Appointing the head of the state Department of Education will allow the state's chief executive to carry out an education program, a matter of heightened importance in a state desperately trying to improve its public schools. The state increasingly looks to the governor to provide educational reform, but he must defer to the superintendent of education under the current arrangement.

The current superintendent of education, Inez Tenenbaum, recognizes the wisdom of having the governor accountable for education policy and has endorsed the idea of making her position appointive. Mrs. Tenenbaum, incidentally, is a Democrat. Gov. Sanford is a Republican.

As the governor should have more direct authority on education policy, so should he have a stronger hand on agriculture policy. That is particularly important given the recent disputes over large-scale confined animal farms in the state.

South Carolina is the only state in the nation that has an elected adjutant general, and the races for that position have been accompanied by charges of political pressure among the state's National Guard and complaints about political favoritism in promotions under the elected adjutant general.

Unfortunately, there already is ardent opposition in the Senate to making the position appointive. Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, insists that "Hell will freeze over before we abolish the adjutant general's office," in comments quoted by The Associated Press. Sen. Hawkins, a National Guard captain, added, "The soldiers of this state want the adjutant general elected."

Actually, there's no recommendation to abolish the office. The state National Guard would continue to have an adjutant general. But making the position appointive would remove some negative political associations of the office.

Sen. Hawkins isn't the only naysayer to the governor's reorganization proposal. Sen. Tom Moore, D-Aiken, questions the success of government restructuring that previously has given greater authority to the governor.

Certainly, it's brought about clearer lines of authority and heightened accountability in the way the state's business is conducted. Better that the state's chief executive be given the opportunity to carry out his program than have power diffused among the Legislature and appointed boards and commissions, as has been the case.

Gov. Sanford has recommended a full-scale reorganization. He would have the governor also appoint the comptroller general, the treasurer and the secretary of state. And he wants the lieutenant governor to run on a ticket with the governor. Only the status of the attorney general would remain unchanged.

In terms of financial checks and balance, placing the treasurer and comptroller general under the governor may raise more accountability questions than it would resolve. As for the secretary of state, there's little reason for that position to exist. Its duties are negligible and could be taken over administratively by existing agencies. Abolishing that office, as recommended repeatedly by the previous secretary of state, would be an economy for the state. The governor's Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance (MAPS) declined to endorse many of Mr. Sanford's proposals, including those for the comptroller general, the treasurer, the commissioner of agriculture and the lieutenant governor.

Any changes to the state's constitutional offices won't be decided finally by the Legislature, but by statewide referendum. But the House and Senate will first have to put them on the ballot.

The governor would have a better chance with the Legislature if he focuses on a reorganization plan that presents the strongest argument for change: appointment of the superintendent of education, the adjutant general and the commissioner of agriculture, and elimination of the superfluous position of secretary of state.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/092803/edi_28edit1.shtml