Category Archives: Working

It’s a pretty big alumni club

Behind and to the right of Lindsey Graham -- Jim Hammond, Page Ivey, Jeff Wilkinson.

At the energy conference the other day at USC with the UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change and Lindsey Graham and Steve Benjamin and a bunch of other folks (that thing I haven’t written about yet, except in passing), I found myself standing with some other scribes, and one of them — Page Ivey of the AP, I think — noted that all of us were formerly of The State. That is, except for Jeff Wilkinson, who actually still has a job there. Which makes him the rarity. (That Wilkinson’s a survivor. He used to work at The Nashville Banner, which doesn’t even exist anymore.)

But this sort of thing happens a lot, you know. It’s a big alumni club. Hey, at least Page and Jim Hammond of SCBiz still have actual paying news media jobs. Unlike some people I could name.

See? I can find time for this kind of nonsense, but not for an actual, serious post on the thing we were covering. Hey, I’ll get to it, OK…?

Stuff I keep meaning to get to…

I’ve mentioned this before; it’s the central conflict in blogging, or at least the greatest frustration: If you just sit at your keyboard all day, consuming the proverbial coffee and skittles, you can stay completely on top of what you want to say — posting 10 or more times a day, keeping your readers engaged and building your readership.

Trouble is, you won’t have a lot of value to contribute. If, on the other hand, you’re getting out and interacting with the world, reading, talking to people, covering events and otherwise accumulating knowledge and experience that would add value to the blog, would make your posts more informative and up-to-date… then you don’t have time to blog.

Back when I was at the paper, I felt this most keenly during endorsement season, when I was doing as many as four endorsement interviews a day. No, I wasn’t getting out, but people who WERE getting out, knocking on doors in the community and listening to thousands of people, were coming to me and answering any questions I chose to ask. (And my favorite questions, in terms of the interesting answers I’d get, were the open-ended ones, such as, “What are you hearing out there?”) This, combined with what I myself was hearing in the community, added all sorts of context to the positions we would take. But most of what I learned in those interviews just went into my notebook and stayed entombed there. Maybe, maybe a line or two of the unique insights gained from talking to that person would make it into the endorsement editorial. Maybe (because a lot more went into the decision than what was learned in an interview). The rest would collect dust. And I thought that was a waste. It’s one of the reasons that I started blogging: to have a place to put that stuff.

But… I could never keep up with the pace. There just were not enough hours in the day. I would set out each election cycle to file a moderate-sized report on each interview, such as this one and this one and this one and this one, sharing with people the unique stuff that added depth and context to our understanding of the candidate. But the pace of interviews was such that I always fell behind. I’d start doing wrapup posts or columns to merely acknowledge that the interviews took place, but even that would eventually become too much, given everything that I had to do in a day. Once or twice, in desperation, I just put up a bunch of pictures from the interviews I’d been in, as useless as I knew that was (I was just doing it to offer an excuse, showing readers how BUSY I was) I would always intend to get back to posting that stuff, but at some point (say, election day), it all became moot and I had to move on.

I face similar frustrations today. Right now, I’ve got four good posts dying on the vine because I didn’t have time to post about them (each required a little legwork — an extra interview, or time spent listening to a recording to get some key quotes right — that I could not find time for in the day or two that I SHOULD have posted them). And in the meantime, I post a lot of silly, inconsequential posts that I DO have time for, but aren’t nearly as worthwhile.

In one form or another, I still hope to get to all of them. But until I do, I’ll just briefly acknowledge them here:

  1. Something about nuclear energy policy in the wake of the Japan disaster. Bottom line, we can’t abandon nuclear, and shouldn’t. Meant to get this discussion started the week of the quake. But every day since then, there is SO much more I need to read and consider before I frame it, and it just gets harder and harder. I keep collecting links, saying “gotta read that before I write it,” and it gets harder and harder to get to.
  2. Copper theft. This one hit home a couple of weeks ago when ADCO’s air conditioners were destroyed for some copper coils, and I interviewed Chief Randy Scott about the overall issue, and he mentioned a bill in the Legislature related to the problem, and I’ve been meaning to get with the sponsor and chat about it, and it hasn’t happened. And Chief Scott’s probably wondering why he made time for me, since I haven’t written about it.
  3. Bob Inglis. I mentioned that I was going to speak at that conference at Furman, at the Riley Institute, about politics and media, way back on St. Patrick’s Day (another thing I need to get to — take down that out-of-date ad about the event). It was a good event, but the best part was NOT the panel I participated in. The best part came after, when Vincent Sheheen and Bob Inglis (whom Inglis referred to as the contenders for president of the Local Losers Club) sat with Mark Quinn and talked about the state of politics in SC and the nation. I was particularly impressed by some of the stuff Inglis said — Inglis has always impressed me, even when (perhaps I should say, especially when) I disagree with him. But I need to go back and transcribe part of the recording, because there’s a whole section of what he said I want to post. Haven’t gotten to it. But as old as this is, what he had to say remains highly relevant.
  4. Energy conference at Moore School. Last week, Lindsey Graham and the UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change were at USC talking Energy Policy. The minister, Greg Barker, had interesting things to say about how the Tories rebranded themselves as pro-green, and what they’re trying to do about it, and Graham had some things to say about how it would be nice to be able to get things done in Washington the way they do in London (he seemed particularly wistful about the ability in a coalition government to work across party lines without getting keelhauled by one’s own party for it). All very interesting from an Energy Party perspective. I was there for the whole thing, shot lots of pictures and videos… and haven’t gotten to it, mainly because there’s too much to get to. Big irony here is that I helped (slightly) the British consulate spread the word about this among media types — and haven’t written about it myself.

Now, some wag will say I could have gotten one of those things done in the time it took to gripe about not having the time to get them done. Nope; this was quicker. And I just accomplished the task of putting extra pressure on myself to write one or more of these at some point.

Or maybe it’s all in vain; I don’t know. But I keep trying.

Filling young minds with wisdom (lots and lots and lots of it…)

Busy day — speaking this morning, speaking tonight. Yakkety-yak. In fact, if you’re the last-minute type, you might want to attend the Politics and Media Conference at The Riley Institute at Furman tonight. I’m on a panel with some media types, followed by another panel with Bob Inglis and Vincent Sheheen. In fact, I’d better run if I’m going to get up there (no Virtual Front Page today, I’m afraid). They’ll feed me if I get there in time. But before I go, about this morning’s appearance…

Kelly Payne, the former state superintendent of education candidate who teaches a “Current Issues” class at Dutch Fork High School, is one of those… intense kinds of teachers you may remember from your own schooldays. A teacher with certain expectations. I remember them, because slackers like me tended to run afoul of them sometimes.

Anyway, Kelly asked me to come out today for a second time to speak to her class, so I guess it went OK the first time. I wanted to go straight to questions and answers, knowing the kids would have questions (I prefer that as a speaker; I don’t have to think as hard), but she asked me to talk for a few minutes first about “SC Politics,” so I started speaking nonstop about why we’re so different, why people say “there’s the South, there’s the Deep South, and there’s South Carolina,” starting with Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper and John Locke and the colonial period an The War and what followed, generally explaining to them in FAR more detail than they want to know why we have some of the problems we have, and why we are SO resistant to changing that fact, and…

… once they were good and glassy-eyed, I asked them to throw their questions at me. Because I knew they had some. In most high school classes I’ve spoken to (admittedly, I don’t do it often; I generally shy away from anything earlier than post-grad, because there’s only so much of that bored-kids look you can take), you can wait awhile for a question.

But not Kelly Payne’s class — because of what I said about intensity, and expectations and such.

I knew there were questions because they were printed out on the lectern in front of me, pages of them, with kids’ names attached. They were to ask them in order. So we got started. Unfortunately, the 90-minute class was over before we could get to all of them. In fact, we only got to the first eight. I like to give thorough answers. Anyway, here are ALL the questions, since they bothered to compile them:

Hailey
1. Explain the difficulties you’ve experienced in transitioning from being a full-time journalist to your current activities.
Horace
2. Since you were last here the media hasn’t made much progress in gaining the public trust. What will it take for it to improve at doing so?
Venisha
3. When you were an editor at the paper, did you have other editors to check your grammar and spelling to keep you from making mistakes?
Hannah Jane
4. How significant a factor are your feelings about a topic when you write a story? If you’re really angry or really happy about a topic do those emotions impair your objectivity?
Jaquarius
5. How can social media be an effective tool in reporting? What social media platforms do you use (e.g., texting, Twitter, Facebook) to deliver news content?
Ruby
6. What do you miss most about your old job at the paper?
Eric
7. Do blogs really move public opinion or do they just provide “some fun” for people in the Echo Chamber to take anonymous shots? Is there any way to assure a little more fairness in blogs?
Taylor
8. What do you think about requiring public officials who hire bloggers to shill for them to disclose those relationships in order to improve transparency and increase public trust?
Katherine
9. If elected officials make blog comments hiding behind assumed names, wouldn’t the publics’ interest in transparency and its desire for more civil conversation be better met by calling on those public officials to “man-up,” take ownership of their comments, and stop hiding behind assumed names?
Kelsi
10. How do you rationalize disagreements between your religious convictions and
your political beliefs? (i.e., gay rights)
Marshall
11. What should the response of the United States be to Gadahfi’s suppression of his own people?
Taylor
12. You’ve criticized the Governor for her appointment on the USC Board of Trustees. Please explain why you don’t believe that election outcomes matter.
Katherine
13. You seem very focused on the need for the Governor and her team to guard against “gender politics” yet your profession admonishes society on the need to be “gender sensitive.” Please explain this dichotomy.
Kelsi
14. Eleanor Kitzman recently spoke to our class and we loved her. Why do you criticize her for defending the Governor’s honor and performance given the Governor selected her for that position?
Lexie
15. Why do you think being loyal to the Governor makes Eleanor Kitzman disloyal to the other four Budget & Control Board members?
Shaun
16. The Governor has talked about more transparency with legislative votes and the Treasurer has talked about “calendar transparency.” Which of these ideas do you think is the most sophomoric?
Christian
17. Given that Senator Sheheen and the Governor are about the same age, why is he more appealing to young people?
Kenneth
18. What do you think should be done to keep deep pockets from having an excessive influence on election outcomes? (i.e., Bloomberg, Schumer, candidates supported by Howard Rich, etc.)
Christie
19. How soon do you think it will be before we see meaningful restructuring in state government?
Ben
20. Which of our Constitutional Officers would it make more sense to appoint? Explain your reasons.
Hailey
21. What’s your opinion of eliminating the Budget & Control Board and replacing it with a Department of Administration reporting to the Governor?
Andrew
22. Give the best reason to support and the best reason to oppose the Voter ID Bill?
Kenneth
23. Please explain the post you recently wrote on daylight savings time.
Evan
24. What is the legacy you hope to leave?
25. What do you think about paying teachers based on classroom outcomes?
26. Why are the two major political parties so segregated along racial lines?
27. How can South Carolina Republicans be so diverse as to have elected two Republican Senators that are so different in their ideology? (Lindsey Graham, Jim DeMint….earmarks)
28. I’m optimistic about the next generation of public servants — my fellow classmates and me– who will soon by making decisions that impact our daily lives. What advice can you give us as we move in this direction?

Frankly, with that many questions, I could have talked for a month. But it was great. Been pressed for time, I was really antsy this morning about all I had to do, and ran late and got lost (turns out that Kelly Payne doesn’t teach at Dutch Fork Middle School, which I went to first — they have a nice office — even though I’d been to the right place previously), and I was rattled.

But driving away, I felt nice and relaxed. Ninety minutes of high-speed, non-stop, stream-of-consciousness talking does that for me. It probably doesn’t do all that much for the people listening (so it’s nice when they HAVE to sit there and listen, or get a flunking grade), but I find it… calming. Probably why Freud was such a hit back in the day.

If I don’t hit the road, they won’t feed me in Greenville. As Vincent Sheheen’s Uncle Bob always used to say to bring interviews to a sudden stop: Gottagobye.

And yes, that IS a picture of me, speaking to the class last year, in the upper left-hand corner. Kelly's like that. Very thorough.

By the way, I’m available for that Aflac gig

Don’t think it would have occurred to me to wonder about this at any point in my newspaper life, but now that I’m into the whole marketing/PR/Mad Man thing now, I find myself wondering about stuff like this…

So I hear that Aflac has fired Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of their duck. You know, the one that says “Aflac!” Here’s something about it, although you’ve probably already heard:

He’ll quack for Aflac no more.

Insurance giant Aflac axed comic Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of its iconic duck yesterday after he posted jokes on Twitter about the quake and tsunami in Japan.

“I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, ‘They’ll be another one floating by any minute now,’ ” was among the dozen tweets Gottfried fired off over the weekend….

I first heard about it at breakfast this morning, and didn’t think anything of it (no skin off my beak), then heard it again at ADCO later, and at that point thought, “Wait a minute…”

Why, I wonder, did they turn to Gilbert Gottfried to do the Aflac duck to begin with? I mean, he’s moderately famous, although irritating, and you pay a premium for that. Agents to feed and all. What was the value they got from that?

Because, while I was well aware of the ad campaign — it’s memorable, and sort of clever in an absurd way — I never knew that that was Gilbert Gottfried doing it. Sure, when you hear it, it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried… but it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried when I say “Aflac!” in a nasal quack, too. (Brian from ADCO agreed when he heard me do it at lunch today. I don’t just say these things, people; I check to confirm first. Back off; I’m a professional.)

It really doesn’t take any special talent. And unless they were getting a bounce from people knowing it was Gottfried, why pay him to do it?

So… here’s what I’m thinking. If Aflac is hard up, I’ll do the duck voice for them from now on. I might even do it at a discount from what they were paying Gottfried. And I won’t make horrible jokes about the poor Japanese, or any other suffering people.

I can use the phone to get that new iPhone or HTC Thunderbolt (which I think is coming out Thursday!) or whatever I get to replace my moribund Blackberry, which is definitely on its last legs. So this couldn’t have happened at a better time.

I hope I’m making this offer in time, before they line up someone else… You gotta move fast these days…

Daylight Savings Time is unnatural, decadent and depraved!

OK, now it’s what… not quite 10 a.m…. and I’m running out of steam. Feel the need for a nap. Stopped myself at two mugs of real coffee this morning, figuring I’ll need some later and not wanting to overdo, peak too soon with the caffeine, but now that I’m finally ready to really get started on the day — breakfast, meetings, etc., out of the way… here comes the drowsiness.

Got up this morning in the dark. Shaved, showered, dressed, headed out to the truck to drive to work. Still dark. Took a seat by the window at breakfast downtown, overlooking the city… still dark. Could hardly read the paper. I was halfway done eating before the sun had completely popped above the horizon.

Part of it’s my fault. Decided to give up sleep for Lent. That is to say, decided instead of beer or whatever this time, I would finally start getting up about an hour earlier. Yeah, I know, you’re thinking that Lent isn’t really for self-improvement, New-Year’s-resolution, been-meaning-to-do-that kinds of things, but at Ash Wednesday mass I thought it through, got all the theology worked out in my head (don’t ask me to explain it all; just trust me — it made sense at the time), and this is what I’m doing. Too late to do beer instead at this point.

But the REAL culprit, the one I’m choosing to blame, is my old nemesis Daylight Savings Time.

I’ve always hated it. Sure, I suppose it’s great for people who live for several hours’ yard work after getting home from the office, but I am NOT one of those people. I wish I were. My wife would think more of me if I were, and no one’s opinion of me matters more, but I’m not. Not that fond of sunshine at all, in fact, which is not something I want to admit, what with all that “They that do evil fear the light” propaganda, but it’s true. Sun comes out, my wife looks for sunny spot in the yard and gets to work. I say, “I have to go out in THIS? Where are my flip-up shades?” Me, I love English weather; I think it’s encoded into my gene structure. Clouds, light mist. And it’s good for the crops.

Speaking of crops, it occurs to me that if we were all farmers, we wouldn’t have Daylight Savings Time. What would be the use of it? You have to get up and milk the cows in the dark anyway, and the sooner the sun rises after that, the better. You work the same number of hours regardless, so what does it matter what the clock says? No, DST is a manifestation of this modern economy, a perversion of the natural order. And I, for one, do not have enough generations of evolution behind me to adjust to it.

The thing is, it divorces clock time from any tenuous connection it has to the natural world. Clock time is a fiction, an imposition of false order on reality. Unlike the year, the day, and in some cases the month, clock time — hours, minutes, seconds — have NO basis in reality, aside from the rough relationship between a second and a heartbeat.

There’s only one way it makes sense, and that’s if noon is at the moment that the sun reaches its zenith. We should do like on the old sailing ships. The captain should assemble his midshipmen on the quarterdeck, have them all shoot the sun with their sextants, and when someone says “I make it noon,” and others confirm, the officer of the deck tells the quartermaster “Make it so,” and your day is based in something real. Turn the glass and strike the bell.

Without that, it’s just a lie, every time we allow our lives to be governed by the clock in any way, shape or form while we are in this unnatural state. A lie I can actually FEEL in my bones. And we’ll all be living this lie until the autumn.

Just to say something you don’t hear all that often

The quixotic demonstration at the State House yesterday by citizens sick of seeing our state’s infrastructure rapidly eroding under the stewardship of shortsighted politicians was of course an exercise in futility.

But I’m no stranger to that. A few minutes ago, looking for a link for a previous post that needed one, I went back to the last week of posts on my old blog I had at the paper, and ran across this forgotten item — which, as it happens, was day after the post in which I announced that I had been laid off:

Good job rejecting the tuition caps

This might sound strange coming from a guy who was already counting pennies (or quarters, anyway — I miscounted how many I had this morning in my truck, and ended up with a parking ticket because I didn’t have enough for the meter), with my two youngest daughters still in college. And now I’m about to be unemployed.

But I’m glad the House rejected tuition caps at S.C. colleges and universities. I have an anecdote to share about that.

Remember the recent day when college students wandered the State House lobbying lawmakers on behalf of their institutions. They wanted the state to invest in higher education the way North Carolina and Georgia have. Either that day, or the day after, I had lunch with Clemson President James Barker, and he told me an anecdote he had witnessed: He said the students were pressing a lawmaker NOT to support the tuition caps, because they were worried about their institutions being even more underfunded — they hardly get anything from the state — some are down below 20 percent funding by the state, and the rest has to come from such sources as tuition, federal research grants and private gifts. Eliminate the ability to raise tuition, and the institution’s ability to provide an excellent education is significantly curtailed. If we want lower tuitions, the state should go back to funding higher percentages of the schools’ budgets, the way our neighboring states with better higher ed systems do.

The lawmaker listened to the kids, and then said with great condescension, maybe you kids don’t care if tuition goes up, but I’ll bet your parents would like a cap. He thought he had them there, but the kids set him straight: None of their parents were paying the bills. These kids were working their way through schools and paying for it all themselves. And they didn’t want to see the quality of what they were working so hard to pay for be degraded by an artificial cap on tuition. The lawmaker had not counted on getting that answer.

I wish I had been there to see it, because I’ve been in a similar place before. Back in 95 or 96, Speaker Wilkins had brought his committee chairs to see us, and I started challenging the wisdom of their massive rollback of property taxes paid for school.One of them allowed as how he bet I was glad to get that couple of hundred dollars I didn’t have to pay. And I answered him that I was ashamed that I was paying so little through my property tax to support schools that I knew needed more resources. He said smugly that he was sure I wouldn’t want to give it back. I told him I didn’t see as how there was any channel for doing that, but if he could point me to the right person who would take my money and see it gets to the right place, I would pay the difference. He didn’t have a good answer for that.

It would be great if our lawmakers would stop assuming that all of us in South Carolina are so greedily shortsighted that we can’t see past our personal desire to pay less money, and that we are corruptible by a scheme to starve colleges of reasonable support.

Reading that now, with all that’s happened since — the rise of the Tea Party, the eagerness of Republicans, demoralized after their 2008 defeat, to embrace destructive extremism (and of course, what happens to the Republican Party as happens to South Carolina, which it dominates), the election of Nikki Haley over more experienced, less extreme candidates of both parties — it reads like thoughts from another century. And, of course, another place.

Imagine, even dreaming of our state caring enough about education to invest in it the way our neighboring states have, much less suggesting that we do so. How anachronistic can one get? All that’s happened since then is that South Carolina has run, faster every day, in the opposite direction — with out elected leaders firmly convinced that that is not only the right direction in which to run, but the only one.

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…