Politics at its selfish worst

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

USC-Sumter is indicative of what

ails our General Assembly.

The state Senate recently passed a higher education bill containing a provision that will make USC-Sumter a four-year campus. Once again rank provincialism wins in the state Legislature. And the Commission on Higher Education — which is technically responsible for making such decisions for the state's public colleges and universities — has been bypassed.

For the record, the CHE objects to being left out of the decision making. Not that it mattered anyway. The Legislature long-ago stripped the CHE of its authority to cut inefficient programs and consolidate campuses.

This bill is proof that this Legislature couldn't be further removed from the reform-minded one that seven years ago ambitiously installed a system of performance funding. It was passed to take much of the higher education decision-making out of the hands of lawmakers. It was intended to put an end to what was recognized as decades of wasteful duplication and funding inefficiency. However, performance funding was unable to make a campus or program justify its existence. Lawmakers refused to give the CHE the power it needed to cut and consolidate. As a result, this state is no closer today than it was then to more thoughtful planning and spending.

And major expansions like this one continue to be rubber-stamped in the Legislature, without input from higher education officials. The USC-Sumter expansion was craftily tied to the "life sciences" bill full of economic development incentives and higher education reforms lawmakers aren't likely to vote against. This adds to its odor.

It's clear to those within higher education that this expansion is a case where more equals less. USC President Andrew Sorensen opposes it because he is justifiably worried that more degree-granting campuses diminishes the overall quality of the USC system. The university is attempting to become one of the nation's best public schools in order to attract lucrative research dollars, quality faculty, top students and new business to the state.

It's easy to understand Sumter's position. But it's also clear that requiring such expansions to first pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis serves the state's first obligation to be good stewards of limited tax dollars. Higher education spending in South Carolina desperately needs that sort of structure and accountability.

The conference committee of House and Senate members that will review this bill should extract this expansion. If that doesn't happen, a veto by Gov. Mark Sanford is possible. It would be disastrous if this bill's reforms were lost because of this misguided effort.