Entire package in higher ed bill should be rejected

SOUTH CAROLINA legislators have shown yet again that neither time, nor partisan shifts can wipe out some of the basic, or should we say base, inclinations of politicians. Proof comes in the Life Sciences Act, a bill that Gov. Mark Sanford must decide today whether to sign, veto in full or veto in part.

We recommend that the governor reject the package in full. That is the best treatment for legislation that has become so bogged down with special-interest provisions that it is hard to find its original, laudable purpose. That was to free colleges and universities from red tape that stifled innovation. The bill was intended to draw investment for research and to allow the University of South Carolina to form partnerships with private investors to help build its new research campus. Those remain worthy goals; they are worth adopting in their own, clean bill that hasn’t been bogged down with other matters.

As passed by the General Assembly, the bill also changes requirements for students to earn LIFE scholarships. It calls for a study to determine whether South Carolina State University should open a law school. It provides for a new international convention and trade show center. It prohibits the closing of any state colleges and universities, a shot square across Gov. Sanford’s bow and his plan to eliminate two small schools. The bill allows the creation of a four-year culinary school at Trident Technical College, and specifically prohibits higher education regulatory agencies from blocking the move. And it allows USC Sumter to begin offering four-year degrees in direct defiance of the recommendations of USC’s president and the Commission on Higher Education. This bill flies in the face of good government in so many ways it’s hard to keep track.

Those USC Sumter degrees, by the way, are not needed. The five bachelor’s degree programs — nursing, business, elementary education, early childhood education and interdisciplinary studies — already can be earned at Sumter through distance learning agreements with sister campuses in Aiken and Spartanburg. This isn’t about increasing academic opportunity; it’s about local boosterism.

Legislators knew that there was something in this bill to outrage anyone. For that reason, they have attempted to make the package line-item veto proof. They inserted the lines: “No provision of this act shall be construed to appropriate funds. The intent of the General Assembly is to authorize bonds only according to the terms of this act.” The Legislature has grown overly fond of this tendency to attempt to legislate beyond its legitimate authority. The bill is an appropriations bill or it isn’t, no matter what crafty clauses are inserted.

In truth, this bill is so bogged down with special-interest provisions, it is difficult at the end of the day to say what it is — except for a self-serving mess that the governor should veto in full. Many measures contained in the Life Sciences Bill might pass on their own merits, which is how they should be considered. Certainly, the heart of the bill and its original intent could easily be re-adopted and sent back to the governor in a matter of weeks. All that is needed is the will to do the right thing. There is no justification to resort to these old legislative log-rolling techniques. Lawmakers who are poised to override a gubernatorial veto on this measure should think hard before voting again for a bill that illustrates all the worst about the legislative process.