When you tell public officials that they can accept all luxury travel and meals and other government benefits they want and do not have to report them to the public, they will … accept all luxury travel and meals and other government benefits they want.
Even if they start determined not to waste public money on trips to luxurious places with practically no value to the public and not to accept gifts from people who want something in return, over time many become convinced that they work so hard that they deserve the benefits, and they are so conscientious that they would never put the interests of the gift giver above those of the public.
That is why, in the midst of a federal corruption investigation that took a tenth of the SC Legislature after an undercover lobbyist spent years serving them luxurious drinks, meals and gifts, our lawmakers passed a law in 1991 to demand that officials public to file annual reports listing all gifts they receive worth $ 25 or more. Unfortunately, the law did not apply to most people who administer the hundreds of special-purpose districts throughout our state.
So it was exciting to see the first part of the last weekend of the Post and Courier’s ambitious new investigation “Uncovered” revealing some of the generous spending of part-time board members who oversee five gas utility companies – and more exciting see Senate Republican leader Shane Massey and Republican colleague Sens. Wes Climer, Ross Turner and Tom Young introduce legislation on Tuesday to require that some special-purpose district commissioners meet the same reporting requirements as other state and local officials. I hope we will soon see some Democrats joining them – and supporters expanding the bill to cover officials from all districts for special purposes, not just those who charge fees for services. (Think about recreation commissions, for example.)
Cindi Ross Scoppe
It was also exciting to see Governor Henry McMaster’s full endorsement of disclosure requirements – and to submit these unregulated public services to the regulations of the state Public Service Commission.
Disclosure and regulation are excellent palliative measures – and there is no reason why the Legislature cannot implement these disclosure requirements in a month.
But they are only provisional measures.
The problem with our legislature’s small special anachronisms goes far beyond wasting public money on tens of thousands of dollars in meals at local restaurants and hundreds of thousands at conferences and retreats, complete with the best entertainment. The problem is its mere existence. With very few exceptions – involving mainly multi-county special-purpose districts – they simply shouldn’t have existed in the 21st century.
Special-purpose districts were created before South Carolina had county councils, when each senator represented a county and drafted a “supply law” each year – which the Legislature duly approved – to pay for what was needed to be done on his behalf. county.
When the population in unincorporated areas grew large enough to need some real government services, the senator drafted a special law to create a small special government – run by people appointed and controlled by that senator – to provide that service.
This arrangement kind of made sense at first, but it quickly became a way for senators to keep control of their counties and avoid the obvious need to empower local authorities to provide fire or sewage services, parks or other services outside cities. .
The basis for this arrangement began to crumble after the 1964 US Supreme Court decision “one man, one vote” forced South Carolina to start designing Senate districts according to the population. Senators who suddenly represented several rural counties, or had to share their power over an urbanized county with other senators, realized that they had to give county governments the power to administer … county governments.
Then, in 1975, the Legislature passed the Internal Regulations Law, which allowed for the creation of multiservice municipal governments, which can operate more efficiently than single-purpose governments and are administered by council members elected by voters.
Logically, lawmakers would have dissolved their now unnecessary small governments and transferred their functions to city councils. But some special-purpose districts constitute significant power bases for legislators, and the people who earn their living and obtain their political power from special-purpose districts were not interested in dissolving any of them, because that would reduce their numbers and therefore their political influence, which they use for the purpose of maintaining their political influence.
In addition to raising the cost of government, producing the opposite of economies of scale, special-purpose districts have so much political influence almost half a century after they still hamper efforts by cities and counties to grow and plan: counties need district cooperation of water and sewage or fire districts or recreation districts within their limits if they really want to make plans for the future, but there is nothing to get districts to cooperate; if cities and counties were to consolidate, they would have to obtain the blessing of special-purpose districts; and the reason for talking about modernizing our annexation laws to make it easier for cities to grow to incorporate the entire urban area that requires city services – yes, special purpose districts.
So, yes, without a doubt, we are going to make the people who run these special little anachronisms live by the same ethics and reporting rules as the governments that they are constantly trying to strangle. So, let’s work to end the distressed lives of the districts.
Cindi Ross Scoppe is a writer for The Post and Courier. Contact her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook or Twitter @cindiscoppe.