|
HOT ISSUE
Move
growing to consolidate constitutional officers
By Andy Brack
SC Statehouse Report
FEB. 2, 2003 - - Some say new proposals to consolidate the state's
constitutional officers under the governor, instead of having people
elect them, are gathering steam. But others are starting to raise
questions that could slow the process considerably.
In a chamber that often is turtle-like in its embrace of change,
a fundamental structural realignment of the state's checks and balances
may not spread like wildfire - - even with the GOP controlling the
House, Senate and governor's office. Here's why:
Lieutenant Governor. Probably the first consolidation proposal
to move through the House will be a measure to allow gubernatorial
candidates to pick running mates and for the pair to run as a team
at the ballot box. House observers see this as an easy way to start
changing the way the state's constitutional officers are elected
because they think it should be a no-brainer. But traditionalists
in the SC Senate might not make it easy. They worry about expanding
the duties of the lieutenant governor, who currently presides over
the Senate. Before the way the lieutenant governor is selected is
change, senators likely will want some kind of structural concessions
from the House, sources say.
Agriculture Commissioner and Secretary of State. Both of
these jobs essentially are executive. The agriculture commissioner
oversees the Department of Agriculture and the secretary of state
keeps business and lobbying records. Because neither function is
considered a vital check or balance on the system and is administrative
in function, look for these two offices to be the most likely to
be changed to gubernatorial control.
Adjutant General. With South Carolina as the only state
where the head of the national guard is elected, one would think
it would be easy to change this office into a gubernatorial appointment.
But concern appears to be spreading in both legislative chambers
that allowing the governor to pick the adjutant general would be
tantamount to picking someone to lead a political re-election squad.
They worry the adjutant general's office somehow would be used by
an incumbent as a political base. With the way the system currently
is, gubernatorial candidates don't have as easy of a way to tap
that base. That's what the adjutant general candidates do.
State Treasurer and Comptroller General. Both of these officials
are on the state Budget and Control Board, the executive overseer
of government. Both also serve vital functions in checks and balances
on government. The treasurer basically is the state's banker who
invests state funds. The comptroller general is more like the state's
accountant, or watchdog, who ensures the state is spending its appropriations
according to law. For the governor to have control of these offices
would take away independent voices accountable to the people, critics
say. Proponents of changing the way they're picked claim both offices
would be accountable because the governor is elected every four
years.
It's clear the proposal isn't popular with longtime State Treasurer
Grady Patterson, who recently told The State, "His [Sanford's]
proposal does not create efficiencies -- all of the functions of
government will still occur -- it just eliminates checks and balances
and creates a different chain of command."
State Superintendent of Education. It's unclear what will
happen with this statewide-elected position. Many say it's long
past time the governor has power to oversee education because it
makes up about half of the state's $5 billion budget. For a governor
to campaign on fixing education and then not being able to steer
its budget makes it difficult for him to create change. Others,
however, like the idea of the state's top education officer being
directly accountable to the people at the ballot box. They say if
the office is under the governor, there is less accountability.
Attorney General. While there is a proposal to make the
state's top law enforcement officer become a gubernatorial appointment,
most believe it is very unlikely to happen. Said one key House leader,
"If you bring it under the governor, it could become highly
political."
###
|
