South Carolinians know this state’s fiscal situation. What casual observers outside state government may not realize is that the very structure of our government and some agencies creates an institutional environment that contributes to a culture of waste and inefficiency.

The Governor’s Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance determined, like every major reorganization project before it, that state agencies operate as independent “fiefdoms.” These sovereign kingdoms (often replete with perks for the ruling class) limit accountability and complicate the chain of command. Waste and abuse become comfortable through familiarity. They become harder to recognize when it’s more important than ever to do so.

Why is a little waste here and there so important? The definition of a “little” waste is subjective. Gov. Mark Sanford tells of a colleague from his days in the U.S. House who referred to the cost of a $7 million appropriation as “nothing.” This kind of thinking thrives after too many years of operating in the wrong mindset.

Tax dollars don’t flow from some theoretical pool of money. Public funds are submitted by taxpayers for the services we expect and deserve from our government. It’s a sacred trust, not an exercise in creative accounting.

The Department of Social Services warns that it may lose the ability to protect children; local jails reel from the cuts at the Department of Mental Health, as the mentally ill are arrested instead of treated; the Highway Patrol commander describes a speeder’s chance of getting caught here as among the lowest in the nation. These losses aren’t theoretical.

Most state employees work diligently to perform their duties under these increasingly difficult conditions. These workers deserve to operate in an environment that recognizes their sacrifices and accomplishments, yet they are hampered not only by fiscal constraints but by a culture that can breed waste.

Consider as an example one of the state social service agencies, in recent years suffering facility closure, unpaid furloughs, layoffs and cutbacks to items such as cell phones for workers who occasionally transport emotionally troubled (or criminally charged) individuals. As the employees scramble to fulfill their obligations in overworked field offices, they bemoan an $88,000 deputy director who lives in the Upstate and commutes more than 90 miles to Columbia in his state vehicle daily, as he has for more than five years.

Consider also the public safety agency still recovering from the first layoffs in its history — dozens of full-time employees, including eight in its core mission area. Their facilities are in disrepair to the point of partial uninhabitability, yet as these hardworking employees struggle to stay ahead of even their most basic assignments, the $75,000 CEO commutes more than 140 miles from his coastal home in a state vehicle.

A case could be made that in order to lure qualified people into government service, perks like these examples are necessary. Most would agree, however, that (especially in the context of the budget crisis) they represent a sense of entitlement and privilege, rather than one of stewardship.

Why is $5,000 to $10,000 for fuel and maintenance important in the big picture of a state budget? Internally, leaders must understand that leadership is service and shoulder their share of sacrifices. Morale and loyalty are precious commodities, easily squandered by actions such as these.

Externally, citizens already feel separated from the agencies they “own,” because of perceptions of bureaucracy and waste. Just as U.S. representatives should remember that taxpayers here consider $7 million a large sum of money, state government leaders should occasionally subject their expenditures (even relatively minor ones) to the sunshine test. At its core, this is a leadership issue.

Many leaders in state agencies understand this, as evidenced by sacrifices made in recent years. The state owes these leaders the framework necessary to succeed: a structure providing not only the flexibility and responsiveness of a flattened chain of command, but the responsibility and accountability embraced by high-quality leaders. The MAP Commission’s sweeping recommendations would accomplish this.

I hope the personal and political courage displayed by Gov. Sanford, House Speaker David Wilkins and the other legislators who have worked toward enacting the MAP Commission’s recommendations will inspire leaders at all levels of S.C. government in this fight to retool the state’s organizational apparatus.

Mr. Frederick, of Murrells Inlet, served as a state law enforcement officer for 13 years; he is a consultant to the U.S. government.