CRBR Publisher Bob Bouyea, Chamber President Otis Rawl, Rep. James Smith, Sen. Joel Lourie, Rep. Nathan Ballentine. In the foreground is former Rep. Elsie Rast Stuart, now chairwoman of the the Richland-Lexington Airport Commission. / grainy phone photo by Brad Warthen

I meant to post about this yesterday, when it happened, but better late than never.

ADCO had a table at the Columbia Regional Business Report‘s (that’s the outfit Mike Fitts is with) “Legislative Lowdown” breakfast at Embassy Suites. It was a good table. Lanier and I were joined by Alan Kahn, Jay Moskowitz, Bob Coble, Butch Bowers, Cameron Runyan and Grant Jackson.

We were there to hear a discussion by a panel featuring Otis Rawl from the state Chamber, Rep. James Smith, Sen. Joel Lourie, Rep. Nathan Ballentine and Rep. Chip Huggins. Joel was a few minutes late, and Chip had to leave just as Joel arrived, but it was still a good discussion.

Here’s Mike’s description of the event, in part (I’d quote the whole thing, but I don’t know how Mike’s cohorts feel about that Fair Use thing):

By Mike Fitts
[email protected]
Published Dec. 2, 2010

Lawmakers speaking at the Business Report’s Power Breakfast this morning said they see major difficulties ahead in the new budget year, but they also said there are new opportunities for bipartisanship.

The event, hosted at the Embassy Suites, featured Reps. Nathan Ballentine, R-Chapin, Chip Huggins, R-Columbia, and James Smith, D-Columbia; Sen. Joel Laurie, D-Columbia; and Otis Rawl, president and CEO of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce.

With a new Legislature and new governor coming to Columbia in January, much of the discussion focused on the budget crisis that will greet them.

Ballentine, a member of Gov.-elect Nikki Haley’s fiscal crisis task force, drew a stark picture of the challenges facing lawmakers. Ballentine compared the situation to a lifeboat with a limited number of seats. There won’t be enough dollars to take care of students, the elderly, the disabled and law enforcement, Ballentine said.

“Somebody’s going to get left out, and that’s going to hurt,” he said…

To Mike’s focused report I will add the following random observations:

  • I don’t know if this would have been the case if Chip Huggins had stayed, but the general consensus, or at least lack of overt conflict, between James, Joel and Nathan on issue after issue was quite noticeable. Nathan alluded to it, saying he was sure that the business people in the room were probably wondering why a pair of Democrats and a close ally of Nikki Haley were agreeing about issue after issue. (And some of the agreements were remarkable, going beyond mere civility, such as when Nathan volunteered his acknowledgement of the problems with Act 388.) Nathan further speculated that the audience might reasonably wonder why, in light of what they were hearing, the General Assembly had so much trouble getting anything done. He explained that the reason was that there were these 167 other people in the Legislature… And he was completely right. If we filled the Assembly with Jameses, Joels and Nathans, South Carolina would see a Golden Age of enlightened governance. These are reasonable young men who, despite their disagreements on some points are reasonable, deal with others in good faith, and truly want what’s best for South Carolina, and want it more than their own advancement or the good or their respective parties. If only their attitude were catching.
  • I’ll add to that point the observation that if all discourse about issues were on the intellectual level of this one, we’d see a very different, and much better, South Carolina. The conversation was wonderfully devoid of partisan, ideological, bumper-sticker cliches. For instance, I never heard anyone mention “growing government” or “taking back our state.” Observations were relevant, practical, and free of cant. I used to hear discussions like that regularly when I sat on the editorial board, because intelligent politicians did us the courtesy of leaving the meaningless catch-phrases behind. It was good to hear that kind of talk again. (It occurs to me that the fact that over the years I’ve been privileged to hear politicians at their best, trying to sound as smart as possible, may help to explain why I don’t have as jaded a view of officeholders as Doug and others do.) I’d be inclined to say that the discussion was on this level because the lawmakers were paying this assembly the same compliment of respect — but these particular lawmakers pay everyone that sort of respect. Which is why we need more like them.
  • Otis Rawl, incidentally, was slightly more confrontational — something you don’t usually see in a Chamber leader. He exuded the air at times of being impatient with the air of civil agreement in the room. When Nathan said that he had not realized when he voted for it the harm that Act 388 would cause — Otie challenged him directly, saying he knew good and well that his group had informed lawmakers ahead of time, and there was no excuse for anyone to claim innocence (I think he’s right in the aggregate — the body as a whole knew better, but ignored what they knew it order to scratch a political itch — but if Nathan says he didn’t understand, I believe him; he was a relatively inexperienced lawmaker at the time; and I appreciate greatly that he’s learned from experience). Awhile back, I chided Otie for not being more frank about what he thought on an issue. The Otis Rawl I saw Thursday morning could not be chided for the same thing. I suspect this reflects a growing dissatisfaction with Sanford-era fecklessness in the State House, which helped lead to the Chamber’s endorsement of Vincent over Nikki.
  • Speaking of Vincent, Nikki, Otie, James, Nathan and Joel … It struck me as interesting, just because language and civility interest me, that everyone speaking of Nikki Haley referred to her carefully as “Governor-Elect Haley.” It was notable partly because it was stilted coming from people who know her quite well as “Nikki,” but also because (and this might have been my imagination) there was a slight change of tone when the speakers said it, a shift to a formality mode. It seemed natural enough that the Democrats present would use that highly formal construction — it’s important to them (particularly since the two Democrats in question are Vincent Sheheen’s two best friends in the General Assembly) to sound scrupulously neutral and respectful in this post-election period. It’s a way of papering over their feelings about her election, and perfectly proper. It was also perfectly appropriate for Nathan to refer to her that way; it just sounded odder coming from him. They were seatmates, and allies in her fights with the leadership. But being a gentleman, he wasn’t going to top it the nob in a public setting by assuming excessive familiarity. Bottom line, just over a month ago ALL of them would have called her “Nikki.” But now they are the very pictures of proper Southern gentleman. Which I like. But then I’d like to see a return of the sort of manners I read about in Patrick O’Brian and Jane Austen. We just don’t see that very often nowadays.
  • As civil and intelligent as this discussion was (in fact, probably because it was so intelligent), it offered little hope for the General Assembly effectively dealing with any of the important issues facing our state in the foreseeable future. Everyone spoke with (cautious, on the part of the Democrats) optimism about Nikki — excuse me, Gov.-elect Haley — being able to work better with the Legislature than Mark Sanford has (a pitifully low bar). But I heard little hope offered that this, or anything else, would likely lead to the reforms that are needed. The institutional and ideological resistance to, say, comprehensive tax reform is just too powerful. The most hope Joel Lourie would offer is that steady pressure over a long period of time might yield some small progress. He cited as an example his and James’ long (eight-year) battle to get a sadly inadequate cigarette tax increase. The terrible truth, though, is that the cigarette tax was such a no-brainer — it shouldn’t have taken two days, much less eight years — that if IT took that long, much less simple and obvious reform seems unlikely in our lifetimes. But perhaps I’m not being as optimistic as I should be. It’s just that I’ve been fighting these battles, and hearing these same issues discussed, for so very long…