Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
March 15
The Post and Courier (of Charleston) on firing the director of the state Department of Public Safety:
The South Carolina House of Representative’s decision on Tuesday to get rid of a Cabinet officer exemplifies why improved governance is so hard to achieve in a legislative state. The House voted to fire Leroy Smith, director of the state Department of Public Safety, through a legislative maneuver that would take away funding for his salary in the next state budget.
The explanation? Neither Gov. Henry McMaster nor his predecessor Nikki Haley has been willing to dismiss Mr. Smith, despite the urging of his critics, including those in the Legislature. But Mr. Smith answers to the governor, and his employment should be up to the state’s chief executive, not an option for legislative action.
Lawmakers voted 76-20 Tuesday to eliminate the director’s position by reducing the agency’s funding for the slot. When the new budget goes into effect on July 1, Mr. Smith will lose his job, assuming the amendment remains in the budget.
Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, initiated the action, criticizing Mr. Smith for micromanaging the agency, and for failing to reduce the number of highway deaths in the state. Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, says legislative action is the only alternative given the unwillingness of the governor to fire Mr. Smith.
Actually, the only reasonable option is to let the governor manage his own Cabinet and its agency directors. Lawmakers have more than enough to do without meddling in the governor’s responsibilities.
Mr. Pitts, a retired law officer, contends that Mr. Smith has to go because of low morale in the DPS, which includes the state highway patrol.
If legislators have information about Mr. Smith’s shortcomings they should share it with the governor and let him make the call. Mr. McMaster has been in office less than two months, following Mrs. Haley’s decision to take a presidential appointment at the United Nations. The Legislature’s action isn’t merely ill-advised but precipitate, as well. So far, Gov. McMaster is standing behind his DPS director.
The Cabinet system has taken root and grown over the last 25 years because of a prior lack of accountability. In some cases agencies have been dispatched to the governor’s office in response to problems that the Legislature hasn’t wanted to deal with. For example, lawmakers turned over the Department of Motor Vehicles to then-Gov. Mark Sanford, who quickly improved the perennially troubled agency. The Legislature decided that the Employment Security Commission should be a Cabinet position after the agency, mainly directed by ex-legislators, ran up a $900 million debt.
Still, legislators really don’t want to let go of their authority, as the backdoor attempt to dismiss Mr. Smith demonstrates.
The DPS director should be held accountable for problems in his agency, but it’s the governor’s job to handle the matter, not the Legislature’s. The Senate should take a stand and reject the House budget amendment.
Online:
https://www.postandcourier.com
___
March 12
The Herald-Journal of Spartanburg on “constitutional carry:”
The backers of “constitutional carry” are right philosophically, but they are wrong practically, and that’s why a pending bill in the General Assembly should be rejected.
The bill would allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry that gun, either concealed or openly, without a concealed weapons permit or any other kind of permit. There would be no training required. If the bill passes, anyone who can legally own a gun can legally carry that gun.
Proponents of the measure call it “constitutional carry” because the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. They object to the need to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon because citizens shouldn’t have to get permission from the government to exercise their rights.
The bill’s backers are right in this line of reasoning. We don’t have to get a permit to exercise our right to free speech or free assembly, unless we choose to assemble in specific places. Constitutional rights belong to the people and shouldn’t be withheld from a citizen unless that citizen obtains a permit.
But that’s the only way in which they are correct on this bill. It is ideologically well grounded, but it would not be wise to put it into practice in this state.
Lawmakers have already gone too far in reducing the training required to obtain a concealed weapons permit. The state used to require an eight-hour minimum of training, but now instructors are free to determine the length of time required to train permit applicants.
It may not fit well with a strict libertarian ideology, but South Carolinians need to maintain the current requirements for concealed weapons permits. We simply don’t need untrained people - who are unfamiliar with their firearms and clueless about the laws regarding those guns - to strap on a pistol and head to school to pick up their kids.
While the pending bill would eliminate the need to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, or to carry one openly, it would not change the myriad laws regarding where and when a person can carry a weapon.
Those who do not go through the training necessary to obtain a permit may be unaware that they cannot carry a weapon to a college football game or to a polling place during an election or into a church or a hospital unless they have permission.
There is at least a bare minimum of training in the actual use of a firearm and gun safety necessary to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Eliminating the permit requirement for carrying will allow those who just bought a gun - who may not know how to use and operate it properly - to carry that gun in public. It makes accidents much more likely.
This law may be ideologically correct, but it is wrong practically for the safety of South Carolinians. Lawmakers should reject it.
Online:
https://www.goupstate.com
___
March 12
The Aiken Standard on state law enforcement and the release of police dashcam video:
As South Carolina begins its weeklong observance of Sunshine Week, regrettably too many public agencies still operate in the dark. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is one of them.
Where SLED most commonly runs afoul is when it comes to the release of police dashcam footage. SLED seldom releases dashcam video until after an investigation complete, even though it’s clearly public information and releasable under state law.
History repeated itself recently, when the agency refused to release footage of an officer-involved shooting involving the Aiken County Sheriff’s Office during an incident near North Augusta.
In denying the North Augusta Star’s request for the dashcam video, SLED cited a non-existent exemption. SLED claimed the footage was exempt from disclosure because the case is still under investigation. No such exemption appears anywhere in state law.
A SLED spokesman later clarified by citing an exemption relating to a prospective law enforcement action. The spokesman said he hoped the footage would be released in the near future.
While we still dispute SLED’s interpretation of FOIA in this matter, we appreciate the clarification.
SLED’s denial of the Aiken County footage refers to a section of the state’s Freedom of Information Act relating to the release of police records, specifically Section 30-4-40(a)(3). Here is the exact wording of that statute:
“Records of law enforcement and public safety agencies not otherwise available by state and federal law that were compiled in the process of detecting and investigating crime if the disclosure of the information would harm the agency.”
Taylor Smith, an attorney for the South Carolina Press Association, agreed the tape should be released.
“The bottom line is that democracy dies in darkness,” Smith said.
SLED and some police agencies historically have confused prospective law enforcement action with the end of a criminal case.
Prospective law enforcement action, in our view, doesn’t mean waiting until the conclusion of an investigation, prosecution and sentencing. Our position is that a prospective law enforcement action is completed when an arrest is made or a declaration that no charges will be filed.
Law enforcement agencies do not prosecute defendants charged with crimes. Solicitors do. The work of law enforcement ends when an arrest is made. In America, we don’t jail people first and find evidence later. Cases cannot perpetually remain “under investigation.”
And solicitors are not law enforcement officers. They do not make arrests, they do not put people in handcuffs and they do not wear badges on their sleeves.
Solicitors are attorneys who prosecute defendants already charged with a crime by law enforcement. Criminal prosecution is not a prospective law enforcement action; the arrest of an individual is.
The public is entitled to access because taxpayers paid for the footage and the salaries of the officers recorded on tape. Disclosure also is vital because it’s the only way the public can have confidence that law enforcement agencies are performing their duties responsibly and professionally.
Just as tapes capture officers acting inappropriately, they also record acts of police heroism. The public deserves to see tapes so they can make their own determination. Otherwise, we risk falling prey to rumor and speculation.
In South Carolina, police agencies sometimes have an irritating tendency to withhold dashcam video when the footage makes them look bad while releasing it when it makes them look good. That is a foolhardy policy. It’s also illegal.
We hope SLED will fulfill its mission of upholding the law by releasing the dashcam video. After all, the agency’s name has the word “law” in it.
Online:
https://www.aikenstandard.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.