Not to kick S.C. Agriculture Commissioner Charles Sharpe when he's down, but his arrest last week on federal charges of extortion and money laundering in connection with an illegal cockfighting ring does provide a cautionary tale about the South Carolina's messy handling of executive functions. In many other states, the top state agricultural official is an appointee of the governor.

That official, usually called agriculture secretary, serves at the pleasure of the governor. He or she is expected to take part in a governor's strategy for running the executive branch in uniform, coordinated fashion. Appointees who can't cut the mustard generally get replaced in short order.

In South Carolina, the agriculture commissioner is elected, with only the members of the farm lobby - growers, farm bankers and food and tobacco processors and retailers - truly understanding the merits and drawbacks of the candidates. As also is the case with such other S.C. down-ballot offices as secretary of state, adjutant general, comptroller and even lieutenant governor, most voters have nary a clue who the candidates on the ballot are or what functions the offices they are seeking carry out.

And, once they're in office, the agriculture commissioner and other minor state elective officials pretty much have a free hand to do what they please without reprisal from voters or the press. Because they play no policy-making role, they don't attract much attention - unless, as happened with Sharpe, they get tangled up with federal or state prosecutors.

It would be unfair, obviously, for us to pass judgment on the allegations against Sharpe, who has pleaded not guilty. That's the job of a jury. But it's hard to imagine that a secretary of agriculture who worked for Gov. Mark Sanford - or any S.C. governor since Strom Thurmond - could stray into a situation where the filing of such serious federal charges was possible.

Since taking office last year, Sanford has sought to organize the disparate elective offices that perform executive functions under the governor's control. Thus far, he's gotten nowhere. Even if nothing else comes of it, the Sharpe case should give Sanford renewed incentive to demand these structural changes again - and legislators renewed impetus to grant them.