В Южной Каролине требуют реформы системы управления из-за скандалов с коррупцией и отсутствием подотчетности

S.C. Gov. Carroll Campbell couldn’t have scripted a more perfect scene for his campaign to overhaul state government. The head of the Highway Patrol had rushed to the scene to protect the top FBI agent in South Carolina from a DUI charge — while the FBI was conducting a corruption probe of the Highway Department of which the patrol was a part. Mr. Campbell called a news conference on a Saturday to point out that he couldn’t fire the chief because only the head of the Highway Department could do that. Nor could the governor force the head of the Highway Department to fire him because he worked for a part-time commission — whose members couldn't be fired by anybody. Mount that atop children dying under the care of the Department of Social Services whose part-time commissioners were likewise insulated from accountability, and corruption among the three insulated members of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, and suddenly the call for reform sounded less like a partisan power play than an essential effort to right a dangerously listing ship of state. Popular legend has it that the Legislature handed over then-unprecedented power to the governor in 1993 because of the FBI bribery sting that resulted in the conviction of a third of the Legislature. In fact, it was the concurrent scandals that finally convinced the Legislature to replace scores of unaccountable boards and commissions with directors hired and fired by the governor, and give him the power the fire members of many of the remaining boards. There are still too many exceptions, but that and future reform efforts have injected a tremendous degree of accountability into state government. If no one can fire you, you don’t have a boss. You work for yourself. Sometimes that’s unavoidable. But not usually. Since reform was born of scandal rather than philosophy, though, it applied only to state government. In cities and counties around the state, the old unaccountable part-time boards and commissions remained — and not just in the boards whose structures were spelled out in state law but also in those created by local governments. Last week, we saw the latest result of that absence of accountability, when the Charleston Housing Authority thumbed its nose at the city’s ambitious housing plan during a meeting that — like its previous meeting that laid the groundwork for the vote — was held in violation of the state’s open meetings law. Both meetings were overseen by a director who came on board after being fired by his previous employer for awarding no-bid contracts — including two to the search firm that would later steer him to Charleston. Would Mayor William Cogswell or the City Council have removed some or all of those commissioners if they had the power to do so? We can’t say for sure, but it would have been dereliction of duty not to at least consider such a move. But they don’t have that power. State law that dates to at least the 1930s says commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office.” That’s a much stricter standard than the reasons for which the governor can remove people from such sensitive positions as the SLED chief and members of the Ethics and Election commissions. They can be removed for “malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetency, absenteeism, conflicts of interest, misconduct, persistent neglect of duty in office, or incapacity.” We believe that still limits the governor’s power too much in many instances, but there’s a tremendous amount of wiggle room there compared to the reasons for which local housing commissioners can be removed. And some appointment laws are even worse than the housing authority law: Some set a fixed term for board members and make no provision for anyone to fire them, under any circumstances. Frankly, we see no reason the members of a local housing authority shouldn’t be at-will workers. But certainly someone should be able to fire them for breaking the law, be that assaulting a fellow commissioner or embezzling from the state or violating the Freedom of Information Act. Charleston and other local governments can’t do anything about this and several other legislatively authorized local boards unless the Legislature changes state law, but they should scour their ordinances for any appointments that are made under their own authority, and add removal power if it isn’t there. And the Legislature needs to give local governments clear and adequate rules for how they can remove their own appointees. It shouldn’t take a scandal to realize that everybody needs a boss who has the power to remove them, even if only under only limited circumstances. Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.