South Carolina government news
 | ||||
| Report It • | The Good • | The Bad • | The Ugly | |
Most of SCRA Meeting Held Behind Closed Doors
The state agency charged with driving South Carolina’s “knowledge-based” economy apparently isn’t all that interested in keeping Palmetto State citizens up to date on its progress, or in obeying the state’s open meetings laws.
The board of the South Carolina Research Authority meets just five times a year, but little of Thursday’s session in Columbia was open to the public. During the two-plus hours that the Research Authority’s board gathered, approximately 80 percent of the time was spent in executive session, meaning it was closed to the public and media.
SCRA officials also failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the closed-door session, a violation of the S.C. Freedom of Information Act, according to a Columbia attorney who specializes in media law and First Amendment issues.
“It has to be stated with specificity what is going to be done in executive session,” said Jay Bender, whose clients include the South Carolina Press Association. The Nerve’s parent organization, the S.C. Policy Council, is an associate member of the Press Association.
“To say ‘legal matters’ or ‘contractual matters’ is insufficient,” Bender said.
However, that is almost exactly what SCRA Chief Executive Officer Bill Mahoney did. His exact words were: “We’re going to get into some pending contractual settlements. So the request would be that we go into executive session now.” That was it.
Prior to a second executive session, no information was given, again violating open meeting laws.
Bender added that after executive session, the board is required to spell out the substance of what took place in executive session, which the Research Authority board also failed to do.
Senate Passes Roll Call Voting Bill
For advocates of roll call voting by members of the General Assembly, it’s been a long time coming.
The S.C. Senate passed a stand-alone roll call voting bill on Thursday. The bill is almost identical to roll call voting legislation the House passed in January, all but ensuring that a law requiring legislators to vote on the record is imminent.
The bill would require roll call votes on each section of the annual state budget and any bill or joint resolution having the force and effect of law.
The House still must concur with an insignificant language change the Senate made to the bill, but all indications suggest that the House will do so in short order.
This week, the House passed its version of a 2011-12 budget and then adjourned for furlough. The chamber is scheduled to reconvene on March 29.
“Today is a key victory for our voters and I’m confident my House colleagues will quickly approve [the revised bill] when we return to Columbia,” Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Richland and chief sponsor of the legislation, said in an e-mail to The Nerve after the Senate passed it.
If the House approves the bill it will then go to Gov. Nikki Haley. The bill would become law and take effect upon her signing it.
Haley made roll call voting her signature issue in seeking the governorship in her third and final term as a state representative in the 2009-10 legislative session.
In a statement after the Senate passed the bill she said, “This is an exciting day for South Carolina. We have long said rules protect legislators; laws protect the people. Senate passage of this bill was a huge step forward to change the face of how we conduct business in our state in the eyes of the country.”
Haley’s reference to rules alludes to a point of contention the Senate focused on in debating the bill.
Some members of the chamber, led by Charleston Republican Sens. Chip Campsen and Glenn McConnell, the president pro tempore of the Senate, argued that a law mandating roll call voting would be unconstitutional because the S.C. Constitution – and only the constitution – gives each legislative chamber the authority to prescribe its own procedural rules.
“Not the [full] General Assembly, not the governor, not the courts – each body,” McConnell said Thursday in mounting one last effort to sway senators against the bill.
Members of the Campsen-McConnell camp say the constitution must first be amended to grant the Legislature authority to pass a roll call voting law, and that they support doing both – but in that order and encumbering a law to a constitutional amendment.
Ballentine also is sponsoring a constitutional amendment to that effect, H. 3285, which the House has passed and is pending in the Senate.
But, doing the heavy lifting to get a stand-alone bill through the Senate, Republican Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens prevailed in a big way. The bill passed the Senate by a three-fourths margin, 33-11, after members debated it for two full days and part of a third.
“I’m just glad it’s over,” Martin told The Nerve afterward, “and I think we were very successful in keeping the bill within the parameters [in the House version] that we started out with.”
Said Ballentine, “I want to thank the Senate, particularly Larry Martin, who worked tirelessly to keep the bill in the format the people of South Carolina asked for and deserve.”
Said Haley, “By passing this bill, the House and Senate clarify that we believe the people, not elected officials, are in charge. I want to personally thank Sen. Harvey Peeler, Sen. Larry Martin, and the senators who supported this bill for their courage, fight and humility.”
Ballentine, who also singled out Peeler for thanking, described a long effort to get a roll call voting law.
“This process started almost three years ago when, on a voice vote, a cost-of-living adjustment for legislators was approved,” Ballentine said in his e-mail. “Immediately then-state Rep. Haley knew we had to change the process so that voters would know exactly how their elected officials voted on important issues.
“Over the past few years, our citizens have become more engaged in the political process and understand the importance their voice has in reforming state government. This is one of the many ways they can continue to impact our state going forward. Grassroots [supporters] deserve a huge thank you today, as well!”
Even if passage of the bill into law is a foregone conclusion, however, that is unlikely to put the roll call voting issue to rest.
Senators who object to a stand-alone law on constitutional grounds warned Thursday of, among other pitfalls, a potential lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of it.
Said McConnell, who is an attorney, “What we’re doing is illegal.”
Martin disagrees, countering that the Senate changed its roll call voting rules earlier this session to conform to the bill. “I just think that [constitutional] argument, it would be somewhat valid if we enacted a statute that was appreciably different from our rules.”
Like he ushered the bill through the Senate, Martin also sponsored the rules change to require roll call voting in the chamber much more often. “I became convinced that the public really wanted us to act,” he says.
But to settle the constitutional issue, Martin says he is optimistic that the Senate will take up the proposed amendment pending before the body, although probably not until next year because other pressing matters dominate the chamber’s agenda.
In the meantime, champions of a roll call voting law are savoring a victory evidently close at hand.
Chair Blasts SCRA in Resignation Letter
S.C. Research Authority Chairman Bill Masters’ resignation letter to Gov. Nikki Haley, submitted earlier this month, contains an accompanying report that paints a damning picture of the agency charged with leading South Carolina’s knowledge-based economy.
According to the eight-page report sent to Haley and obtained by The Nerve, Masters states that "SCRA has evolved over the past five years from a scientific research organization into a political organization using its core competency of data and information manipulation to market itself and benefit top management and its allies."
SCRA is "run mostly for the benefit of its top management for monetary benefits and for exerting control and power;" is "exceptional at manipulating government contracts and data to pass audits;" and management "does not fully comply with the constitution of South Carolina in arms length handling of monies of affiliate SC Launch," Masters also states.
In addition, his report asserts that in 2008 SCRA spent approximately $600,000 on an investigation directed mostly at Research Authority Chief Executive Office Bill Mahoney, performed mainly by SCRA’s law firm of choice (believed to be Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough), and paid for by SCRA funds.
"It is common knowledge of those close to SCRA that some of these alleged questionable dealings may concern some (SCRA board) trustees," Masters states, indicating that the findings of the report have not been shared with the governor or the Legislature.
He also implied trustees of having "input into issues and decisions from which they benefit directly and/or indirectly without prior disclosure of their affiliations," adding that trustees can freely support issues in discussion and only have to recuse themselves when it comes time to vote.
Ports Authority Spends 29K on Panama Trip
The South Carolina State Ports Authority picked up the tab for a three-day trip to Panama last September that included several legislators, and all members of a commission that oversees the authority.
At least $29,000 was spent on the Ports Authority-sponsored junket, which sought to promote South Carolina ports to Panama Canal officials. Information gathered by The Nerve showed that the authority covered most of the costs for the seven-member legislative group, which included five legislators and two staffers, and eight Ports Authority staffers and board members.
In addition, the Ports Authority also paid airfare and hotel costs for a representative of a Washington lobbying firm and a senior vice president at the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce.
Included in the expenditures was nearly $1,600 spent by the group on one dinner at a private club in Panama and another $1,440 was spent on books about the Panama Canal.
Two lawmakers who went on the trip – Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee, and then-Rep. Harry Cato, R-Greenville – spent an extra day in Panama, though documents provided no explanation why. The other three lawmakers who traveled with the group were Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley; Sen. Phillip Shoopman, R-Greenville; and Rep. David Weeks, D-Sumter.
All five lawmakers are or were members of the Ports Authority Review and Oversight Commission, which is required to screen board candidates and conduct oversight reviews of the authority at least once every two years.
Prefiled Bill Places Incentives in See-Through Package
South Carolina taxpayers could be in store for a belated Christmas present – one that would radically overhaul the awarding of economic development incentives and subsidies by state government.
The gift, in transparent wrapping and emanating accountability, exists in the form of a bill prefiled for a new legislative session slated to begin Jan. 11.
The sponsor of the bill, Republican Sen. Tom Davis of Beaufort, says it is designed to make sure taxpayers get a good deal when the state doles out incentives and related financial breaks to business and industry.
“I would rather not play that game,” Davis says of such handouts.
But if the state is going to engage in what he describes as the government picking winners and losers, Davis says, “I think there ought to be some very clear accountability.”
As it stands, he says, “there’s really no formal due diligence” on the front end of incentives to objectively analyze their public costs and benefits. Nor is there any true holding of feet to the fire on the back end with respect to employment and capital investment pledges by companies that receive incentives, Davis says.
“All we do is mouth the words ‘it creates jobs’ and the analysis doesn’t really go beyond that,” he says.
All of that could change under the senator’s bill.
SCRA Chairman Calls for Investigation into CEO
South Carolina Research Authority board Chairman Bill Masters has called for "an independent investigation into the trustworthiness" of Research Authority CEO Bill Mahoney after Mahoney explained raises for SCRA employees two different ways.
During a Nov. 17 SCRA board meeting in Charleston, Masters also charged that Research Authority executives have disseminated some of his SCRA e-mails through their home computers. He said the action "indicates a breach of security within our organization."
None of the other board members present at the meeting spoke in favor of Masters’ comments about probing Mahoney’s actions.
Many of the Research Authority’s board members are top-ranking state officials, including the presidents of the state’s major publicly funded universities, the state commerce secretary and the chairman of the S.C. Commission on Higher Education.
The SCRA is a state-created and controlled technology and real estate company. It is the central player in efforts by state government and some local governments in South Carolina to develop a "knowledge-based economy." As such, the SCRA functions as a nebulous and unusual, if not unique, public-private entity. It does not receive any direct state appropriations. But the Research Authority was chartered under state law, in 1983, and granted 1,400 acres and $500,000 in start-up capital.
S.C. Legislature Generous to Itself, Staff
When it comes to being employed by the S.C. General Assembly, it is indeed nice work if you can get it.
While folks all across South Carolina have heard a lot about the dire condition of the state budget as households struggle through the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, underneath the copper-domed Capitol in Columbia it's anything but a scene out of Dickens' Hard Times.
In a three-part series, The Nerve reveals how the General Assembly has been generous to itself and its staff members even as lawmakers have sliced and diced the rest of state government to cope with the effects of the recession.
This comes on the heels of a special series[1] in October on lawmakers’ salaries and expenses. That three-part report showed how the average yearly cost of legislators is about three times their oft-cited base annual salary of $10,400.
Now, The Nerve is taking the next step by probing the salaries of legislative employees. The inquiry starts at multimillion-dollar budget increases that both the House and Senate have given themselves over the past couple of years, the meltdown of state coffers notwithstanding.
From there, the Legislature’s generosity to its staff comes fully into focus in the picture of raises, in some cases substantial salary increases, that employees of the House and Senate have received, again amid the general fund contraction.
From fiscal year 2008 through last fiscal year, which ended June 30, nearly $31 million was spent in salaries for an average of 195 legislative staffers, The Nerve’s review found, based on records provided by the House and Senate clerks under the S.C. Freedom of Information Act.
On average each of those three years, taxpayers shelled out $6 million in salaries for 113 Senate staff members and $4.2 million for 82 House employees. The Senate has 46 elected members; the House, 124.
Meanwhile, despite the $1.6 billion slashed from the general fund over the past few years, the General Assembly budgeted about $1.6 million, or 15 percent more, for staff salaries this year compared to what was paid to legislative employees last fiscal year.
Comparing those figures to legislative counterparts in North Carolina helps put things into perspective:
The average salary for full- and part-time S.C. House and Senate staffers over the past three fiscal years was about $52,000 – $11,000 more than the average salary this fiscal year for staff members of the N.C. General Assembly, according to an analysis of North Carolina legislative records provided to The Nerve.
In North Carolina, permanent legislative employees work year-round, while a far greater number of temporary staffers generally work full-time while the General Assembly is in session, and three days a week when the Legislature is not in session, said Wesley Taylor, the N.C. legislative finance controller.
The per-capita income last year in the Palmetto State was about $31,800, compared to more than $34,400 in North Carolina, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Translation: South Carolina pays legislative staff significantly more on average than North Carolina does despite the fact that this state’s income levels are lower.
Moreover, the $52,000 average take-home pay for legislative employees in South Carolina far exceeds that of their counterparts throughout the rest of state government – about $39,000, S.C. Budget and Control Board data show.
That’s a difference of $13,000 more for House and Senate staff.
To read more on the story, go to: Legislature Generous to Itself, Staff, The Nerve, Nov. 8, 2010
How Tuition at S.C. Colleges Helps Bankroll Construction
It’s no secret that state-funded colleges and universities in South Carolina have been raising their tuition at price-gouging levels over the past decade.
It’s also no great mystery that some of those schools, especially bigger ones like the University of South Carolina in Columbia, have been on a mad building spree during these years.
But it might not be so widely known that there is a direct, vital link between the two patterns.
Yes, if you’ve been wondering what gives with all the building projects at USC and elsewhere, look no further than that link, which ties a college’s tuition revenue to the amount of debt it can take on for bricks-and-mortar projects.
It’s a simple formula defined in state law. The way the equation works is: More tuition money equals more debt capacity equals more construction.
With a university’s tuition revenue tied to its state bond debt, “People who bought the debt would have more confidence that they’ll get their money back, and that’s why increasing tuition is a huge deal,” explained Simon Wong, a researcher with The Nerve’s parent organization, the South Carolina Policy Council.
Indeed, the tuition-construction link holds profound implications for higher education in South Carolina.
In a recessionary era, from the biggest cities to the smallest towns and rural plots of the Palmetto State, families struggle to pay tuition costs that have skyrocketed more than 100 percent, and in many cases much more than that, at publicly funded colleges and universities since 2001-02.
Meanwhile, state-funded schools have marched forward with their building plans at varying speeds.
For the big dogs like USC and Clemson University, the pace has been brisk.
In just a couple of USC examples, the university is building a multimillion-dollar athletics village and only days ago the USC board signed off on some $239 million in additional capital projects.
But the results of what some see as USC’s empire building have been mixed.
Witness the university’s Innovista research campus, into which USC has sunk tens of millions of dollars chasing as-yet unrealized visions of rivaling North Carolina’s renowned Research Triangle.
Such forays into economic development by USC and other state-supported schools have come under increasing scrutiny amid their tuition hikes and the withering economy, which has taken a $2 billion bite out of the state’s general fund in the past few years.
To read more on the story, go to: How Tuition Helps Bankroll Construction, The Nerve, Oct. 21, 2010
SCRA Baits and Switches on Pay Hikes
Days after The Nerve and other media outlets reported that the South Carolina Research Authority planned to enact a largely across-the-board 6.5 percent pay increase for its 240 employees, CEO Bill Mahoney privately backtracked, claiming the media erred.
In an Oct. 4 letter to employees, Mahoney derided coverage of SCRA’s board of trustees’ executive committee meeting on Sept. 30, in which several significant changes were approved.
“Since some of those approvals were somewhat inaccurately reported in the news … I thought I would write to you now and provide you with the facts,” his letter read, adding, “Here are the details, which the short attention spans of the press could not accurately report…”
According to Mahoney’s letter, salary adjustments were calculated for 97 employees – rather than for all SCRA employees – and those increases ranged as high as 9 percent.
“The press inaccurately seized upon 6.5%, a number discussed during the (executive committee) meeting as an example, but not as an aggregate average,” he wrote.
However, The Nerve videotaped the executive committee meeting and a transcript of the session reveals a different story.
To read more on the story, go to: SCRA Baits and Switches on Pay Hikes, The Nerve, Oct. 19, 2010
Swansea Drags Feet on FOIA Request
More than two months after Swansea businesswoman Alberta Wasden filed a Freedom of Information Act request in a bid to learn how the town of 500 racked up more than $470,000 in debt, she's no closer to an answer.
Wasden’s request, which sought town financial statements, meeting minutes and ordinances, was met with a bill from town officials for nearly $10,000.
She met with Mayor Ray Spires and town attorney Sidney J. Evering recently and was told that her quest for answers is only hurting the town.
For more on the story, go to: Swansea Continues to Drag Feet on FOIA Request, The Nerve, Oct. 10, 2010
Upstate School District Dawdles on Posting Data
A recent report on The Nerve pointed out that nearly 70 percent of South Carolina school districts have complied with a state law that requires them to put their check registers online. However, the Greenville County School District was not among those.
On July 21, an e-mail was sent by The Nerve to Greenville County School Board trustee Megan Hickerson. Included were comments from Greenville County Administrator Joe Kernell, who said he was able to post the county’s expenditures online without any additional costs.
Hickerson responded, “I have asked for information on the issue you raise and as soon as I have all of the facts I will be back in touch with you.”
Over the next five-plus weeks, Hickerson identified problems involved with posting the district’s check register online, some of which were posted on the district’s website.
The district estimated a $4,959 one-time expense and $23,532 in annual recurring expenses for the 20,000 or so postings per month. It also expressed concern that the mandate was to provide funding, but none is available, according to website information.
Hickerson pointed out that budget cuts over the past two years have reduced the number of personnel that could be assigned this function.
She was advised that these were the same problems that Greenville County believed might stymie the process, but that Kernell had bypassed those perceptions and posted the county’s expenses online.
It’s still unclear as of today whether school district officials have contacted the county administrator for suggestions on implementing the process.
The need for such transparency has never been greater.
As of the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year, the school district had approximately $16 million in general obligation bonds outstanding. And under the Building Equity Sooner Tomorrow school construction program, or BEST, bond obligations were at $1.09 billion.
For more on this story, go to: Upstate School District Dawdles on Posting Data, The Nerve, Upstate School District Dawdles on Posting Data, Sept. 6, 2010
Swansea Wants Resident to Pay 10K for Info
The town of Swansea, S.C., wants a business owner to pay nearly $10,000 for copies of such basic information as the Lexington County community’s financial statements, meeting minutes and town ordinances.
Alberta Wasden, a Swansea accountant, filed a Freedom of Information Act request in late July for the information, and also sought data on business licenses and paperwork related to grants or federal funding to Swansea, according to The Nerve,[2] the investigative news reporting arm of the South Carolina Policy Council.
Her request dates back as far as 2004 for some material, and to 2008 for other information.
Wasden, a citizen reporter for The Nerve, said her request was prompted by concerns over the handling of town finances and questions about how the town was being operated.
“I figured this was information they should be able to produce easily at a minimal cost,” she said. “In many towns and counties, this is information that can be found online, in fact.
“I didn’t ask for anything that isn’t supposed to be public record,” Wasden added.
Wasden said she was staggered when she received a response from the town of Swansea dated Aug. 9 and signed by Mayor Ray Spires that stated that “The total estimated cost to the town to comply with your FOIA request is approximately $9,996.25.”
Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association, said the price tag seems extremely high for what is being requested, particularly given that many other communities are able to provide the same data online at no charge.
“Ten thousand dollars is a lot of money,” he said. “That’s an extremely high amount for a citizen to have to pay to get access to public records and it’s a deterrent to accountability.”
The deterrent factor comes in because those seeking information who don’t want to pay the high costs are left with just two options: file a lawsuit or go away. “And unfortunately it costs money to sue,” Rogers added.
To read more on this story: Swansea Wants Resident to Pay 10K for Info, The Nerve, Aug. 23, 2010
Details hard to find at S.C. State
Getting details on how millions of state and federal program dollars for the James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center have been spent over the past 12 years will be tough.
A preliminary review by the Charleston Post and Courier of some of South Carolina State University's records on the center reveals a convoluted system of record-keeping, with no central control and records on the same subject located in different offices or buildings.[3]
The newspaper's findings are echoed in a recently completed consultant's report obtained by the Post and Courier. The report by the financial consulting firm Elliott Davis found that the scattered approach to grant management not only makes it more difficult to learn how grant money has been spent, but it also makes it more likely the school will fail to comply with grant requirements.
The Orangeburg-based school has responded to a request from the newspaper under the state's Freedom of Information Act for access to financial records for transportation center programs from its launch in 1998 to the present. But it remains unclear how long it will take to sort through the financial information, and how much detail the school ultimately will be able to provide.
That's because getting to the bottom of how money was spent presents somewhat of a scavenger hunt, with pieces of the financial puzzle in different campus locations.
"Details are available on the campus, but not all in this office," John Smalls, senior vice president for finance and facilities, said of the Office of Grants and Contracts.
In that office, financial documents on grants are available in thick folders. There are numerous folders for each grant that makes up the $31.7 million for transportation programs that has flowed to the center since the program was launched 12 years ago.
For instance, the center has received $5.8 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Research and Innovative Technology Administration. But the office has dozens of folders of financial documents on that money, school officials said.[4]
And those folders don't contain much detail on where the money specifically went.
For example, in one folder, the Post and Courier found a list of 11 "contractual services" in a particular year, and corresponding amounts that ranged from $2,500 to $38,402. But the folder contained no detail on what the money was used for, to whom it was paid or what was accomplished with it.[5]
For more on this story, go to: Details hard to find at S.C. State, Charleston "Post and Courier," Aug. 19, 2010
SC officials charged with violating FOIA
Three current and one former commissioner of a South Carolina fire district face charges they violated the state's open meetings law by barring a reporter from a meeting.
The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg reports that the Holly Springs Fire and Rescue commissioners are set to appear in court Sept. 21. A judge signed their summonses this week.
Hometown News reporter Jay King says they tried to throw him out of a June meeting and ignored his explanation of the Freedom of Information Act.
Four fire commissioners have been charged with violating the state's open meetings law, the first time a criminal case has has been brought against South Carolina public officials over the 1974 statute, officials said Tuesday.
"There have been civil suits, but not criminal charges," said South Carolina Press Association Executive Director Bill Rogers.
The case was brought by Jay King, a reporter for the Hometown News weekly newspaper group. King was barred from an unpublicized Holly Springs fire board of commissioners meeting on June 16 during which a chief was fired, said his attorney, John M. Rollins.
Chairman Ryan Phillips acknowledges the board didn't follow the law but says it didn't know the law at the time.
Violating it is a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine or up to 30 days in jail on first offense.
The commissioners' recent firing of the chief has divided the community.[6]
For more on this story, go to: SC officials charged with violating FOIA, Myrtle Beach Sun News, Aug. 11, 2010
Time for Transparency for SC Schools
South Carolina Policy Council fact sheet shows it’s time for South Carolina Counties and Schools to step up their Transparency efforts.
To read more on this story: http://scpolicycouncil.com/research-and-publications-/64-transparency/995-south-carolina-counties-score-low-in-transparency
Transparency in Budget & Control Board
Investigative reporting by The Nerve leads to more transparency in Budget & Control Board meetings.
To read more on this story: BCB Members Consider New Meeting Space, The Nerve, Aug. 3, 2010 and Budget Board Battle Royale: The Guv's Veto, The Nerve, July 1, 2010.
South Carolina Policy Council releases 2010 special legislative report
An analysis and commentary piece from the staff of the South Carolina Policy Council:
- The General Assembly has just completed this year’s South Carolina legislative session—one it seemed would never end. With it, some things have changed, and some things are—just as expected—exactly the same.
- It’s business as usual in South Carolina. Out-of-control spending, over-regulation, and an out-of-touch Legislature determined to govern behind closed doors. And while we’ve cringed at political gaffs and ugly politics that made national news, it’s what goes on behind the scenes that threatens our liberty and free market prosperity. This Special Legislative Report summarizes some of the most important actions taken by the General Assembly in the 2010 session. It’s also important to note what lawmakers did not do this year:
- Roll Call Voting:
- It’s no surprise that transparency—particularly with regard to roll call voting—was a casualty of this year’s legislative session. As economic pressure increased, so did the Legislature’s determination to preserve its power in the state—as well as its ability to make decisions with minimal “interference” from voters. As they nixed a legislative proposal to require more on-the-record voting, lawmakers pushed through legislation making it easier for the General Assembly to hand out taxpayer funded economic incentives to special interests.
- For those of us who expect lawmakers in South Carolina to be accountable to those who elect them, Tuesday, May 11 was quite an eye-opener. Senators called it “Roll Call Day”—a day of “wasted time” where they deliberately made unnecessary motions, then demanded recorded votes. Roll call voting was even called a “fad.”
- What seemed to be a political stunt to thwart passage of a law requiring roll call voting, instead became a confirmation of the need for it.
House, Senate Secrecy Kills Openness Bill
Gov. Mark Sanford has vetoed a bill that would allow allegations of ethical wrongdoing against statewide and locally elected officials to be made public upon a finding of probable cause.
Sanford takes issue with the fact that the sunshine provision would not apply to members of the General Assembly.
However, there is still a chance that the bill, H. 4542, could become law. And its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jim Harrison of Richland, says he will introduce legislation next year to apply the openness rule to S.C. lawmakers.
The bill has received remarkably little attention from other media in South Carolina.
Currently, the State Ethics Commission exercises jurisdiction over the state’s nine constitutional officers, a select group of appointed state officials and locally elected officeholders under the state Ethics Act.
That law covers campaign contribution limits and other dos and don’ts.
To read more on this story: http://thenerve.org/Comments/10-07-07/House_Senate_Secrecy_Kills_Openness_Bill.aspx?searchid=3cb220d1-21f7-4406-a9c7-f449485ee591#comments&nocomments=true
More Transparency for SC Budget and Control Board
The South Carolina Policy Council has traveled across the state with Comptroller General Eckstrom to fight for more transparency. Now, meetings of the Budget and Control Board will be live-, giving taxpayers a chance to see how politicans are spending their money -while it's happening!
State Comptroller Richard Eckstrom is making arrangements for meetings of the Budget and Control Board to be live-streamed via the Internet.
“It’s my hope that the live-streaming of these meetings will be an ongoing thing,” said Eckstrom. “The Budget and Control Board is a powerful entity with tremendous influence over state spending, yet most people probably don’t know what goes on in these meetings – or what the Budget and Control Board even does. The goal is to provide greater citizen-access to these important deliberations.
“Certainly, any time government officials can find ways to open up deliberations to the public, everyone wins,” he added.
Roll-Call Voting Bill Fizzles in Senate
S.C. Sen. Shane Martin is mad that a House bill requiring more roll-call voting never got to the Senate floor for debate.
“You can probably tell the frustration in my voice,” the Spartanburg Republican told The Nerve last Wednesday, the day before the General Assembly adjourned its regular legislative session without taking up H. 3047, sponsored by Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington.
Seeing that the bill was stuck for nearly two months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Martin on May 27 convinced a majority of his Senate colleagues – albeit by a two-vote margin – to move the bill onto the Senate calendar for a floor debate.
But Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, the Judiciary Committee chairman and an outspoken opponent of the bill; and Sen. Jake Knotts, R-Lexington, a vocal critic of Haley, put their names on the bill to contest it, effectively killing any debate.
To read more on this story: http://thenerve.org/Comments/10-06-09/Roll-Call_Voting_Bill_Fizzles_in_Senate.aspx?searchid=aa289638-f36f-4aed-baf8-75216427b5f7#comments&nocomments=true
[edit] HEADLINE
|
|
| |||||||
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
