Put legislators on the record
Sunday, September 28, 2008

Charleston Post and Courier

"Trust us."

That's what the Legislature is saying, in effect, by keeping most of its votes off the record.

But the legislative record isn't spotless. Just look at the current difficulties in funding essential services, like public education and prisons, and compare it to the Legislature's Competitive Grants program, which pays out millions for balloon festivals and other fluff.

The public needs to know what its elected legislators are up to and should insist that legislators make it happen.

The bill in question would require votes in the House and Senate to be broadly recorded. A recent study by the S.C. Policy Council, a conservative think tank, found that both bodies do the vast majority of their business by voice vote.

In the Senate, only 1 percent of votes are recorded. In the House, it's 8 percent.

Who knows where they really stand?

Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington, wants votes to be recorded where they count — for example, on budgetary matters and conference committee reports. Bills would get a recorded vote on second reading, and, if amended, on third reading. Minor legislation, including resolutions, recognitions and congratulatory acts, would be exempt.

Her proposal would bring South Carolina in line with most other states, giving its residents the same opportunity to know where their elected legislators stand on the full range of public business.

Rep. Haley cites an instructive failure of public accountability last session, when representatives endorsed an increase in their retirement benefits by voice vote. Public criticism eventually forced a reconsideration of the measure, which ultimately was rejected.

Had legislators been required to put themselves on the record in the first place, the benefits hike almost certainly wouldn't have been brought up.

Many legislators quoted by reporter Yvonne Wenger in Thursday's Post and Courier gave at least qualified support for the measure. A few, however, were less than enthusiastic.

Perhaps the most surprising remarks came from House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who has generally been a proponent of accountability measures — for example, in public education and the state Department of Transportation. In a prepared statement, he chided Gov. Mark Sanford for joining the legislative advocates of the bill in a series of press conferences, suggesting he was "just pandering to voters and grabbing for headlines."

In his statement, Rep. Harrell, R-Charleston, cited the potential expense and wasted time in recording votes on minor resolutions.

But, as noted, resolutions would be exempt from recorded votes. And the expense would be fairly minimal. Using the estimate of $55 per vote from Speaker Harrell's office, Rep. Haley calculated a total cost of $39,000 for all applicable House votes last session.

She correctly observes, "We will save more than what we spend" by the use of recorded votes. Legislators will be reluctant to go on record in support of pork-barrel projects they have previously endorsed in voice votes.

Despite his misgivings, Speaker Harrell acknowledged that more roll call voting was "a good idea." So maybe he'll get on board.

In his comments, Gov. Sanford explained why recorded votes are important to public accountability: "Two things that are foundational to any democratic government are the ideas of standing up and being counted for your vote, and the idea of voters being able to find out who indeed voted for what.

"Requiring on-the-record voting for every bill that passes will inject some much-needed sunlight into what is too often a very murky process."

The state's voters can be expected to hear that message for legislative accountability loud and clear. And you can bet they won't look favorably on legislators who are willing to keep the public in the dark.

From the Spartanburg Herald-Journal:

Rhetoric without results: Lawmakers don't intend to make hard decisions they avoided earlier

Published: Sunday, September 7, 2008

Gov. Mark Sanford and the leaders of the General Assembly have been arguing by memo lately, but no progress has been made to make sensible cuts in an unbalanced state budget.

Sanford has been arguing with Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell and House Speaker Bobby Harrell about how and when lawmakers could come back to Columbia to deal with the state's financial condition.

A revenue shortfall has left a $188 million hole in the state budget. Lawmakers are content to let across-the-board budget cuts take care of the shortfall. But Sanford wants lawmakers to make thoughtful cuts so that core state programs are preserved while less essential spending is cut.

So Sanford has been proclaiming that lawmakers need to come back to Columbia and fix the budget, while lawmakers insist that the measures they passed in adjourning make it impossible for them to meet again until later in the year.

They all ignore the truth, which is that, while the General Assembly was in session, lawmakers specifically avoided making the tough budget decisions that needed to be made, and they have no intention of making them now.

Lawmakers passed a sham of a budget this year. They knew they hadn't included enough money to run the state prison system. They knew they hadn't included enough money to fuel the state's school buses. And they knew they had counted on more revenue than the state would take in.

Lawmakers aren't caught by surprise by the revenue shortfall. Everyone saw it coming.

So why didn't they write a budget that paid for these necessary expenses and would survive the lower income? Because that would have meant cutting other programs, making tough decisions comparing spending priorities and even cutting some of their pet projects like local festivals and state-sponsored vacations for German lawmakers.

They didn't want to do that. They didn't want to give up their favorite spending items, and they didn't want to aggravate any voters by making hard spending choices in an election year. So they passed a budget they knew didn't meet the state's needs or its fiscal realities.

And nothing has changed since then. Sanford can try to shame them into fulfilling their duty until he's blue in the face - that works to his political benefit - but they aren't about to cooperate.

The entire debate about who can call for a special legislative session and when ignores the fact that lawmakers have no intention of revisiting the budget. Even if they returned, they are likely to simply pass the same across-the-board budget cuts they have relied on in the past. That would allow them to continue to avoid their responsibility.

The people of this state deserve better. They deserve to know that their kids' school buses are going to have fuel, and that the people who work in our prisons are safe. But with the current leadership in place, all they're likely to get is political posturing.

Across-the-board cuts leave no room for reason or state priorities

Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 3:15 a.m.

South Carolina will cut state spending 3 percent. But the state won't give any thought to where the cuts are made. It will make no attempt to determine which spending needs are higher priorities than others. It won't look for easily postponed expenses.

The state will simply cut every state agency's budget by 3 percent.

These are the across-the-board cuts that South Carolina resorts to whenever its revenues come up short. The revenue shortage is reported to the state Budget and Control Board, and the board votes to impose the cut.

Across-the-board cuts are all the Budget and Control Board is empowered to do. It can't cut specific programs and exempt others. That would be changing the state budget, reallocating state resources. Only the General Assembly has the power to do that.

That's why the General Assembly should reconvene and take another shot at a state budget it failed to balance in the first place.

Gov. Mark Sanford and Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom urged the other members of the Budget and Control Board to sequester some or all of the money that needed to be cut, allowing the legislature to come back to Columbia to decide where to cut the budget. They refused.

Citizens can still hope that lawmakers will return to Columbia to fix the budget. But the fact that the other members of the board readily adopted across-the-board cuts makes that doubtful. Those members include the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Across-the-board cuts are the politician's cop-out.

They're easy. And they create the illusion of fairness. After all, all agencies face the same cut.

But not all spending programs are as vital to the core functions of state government. For instance, should the state cut back on the research positions it funds at state universities in order to keep more troopers on the state's highways?

Sanford pointed out an extreme example to the board. Which is more important to the state: a $100,000 grant paying for a Myrtle Beach vacation for German lawmakers or fuel to keep the state's school buses running? Across-the-board cuts assume they are equally important - except that in this case the grants program paying for the lawmakers' vacation is exempt from the cuts.

Across-the-board cuts are a way for lawmakers to avoid making tough decisions. These cuts pass that responsibility on to agency heads and directors.

Lawmakers shouldn't dodge that responsibility, and they shouldn't let genuine state priorities suffer so they can avoid the difficult work of adjusting the budget. They should come back to Columbia to protect crucial funding. Lawmakers passed a measure that allows them to reconvene if state revenues fall 4 percent. If that standard isn't met, Sanford should consider using his authority to call them back to session.

Oktoberfest on the Strand
Sunday, August 10, 2008

From the Post and Courier:

While South Carolina state officials are scrambling to find enough money to offset declining revenues for essential state services, the state's Competitive Grants program has allocated $100,000 to pay for 120 German politicians to visit Myrtle Beach. It's another example of the state's misplaced spending priorities.

The group will spend a week at the Hilton Myrtle Beach Resort in late October. Rep. Liston Barfield, R-Conway, told the Myrtle Beach Sun News that the visit will encourage German tourism on the Grand Strand.

There must be better ways to prime the state's tourism pump.

Rep. Barfield is the legislative sponsor of the grant proposal, which was sought by the Myrtle Beach Hospitality Association. It will provide funding for the Partnership of Parliaments, a German-American initiative formed in 1983 to promote "transatlantic dialogue" between state legislatures in each nation, according to the grant application.

The grant was approved by the state Competitive Community Grants Committee, a panel largely appointed by legislators. It was one of $10 million in grants approved by the committee so far this year. Many of those grants have been for tourism-related events, including local festivals. The grant for the visit by the German pols is among the largest tourism awards.

The state has a tourism department that should be able to use state funds more effectively to promote tourism in South Carolina. Unfortunately, the department's budget was cut $12 million by the Legislature this year.

The Competitive Grants program was originally conceived as a way to reduce legislative pork. But it has served as a conduit to funnel public money to parochial projects supported by individual legislators. Gov. Sanford has described it as a "slush fund."

The shortcomings of the competitive grants program are particularly evident during a tough budget year. Superfluous spending can't be justified when essential services are facing cuts. It is time for the Legislature to bid "auf Wiedersehen" to the competitive grants program.

From The State:

WHATEVER ELSE YOU want to say about the Legislature’s so-called competitive grants (“they’re a boondoggle,” comes to mind), usually they’re at least popular with the folks back home. That, after all, seems to be the point: Take state tax dollars that could pay for fuel for school buses or guards for prisons or any number of actual state needs and use them instead on hometown ventures that are likely to win votes for the local legislator who landed them.

Not so with what The Sun News says is the largest grant to any Myrtle Beach area project — $100,000 to pay for “a group of German politicians to visit Grand Strand attractions and party at the Hilton Myrtle Beach Resort.”

It seems that the legislative patron of this grant, Rep. Liston Barfield, went first to the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce to ask officials there to ask for the grant, arguing that the 120 visitors coming to the Grand Strand under the auspices of the German-based Partnership of Parliaments would go back home and spread the word about the area.

The chamber declined, saying if the state was going to pony up money to attract tourists, it’d just as soon have a check, with which it could purchase advertisements, thank you very much. Chamber president Brad Dean told the paper that such ads in regional papers in the United States would draw far more visitors. And unlike Mr. Barfield, it’s his job to know such things.

Undeterred, Mr. Barfield went to the Myrtle Beach Area Hospitality Association, which agreed to put its name on an application. And voila, the grant was approved. So S.C. taxpayers will pick up the tab for the German visitors to visit Brookgreen Gardens, Hard Rock Park, day trips to Columbia and Charleston, a reception and a gala dinner and dance. It may not win Mr. Barfield any votes, but at least he’ll get to enjoy the festivities, since he’s been a member of the group for at least a decade.

By Tim Smith, July 22, 2008

COLUMBIA -- Sliding sales tax receipts prompted South Carolina's economic forecasting board on Monday to cut by $140 million the projected revenue stream that funds the $7 billion state budget.

Board of Economic Advisors Chairman John Rainey said the high price of gasoline is "sopping up" the sales tax and people's disposable income.

"For all practical purposes, this downturn or recession or whatever you want to call it is consumer-driven," Rainey said, adding $4-a-gallon gas is pinching consumers in a variety of ways. "You can't pay your credit cards down; you can't pay your mortgage."

Also sliding was the documentary tax, down 22 percent for the year, an indicator of slowing home sales, officials said. Bank tax revenue was down 24.6 percent.

Revenue for liquor tax dipped slightly, while beer and wine tax revenue grew 1.6 percent, according to the figures.

There are some bright economic indicators, Rainey said, including an apparent increase in jobs, strong exports and high capital investment.

Rainey said analysts are dealing with an unusual economy, with $4 gas, falling bank stocks and frightened consumers.

"It's hard to understand what's going on," he said. "I think it's all about oil."

Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, who has repeatedly asked the BEA to be less rosy in its projections, said Monday's reduced estimates weren't a surprise.

"We've said from day one we thought they were being overly optimistic with their revenue estimates," he said.

"Unfortunately, we're proven correct about that. The bottom line is some fairly painful cuts are going to be in order sooner rather than later. It again highlights the importance of fiscal restraint when times are good so you don't have to make cuts to the people who need it most when the times are bad."

According to the BEA's figures released Monday, preliminary figures for the year ending in June show a dip of 5.7 percent in sales tax revenue, more than $135 million off last year's collections. Individual income taxes grew by $5.7 million, while corporate income tax revenue grew 5.2 percent, still less than expected.

Souring state revenues also have left the state more than $100 million short of expected collections for the year ending in June, officials said.

The cut in the current budget year estimate amounts to about 2 percent of the $7 billion budget.

Michael Sponhour, spokesman for the State Budget and Control Board, said the board will take up the $140 million shortfall when it meets next month. By law, he said, it must go first to the state's capital reserve fund, now at $133 million, to adjust for the cut in projected revenue.

The shortfall for the previous fiscal year also will be taken from reserve funds, but the exact amount of shortfall won't be known until the state's comptroller general closes the state's books for the year in August, officials said.

Sen. David Thomas, a Greenville County Republican who is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said the dip in projected revenue was "somewhat anticipated" by lawmakers, who passed a provision to allow them to meet this year if budget cuts become necessary.

Outside of tapping reserve funds, he said, the State Budget and Control Board can only address revenue shortfalls by ordering across-the-board cuts at every agency.

Because some are funded more by outside fees, those cuts hit some agencies harder than others, he said. Thomas said he is unsure at what level of cuts lawmakers would return to Columbia.

Legislature must protect magistrates from Senate abuse

July 15, 2008

STATE LAW SAYS the governor appoints magistrates, subject to Senate confirmation. If the system actually worked this way, a handful of senators wouldn’t be able to keep the local magistrates under their thumb — and have the audacity to defend this perversion.

The system does not work that way. The local senators select the magistrates and “recommend” them to the governor. The governor could ignore the recommendations and appoint whomever he chose, but then the Senate would refuse to confirm them. So he appoints the local senators’ choices, and the Senate rubber-stamps those recommendations.

When you combine this practice with the law that allows magistrates to serve indefinitely in holdover position after their four-year terms expire, you create the potential for individual senators to perpetrate one of the most serious abuses of legislative power that we have seen in South Carolina, which is saying quite a lot.

And abuse it they have. The State’s Rick Brundrett reports that a full third of the state’s magistrates — including all the magistrates in seven counties — are serving in legislative limbo: Their terms have expired, but they have been neither replaced nor reappointed. State law says magistrates can only be removed by the Supreme Court, for cause, but this arrangement means they can be replaced at a moment’s notice, at the senator’s instigation. And they know it.

As Cherokee magistrate Franklin Crocker, who has been stuck in legislative limbo for more than a decade, said of Sen. Harvey Peeler: “If I’m not doing my job, he’ll get rid of me.”

Mr. Peeler explained that “you shouldn’t have to wait four years” to replace someone who is “not doing his job.” Dorchester Sen. Randy Scott, who lost his re-election bid in last month’s Republican primary in large part for the way he threw his weight around after a DUI arrest, said: “I certainly don’t want somebody on the payroll for four years who’s not doing a good job.”

Out of context, those statements sound logical. But when an individual senator gets to define what doing a good job is, there’s room for all sorts of mischief. And the hypocrisy in this set-up is mind-boggling: Senators won’t give the governor that power over directors of state agencies, yet they twist our laws to give themselves the individual right to fire judges.

Many senators do not abuse the system; they are prompt about asking the governor to act when a magistrate’s term ends, and when they aren’t prompt, it’s often because they get behind or senators from the same county can’t agree on a selection. But all senators are culpable for the abuse of their colleagues.

The Senate and the governor could easily eliminate this abuse if they wanted to. The governor could reappoint or replace magistrates when the local senators sit on their hands, and the full Senate could confirm those appointees over the objection of the abusive senators. This is what should happen. This obeisance to each others’ senatorial prerogatives is a big reason that our state hasn’t been able to move out of the 19th century.

But if standing up to a colleague on an individual appointment is too much to ask of senators, then the Legislature needs to change state law so that won’t be necessary: Treat magistrates like regular judges, and prohibit them from remaining in office after their term expires. As long as governors feel compelled to hire or fire the magistrates whom senators recommend, the system will be open to abuse; but at least this way, it’ll take a little more work to abuse it.