Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
Feb. 6
Herald-Journal of Spartanburg on the governor's violation of the Freedom of Information Act:
Nikki Haley, the governor who ran on a platform of government transparency, has quickly found herself in violation of the state's Freedom of Information Act.
Haley met with the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to discuss this year's challenging state budget. That makes sense. South Carolinians should expect that these three people would meet to discuss the budget.
But the three of them constitute a majority of the state Budget and Control Board, which makes many financial decisions for the state. The other members of the board are the state treasurer and comptroller general.
Treasurer Curtis Loftis was not happy about being left out of the meeting. He complained that the majority had met without him and that he didn't know what was discussed.
The governor's chief of staff replied that Loftis is irrelevant to budget discussions and should keep quiet.
The problem is that the meeting did violate the Freedom of Information Act. The law bars meetings of a majority of any public body, such as the Budget and Control Board, without public notice.
Haley's office responded that the three did not discuss Budget and Control Board issues. But how do we know that? The state budget is intimately involved in Budget and Control Board business. If there is a budget shortfall, the board decides whether to institute cuts. The three may have agreed on how they want to handle any shortfalls.
The governor and the two leading legislative budget writers need to meet, but they need to do so within the law. ...
One immediate adjustment should be in the tone coming from the Governor's Office. Spokesman Rob Godfrey told The Associated Press: "It's no secret that we're entering a brutal budget year, and the governor will continue to meet with anyone and everyone necessary to get the people of our state through it." Haley's chief of staff wrote Loftis' office stating that the meetings would continue. These remarks make it sound as if the governor doesn't care whether she violates the Freedom of Information Act and may do so again. ...
Online:
http://www.goupstate.com
___
Feb. 7
The Herald of Rock Hill on guns for lawmakers:
We're relieved that a bill that would have allowed state lawmakers and other elected and appointed officials to carry guns while on state business was voted down unanimously in a subcommittee vote. But that is not the end of the debate.
The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Ted Vick, D-Chesterfield, was designed to give state officials a better chance to protect themselves, perhaps from angry constituents, Vick explained. He said the $829 million state budget shortfall could get people riled up. ...
Those who voted 5-0 against the bill in subcommittee didn't necessarily disagree with Vick's assessment. The primary reason given for opposing the bill was that it gave special gun rights to elected officials, which one critic called a "slap in the face" to the other residents of the state.
In other words, the opponents had no problem with people bringing guns into the Statehouse. They just didn't like the idea of special privileges to carry arms for lawmakers.
Even the gun rights groups opposed the measure _ because it didn't go far enough. Many of them support allowing South Carolinians with concealed weapon permits to take their guns wherever they want.
Current law prohibits permit holders from taking their guns into schools, bars, the Statehouse and a few other locations. We're far from convinced that more guns in more places would make us safer. ...
Rather than allowing lawmakers or anyone else to pack heat in the Statehouse, we would endorse more thorough screening to ensure that everyone is disarmed except law enforcement officers.
Online:
http://www.heraldonline.com
___
Feb. 3
The Post and Courier of Charleston on Charlotte, N.C., landing the 2012 Democratic Convention:
The Obama-Biden ticket carried North Carolina in 2008, snapping a Republican winning streak of seven straight presidential elections in the Tar Heel State. Though the margin of victory was a mere 14,000 votes out of more than 4 million cast, it evidently was enough to help convince the Democratic National Committee to hold the party's 2012 convention in Charlotte.
The losing finalists _ St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland _ are all in what long have been considered "swing states" in White House races. Now pundits are debating whether North Carolina has joined that group.
The 2008 triumphs of the Obama-Biden ticket and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Beverly Perdue suggest that it has. So does North Carolina's current 1-1 GOP-Democratic split in U.S. Senate seats and 7-6 Democratic edge in U.S. House seats. Then again, after major gains in last November's election, the GOP now controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature for the first time since the 19th century.
But regardless of political trends, or ideology, all Americans should value the benefits of a vigorous two-party system _ and should welcome Democrats' attempts to compete in "red" states and Republicans' attempts to compete in "blue" states.
And though our state has gone for the GOP ticket in eight straight presidential elections, South Carolinians should welcome 2012 Democratic conventioneers who make the short trip across the border to visit _ and spend money in _ our state.
We also should root for that Charlotte get-together to produce a far more positive outcome than the only other major-party presidential convention ever held in the Carolinas _ the 1860 Democratic Convention here in Charleston.
It ended in a no-nomination deadlock after the slavery issue split the party. That set the stage for the election of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln _ and the Civil War.
So congratulations, Charlotte, on landing that Democratic Convention _ and good luck on it turning out better than ours did.
Online:
http://www.postandcourier.com