Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen. Glenn McConnell have taken up the cause of restructuring where Gov. Campbell left off. They propose reorganization and consolidation of state agencies, and gubernatorial appointment of some statewide elected positions like the adjutant general (we're the only state to elect our adjutant general).

This restructuring proposal is not about executive branch overreaching. Sen. McConnell is as committed to maintaining the balance of power among branches of government as anyone in the General Assembly. It is about giving the governor the tools he needs to be governor.

I can attest the governor needs these tools. I served six years in the House of Representatives, was co-chairman of Gov. Sanford's Transition Team, and his senior policy adviser. On the Transition Team, we organized the administration, named Cabinet directors, and made appointments to boards and commissions. As senior policy adviser, I helped develop and implement agency policy and the governor's legislative agenda. These experiences made the need for restructuring crystal clear.

We have good people working in state government, but they are on a ship with too many captains. The governor has direct control over less than 20 percent of state agencies through his 14 Cabinet directors -- the only agency heads he appoints. The balance of executive power is diffused throughout the bowels of state government among eight other statewide elected officials and 55 agencies controlled by boards and commissions appointed in a myriad of ways. Among these are some of our most important agencies, such as the Department of Health and Environmental Control and Department of Transportation.

In Federalist Paper No. 70, Alexander Hamilton said, "A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for bad execution ... and bad government." We need restructuring because South Carolina has a feeble executive -- not in the person occupying the office -- but in the powers attendant to that office. According to UNC Professor Thad Beyle, South Carolina ranks fifth from the bottom nationally on institutional powers vested with the governor.

Our archaic structure, a vestige of Tillman's 19th century South Carolina, is simply inadequate today. It begets duplication, lack of coordination, and a price tag that is 130 percent of the national average. With few clear lines of authority or responsibility, there is little accountability. It makes implementation of a unified vision for the state -- what governors campaign on and what people expect -- virtually impossible.

Unfortunately, restructuring recently suffered a serious blow in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee denied citizens an opportunity to vote on whether the constitution should be amended to have the governor appoint the adjutant general and commissioner of agriculture, and have the governor and lieutenant governor run together as a ticket. I can personally substantiate the need for the latter after serving with Gov. Sanford. The job is big enough for a partnership approach akin to the president/vice president model.

In a column last week, a senator who voted against elements of the governor's proposal, expressed concern that voters might not adequately scrutinize the proposed constitutional amendment, and that appointment of these positions could lead to political cronyism on the part of governors.

I believe South Carolina citizens are fully capable of scrutinizing the fairly simple proposition of whether a position should be elected or appointed. Analyzing this matter is actually easier than deciding who to vote for in these offices. Often seemingly good candidates, once elected, prove to be disappointing and ineffective. This occurs because campaigning is self-promotion, while serving is idea-promotion. Excelling at the former doesn't mean you're good at the latter. The reality is, citizens can and must scrutinize both referenda issues and candidates. It is what our constitution calls for.

As for the governor's proposal spawning cronyism, it may already have, but not on the part of the governor. Evidence of cronyism seems to have manifested itself amidst the opposition to the proposal, reportedly fostered by some constitutional officers it affects. As Sen. McConnell said in a recent press account, "It appears that their job security is the highest priority and not the question of giving the public the choice on the management style they want."

Mark Sanford has championed restructuring, and the citizens of South Carolina have placed their trust in him. He is now asking the General Assembly to trust that our citizens are competent to vote on this important issue. Whether opposition arises out of substantive concerns, or political favoritism as some have alleged, an opportunity for the people of South Carolina to vote on their government's structure should not be obstructed.

With our ongoing budget crisis, high cost of government and lack of accountability, there is abundant evidence for the need to restructure our 19th century government to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The citizens should at least be given an opportunity to scrutinize that evidence and render a verdict.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/030904/com_09camp.shtml