That belief took shape in the mid-18th century, when colonists feared British control. While times have changed, the philosophy has survived. Until now.

By the end of the first month of the upcoming legislative session, no fewer than four bills dealing with government restructuring will be in play.

State House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, and Rep. John Graham Altman III, R-Charleston, have proposed bills that would do away with some of the state's constitutionally elected positions, making them appointments of the governor. Senate President Pro-Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, is working on a wide-ranging bill he expects to file later this month.

On Thursday, Gov. Mark Sanford rolled out his executive budget, outlining an aggressive restructuring plan that, while saving only a modest amount of money, about $26 million, would reshape state government.

This, of course, should come as no surprise. The governor long has said restructuring would be a major component of his legislative agenda. He reiterated those thoughts Thursday, saying it was time for the state to repair its splintered executive branch and have a legitimate system of checks and balances.

"I think structure is the most important thing that this budget deals with that will produce lasting savings and lasting benefits to the consumers of S.C. government," he said.

South Carolina ranks in the bottom five states nationwide when it comes to the power of the governor. Nine elected offices share the powers of the executive branch: governor, lieutenant governor, adjutant general, commissioner of agriculture, comptroller general, secretary of state, superintendent of education, treasurer and attorney general.

The governor's plan calls for having the governor and lieutenant governor run on a single ballot, meaning both would belong to the same political party, and leaves the attorney general as the only other constitutionally elected officer. The rest would become appointed positions, selected by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Such a move, according to the Council of State Government, would take the state from having one of the highest numbers of elective constitutional offices to having one of the lowest. Most states have at least four.

This isn't the first time state lawmakers have considered the idea. In the past 80 years, 14 proposals have reached Columbia. Each died a quick death, until 1993.

That year, as a result of the public outcry over "Operation Lost Trust," then-Gov. Carol Campbell was able to push through constitutional changes that gave some strength to the office.

The Restructuring Act of 1993 created 13 Cabinet agencies that fell directly under the supervision of the governor. Where the state had had 145 autonomous state entities, boards and commissions, that number eventually was reduced to the 55 that exist today.

While the act did strengthen the governor's office, it did not address the number of elective constitutional officers who wield some of the executive branch's power.

Most legislators agree it makes little sense to have a governor campaigning on issues such as education when he has almost no say in how that issue is addressed. With the state superintendent of education under his jurisdiction, a governor would actually have some control over education.

"For 30 years, gubernatorial candidates have run almost like they are running for school board," Altman said. "This way you have a benchmark on which to judge them."

That doesn't mean the governor's proposal will fly through the General Assembly. It often takes only one person to put the brakes on an agenda in the Senate, and state Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, has vowed to never allow adjutant general become an appointed office.

In the House, there seem to be leanings toward change but not radical change.

"I don't think we are going to push through all of them," Altman said. "The most efficient form of government is a dictatorship, and no one wants that."

In particular, some members of the General Assembly dislike the idea of putting the state treasurer and comptroller general under the governor. Even the governor's own commission on Management Accountability and Performance stopped short of suggesting making those two positions appointive.

"It destroys the independence of the office, and I'm opposed to it," said Treasurer Grady Patterson, who has held the office for more than three decades. "We have the best system in the whole country, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom said he was impressed by the governor's budget and is open to the idea of his office becoming appointive.

"It's a new day in South Carolina," he said. "And I would have to be very arrogant to dismiss his ideas right out of the blocks, given the quality of his budget. In fact, I have long thought the governors of this state have been handicapped under this current system in regards to getting the financial data they need to run the state."

All of the bills proposed so far would eliminate the superintendent of education as an elective position, and many in both the House and Senate say they would have no problem placing it under the control of the governor.

Superintendent of Education Inez Tenenbaum has said she can see benefits both to electing a superintendent and to appointing one. She is not opposed to Sanford's idea.

Even if the governor's plans make it through the General Assembly, which would require a three-fourth vote, changing the South Carolina Constitution would require a statewide vote.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/011004/sta_10structure.shtml