STATEHOUSE REPORT | ISSUE 14.14 | APRIL 3, 2015
NEWSAgency oversight is slow, but deliberate
By Bill Davis | April 3, 2015 | Efforts to create legislative oversight of state agencies by the General Assembly are underway, but the work is not exactly rocketing down the tracks.
That’s partly by a combination of design, scope of work and the usual “glacial” pace of the legislature, according to state politicians and officials involved in the process.
The initial deliberate pace of oversight may partly be because the legislation that gave the General Assembly more power and more work only passed last year. [UPDATED:] Legislative oversight started in January, but the new Department of Administration won’t be unveiled until July 1.
And even then, it will be just the first year of a seven-year cycle in which members of the General Assembly will attempt to increase the efficiency and outcomes of state programs and agencies.
At the same time, legislators and observers say they hope oversight will help prevent agency meltdowns that plagued them in recent years — incidents such as the state Department of Health and Environmental Control’s botched response to a hepatitis outbreak, the state’s unemployment agency running out of money or huge increases in deaths of children under the supervision of the Department of Social Services.
But the new administrative department won’t be a system-wide guard, as the House and Senate will give oversight the first year to a handful of agencies apiece as both chambers roll out respective styles of oversight and work out the bugs in public
As the years go by, both chambers expect to be able to tackle more and larger agencies — and to better define what falls under its purview. Questions abound, such as, “Do the state’s 34 colleges count as a state agencies?” which could balloon the potential number of agencies for oversight to more than 200.
In the near term
In the first year, the Senate will focus on the departments of Employment and Workforce, and Mental Health, as well as the Forestry Commission, the State Museum, the Administrative Law Court and the Office on Aging.
The House will focus on the Office of Comptroller General, First Steps and the Departments of Juvenile Justice, Transportation and Social Services.
The Senate will rely initially on a three-man staff anchored by Assistant Clerk Kenneth Moffitt, who will be assisted by staffers with experience on the Legislative Audit Council. That team will report and assign agencies and issues to respective committees and subcommittees in the Senate for debate and investigation.
In the House where there is a higher ratio of representatives to staffers, House Speaker Jay Lucas (R-Darlington) formed a new standing committee. A relative newcomer, second-term Rep. Weston Newton (R-Bluffton), will chair the 20-member House Legislative Oversight Committee.
What’s ahead
But the scope of work, differences in structure between the two chambers or plodding pace won’t be the biggest hurdle for legislative oversight, according to state Sen. Vincent Sheheen (D-Camden), who was the primary force behind its creation.
“It all depends on how hard the legislators are willing to work,” said Sheheen, who challenged Gov. Nikki Haley in the past two gubernatorial elections. “What we’ve tried to do with [the Restructuring Act of 2014] is to change the culture of state government, which has been on autopilot.”
Haley has been “missing in action,” said Sheheen, still sounding like a candidate, but adding that the legislature “hasn’t paid attention, either” to ongoing problems at agencies like Social Services, DHEC, DEW and others.
“State government is a disaster right now,” said Sheheen, who worries the tough, “non-headline-grabbing” good governance that’s needed to make legislative oversight effective in South Carolina will be overshadowed by legislators opting out and making short-term political decisions.
Newton agreed that his committee needed to not be a “political” committee. He said he has stressed that involvement on it will demand consistent, disciplined and year-round work from its members, especially the first year of implementation
So far, the House oversight committee has met in full committee three times this year. Newton said he knows that the hard block and tackling work that went into establishment of reporting guidelines isn’t going to turn heads or excite readers.
But getting the structure right, no matter how seemingly pedantic, is crucial to the state realizing the fruits of oversight in the coming decades, Newton stressed. So far, he said, state agencies have responded to his committee’s efforts with 63 of the 66 agencies already having returned requested audit-style information.
With potentially more than 200 state agencies on the books, Newton said he knows it’s going to be a slog. But he said he hopes the reward will be worth it — a set of best practices that will result in better state government for citizens receiving its services.
Bill Davis is senior editor of Statehouse Report.
PALMETTO POLITICSSutton resigns from CHE today
The S.C. Commission on Higher Education announced today that it has accepted the resignation of its executive director, Dr. Richard Sutton.
In recent years, CHE has been in the crosshairs of legislators considering ways to restructure the agency. They’ve complained it is overly bureaucratic and little more than a rubber stamp for what higher educational institutions seek.
“I think it’s a necessary first step to reforming the commission and making it relevant,” said longtime critic and state Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island. “I’ve said for 10 years now we need to reform CHE. We need to look at their mission and, two, we need to hire a strategist, not a cheerleader.”
Sutton is leaving the agency to pursue other opportunities, according to a press statement this morning.
“We appreciated the service of Dr. Sutton and wish him well in his future endeavors,” said Commission Chairman John Finan.
The release said CHE was forming a search committee for Sutton’s replacement. In the meantime, Deputy Director Julie Carullo will serve as interim executive director during the transition.
COMMENTARYRecovering oil or gas would have dirty onshore price
By Andy Brack | April 3, 2015 | State Sen. Chip Campsen is changing the debate on the intelligence of recovering oil or gas off the South Carolina coast.
First, the Isle of Palms Republican says, there’s been a huge paradigm shift in the last few years about the way oil and gas are extracted through groundbreaking technologies like fracking or converting oil sands. Regardless of what you think about these new methods, they’re keeping prices down and steering the nation toward energy independence.
“There’s been a huge technological transformation in the production of oil so that it’s really questionable in the near term about whether it renders new offshore exploration moot,” Campsen told Statehouse Report. “We have more stored oil than we ever have had in history.”
But a second consideration lost on most in the debate about whether South Carolina should even get into the oil and gas business may be even bigger here at home.
Most people, he said, think about the risk of an offshore well to be ocean pollution, damage to the environment and the potential to wreck the state’s $4 billion tourism economy. They don’t seem to realize just how much ugly land-based infrastructure would be needed to convert any oil or gas recovered offshore.
But all you have to do is travel to Texas or Louisiana to see acres of refinery equipment, pipe upon pipe looped like a crazy economist’s flow chart.
“I’ve been there and I’ve seen it,” Campsen says of the bulky onshore infrastructure. “It’s a reality and something that, again, people just don’t think about.”
In a recent op-ed, Campsen wondered where South Carolinians would want to put this heavily-industrialized spaghetti along the state’s coastline:
“Which portions of South Carolina’s coast would we industrialize? Little River in the tourism mecca of Myrtle Beach; Murrells Inlet; pristine Winyah Bay, surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of protected wildlife refuges; McClellanville, next to Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge; Daniel Island or James Island in Charleston Harbor; the North or South Edisto Rivers near Seabrook Island or Edisto Beach; St. Helena Sound and the protected ACE Basin ecosystem; Factory Creek in Beaufort, lined by beautiful homes; the Ports Authority property in Port Royal that is finally on the path to redevelopment; Calibogue Sound on the shores of Hilton Head and Daufuskie Island?”
Campsen says he’s gotten a lot of positive reactions from people about how the state can’t afford to be home to countless acres of industrialized fossil fuel infrastructure. But he hasn’t heard much about his observations recently among Statehouse colleagues.
His fellow Republicans, many of whom are pushing for the state to conduct oil and gas exploration and use seismic testing in sensitive areas off the South Carolina coast, should listen and stop being blinded by business.
These state lawmakers should hear coastal communities which have been voting, one after another, to oppose oil and gas exploration, and seismic testing. From Hilton Head Island, Port Royal and Beaufort Folly Beach, James Island, Charleston and Isle of Palms, coastal leaders just say no.
“Current estimates for reserves off the South Carolina coast equate to a 6-day supply of oil and gas at current U.S. consumption rates,” the S.C. Coastal Conservation League’s Hamilton Davis in a recent issue of Statehouse Report. “If all economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves were extracted for the entire East Coast, you could only meet current oil demand for 132 days and current gas demand for 283 days.”
Is it worth the risk to have tar balls floating into estuaries and killing shrimp and fish? Is it worth scaring away tourists when oil-laced trash washes up on beaches? Is it worth causing the local economy to nosedive just to get six days of fossil fuel? Two words: Hell no.
Instead of continuing to push oil and gas recovery and boost South Carolina’s risk, why not focus on passing outstanding legislation to encourage more investment by businesses and individuals in solar energy and other renewable resources?
Hold your state legislators accountable, particularly those who don’t live along the coast, and make sure they don’t ruin South Carolina’s coastal treasures.
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report.
SPOTLIGHTSouth Carolina Education Association
The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This week’s spotlighted underwriter is The South Carolina Education Association(The SCEA), the professional association for educators in South Carolina. Educators from pre-K to 12th grade comprise The SCEA. The SCEA is the leading advocate for educational change in South Carolina. Educators in South Carolina look to The SCEA for assistance in every aspect of their professional life. From career planning as a student to retirement assessment as a career teacher, The SCEA offers assistance, guidance, and inspiration for educators.- Learn more: TheSCEA.org
Shared parenting would fix family courts
By Paul M. Clements, Special to Statehouse Report | April 2, 2015 | South Carolina’s family court system has long been broken and rampant with parental inequality that damages children raised by single parents.
Fortunately, state legislators currently have the opportunity to begin mending the system in a way that, hands down, works in the best interest of children and parents.
South Carolina is one of at least 17 states across the nation currently considering shared parenting legislation that would work toward ending the status quo family court practice of awarding sole custody to one parent while deeming the other parent a “visitor.” Sponsors of the bill – S. 151 – advocate that we replace this 1950s model of determining custody with one that countless research suggests is best for children: shared parenting.
The presumption of shared parenting – an arrangement where parents are treated as equally in divorce as they are in marriage – is most beneficial to children.
In fact, simply put, shared parenting is a win for all involved. First, when it comes to children, the research is clear: shared parenting is the best custody arrangement for children whose parents live apart. In the past year alone, three groups of child development experts separately endorsed shared parenting for the positive ways the arrangement affects a child’s development. For instance, 110 child development experts signed a paper – a rare event in social science – published by the American Psychological Association titled “Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report” that concluded, “shared parenting should be the norm for parenting plans for children of all ages, including very young children.” In addition, experts from more than 20 countries at the International Council on Shared Parenting concluded, “There is a consensus that shared parenting is a viable post-divorce parenting arrangement that is optimal to child development and well-being, including for children of high conflict parents.”
Outside of research supporting shared parenting, federal statistics unfortunately detail the devastating effects of single parenting. The data shows that children of single parents are significantly at risk. Consider that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Census Bureau, the 35 percent of children raised by single parents account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 71 percent of high school drop-outs, 75 percent of children in chemical abuse centers and 85 percent of those in prison.
The benefits of shared parenting don’t end with children. When parents are treated equally, conflict – along with legal costs – significantly drops. And to boot, shared parenting is free to the taxpayer.
Despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of shared parenting, a recent study from National Parents Organization shows that South Carolina, like most states, is lagging behind. The organization’s inaugural Shared Parenting Report Card issued each state’s child custody statutes a grade, and South Carolina scored a disappointing D.
If passed, S. 151 could raise the state’s grade. Specifically, the bill proposes revamping the state’s child custody law with language stating courts must consider awarding each parent equal parenting time and equal decision-making authority unless abuse or neglect is an issue.
Shared parenting is the common sense answer to what ails our state’s failing family court system, and I hope our state legislators will advocate for the best interests of South Carolina families by passing S. 151. I urge our state legislators to stand up for the future of South Carolina families by passing this overdue and necessary reform.
Paul M. Clements of Gaffney is a member of the South Carolina affiliate of the National Parents Organization.
FEEDBACKSend us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information. Send your letters to: feedback@statehousereport.com
AGENDAHouse, Senate to be on recess
The House will be on the second week of a two-week recess next week while the Senate will take its week off next week too.
There are no major legislative meetings of note scheduled for next week.
Both chambers will reopen at noon April 14.
TALLY SHEETLight week for the hopper
With the House out of session over the last week, the legislative load on the floor of the Senate was lighter as lawmakers continued to analyze the state budget at the committee level. Senators introduced just 14 new bills over the past week. Of note:
Snow days. S. 629 (Hayes) would allow local school boards to waive up to three missed days due to weather.
Child care videos. S. 632 (Allen) seeks to require publicly-operated child daycare and aftercare centers to have outside video cameras.
Non-discrimination. S. 639 (Hutto) calls for the “Uniform Anti-discrimination Act” to expand discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, with many provisions.
PHOTOOld school, Salters, S.C.
Built in 1924, the Salters Brick School in Williamsburg County, S.C., served grades 1-11 when it opened in 1925 with 100 students, photographer Linda W. Brown of Kingstree writes. “After it was consolidated with a larger school, the building was used from the late 1970s to the early 1990s as the hub for Black River Glads, a wholesale gladiolas farming and sales operation. The building is currently for sale.” More: Center for a Better South.
SCORECARDUp for Hutto, down for Haley
Thumbs up
Hutto. Hats off to state Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, who filed legislation that would boost LGPT protections and ban businesses from discriminating against South Carolina gays. S.C. doesn’t currently provide legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Let’s not become Indiana. More.
Moped loophole. Legislators need to give final approval to a loophole that keeps moped drivers from being charged with drunken driving. It’s time to end “likker-cikkles.”
Lady Gamecocks. Congratulations to the USC Lady Gamecocks for making basketball’s Final Four. Let’s hope the top-ranked team can win the tournament.
Thumbs down
DSS. The state Department of Social Services continues to have troubles, this time with new reports of a pair of caseworkers with five times the number of child welfare cases they should be handling. Come on — get it together.
Haley. We understand Gov. Nikki Haley is doing what she thinks is her job by dumping on unions again as Boeing prepares for an April 22 vote on whether 3,000 workers want to join the machinists’ union. But while she spanks union organizers as bullies, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? More.
Bridges. Some 1,000 state bridges need work, according to a new study. Earth to legislature: Approve maintenance money ASAP. Get ‘er done. More.
2016. Watch out … the 2016 presidential primary will take to the airwaves already on Easter Sunday as GOP candidate Ted Cruz has bought $9,000 in televised advertising. Sheesh. Not sure if we can stomach the battle of the ads this early.
NUMBER256
Number of cases that two Spartanburg DSS child welfare caseworkers have between them — the highest caseloads in the state, according to Wednesday testimony to a Senate oversight panel by new director Susan Alford. Each caseworker has a target limit of 24 cases, making the burden on the Spartanburg County workers five times what’s recommended. The culprits? Turnover, new caseworkers being trained and not yet in the pipeline, new regional intake hubs and a better complaint process that is adding more cases to the system. More.
Falling through the cracks
“If somebody has 143 children, somebody is going to fall through the cracks. That’s just unacceptable. Somebody is going to die. We’ve got to fix it. Whatever it takes to fix it, let’s do it.”
– State Sen. Katrina Shealy, R-Lexington. More.
Mules
A mule is a hybrid animal that results from breeding a male donkey with a female horse. Although mules have gender (males are called “horse mules” and females “mare mules”), they are sterile and cannot reproduce. For centuries mules have been prized for their intelligence and capacity for work. Farmers typically preferred mules to horses because mules usually lived longer, learned faster, and were better tempered than horses.
Mules were fixtures of rural life in South Carolina for two hundred years. Cotton and tobacco growers alike used mules, and the hearty animals plowed, harrowed, and hauled crops to market in every county in the state. The timber, naval stores, and phosphate industries employed mules as well. Among rural folk, ownership of mules placed landless farmers in a position to negotiate more favorable tenancy arrangements with landlords. An active market in mules existed throughout the year, and any serviceable mule was worth hard cash. Thus, mules were commonly pledged as collateral against loans and advances from banks and merchants.
South Carolina’s mule population peaked in the 1920s at around 210,000. As nearly all were imported from Missouri or Texas, the mule trade drained millions of dollars annually from South Carolina farmers. The state’s commissioner of agriculture prudently encouraged farmers to raise their own mules, but few heeded his advice.
By the 1940s tractors and trucks were replacing mules on South Carolina farms. The pace of change quickened after World War II, and by the early 1950s mules were the exception rather than the rule. Here and there a beloved animal lived out his days in semiretirement tilling a vegetable garden as plowmen relied more and more on diesel power.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!