Frustrated, angry and at the end of his rope, the royal governor of South Carolina in 1748 wrote regarding his power to make executive decisions, "Thus by little and little, the people have got the whole administration into their hands."

He would not be the last governor, royal or not, to express such sentiments.

South Carolinians have long held suspicions about placing too much power in the hands of an executive branch, any executive branch, even in their own state.

It's a belief that formed in the mid-18th century and strengthened after the Civil War as whites in power sought to consolidate their power.

Times have changed and priorities have shifted, but the philosophy survives.

The issue of how much power a governor should have has re-emerged after a new report by the Governor's Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance that calls for comprehensive changes in state government.

The report, which projects annual cost savings of about $300 million, had several findings, but perhaps the most controversial were its recommendations to do away with a minimum of three constitutionally elected offices: secretary of state, superintendent of education and adjutant general.

According to the report, the superintendent of education and adjutant general should become Cabinet positions appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The secretary of state would be eliminated and its duties rolled into the Department of Revenue.

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.

Gov. Mark Sanford has listed government restructuring as one of his three big issues for the upcoming Legislative session, along with school choice and small-business concerns. But there is a legitimate question as to whether such a major move can be accomplished, especially by the 2004 goal set in the MAP commission report.

There is ample opposition and a mountain of history to overcome. But with the state struggling through one of its worst budget crises ever, the governor says the time for change may be now.

There is some evidence to back this up. The state's first round of restructuring occurred under the administration of former Gov. Carroll Campbell. The door for that restructuring opened after the fallout of "Operation Lost Trust," a scandal involving widespread vote buying in the state Legislature.

Sanford sees in the current crisis another such door.

"As horrible as this crisis is, and it is a profound mess, there is receptiveness for change that would not be there without it," he says. "It really takes something external for a change like this to have a shot."

ORIGIN OF WEAK GOVERNOR

South Carolina, like much of the Deep South, has an aversion to executive power, an aversion that predates the Revolutionary War.

During the 1700s, in a concerted effort to bypass the authority of English-appointed governors, the people of the state placed the majority of power into the hands of the Legislature.

Their efforts helped neutralize the royal governor, but the byproduct was a government splintered into many seats of power, each ruled by different interests.

"It's like that drawing of two mules pulling one wagon in different directions," says Walter Edgar, author of "South Carolina: A History" and a professor of history at the University of South Carolina. "At that time, the Legislature represented the people against the tyranny of the Crown."

This system remained in place for more than 100 years until former Gov. Ben Tillman took office in 1891.

"Tillman proceeded to create a situation that served to weaken the office of the governor even more," Edgar says. "He created fiefdoms for his friends, and the state has been a mess ever since."

The Constitution of 1895, which many say was specifically designed to disenfranchise black voters, cemented the Legislature as the ruling body of government in South Carolina.

Left in its wake was a governor's office hamstrung at best, gelded at worst.

The governor could serve only two consecutive two-year terms and held but a fraction of control over an executive branch spread out among eight other elected positions -- all of which could be held for an unlimited amount of time.

The term in government for such a condition is "weak governor state," and South Carolina is among the weakest. It shares that honor with North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana and Alabama.

"The trend in the 20th century is to have a managerial form of government, where the governor is very strong, like the CEO of a company," says Bill Moore, a political science professor at the College of Charleston. "Much of this trend is linked to greater demands being placed on state government and the feeling that one person needs to be held responsible."

Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania are among the states with the strongest governor's offices.

In such states, a governor has the power to implement his ideas and the burden of answering for them.

For example, nearly every governor campaigns on education. It is often more than half a state's budget and is usually the hot-button topic for voters.

In states with strong governors, the superintendent of education is appointed and required to follow the governor's instructions. In weak governor states, the most a governor can do is lobby for his plan.

Sanford ran on education reform and school choice. His ability to implement such a philosophy depends solely on his ability to get the Legislature and Superintendent of Education Inez M. Tenenbaum to work with him.

LAYERED AND 'BYZANTINE'

Moore says the problem with the weak governor form of government is it often leads to inefficiency, overspending and poor accountability. And many people would argue that is exactly what happened in South Carolina. In fact, many people have.

In the past 80 years, counting the MAP report, 14 different proposals for government restructuring have reached Columbia. And each died a quick death. Until 1993.

That year, as a result of the public outcry over "Operation Lost Trust," then-Gov. 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 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 proliferation of constitutionally elected officers who wield some of the executive branch's power.

Along with the governor, the state elects a lieutenant governor, secretary of state, adjutant general, attorney general, commissioner of agriculture, superintendent of education, comptroller general and state treasurer.

"And the sad thing is most people, probably less than 1 percent, could name the people who hold these positions," Moore says. "These are officials who can serve unlimited terms, and most people just don't pay attention to them."

The MAP commission report pulls no punches when it comes to describing the state's current setup. Members found South Carolina in an "unbelievable condition." They said state government was "grossly fragmented," "laden with layers of duplication" and "Byzantine in the delivery of certain services."

"For example," the report reads, "we found over 70 separate accounting systems that cannot share financial information between key agencies. We found over 8,000 buildings, comprising 60 million square feet, with no central authority to make management decisions. We found an agency (the Department of Social Services) paying over $2,000 per month in cab fares to transport a constituent to a minimum wage job."

In the end, the commission made multiple recommendations, which they believe would result in $225 million in savings this year and $300 million annually.

The commission's findings didn't surprise Sanford, who had been considering government reconstruction since he decided to run for governor last year.

"What I found when I started looking into it was surprising," he says. "South Carolina was operating at 130 percent of the U.S. per capita average for state government. That stood out to me. I had always thought of us as a conservative government. But what I found was that a legislative-run government causes a lot of duplication. That's a problem. For good government, you need someone at the head watching out for how the store is being run."

In truth, the MAP commission stops short of Sanford's goal, which is to roll nearly all of the constitutionally elected offices into cabinet positions.

"I'm for the whole enchilada," he says. "I would ask for everything administrative to go under the executive branch. The lieutenant governor should run on the same ticket as the governor, and only the attorney general, state treasurer and comptroller general should be elected. Everything else becomes governor appointed."

THE OPPOSITION

But even the governor admits such a vision will be hard to sell to the Legislature. The power of status quo is a hard thing to overcome, and it doesn't help when almost any opposition can kill restructuring before it starts.

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 never to allow the adjutant general to become an appointed office.

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

Speaker of the House David Wilkins, R-Greenville, currently has two bills that deal with government restructuring. One proposes the establishment of a Department of Administration, and the other proposes the elimination of four constitutionally elected offices: comptroller general, state treasurer, secretary of state and superintendent of education.

"I am in favor of further restructuring, but I think it will have to be done incrementally," Wilkins says. "I don't think it will be a wholesale change like what occurred under Campbell. I think the idea to put the superintendent of education in a cabinet position has strong support, but the other two will have a tougher road."

As for the individuals who currently hold the positions in question, support for the idea runs from lukewarm to dead-set against.

"I traveled this state for two years, and I have met just as many voters as anyone, and I truly believe our people want to continue voting for their officials," says Secretary of State Mark Hammond. "I don't think the people of South Carolina want to use the federal government as a model for their state government. If this happens, it will add to the bureaucracy, not do away with it."

Hammond says the secretary of state's office has gone from employing 41 people and costing $1.4 million in 1991 to employing 27 people and costing $960,000 this year.

"And for the state's $960,000, we bring in $3.8 million," Hammond says. "That's accountability."

Former Secretary of State Jim Miles once ran for the office on a platform of doing away with the position. And while he won, the Legislature never made the change. Miles said he still supports restructuring 100 percent.

The state's current adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Stanhope Spears, did not return calls regarding this issue. South Carolina is the only state in the U.S. to elect the position of adjutant general.

Superintendent of Education Inez M. Tenenbaum, currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate, has voiced mild support for the idea. "If you look at the majority of other states, it is an appointed position," she says. "I see merit in both ways."

Tenenbaum says that forcing superintendent candidates to run for election forces them to meet and listen to the people in the state. But she admits that such a process is costly and sometimes prevents qualified candidates from running.

While she acknowledges that having a superintendent appointed by the governor does allow a governor more control to institute ideas for education reform, she says allowing the position to remain elected gives the superintendent a bully pulpit from which to lobby for more funding.

"If appointed, the superintendent would be more beholden to the governor," Tenenbaum says. "But in the end, I think the idea should be put on the ballot and let the people decide."

For any of this to become reality, it would have to pass through the Legislature by a two-thirds vote and then be put on the ballot for a vote by the people.

No easy task, but Sanford says nothing good comes easily.

"What we have in South Carolina is management by committee," he says. "And when groups of people are held responsible, that ultimately means no one is held responsible. We may not be able to get all of this now, but half a loaf is better than nothing. Politics is incremental change. You move slowly at times, but the thing is to keep moving forward."

THE PANEL

Clay Barbour is the Statehouse reporter. He can be reached at 803-799-9051 or by e-mail at cbarbour@postandcourier.com.