If converting USC-Sumter into a four-year institution is such a good idea, why isn't the legislation to accomplish that goal standing on its own merits? The answer is obvious. Not only would it face a gubernatorial veto, but it's unlikely it would even get out of the Legislature. That's why the Sumter provision now is attached to a huge bill that contains economic incentive provisions most lawmakers want. But the governor isn't expected to back down. And he shouldn't.

There is one way to fix the problem before it gets to the governor's desk. The massive legislation that includes the Sumter four-year college mandate is headed back to conference committee because of some potentially fatal legal technicalities. While those problems are said to be easily fixable, that would be a good time to heed the Commission on Higher Education, which formally objected this week to being passed over on the Sumter issue.

While the commission is suppose to regulate the state's higher ed system, it was not asked to rule on the conversion of USC-Sumter from a two-year to a four-year institution. Indeed, the president of USC is among those opposed to the change. He has been reported as saying it doesn't have the academic standing to be a four-year school.

As for the higher ed commission, its executive director, Conrad Festa, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying, "They have bypassed a process which has been set up by the Legislature. It is their prerogative, they can do that. But it does confuse things." That's an understatement. It shows just how powerless the commission really is and why oversight of the state's higher ed system needs an overhaul.

The conference committee should heed the higher ed commission's concern and remove the four-year Sumter provision from an omnibus piece of legislation sent to the House from the Senate, and generally referred to as the "life sciences" bill. That title doesn't tell half the story. The bill ranges from authorizing a $250 million bond bill, primarily for research universities, to economic incentives aimed at attracting the biotech industry.

There is much in the bill that the governor and most lawmakers want and which should be passed. But Charleston Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, notes the Senate has tied three House-passed bills together in one package, along with its own amendments. As part of a legal settlement, the leaders of both bodies agreed some years ago to put an end to legislation with non-germane riders. How soon the Senate forgets.

The governor did make note of the problem in his State of the State address. Pointing to the fact that USC and higher ed officials were opposed to the USC-Sumter proposal, he said: "So what happens? The local delegation tacks it onto a bill nobody wants to vote against and tries to get it passed. That is exactly the problem we have in South Carolina with respect to higher ed -- namely that politics, not a statewide plan, too often drives the decisions we make."

Because other provisions of the bill are popular and, in some instances, needed, it won't be easy for either the governor or Legislature to say no. But if not now, when will the line be drawn that requires amendments to legislation to be germane? Will it take another lawsuit?

Lawmakers should be the ones to take the four-year, USC-Sumter proposal off the fast track and allow the Commission on Higher Education to do its oversight job.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/020704/edi_07editb.shtml