SENATE BUDGET, MOORE REVENUE PLAN SET FOR DEBATE
Postponed by a battle over re-apportionment, the Senate budget plan is scheduled for debate on Tuesday, May 6. As reported by the Senate Finance Committee, the plan includes modest revenue increases -- mainly the result of eliminating certain tax caps and tax exemptions -- in order to fund the base student cost at $1,901. While cuts to public schools during the past two years have totaled $350 million, the Senate proposal would restore roughly $155 million of the cuts.
The proposal is expected to draw vigorous debate in light of the anti-tax pledge taken by several Senators during the 2002 and previous campaigns. But an amendment drafted by Sen. Tommy Moore promises to create fireworks.
Moore announced last week his intention to propose a two-cent increase in the state sales tax, raising the tax from 5 percent to 7 percent on consumer goods (excluding food) and an increase on cigarettes, netting more than $1.1 billion in new revenue. Today, Moore outlined details of his proposal to representatives of the K-12 and higher education community.
The largest benefactor of Moore's amendment, by far, would be K-12 education. His proposal seeks to devote $326 million to the Education Finance Act, affording a base student cost of $2,201, the same amount appropriated -- but not actually funded -- in the budget of 2001-02. Average teacher salaries in South Carolina would be funded at $400 above the southeastern average, while national board certification stipends and application fees, teacher supplies, and vocational programs would also gain additional funding.
All state employees would receive a 2 percent salary increase under Moore's proposal, and all would be held harmless from increases in employee health insurance premiums.
First Steps, the early childhood education program, would receive almost $16 million in funding for 2003-04. Almost $2 million in funding would be restored to programs at John de la Howe, Wil Lou Gray, and the School for the Deaf and Blind.
But a variety of other state agencies would also benefit from Moore's amendment. Scholarship programs would bring higher education nearly $40 million. Departments of mental health, social services, health and human services and others will find $262 million. A host of corrections agencies and departments would be restored with more than $55 million, and more than $7 million in cuts would be restored to the state's natural resources programs.
Moore's plan reflects the sentiments of The SCEA and many in the education community. The association sponsored a rally in March and co-sponsored a second rally in April to declare support for raising state revenues to save public schools and services.
The SCEA President Jan McCarthy urges members to contact their Senators through the weekend at home and encourage their support for Moore's proposal. It is the only proposal offered during this legislative session that will restore the funding cuts made during the past two years. Contact information for members of the Senate may be found online at http://capwiz.com/nea/sc/officials/state/?state=SC or at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senate2.html.
SANFORD "S.M.A.R.T." FUNDING PACKAGE TO BE DEBATED
A proposal from Governor Mark Sanford to fund education through block grants to local school districts will be heard by a House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Wednesday. H4048 is titled "S.M.A.R.T." Funding in Education Act, with the "S.M.A.R.T." representing "streamlined management and accountable resources for teaching".
Although the proposal does not impact property taxes and concerns only K-12 funding, it will be heard by the Subcommittee on Property Taxes (chaired by Rep. Bill Cotty of Columbia), not the Subcommittee on K-12 Education (chaired by Rep. Bob Walker of Landrum). The reason for its hearing in a different subcommittee is unknown, but it is known that the governor's last two education proposals met with intense but fair and open scrutiny in Walker's subcommittee.
Sanford's proposal would radically change how public schools and programs are funded. First, his plan combines the dozens of education funding line items into six broad categories of funds. It then gives local school boards complete flexibility to fund (or un-fund) programs within those categories at their choice, and it gives them some flexibility to move funds from one category to another.
While the governor's office has sought to restrict local control in its other proposals this session (including proposals requiring conduct grades in high schools, and mandating school size limits in all K-12 public schools), Sanford would grant complete local control with this measure. Results of its implementation could be catastrophic to many programs.
For example, the "category" for instruction includes the following programs to be funded: arts in education, advanced placement courses, advance placement singleton, gifted and talented academic, gifted and talented artistic, Juniors Scholars Program, Governor's Institute of Reading, academic assistance K-3, academic assistance 4-12, academic assistance Reading Recovery, statewide systemic initiative in mathematics and science, excellence in middle schools, EAA summer school/comprehensive remediation, increase high school diploma requirements, alternative schools program, refurbishment of K-8 science kits, EAA modified school year/day grant, EAA reduce class size grades 1-3, early childhood program, K-5 competitive grants, EAA homework center grants, and four-year-old child development.
Within this category, a local board would have freedom to fund, over-fund, or under-fund any of these programs according to their own desires. While one local board might demonstrate a commitment to fully fund the gifted and talented academic program, its neighboring district might not fund it at all. The same principle would apply to arts education, summer school programs, etc., and apply to the other five proposed "categories" of education funding.
The text of Sanford's proposal can be found online at http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess115_2003-2004/bills/4048.htm
While the current budget process is tedious, the process ensures that various programs are appropriately discussed or debated, at least in committee, and that the statewide budget reflects the state's commitment to each individual program or budget line item. Pushing that process to the district level abrogates the legislature's responsibility to provide all of the state's students with equal access to all of its education programs.
Until guarantees are provided in statute that current education programs will continue to be funded, The SCEA will oppose effort to adopt a "block-grant" model for education funding. Members are encouraged to contact Governor Sanford's office to voice their opinion on block grants.
HOUSE WITHHOLDS PAYROLL DEDUCTION FROM EDUCATORS
Last week, the House quickly heard and discarded an amendment that would have extended a right to public school educators that is already enjoyed by most other state employees. It went on, however, to adopt a bill that further discriminates against the state's teachers and public school employees.
Rep. Bobby Harrell sponsored H3369, a bill that allowed state employees who wanted to join the state Wildlife Law Enforcement Officers Association the right to pay their association dues through payroll deduction. The right is already practiced by members of the S.C. State Employees Association and the S.C. State Troopers Association.
At the request of The SCEA, Rep. Ken Kennedy of Greeleyville (KK@scstatehouse.net) and Rep. Mike Anthony of Union (AnthonyM@scstatehouse.net) -- whose wife is a member of The SCEA -- sponsored an amendment that would extend the same right to all public school employees, regardless of the association they choose to join. Both Kennedy and Anthony urged the House to adopt the amendment. But without any further debate, Rep. Teddy Trotter of Pickens (TNT@scstatehouse.net) moved to table the Kennedy-Anthony amendment, and Trotter's motion was adopted on a roll-call vote of 66-39.
The SCEA President Jan McCarthy encourages members to send notes of thanks to these representatives for their stand in support of fairness and equal treatment for educators and public school employees.
DATELINE MAY 5, 2003
BAUER SEEKS TO KILL SENATE REVENUE AMENDMENTS
Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who presides over the South Carolina Senate, told reporters last week that he would use his power to kill any revenue-enhancement amendments to the Senate budget package during this week's debate. At a news conference, Bauer pledged to oppose any attempts to raise taxes for any purpose. While Bauer cannot kill bills outright, he can rule on procedural issues -- including ruling a revenue enhancement amendment out-of-order -- and his rulings require a two-thirds "supermajority" to overturn.
"If a point of order comes my way in the Senate on tax hikes, you can rest assured that I will take them seriously," Bauer told the Greenville News.
Bauer's statement seems to indicate that he will oppose any efforts to preserve the state's gains in public education by opposing restoration of funding cuts for public schools. The SCEA has communicated several times to Bauer its support for efforts to raise revenues and restore those cuts.
While the lieutenant governor opposes increasing revenues to protect education, he is seeking to increase funding for his office by 17.5 percent, from $290,000 to $340,000 annually. Though Bauer's only constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, he seeks additional funding for "expanding constituent services". The Senate Finance Committee tentatively approved Bauer's request, including it in the committee's budget package to be debated on Tuesday.
Bauer, his director of government affairs Alan Gardner, and his aide for constituent assistance and research Kevin Sandifer, may be contacted by calling 803-734-2080. Bauer's email address is ltgov@scstatehouse.net.
DEBATE BEGINS ON SENATE BUDGET TOMORROW
The Senate will begin debating its budget tomorrow. With Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer threatening to rule out-of-order any revenue-enhancement amendments, it is imperative that educators communicate this evening and through tomorrow with their Senators, asking them to support education funding and to preserve the strides that South Carolina's public schools have made in recent years.
During the past two years, across-the-board cuts have drained more than $350 million from public schools. In March, the State House adopted a budget based on those cuts, leaving a base student cost of only $1,643 -- almost $600 per student below student funding in 2001.
The budget package being debated tomorrow raises some revenues to return base student funding to $1,901 per student, still well below what is needed.
But an amendment proposed by Sen. Tommy Moore would restore the funds cut from public schools, and restore funding cut from several other state agencies also. Moore proposes to increase the statewide sales tax by two cents, which would net more than $1.1 billion in new revenue.
Moore's plan reflects the sentiments of The SCEA and many in the education community. The association sponsored a rally in March and co-sponsored a second rally in April to declare support for raising state revenues to save public schools and services.
The SCEA President Jan McCarthy urges members to contact their Senators this evening and tomorrow to encourage their support for Moore's proposal. It is the only proposal offered during this legislative session that will restore the funding cuts made during the past two years. Contact information for members of the Senate may be found online at http://capwiz.com/nea/sc/officials/state/?state=SC or at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senate2.html.
DATELINE MAY 6, 2003
SENATE DEBATES PROCEDURE, BAUER KILLS REVENUE PROPOSALS
After recessing for more than an hour to organize for debate on the Senate budget package, Senators spent much of the afternoon arguing procedural points of order to avoid discussing a revenue-generating amendment.
Sen. Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, announced late last week that the Senate majority would withdraw their support for the revenue enhancements adopted by the committee two weeks ago. Fellow Senators charge that Leatherman and others have bowed to political pressure from anti-tax groups in recent days.
With Leatherman's support withdrawn, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer made good on his promise to rule out-of-order the package's revenue proposals. Sen. Larry Martin rose to bring points of order on each one in turn, arguing that the repeal of various exemptions represented a change to permanent state law. Both legislative chambers have agreed to avoid including permanent law changes in the budget bill, although each could make such changes if it chose.
As Martin raised the points of order, calling for the exemption repeals to be ruled out of order, Bauer sustained the calls, one by one. Several Senators argued feverishly against Martin's appeals and against Bauer's rulings, to no avail. Sen. Kay Patterson, Sen. Darrell Jackson, Sen. Nikki Setzler and Sen. Tommy Moore, among others, described the state of education after this year's funding cuts, asking for support to maintain the state's recent gains in education rankings.
Sen. Donald Holland, who participates in debate infrequently, asked Senators not to roll back funding to the House's standard, but to fully fund the base student cost of $2,200. "We're turning back time," Holland said. "We can't nickel-and-dime our children's education. We have to educate our children."
While Leatherman and others opined on the critical need for additional funding for education, none offered serious new revenue streams, and efforts to hear Moore's two-cent sales tax increase were curbed.
When Moore was finally given the podium -- already past five o'clock this evening -- his suggestion of revenue increases was challenged. Sen. Arthur Ravenel, for example, argued that while the need for education funding was critical, so was the need for Medicaid funding.
When Moore attempted to describe his proposal -- which has not yet been taken up for debate -- and its provisions for Medicaid as well as education and a host of other state agencies and programs, Sen. Verne Smith stopped the discussion with a motion to adjourn for the day. The Senate adjourned, but Moore will maintain the floor when the chamber reconvenes at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
If the Senate refuses to hear amendments to raise revenues, its appropriations package will effectively hold the House's revenue projections, including its base student cost of $1,643. The SCEA President Jan McCarthy urges educators to contact lawmakers tonight and tomorrow and ask for their support for full funding of education. Contact information for members of the Senate may be found online at http://capwiz.com/nea/sc/officials/state/?state=SC or at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senate2.html.
BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL SAILS THROUGH COTTY SUBCOMMITTEE
Gov. Mark Sanford's proposal to consolidate education budget line items into six categories found an eager audience in the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Property Taxes this afternoon. Chaired by Rep. Bill Cotty, the committee heard brief discussion of Sanford's "S.M.A.R.T. Funding" proposal and adopted it unanimously.
The SCEA spoke in opposition to the measure, explaining that responsibility for statewide public education and its administration, including funding decisions, rests with the state legislature, not local districts. Because the current budget process allows lawmakers to review and prioritize each education budget line item, and fund the line items accordingly, that process provides the semblance of a uniform statewide education program. Shifting decision-making authority to local districts through block grants with 100 percent flexibility abandons the legislature's constitutional responsibility, and it promotes systems of unequal access to education programs from one district to the next.
Leni Patterson, incoming president of the S.C. School Boards Association, appreciated the bill's intent of streamlining education funding and ensuring greater accountability, but she cautioned against making such a dramatic change in the funding model with so little discussion and consideration. Roughly four weeks remain in the 2003 legislative session.
Patterson also advised that the bill fails in its attempt to provide spending flexibility if it does not provide program flexibility. Certain items in the education budget, such as the minimum salary schedule and national board certification stipends, are static costs and are not subject to flexibility. Without clarity in the bill, school districts can interpret that they have greater flexibility than is really available.
Cotty praised the bill's purpose to consolidate several dozen line items in the budget to a few spending categories. "It makes it easier to assemble block grants, to track it, how it's spent," he said.
But Sanford's legislative liaison, Mike Easterday, took pains against characterizing the funding-by-category model as a "block grant" bill. "This is not block grants as we've heard. That may be something for down-the-road," he said.
"But in my view, this moves us forward," Cotty answered.
Rep. Wallace Scarborough, who is not a member of the committee but who attended to speak in favor of the bill, agreed with Cotty. "This was one of Governor Sanford's campaign promises," Scarborough said. "This isn't block grants, but it moves us a good step closer to it."
Rep. Shirley Hinson, who also attended to speak for the bill, said it would improve parent oversight. "I think this is a good bill. It gives parents some oversight of how money is spent in their child's classroom."
With approval of the subcommittee, Sanford's bill is likely to emerge on the agenda of the next House Ways and Means Committee meeting, chaired by Rep. Bobby Harrell.
DIABETES COMPROMISE PASSES 3M SUBCOMMITTEE
Without a real fiscal impact statement or a clear understanding of where funding will be found, a bill outlining a "volunteer" program for school employees or others to aid diabetic children with their care at school passed a "3M" subcommittee late this afternoon.
Debate on a diabetes care bill became contentious in the 2002 legislative session before failing on the last day. This year, the present bill and its various compromise versions have consumed close to a dozen hours of subcommittee debate, albeit without the same level of last year's vitriol.
At issue has been the role played by school employees in providing care or assistance to students with diabetes, their potential responsibilities and training, and the threat of liability.
The SCEA has opposed efforts to compel school employees to "volunteer" for these responsibilities, and it has opposed the creation of a new unfunded mandate. With other organizations in the education community, The SCEA aided in drafting a bill requiring funding for school nurses in every South Carolina elementary school. But while that bill has languished, unheard by any committee, various versions of a diabetes-care compromise bill have been generated in the past three weeks.
The most recent version was adopted this afternoon by a vote of 4-1. Though it is unlikely the bill will be ratified this legislative session, it may get additional attention during the next month, and it may emerge again next year.
If ratified in its present form, a school employee or other school volunteer will be given medical training consistent with American Diabetes Association guidelines and be required to assist any diabetic student with his or her care at school, subject to the written approval of the child's parent. That assistance can range from information to aiding with testing blood and glucagons, and administering injections. School principals will have the authority to determine whether such care can be self-administered or administered in a classroom or elsewhere in the school facility. But the bill also requires a principal to develop a written protocol for the transport of a student from the classroom to the designated location for care if the student suffers a hypoglycemic episode.
While the bill states that school employees and volunteers will be immune to liability arising from litigation in the event of an accident, questions of liability remain.
The committee acknowledged that the legislature is not likely to fund a training program for volunteers this fiscal year, but it approved the measure anyway. If ratified without commensurate funding, the diabetes-care bill will become another unfunded mandate to local school districts.
DATELINE MAY 7, 2003
SENATE SPINS WHEELS, KILLS MORE REVENUE AMENDMENTS
The Senate convened this morning at 10 a.m., and it adjourned after 6 p.m., having accomplished nothing. Debate throughout the day, however, was vigorous and sometimes heated. (A handy scorecard identifying who fought for education funding and who opposed it appears at the end of this report.) Debate will resume tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Sen. Tommy Moore, who held the floor when the body adjourned yesterday, took his position again this morning and argued for his two-cent sales tax increase to fully fund the Education Finance Act.
Moore first addressed the concern that any revenue package adopted by the Senate and approved by a conference committee would face certain veto from Governor Mark Sanford. "That does not frighten me, that does not motivate me to do anything differently," Moore said.
Sen. Larry Martin and others continued their assault from Tuesday's debate, finally tabling Moore's amendment by a vote of 26-17. Moore sought to offer smaller parts of his original proposal, but opposing Senators moved to table each one. Moore sought and won roll call votes -- meaning that the vote is recorded rather than taken as a voice vote -- but each tabling motion passed, largely along party lines with Democratic Senators opposing (the tabling motions) and Republican Senators supporting them.
Frustrated, Moore asked for unanimous consent to vote on "the sense of the Senate" on the question of adopting a two-cent sales tax increase. Martin objected to the request, killing it.
With Moore's proposal effectively beaten for the present, Sen. John Land commanded the podium for much of the afternoon to harangue the Senate's obstructionists.
"We will be less than the 'honorable Senators' we are supposed to be if we do not step up to the plate on this issue," Land charged. "We're holding the counties responsible, and they'll be the ones to have to raise taxes, when it's our responsibility. The Senate is getting ready to appropriate $600 less per student all because we think it's hard times and we don't want to face our responsibility."
"This is one Senator who will do what is necessary to fully fund education in South Carolina," he declared. "You're either for education in this state or you're against it."
Sen. John Kuhn engaged Land in debate on the senior statesman's satisfaction with the performance of the state's public schools. Kuhn intimated that constituents in his district, including portions of Charleston and Berkeley counties, were willing to close the public schools in that area for their poor performance.
"Are you telling the people of South Carolina that the public education system in Charleston has failed?" Land asked?
After a pregnant pause, Kuhn answered, "Yes, we know it's failed. We keep putting more and more and more money in education and we're not getting results."
Land assailed the freshman Senator's remark. "We don't have the best education system in the world in Clarendon County, but we're mighty proud of it and we work hard to improve it every day. If you don't want that money in Charleston County, send it back and we'll put it to use."
Land offered a comparison of per-pupil expenditures from the neighboring states of North Carolina and Georgia, whose state contribution to their total expenditure tops $4,000 and $5,000, respectively. "It embarrasses me when our neighbors that are not too different from us are willing to do so much more than we are for our children," Land said.
Later in the afternoon, with Land retired from the podium, Kuhn took center stage to rail against additional public school funding. He offered no solutions to the present quandary and drew consternation from some in his own party, including a velvet-gloved rebuke from Sen. Verne Smith.
Debate had lost some of its earlier steam when Sen. Nikki Setzler offered an amendment to fully fund the Education Finance Act before funding any other budget priority. In essence, the Senate would establish education as its primary budget priority, and fund all other agencies and programs secondarily. The tactic was a repeat of Setzler's action in Senate Finance Committee two weeks ago, which was tabled.
Martin moved to table Setzler's amendment and a roll call vote was requested. To the chamber's surprise, the motion to table failed by a vote of 22-24; Sen. Larry Grooms and Sen. Jake Knotts joined Democratic Senators to keep the amendment alive. (In committee, Grooms voted identically to preserve Setzler's education-first amendment.)
Sen. John Hawkins took to the podium to denounce Setzler's amendment, saying that its adoption would require the legislature to raise revenues to preserve mental health and corrections needs. He argued that the legislature had no obligation to raise revenues and shouldn't do so, but rather "ride out the storm" until the economy improves.
Sen. Brad Hutto charged that Hawkins's logic went to the heart of the issue: namely, fully funding the state's priorities. "Do you realize you're asking us to 'ride out the storm' on the backs of our schoolchildren?" he asked Hawkins.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders buttonholed Knotts and Grooms, presumably to urge a change in their support for Setzler's amendment. When Sen. Hugh Leatherman moved a second time to table Setzler's amendment, Knotts did not cast a vote, and Grooms acquiesced to his party leadership. This time, the motion succeeded, 23-22.
With absolutely no progress made, Sen. Scott Richardson moved to adjourn the Senate until 10 a.m. on Thursday.
MEANWHILE, IN THE HOUSE, A "DOUBLE-THE-PAPERWORK" AMENDMENT
Rep. Dwight Loftis attempted to amend a bill to require conduct grades on school reports today. Loftis's amendment purported to give greater authority to teachers to administer discipline in the classroom, but it included substantial new paperwork requirements. Despite aid from Rep. John Graham Altman from the House lectern, the Loftis amendment drew bipartisan and widespread opposition.
Loftis's amendment, and the full conduct-grade bill, were carried over to tomorrow's calendar for debate.
NEW YORK TIMES DETAILS SC TEACHER OF THE YEAR'S LAYOFF
Today's edition of the New York Times includes an article on job losses in South Carolina's public schools, and specifically the fate of former S.C. Teacher of the Year Traci Young Cooper.
The link to the Times article on its website is http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/07/education/07TEAC.html
DATELINE MAY 8, 2003
MOORE WILL PRESENT FULL FUNDING AMENDMENT NEXT WEEK
After an arduous week in the Senate, Sen. Tommy Moore has indicated that he will present his full revenue-enhancement and expenditures amendment to the Senate next Tuesday or Wednesday. Procedural votes and rulings killed smaller pieces of both the revenue-enhancement and the expenditures parts of Moore's and others' proposals since Tuesday, but Moore is committed to introducing the full package for debate next week.
Through the procedural votes this week, Senators have largely staked out their positions on both revenue enhancements and full funding of education and other state responsibilities -- often strictly along party lines.
Moore's budget amendment, as outlined in some detail for The SCEA, will restore all funding cuts to the education portion of the state budget, fully funding the Education Finance Act and guaranteeing average salaries at $400 above the southeastern average. Additionally, the package restores funds to a host of other state agencies and programs, including Medicaid and state corrections obligations.
The Senate will reconvene Tuesday at 11 a.m.
NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED IN DAY-LONG DEBATE
Senators muddled through a day of sometimes anesthetic debate on potential revenue increases and funding priorities. But while the Senate majority tabled, defeated or ruled out-of-order a number of revenue-enhancement proposals yesterday, today's rationale for tabling or defeating several increased-funding priorities was, "We don't have the money."
Sen. Tommy Moore, Sen. John Matthews, Sen. Clementa Pinckney, Sen. Linda Short and others introduced amendments or spoke in favor of efforts to restore or increase funding to the Governor's School for the Arts, the First Steps early-childhood education program, and the Hope Scholarship program, among others. Despite eloquent arguments in their favor, the proposals were met with tabling motions from the Senate Finance Committee chair. In each instance, Sen. Hugh Leatherman offered wistful sympathy for the cause before adding, "but we just don't have the money to do it."
Various Senators decried the ongoing debate, the political nature of the debate, or the subject of the debate. Sen. John Hawkins railed against the use of the week's votes as a "litmus test" on education in anticipation of next year's elections. Sen. Larry Martin declared that Moore's funding amendments amounted to an irresponsible "blank check" budgeting strategy. Sen. Greg Ryberg baited Moore to introduce the full package posthaste, noting that he didn't actually have to see the details of the amendment to vote on it.
"I guess that answers the question," Moore replied to Ryberg. "It's not that you can't wait to read my amendment, it's that you can't wait to kill it."
But Sen. Jake Knotts offered the day's last words, directed at his party colleagues. "We worked hard for 10 years to gain control. Now we control the House, we control the Senate, and we control the Governor's office. That's how we gained control, by holding the line on taxes. I hope you'll remember that, whatever amendment comes up."
EMAIL FILTERS AND BLOCKS CRITICIZED
Sen. Brad Hutto and Sen. Phil Leventis demanded explanations this morning for the little-known practice of blocking emails from Senate computers during legislative session.
Yesterday, The SCEA and the S.C State Employees Association learned from some members that several emails sent to Senate email addresses had been returned unread, suggesting that some Senators had blocked some incoming messages.
Upon investigation, Hutto was advised that incoming messages were routinely blocked during the hours of Senate session, or "when the lights were on". Senators who wish to "unblock" the incoming messages during those hours can request it of staff. But the explanation didn't allay Hutto's concerns that the voices of constituents were being silenced at any time, and especially during consideration of the state budget.
Late in the day, Leventis returned to outline similar advice from Senate staff and urged Senators to make certain that all constituents had full access to lawmakers regardless of the time of day.
DATELINE MAY 13, 2003
SENATE FINALLY HEARS, THEN KILLS PROPERTY TAX/SALES TAX SWAP
After several hours of debate on a variety of small amendments today, the Senate finally heard a major amendment from Sen. David Thomas that would raise the state sales tax by two cents but eliminate all property taxes. Thomas explained the bill for almost an hour but Lt. Governor Andre Bauer ruled the amendment out of order under Senate rules.
The SCEA opposed Thomas's amendment on the grounds that it eliminated a stable tax base -- property taxes -- in favor of a single and less-stable tax base -- state sales taxes, it did not fully restore funding cuts and it offered no new funding for public education.
The Senate has not yet heard Sen. Tommy Moore's amendment to raise the state sales tax by two cents and dedicate the revenue to a host of state needs, including fully funding the Education Finance Act. But with Thomas's amendment eliminated, it is widely expected that Moore's proposal will be heard on Wednesday.
Lt. Gov. Bauer will play a key role in the fate of Moore's amendment. Last week, Bauer was called upon to rule on several points of order under Senate rules, and his rulings effectively killed proposals to raise revenues. His ruling this evening led Thomas's amendment to the same fate.
An e-mail response from Bauer's chief of staff last week explained that the lieutenant governor was bound by certain Senate rules to offer his judgment on points of order; it suggested that such matters were beyond Bauer's control. But in a press conference held before the Senate budget debate began, Bauer himself told the media that he would use his parliamentary power to defeat any revenue increases.
The SCEA President Jan McCarthy urges educators to email Lt. Gov. Bauer and their own Senators through Wednesday and ask for their support of Moore's budget amendment. Moore's amendment restores funding cuts and invests additional resources in public schools and other state institutions and agencies, and it is the only proposal to do so. Moore faces an uphill battle as many Senators have staked themselves against a tax increase of any sort, for any reason.
Bauer, his chief of staff Randall Page, his director of government affairs Alan Gardner, and his aide for constituent assistance and research Kevin Sandifer, may be contacted by calling 803-734-2080. Bauer's email address is ltgov@scstatehouse.net. Contact information for Senators may be found online at http://capwiz.com/nea/sc/officials/state/?state=SC or at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senate2.html.
DATELINE MAY 14, 2003
BAUER RULING KILLS MOORE'S TWO-CENT AMENDMENT
A ruling by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, on a point of order raised by Sen. Glenn McConnell, killed Sen. Tommy Moore's budget amendment this afternoon. Moore's proposal to raise the state sales tax by two percent and dedicate more than $1.1 billion in new revenue to public education and a host of other state responsibilities, had been hotly anticipated for more than a week.
Later in the afternoon, Moore proposed the sales tax portion of the amendment alone under conditions that would require a two-thirds vote for passage. Moore and Sen. Brad Hutto spoke in favor of the measure; McConnell and Sen. John Courson opposed it. On a roll-call vote, the revenue-only portion of Moore's plan was defeated, 15 to 30.
With Moore's proposal out of the picture, it appears likely that the Senate will bow largely to the proposal of the House. That proposal slashes the state's base student cost to $1,643, almost $600 below the recommendation of the Board of Economic Advisors to fund the Education Finance Act.
The afternoon's events represent a win for South Carolina's anti-tax forces and a substantial defeat for organizations and agencies advocating for children, the elderly and the mentally ill. All stood to gain from Moore's plan, from simple restoration of this year's budget cuts to additional funding.
DEBATE SEE-SAWS THROUGH WEDNESDAY
Debate on the budget package began with Sen. Jake Knotts advising his colleagues, "At a time like this, we can't raid the taxpayers' pocketbooks to meet our needs. I do not believe we ought to keep going to the taxpayers every time we've got a crisis."
Knotts identified a single agency head who would receive a $2,700 pay increase under the Senate Finance Committee proposal; he railed against the increase. "Whenever it's hard times, you go from steak to hamburger, not to a thicker steak," he said.
Knotts moved to strike the pay increase and devote the total difference -- $2,700 -- to the Education Finance Act. Senators calculated that the change would raise the base student cost by .003 percent.
Sen. Kay Patterson countered Knotts' arguments with a diatribe of his own, focused toward conservative Senators who benefited, directly or indirectly, from large state contracts but who would not support improvements to salary or other conditions for rank-and-file state employees.
"What kind of politician is that, ain't got the backbone to vote for a two-cent tax? Ain't worth two cent," Patterson exclaimed. Until the party leaders of the Senate came together on a budget proposal, he added, "We ain't going to have no budget. Let the train wreck. We just won't have a budget."
In response to recent declarations by the South Carolina Policy Council regarding education spending, Patterson offered curt judgment: "Policy Council ain't never done nothing for nobody -- except the Policy Council."
One of Moore's smaller amendments -- which sought to give all state employees a two-percent salary increase and to hold employees harmless against dramatic increases in health insurance premiums -- met a tabling motion by Sen. Hugh Leatherman.
"It's time to come out of the tall weeds," Moore said in explaining the measure. "We can hide if we want to, but the people are going to hear and going to see you're either for it or you're against it. It's show-and-tell time."
In response to the finance chairman's motion, Moore told Senators, "I'm sick and tired of hearing how some people are for education and state employees, but every amendment supporting education and other things is voted down. Then they go back home and say how much they've done for education, and just look at their next campaign brochure to prove it."
Sen. John Land took up Moore's cause, noting that state employees have gone three consecutive years without a pay increase, and suffered health insurance premium increases in each of the past two years. At the same time, Land said, inflation has grown at about three percent annually. "So their spending power has dropped about nine percent," he said.
Leatherman took the podium to report that his constituents were opposed to raising taxes, by a margin of two-to-one.
On a roll-call vote, Leatherman's tabling motion passed, 26-16.
MOORE AMENDMENT AIRED, CHALLENGED UNDER SENATE RULES
Moore's full amendment to raise state sales taxes and devote the revenue to restoring budget cuts was presented at about 3 p.m., and Moore described its provisions from the podium. As previously reported in The SCEA Dateline, the plan would net about $1.1 billion in new revenues and fully-fund the Education Finance Act with a $326 million appropriation. Almost every state agency and institution would benefit from the funding, however.
Noting the many challenges to amendments on points-of-order under the Senate's rules, Moore said that he and staff had examined the 66-page amendment as carefully as possible in recent days to remove any violating language.
Moore's care was insufficient, however, as first Sen. Larry Martin, then Sen. Glenn McConnell, raised points of order requiring a ruling from Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. Martin's challenge was withdrawn when he realized he had an earlier version of the amendment, but McConnell assailed the plan on several technical points violative of Senate rules.
At first, Bauer took the questions "under advisement" and allowed Moore to continue his explanation. But barely 45 minutes into the discussion, Bauer sustained McConnell's inquiry, killing the Moore amendment.
The wrangling over point-of-order inquiries led Sen. Verne Smith to take the podium and call for decorum.
"We've gotten so technical on points of order, we can't do business," Smith complained. "Never thought I'd see where we died by our own rules. We're getting so tangled up we can't function, we can't hardly represent our people. We've neutered our finance committee. I hope our President Pro Tem will help us act like Senators and not like eunuchs."
RICHARDSON ONE-CENT TAX PROPOSAL KILLED
In the wake of Moore's defeat, Sen. Scott Richardson proposed a one-cent sales tax increase without a prescription for the use of its revenues. Richardson's proposal included a one-year increase of the cigarette tax and netted a total of $655 million in new revenue.
His hope, he said, was to establish a base student cost of at least $2,000 and aid other state agencies also.
But McConnell called for a point-of-order ruling, and Bauer sustained the inquiry, defeating Richardson's effort.
"I hope the people of South Carolina will keep those calls and letters coming," Richardson said as he left the podium. "Hopefully we'll wake up soon."
MOORE REVENUE PROPOSAL DEFEATED 2-TO-1
Moore returned with a last-ditch effort to raise the state sales tax, this time without the prescriptive dedication of new revenues. "We're in dire circumstances," he declared. "The people need us. You can vote this up or down, but remember: Justice is coming."
Sen. John Courson urged the chamber to reject Moore's proposal, "the largest tax increase in South Carolina's history".
"This is massive," Courson said. "It's massive, without any public input. This goes contrary to every theory of economics."
McConnell took the podium to deliver a list of arguments opposing Moore's revenue plan, beginning with the charge that it would "lower the standard of living across South Carolina."
"I have to be true to the people I represent," McConnell asserted. "The country is struggling. In Washington, they're arguing about how much the tax cut should be, while we're talking about raising the largest tax in our state history. You cannot tax your way into prosperity."
"Sure, there are people suffering under this budget," he allowed. "But the hour is not on us to raise taxes; the hour is on us to stay the course, let the economy revive."
McConnell said that he wasn't "turning a cold ear to education", but that he was frustrated with anecdotal accounts of education in his district. "We have so 'educratted' the process," he added, noting that he had taken "a couple of education courses" at the College of Charleston and didn't like their focus on "role play and the dynamics of leadership."
"Each of us has got to establish our own priorities," he concluded.
By a vote of 15 to 30 on roll call, Moore's revenue plan was defeated.
DEBATE CONTINUES TOMORROW
The Senate adjourned shortly past 9 p.m. and will resume debate at 10 a.m. Thursday. At the moment, no proposal exists to raise sufficient revenues to fully fund public education. The SCEA President Jan McCarthy urges educators to contact Senators through tomorrow's debate and encourage their support for full funding for education.
DATELINE MAY 15, 2003
RICHARDSON AMENDMENT KILLED, TOBACCO TAX TABLED
An amendment by Sen. Scott Richardson to raise a one-cent sales tax and additional cigarette taxes was ruled out of order by Senate Rules Chairman Larry Martin this afternoon, on a point-of-order inquiry from Sen. Glenn McConnell. Richardson appealed the ruling and won bipartisan support for his appeal, but it failed to win the number of votes necessary to overturn the ruling.
Richardson's amendment, and an amendment by Sen. Verne Smith to raise the tax on tobacco and dedicate new revenues to shore up the state's ailing Medicaid program, were the only highlights of today's Senate debate. Smith's tobacco tax proposal was tabled.
What is clear from the week's roller-coaster debates is that funding education is not the chamber's first priority. What is NOT clear after the sixth full day of argument, however, is exactly how much funding the Senate intends to devote to public schools. While the report of the Senate Finance Committee funded a base student cost of $1,901, that plan included revenues generated by the elimination of certain sales tax exemptions and caps. But those changes were undone upon introduction of the budget report to the chamber by Sen. Hugh Leatherman.
Since no revenue amendments have been adopted, it would appear that the Senate is comfortable adopting the House's education funding proposal, which rolls back the base student cost to 1995 levels, $1,643 per child. By comparison, the state portion of per-pupil expenditures in North Carolina and Georgia top $4,000 and $5,000 per child, respectively.
Richardson declared that his party leaders' hypersensitivity to Senate rules -- specifically, Rule 24 -- had "boxed" the chamber into largely accepting the malevolent House budget proposal. Strict reading of Rule 24 led Sen. Glenn McConnell and Sen. Larry Martin, among others, to call for point-of-order rulings on interpreted rule violations from Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who sustained their points and killed a handful of revenue-enhancing amendments. Rule 24 allows only amendments that "reasonably, specifically, and inherently directly relate to the raising and spending of revenue for or in the fiscal year for which the bill applies and do not amend or suspend permanent law."
The Senate gave approval on second reading to the Senate Finance Committee report, but a host of amendments remain before a vote will be taken on third reading. Debate on the Senate plan has already lasted twice as long as the House budget debate, and several Senators have complained from the podium about the potential of a costly extended session.
By law, the session will end during in early June, unless the legislature votes to extend session or the governor calls for a special session to complete budget work. Richardson estimated that each day of extended or special session will cost the state $78,000.
DATELINE MAY 19, 2003
EDUCATION MAY SUFFER FURTHER CUTS IN SENATE
The Senate returns a day earlier than usual to continue debate on its budget package this afternoon. Having squandered two weeks without agreement to generate new revenue, it appears that the chamber will not only accept the House's proposal to fund education at $1,643 per student, but will cut the base student cost even more.
An amendment adopted last week cuts approximately $67 million out of the state's revenues; a $25 surcharge on traffic fines was eliminated. The change leaves the Senate with even fewer dollars to manage than the House calculated.
Barring a flood of communications from affected educators and parents, the Senate will likely address how and where to cut funding from existing programs this week.
Sen. Tommy Moore proposed an amendment last week that would raise the state sales tax by two cents, generating an additional $1.1 billion in new revenue in the 2003-04 fiscal year. The revenue would be sufficient to fully fund the Education Finance Act at $2,201 per student and to restore a host of recent funding cuts to state agencies and institutions. Moore's amendment -- like other amendments to raise revenues -- was ruled out of order.
DATELINE MAY 20, 2003
E.O.C. GONE, ADMINISTRATORS FURLOUGHED AFTER SENATE DEBATE
The Education Oversight Commission will be eliminated and all district- and school-level administrators will be subject to a 10-day furlough next year as a result of amendments adopted by the Senate in a marathon Tuesday session. Senators adjourned just before 2 a.m. this morning, still having raised no new revenues.
Elimination of the EOC is largely symbolic, as it nets slightly over a million dollars in budget savings.
But the furlough of administrators -- which is permissive to local school districts under certain circumstances, rather than mandatory -- extends also to non-instructional employees. Whether education support personnel are included in the list is subject to interpretation. Legislative staff have estimated that the furloughs will net more than $11 million in savings.
Apart from these developments, the Senate's pattern of killing revenue-enhancement amendments continued. In Monday night's debate, Sen. Scott Richardson offered an amendment effectively re-establishing or strengthening a trigger mechanism in the state's disbursements from the Property Tax Relief Fund.
Present statutes appear to require that the legislature fully fund the "minimum defined program" of public education before any property tax relief funds are disbursed, and Richardson's amendment reinforced the law. Sen. Glenn McConnell and others agreed to the interpretation but argued that the legislature, not the Board of Economic Advisors, determines the necessary level of funding for the state's "minimum defined program". McConnell and Sen. Hugh Leatherman argued at length against Richardson's amendment, noting that the relief fund represents promises made to property owners from 1995 to date.
Richardson's amendment was tabled.
BASE STUDENT COST STILL SITS AT $1,643
Senators agreed early this morning to bring their amendments to a halt; after taking up three or four stragglers when it convenes at 10 a.m., the chamber will move to discussion of lottery proceeds amendments. It is expected that the Senate will take up debate on a separate revenue bill following the lottery discussion.
Disappointingly, in the third week of debate, the Senate budget funds the state's base student cost at $1,643, no more than the level adopted by the House in March. [In contrast, the state portion of per-pupil expenditures in North Carolina and Georgia exceed $4,000 and $5,000, respectively.] The Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) has recommended a base student cost of $2,201, still well below the state's neighbors.
Debate on a separate revenue bill offers a last-ditch opportunity for Senators to raise sufficient revenues to fully fund the Education Finance Act. It will be an uphill battle, as Senators have staked themselves solidly against a variety of proposals to raise revenues during the past two weeks.
There has been quiet, behind-closed-doors discussion since Monday of a compromise agreement to "eliminate loopholes" in the state's tax code; the last iteration of the agreement would appear to raise $228 million. But no public acknowledgement of the agreement or its details has been made.
DATELINE MAY 21, 2003
SENATE FOLDS, ADOPTS HOUSE ED FUNDING LEVELS
The Senate folded tonight. As the House did in March, it abandoned its responsibility to fully fund the Education Finance Act and adopted a budget that includes a base student cost of $1,643 -- substantially lower than the Board of Economic Advisors' recommendation of $2,201 per student. The budget package passed by a vote of 30-16.
Before adjourning for the night, the Senate re-ordered its calendared bills to ensure that the first measure up for debate tomorrow is a potential revenue-enhancement bill, but no one realistically expects the chamber to approve a plan to raise revenues for education.
First among amendments that likely will be heard tomorrow is a proposal to raise the tobacco tax and devote its proceeds to the state's ailing Medicaid program. Assuming that the tobacco tax is adopted -- a longshot, given the list of Senators who are already staked out in opposition -- then Senate majority leaders will surely seek an equal-dollar-amount reduction in state income taxes. Governor Mark Sanford has communicated clearly that he will veto any plan to raise taxes unless it includes an equivalent decrease in other taxes.
Sen. Tommy Moore, who has led our fight to raise revenues and save the progress made in public schools, pledges to offer another amendment, this one to raise a one-cent sales tax with revenues devoted entirely to the Education Finance Act. But a majority of Senators have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to raise any revenues at all.
Since Monday, some bipartisans have worked behind closed doors to draft a compromise proposal eliminating a number of sales-tax exemptions. The most recent version of that proposal represented a net gain of $228 million, with at least part devoted to public education. But the proposal was never referred to in today's debate, suggesting that drafters held little hope for its passage. Its chances are no better tomorrow.
A few Senators privately reported receiving higher numbers of calls and emails from teachers in the past two days, but those Senators ultimately voted for the budget package.
As reported during the passage of the House budget package in March, a base student cost of $1,643 represents a return to education funding levels of 1995, before the implementation of the Education Accountability Act and the annual Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT). In contrast, the state portion of per-pupil expenditure in North Carolina and Georgia tops $4,000 and $5,000 per student, respectively.
The reduction in funding may ultimately represent a loss of more than 6,000 jobs in South Carolina public schools, and an increase in class size. In the past six weeks, many school districts have already distributed notices of contract non-renewal to almost 2,000 teachers statewide. For these reasons, The SCEA opposed adoption of this budget package.
MOORE INCLUDES RATIONALE IN SENATE JOURNAL
[In fairness to Senators who have voted against revenue-enhancement amendments during the past two weeks, several of those drafted explanations for their votes, which are published in the daily Senate journals. Journals and those Senators' explanations may be found online at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/sjournal.htm]
Sen. Tommy Moore included the following statement in the Senate journal of today's session, explaining why he opposed the Senate budget package:
"I voted against H. 3749, the General Appropriation Bill, because it does not provide for the basic needs of many of the citizens of the State.
"Funding for public education is at the 1995 level; health care for uninsured children, nursing homes, senior citizens and the handicapped has been under-funded by $232 million, and those needing mental health services will have to be served in emergency rooms.
"In addition, we face the possibility of the federal courts requiring the release of criminals and delinquents back into the community before having served their sentence, placing an even greater burden on our public safety officers who are too few in number and are improperly equipped.
"During the deliberations, I offered an amendment that would have raised the sales tax by two percent, which would not apply to food, and would have raised the cigarette tax. These two items would have raised enough revenue to properly fund the basic education of our children, fund the Medicaid match and fund agencies providing necessary services and protection to the citizens of this State. This revenue would have also exempted those having taxable income of $15,000 or less from paying income tax, increased the homestead exemption for senior citizens and lowered the tax rate for many small businesses.
"This proposal along with many others would have improved the condition of this State, but were not adopted. Without the funding necessary to meet the basic needs of our citizens, I could not vote for the Bill."
SANFORDS, SECURITY DETAIL LEAVE THURSDAY FOR BERMUDA
Governor Mark Sanford, his wife and four sons will take a weekend vacation to Bermuda beginning Thursday. Costs of the Sanfords' vacation will be borne by the South Carolina Maritime Heritage Foundation, sponsors of a yacht race from Charleston to the Royal Bermuda Yacht Club.
The governor and his family will be accompanied by a security detail from the State Law Enforcement Division, but media accounts do not suggest that the foundation will cover the costs of security detail.
The Sanfords will arrive in time to watch the end of the yacht race, according to The State newspaper. An account of this news may be found at http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/5909080.htm
DATELINE MAY 27, 2003
NO EFFORT ON ED FUNDING; NEW MOORE PROPOSAL MAY HAVE CHANCE
The Senate made no effort today to address its budget's defunding of public education in South Carolina, but an amendment proposal by Sen. Tommy Moore to raise a cigarette tax caused a commotion and may have a chance at passage tomorrow.
Moore proposed the amendment to a bill sponsored by Sen. Jake Knotts, a bill that has already been heard and returned by the House. His amendment would raise the tax on cigarettes to 53 cents per pack, raising more than $200 million for Medicaid.
In recent days, Moore said, concerned South Carolinians and representatives of the health care industry bombarded him and other Senate Democrats with emails and telephone calls. One constituent read a letter to Moore that suggested he and other Senators didn't support Medicaid because of their positions on procedural votes last week.
Moore's amendment was designed to put the lie to that suggestion and to smoke out true supporters and opponents of a cigarette tax. "It's time to come out of the tall weeds," Moore said, repeating his mantra from the Senate budget debate. "You're either for this, or you're against it. You want a straight up-or-down vote on a cigarette tax? Now's the time for it."
To give his amendment an airing, Moore appropriated a bill originally authored by Sen. Jake Knotts, a bill that has already been heard and returned by the State House. If amended with Moore's proposal, the bill would be sent back to the House, forcing a straight up-or-down vote on cigarette taxes in that chamber too.
More than a dozen Senators immediately signed onto Moore's amendment as co-sponsors. Knotts moved to table the amendment, but the tabling motion failed, 32-12, demonstrating that the amendment has substantial support among Republican members.
Knotts made his way to the podium, presumably to begin a filibuster of the amendment, but a sufficient number of Senators asked for official leaves of absence that the chamber would soon lose a quorum. Debate was adjourned on Moore's amendment, but Knotts will have the floor when Senate reconvenes tomorrow.
The SCEA supports Moore's amendment -- indeed, any amendment that seeks solely to raise revenues for Medicaid -- because raising such revenues benefits education and public school children directly and indirectly. It frees funds that are currently earmarked for Medicaid, and it directly benefits a large segment of the state's children, those students and/or their families who are covered by Medicaid.
SANFORD MAINTAINS QUEST TO CUT TAXES
In a press conference at the State House, Governor Mark Sanford urged the legislature to adopt his two-month-old tax cut proposal which promises no additional funding to public education but rolls back income taxes in the state. True to form, Sanford also repeated his vow to veto any bill that raises revenues.
Saying that South Carolinians voted for change in the 2002 gubernatorial election, Sanford cited long-term income tax relief as the electorate's primary concern. His proposal would lower South Carolina's income tax rate from seven percent to five percent, which he said he believes will "stimulate economic growth, protect small businesses and encourage job growth and capital investment."
"I would challenge each and every member of the General Assembly to listen - not just to me - but to the thousands of small businesses, sole proprietorships and individual income earners from all across our state who have stepped up in support of our plan," Sanford said.
"This administration has shown time and time again over the past few months its willingness to compromise on numerous components of our plan - but rather than meeting us halfway, too many members of the General Assembly have chosen instead to try and score political points," Sanford declared.
Straying from his spirit of compromise, however, the governor vowed again to veto "any job-killing sales tax increase."
SENATE VETERAN CALLS FOR COOPERATION
The Senate struck a surprisingly contemplative tone for part of Tuesday's debate as Sen. John Drummond, former Senate President Pro Tem and the chamber's longest-serving member, called for an abatement of partisan rancor and a commitment to cooperation. His remarks won concurrence from Moore and Sen. Phil Leventis, but were chided by Sen. Verne Smith.
Although Drummond's desk is situated directly to the right of the Senate podium, and directly in front of the Senate desk, he characterized himself and some other Senate veterans as "players on the bench who never get into the game. We just watch what's been going on."
In his spare time on the floor, he said, he's been reviewing old legislative manuals. The exercise reminded him, he said, that "democracy is not about grabbing power for the sake of power. It is not about putting the interests of political party above the best interests of the state."
For the benefit of those who are not able to attend Senate proceedings and who may appreciate the Senate veteran's circumspection -- particularly in light of the recent debate on the Senate budget -- much of the text of Drummond's remarks is reprinted here:
"Mr. President, and members of the Senate,
"During the last few months, I've had a lot of time on my hands. Like a lot of my fellow senators, I've been able to watch proceedings from a very good vantage point -- right here at the front of the Senate. You might say I've got the best seat in the house. But a lot of us are kind of like the players on the bench who never get into the game. We just watch what's been going on.
"So I've had some time to do other things, and I started looking through some old legislative manuals. They are interesting books, those legislative manuals, full of a lot of information and a lot of history. I picked up the manual from the year 2000 one day, and I thumbed back through it until I got to the section on the Senate right up near the front. And I started counting the "D's" and the "R's" which come after people's names. They were almost evenly divided. There were 24 "D's" and 21 "R's." That was the year 2000. It was almost even.
"Then I flipped back a few more pages until I came to the section on Committee Chairmen, and started counting the "D's" and "R's." Almost even again. There were nine committee chairs with "D's" after their names, and six with "R's" after their names. That seemed fair enough. It represented the almost even split of membership in the Senate between the two parties.
"Well, it seems I had a little bit more time on my hands. Sitting here at my desk I picked up the Legislative Manual for the year 2001, the next year. And I flipped back to the section on the Senate again. And I started counting the "D's" and the "R's" which came after the senators' names. It was almost even again. This time there were 24 Senators with "R's" after their names and 22 senators with "D's" after their names -- a few more "R's" than there were "D's" the previous year.
"And then I turned back to the section on committee chairs and do you know what I found? There were 15 committee chairs with "R's" after their names. There were none with "D's" after their names.
"Did you all know that? Did you know that in 2001, all the committee chairmen with "D's" after their names were removed, and were replaced with senators who had "R's" after their names? Did you know that, Senator from Aiken? Senator from Clarendon? Fascinating books, these legislative manuals.
"Well, I was flabbergasted. I went back to my room that night and began looking through some old files and came across a speech I made from the floor of this Senate that first year -- the year 2000. It was the year we had nine "D's" as committee chairs, and six "R's." It was the last day of the session, and here are a couple of things I had to say.
" 'Our way of doing things was never intended to be a winner-take-all proposition. It was never designed to reward the few at the expense of others. It wasn't meant to be a process by which anyone could make things happen exactly right. It's a system which brings together the Darrell Jacksons and the Glenn McConnells to work things out. It forces the John Drummonds and the John Coursons to find areas of differing political and philosophical differences and requires that we do one thing: compromise.'
"Then I told the Senate, and most of you were here at the time and probably were paying close attention, I said, 'Don't worry about whether things might have worked out better for each of you. Worry instead about whether the work of this body honored the collective will and wisdom of all 46 senators.'
"Well, you can imagine my embarrassment. I was wrong. As it turns out, the work of this body now represents the collective will and wisdom of 24 senators, not 46 -- the 24 senators with the "R's" after their names. How could I have been so wrong? It is a winner-take-all sweepstakes, after all.
"So I'm a little confused here. I guess I could apologize and retract my statement of three years ago suggesting that all senators should work together. That turned out to be a little naïve, I guess.
"But maybe I won't do that. Maybe I'll say instead that I was not wrong on that day in May, 2000, when I said that this Senate works better when all 46 members are engaged in the process. And maybe I'll stand by those words that we should bring together all philosophies and points of view to work for compromises.
"Isn't it interesting, in fact, that after all these years of complaining about how Washington does this or how Washington does that, we've turned around and created a government in which partisanship controls almost everything?
"My friends, I make no apologies for the South Carolina brand of democracy. It's an old-fashioned brand of brand of democracy which doesn't limit the voice of the people by letters which come after politicians' names.
"I have been a member of this Senate for 35 years and I have served with men and women of great dedication. I have seen change come to this chamber -- reapportionment accomplished through a long and painful deliberative process in which everyone took part. I have seen change in the racial makeup of this Senate, and I can say without hesitation that these changes have made the Senate a stronger and more representative body, and have made the process of democracy.
"I have long believed that a two-party system strengthened democracy and gave voters sensible choices of candidates and philosophies. I have served with great pleasure under governors of both parties, and consider it a privilege and honor to have worked with men of such distinction as Bob McNair, John West, Jim Edwards, Dick Riley and Carroll Campbell. They have all sustained and supported the notion that two parties working together produce the best results for the entire state.
"I stand with them today in that belief. I say to my colleagues that democracy is not about grabbing power for the sake of power. It is not about putting the interests of political party above the best interests of the state. It is not about depriving half the people of this state of a voice in this Senate because of partisanship. Partisanship will destroy this great Senate and will destroy this state.
"And that, my good friends of both political parties, is what has taken place in this Senate during the last two years. We can do better than this. We can do a lot better than this. I hope and pray that we do. Thank you."
DATELINE MAY 28, 2003
DEMOCRATIC SENATOR: "IT'S OVER."
Cutting short a filibuster by Sen. Jake Knotts, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer sustained a point of order inquiry from Sen. Glenn McConnell seeking to effectively kill a cigarette tax amendment to fund the state's Medicaid program. Bauer's ruling was challenged by Sen. Tommy Moore, the amendment's chief sponsor, but the chamber voted 18-25 not to overrule Bauer's decision.
The day's result led a leading Democratic Senator to tell The SCEA, "It's over. For a month, we did all we could, and we appreciate your members for standing up with us to the end."
In fact, the House and Senate versions of the budget will now go to a conference committee to have differences resolved. A compromise report may be seen as early as next week.
HOUSE BEATS NEW ED FUNDING AMENDMENTS
The House entertained a late rumble of debate on its budget package, thanks to federal aid that has been promised to the state.
South Carolina may receive more than $100 million in federal aid, but that aid is not expected to arrive in the state until September. Regardless, Rep. Bobby Harrell sponsored a substantial budget amendment today that adds the paltry sum of $20 million to the Education Finance Act, though Harrell argued that the EFA will see an increase of $34 million in total.
Rep. James Smith encapsulated the difference represented by the additional funding: The base student cost will be funded at 1996 levels rather than 1995 levels. Harrell's amendment sets the state's contribution to per-pupil expenditures at $1,701, up from the House's original $1,643 allotment but still five hundred dollars per child less than the EFA formula's cost of $2,201.
In mid-afternoon, Rep. Joel Lourie offered an amendment that would raise the state sales tax by a half-penny, with proceeds devoted entirely to the EFA. Smith and Rep. Eldridge Emory spoke in favor of Lourie's amendment, but Rep. Annette Young of Dorchester County advised colleagues that her local school district had chosen to absorb a $3 million cut to public schools, and to "cut the fat" rather than raise taxes.
Young's remarks led Smith back to the podium to offer a passionate defense of investment in education. In abdicating its responsibility to raise taxes at the state level, Smith said, the House was passing the burden to local county councils and school districts to raise property taxes.
"We WERE headed in the right direction in education, but now we're sprinting for last place," Smith said. "We ought to care more about DOING this job than KEEPING this job. I know it's not just money that makes a difference in schools, but we sure as hell ought not to be funding education at 1996 levels."
Young moved to table Lourie's amendment, and the tabling motion passed by a vote of 67 to 40.
Other education-funding amendments were offered later in the afternoon, including an effort to keep open the Institute for Reading, but they all met the same fate.
