Much of the authority, power and prerogative associated with governing ought to be vested in that level of government closest and most accessible to the people and, therefore, the easiest for the people to hold accountable.

To that end, state lawmakers should propose legislation that empowers local governments, not emasculates them.

Home rule for local governments is a sound principle of governance, especially where local governing bodies are democratically elected. Only compelling state-policy needs, not transient political causes or special interests, should override that principle. A legislative commitment to home rule, and a consistent and holistic approach when legislating for local governments, is good public policy. It is also a logical extension of the philosophy of governmental decentralization and the principle of federalism.

Often it is said that Washington does not always know best (or can best administer laws) for the states. I suspect that even among members of the General Assembly whose legislative efforts undermine home rule, there is a belief in the efficacy of decentralization. Why then do they not extend the application of that belief to their exercise of authority over the state's local governments? Is the idea of decentralization of authority for them a sound principle of governance or a hollow political platitude to be hauled out when it is convenient?

The evidence supports the latter conclusion. Consider the following examples of anti-local government legislation pending before the General Assembly:

A bill to prohibit cities and counties from enacting ordinances that "impose a more stringent standard than [those] established by the General Assembly relating to the production of livestock and poultry." (A broader proposal would prohibit the adoption of local ordinances that supersede any state standard.)

A bill to cap the ability of the Horry County school board to raise taxes at a level not to exceed that levied the previous year by more than 2 mills without a referendum. This is a superfluous piece of legislation because school board members are already subject to a referendum via the biennial electoral process and the level of accountability that entails.

A bill amending the statutes governing the probate courts to empower the probate judge to set himself and his office apart from the budgetary and personnel policies that govern most other county offices and departments and allow him to remove the operations of his office from the administrative oversight to which other county offices and departments are subject.

Viewed from the perspective of a rare effort to support home rule, there is a bill before the General Assembly that would empower county governments to ban the discharge of fireworks in certain unincorporated locations at certain times. This is something municipalities have long been able to do. That effort has failed on previous occasions because the special interest lobby working against it has prevailed over the promotion of home rule and public safety.

Legislators need to end the vestiges of delegation rule, both as they exist in statute and custom and as they exist in the minds of the legislators themselves. However, for reasons that have little to do with good public policy, many members of the General Assembly, including some in the Horry County delegation, do not seem to want to relinquish control to local elected governing bodies.

If they are going to ride roughshod over their local colleagues, how can they complain about the treatment they receive at the hands of their colleagues in Washington?