Move ethics bill along so we get something
To the editor:
In the News Briefs in the April 15 Statehouse Report, there is discussion of ethics bills in the Senate, with the comment that “On Wednesday, t
he Senate passed a measure to require elected and appointed public officials to disclose the sources of their income — but not how much they are paid, which transparency proponents really want.”
In fact, it has been several years since the League and other advocacy groups lobbying for ethics reform have asked for all income amounts. The current bill requires disclosure of all sources of income for public officials, plus sources of income received by their businesses and their immediate family members if the money comes from lobbyist principals, government sources, or a business regulated by the agency in which the official works. Both sources and amounts of government contracts received by businesses with which the official is associated also would be disclosed. This is a substantial improvement on our current pathetically uninformative disclosures. Officials would have to tell us if they receive income from both their primary employment and from other businesses, including any LLC’s in which they have an interest. This is extremely important since “consulting fees” are among the most troublesome mechanisms used by businesses wishing to influence officials.
Unfortunately, as of April 14, the disclosure bill has not received third reading because of an objection by Senator Vincent Sheheen, who maintains that income amounts are essential. The League of Women Voters strongly disagrees. After almost four years of advocacy on this issue, we know that there are two choices now and in the foreseeable future: Passing a bill requiring income sources only or passing no income disclosure bill at all. The League of Women Voters would strongly prefer to pass the bill that we have. We have trouble understanding why anyone who believes in government transparency would suppose that no reform at all is preferable.
— Lynn Shuler Teague, vice president for Issues and Action, League of Women Voters of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.
Stall tactics hold up overdue alimony reform
To the editor:
The South Carolina legislature has taken up alimony reform, joining the many states across the nation which recognize that permanent alimony harms the modern family unit and makes retirement impossible. The four alimony bills in the Senate and the larger bill in the House were crafted after several years of testimony, the study of laws in other state, and with the thoughtful input of South Carolina family court lawyers who see everyday the carnage left behind by permanent alimony. The result is a set of bills that leaves wide discretion to judges but gives them more options for an alimony award that allows both parties to live productive lives. Why then, are the bills being held up, not even coming up for a vote?
The new laws will leave judges discretion to protect those who have been home for decades with children but also allow both parties to plan for retirement (S. 1087). Don’t we all want that for ourselves? S. 1170 bars the income of a subsequent spouse from being considered when alimony is set or modified. Wouldn’t you assume that a new wife can’t possibly be expected to contribute to the alimony of the first wife? Yet case law as recent as December 2015 states, “the court has discretion to consider a party’s new spouse’s income and contribution to expenses in determining the party’s alimony obligation.”
Stalling for another year hurts innumerable South Carolina citizens. While judges currently have discretion, the very fact that the default setting is permanent alimony, even in a marriage as short as two years, shows that other forms of alimony currently on the books are not real alternatives. The creation of transitional and fixed term alimony (S. 1167) will provide judges with new options.
Imagine how many people aren’t even aware that alimony reform is underway in South Carolina. So they continue to live financially precarious lives, paying one-third or even half of their income to someone they haven’t been married to for decades. Alimony reform is overdue. Individuals with constructive suggestions are encouraged to join the conversation, but anyone who claims that alimony law is working in South Carolina is either misinformed or stalling for their own reasons.
— Heather Hahn, Columbia, S.C.
Send 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
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!