Clemson PSA mission deserves serious scrutiny

THE CLEMSON PUBLIC Service Activities section of Gov. Mark Sanford’s executive budget is vintage Sanford — some hits, some misses, but all aimed squarely at the jugular of a sacred cow.

Some intense scrutiny of Clemson PSA is overdue, and we commend the governor for taking it on. It is one of those politically powerful, insulated activities that tend to slide through the budget process each year, protected by quiet-but-effective friends in the General Assembly. That is not to say the agency’s mission is all bad. What legislators must do is set it alongside other state priorities, and decide the relative importance of its programs. They must approach the task responsibly, and we expect that will yield some savings.

The governor’s budget says Clemson PSA will spend $58 million in state funds this year, some of it for duplicative or unnecessary functions. The governor proposes to cut PSA spending to $30 million.

We agree the agency must wipe out duplication and unnecessary services. Clemson University has in recent years tried to focus its mission more narrowly; reducing the role of PSA has been part of that effort, and it is an appropriate exercise to continue the scrutiny.

Such an examination will likely show some PSA programs are worth retaining, even if they do not directly contribute to farm productivity. But others are questionable. And even with the ones that may have appeal — such as a radio show that offers useful advice to citizens who call in — the value must be weighed against other state programs in light of our budget crisis.

PSA considers one of its core missions helping to increase agricultural productivity. Gov. Sanford places great emphasis on technologies such as the Internet and the way they should reduce farmers’ dependence on PSA to help them build productivity. But we worry when the governor takes that to the point of encouraging PSA to better employ the “consolidations and technological advances” that have allowed the agricultural community to “produce a greater amount of products with less labor and less land.”

Those “advances” might well include such things as the factory hog farms that South Carolina has worked so hard to stop at its borders. In that instance, Clemson PSA would do better to spend money looking for alternative, less-polluting methods of hog farming. Efficiency should not automatically trump other concerns.

Another serious concern is Gov. Sanford’s proposal to net $7.5 million for PSA operations from a property sale. This money is earmarked for improvements at the Sandhill Research and Education Center in Northeast Richland County. The facility offers great potential as an educational and community center for the region. More importantly, the promise of its development is a key reason the Northeast community agreed to stop protesting Clemson’s sale of adjoining land. The state cannot break its covenant with this local community. Perhaps Gov. Sanford did not understand the implications of undoing this deal. However, state lawmakers should, and they should act to preserve the investment as promised.

Overall, we agree that Clemson PSA must emerge from the present budget leaner and more focused. The governor is correct when he notes that agriculture, and our state’s role in it, have changed. Clemson PSA has no mandate to exist and expand without good reason. We hope to see state lawmakers seriously review the proposals for change at PSA, giving them the kind of debate that will place its role in proper context.