There are two bills in the restructuring plan. First, there is a 1,900-page bill which we call the government restructuring bill. This is the statutory plan to completely overhaul and realign our state government. Much of the bill consolidates state agencies, reassigns job descriptions within those agencies, eliminates duplication, and streamlines our government. This is a huge step forward for this state and I commend the governor for his vision. I am so much in favor of the visionary proposal that I signed on as a co-sponsor at the outset.

There is, however, a second, 10-page bill, which most of us on the Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, are not so sure about. This is not the primary restructuring bill. This is the constitutional amendment bill which asks the voters to forever relinquish their constitutional right to vote on our statewide elected officials. Under the new bill, the governor appoints most of these statewide officials. While the constitutional amendment would eventually be on the ballot as a referendum, history tells us that such amendments are routinely approved by the voters without further scrutiny or discussion. Most voters tend to concede to amendments, believing that the bill would not have been approved for a vote without the Legislature thinking it was a good idea.

Our job on the Judiciary Committee is to take difficult issues such as this one and look at every aspect of the legislation. Rarely do we know our exact position on the issues until we hear all sides of the debate. After we have listened to all sides, we are to carefully consider what is best for the citizens of South Carolina. That is what I try to do every time I vote.

When our forefathers drafted the S.C. Constitution in 1895, they had 100 years of history with the federal model to study. The federal model allows the president to appoint almost every position in the executive branch. The drafters of our constitution did not believe that the federal executive model was working too well. What they saw was president after president appointing his political cronies and campaign contributors to all the Cabinet positions, regardless of whether they were qualified. Presidents were also picking running mates based upon how many more votes the vice president would get them rather than whether they could work with that person or whether that person was suited to the job. Likewise, they saw that the Senate almost never exercised its advice and consent power because of partisan politics.

The drafters of our constitution believed that we would have a better government if the people of the state determined who was best to serve in these important positions. Moreover, the drafters believed that since our constitutional officers were not intricately involved in foreign relations and trade, the necessity of their being under the governor was not as important as on the federal level. Consequently, in South Carolina, just as in a number of other states, you are asked to vote on a number of important constitutional officers. I am not sure it is a good idea to relinquish that right forever. Because our current governor got elected "outside the system" and is very much a man of the people, this power would work well in his hands. However, most governors, Republican and Democrat alike, come from "inside the system" and are able to appoint a number of campaign contributors and political cronies who are not qualified for these important positions.

As it is now, our constitutional officers are all very well qualified because they would not have run for office in the public eye if they were not qualified for the positions they sought. Political patronage does not come into play in our system because these positions are elected. Not surprisingly, unlike some other states with extremely strong executive branches, we have not had any scandals or corruption in our constitutional offices. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the drafters of our constitution did what they thought was best for the state and made some intelligent decisions.

The other side of the debate is that we are in a different era than 1895. There is more focus by the media on our gubernatorial elections and less focus on the other constitutional officers. We expect our governor to be able to lead the executive branch and we need to give him or her enough power to direct the state agencies without providing a platform for graft and corruption. The 1,900-page restructuring bill goes a long way toward helping that process. Likewise, the constitutional amendment bill augments that process.

I have made over 100 telephone calls to constituents throughout my district this past weekend. I have asked them about their views on the overall restructuring plan and on the constitutional officers. Like me, most are very much in favor of restructuring our state government. On the issue of the constitutional officers, the feedback has been quite diverse. Some want an extremely strong executive branch, some do not. Some believe that there is some middle ground. I will continue to accept input on this important issue and I am listening to my constituents.

I will try to discard all of the personalities and emotions involved and I will pray that I am honorably serving my fellow man. I will then do my constituents' bidding by consciously making an educated decision on what I believe is best for South Carolina in the long run.

John Kuhn is a state senator for Charleston and Berkeley counties.