Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
July 23
The Post and Courier on the University of South Carolina’s tumultuous presidential selection process:
It’s bad enough that public bodies hold some of their most important discussions in secret. Then they refuse to talk publicly about the decisions they make in secret.
It’s not just annoying. That secrecy can also do some serious damage.
Consider the turmoil that has engulfed the University of South Carolina in the wake of trustees’ decision first to not hire and then to hire former West Point Superintendent Robert Caslen as president.
To hear them tell it, most trustees wanted to hire Mr. Caslen in April but delayed a vote out of respect for members who were upset about either the candidate or the process.
That was understandable, particularly since, according to one trustee, trustees weren’t given time to review the 600 pages of comments they solicited from students and faculty, and weren’t allowed to ask the candidates anything other than canned questions. (Those conditions, by the way, were completely unacceptable.)
What wasn’t understandable - or wise, or in the best interests of the university - was their decision to keep all that to themselves.
Several trustees suggested at Friday’s meeting to hire Mr. Caslen that they considered their April non-decision a delay rather than a rejection of the retired Army general. But by issuing a bare-bones statement that said they were continuing the search process and naming an interim president, they left the impression that he had been passed over. That impression triggered legislative and social media outrage on the right that trustees had allowed a hundred or so protesters to dictate their decision, and Gov. Henry McMaster’s decision to lobby trustees to quickly elect a president before any more damage could be done to the university’s reputation.
Mr. McMaster’s efforts to get a vote on Mr. Caslen in turn reignited the social media hysteria on the left, which now included a hefty sense of betrayal because students had been allowed to believe that they had stopped his selection.
Charles Williams, the most vocal critic of the way the search was handled, said at Friday’s meeting that student protests “had absolutely nothing to do with my vote, and I don’t think it had anything to do with anybody else’s vote.”
“But I wasn’t allowed to go out and say the student protest isn’t why we didn’t vote; I’ve got to be quiet,” he said.
Mr. Williams told us this week that there weren’t any specific directives not to talk; it had just always been the board’s policy that individuals wouldn’t comment after executive sessions. But the idea that members of state and local boards and commissions can’t say anything after an executive session is widespread.
To be clear, although some legal authorities say it’s implicit, nothing in state law prohibits members of public boards from discussing what is said in executive sessions. And even if there is some way to legally restrict it, silence is rarely in the best interest of the public, or of the institution.
Mr. Williams argues that the biggest failure of the search was the board’s failure to explain why it didn’t vote in April. We agree.
We’re sure Mr. Caslen’s opponents would have remained outraged even if the board had been more forthcoming; likewise, those pushing the narrative of radical students taking over colleges would have still claimed that was happening here. But critics wouldn’t have been able to make their most sympathetic claim: that they had been misled. Claims about student mobs would have been much more easily dismissed. And if the governor and legislative leaders had understood what was going on, they might not have felt the need to intervene.
It’s probably not realistic to expect the Legislature to make it clear that members of boards, commissions and city and county councils have the right to talk about what happens in executive sessions. But we hope that members of such boards will keep the turmoil at USC in mind the next time they’re deciding what to tell the public after a secret session.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com
___
July 21
The Times and Democrat on high diabetes rates in the state:
Diabetes is an epidemic that affects 30 million Americans and costs more than $300 billion per year. And things could be getting worse.
A new study, “The Rise of Diabetes in America by 2030,” released by PsyDPrograms.org projects diabetes will increase by 38% and effect more than 15% of the U.S. population in 20 years.
That’s very bad news in South Carolina, which has among the highest per-capita rates of the disease.
The study - which uses data from the Institute for Alternative Futures, the American Diabetes Association and the CDC - concludes South Carolina will have the No. 10 most cases of diabetes in 2030, affecting 16.6% of its population.
Also, South Carolina ranked No. 13 with the highest projected rate of increase at 38.5% by 2030.
The findings are even worse news in T&D Region counties, which are known as the “diabetes belt” with rates higher than those elsewhere in a state with among the highest rates in the nation.
Enter the Regional Medical Center, the anchor of the health care system for the three counties of Orangeburg, Calhoun and Bamberg.
RMC leadership is determined to see the health of the people its serves improve, with curbing diabetes high on the list of priorities. A key component in combating diabetes is better eating.
Toward promoting that, RMC is developing plans for a community garden and farmers market as part of an overall hospital plan to lead a “food as medicine” effort.
It coincides with the hospital’s three-year Community Health Improvement Plan to help create a healthy community with the intent of reducing medical costs.
The CHIP plan’s ultimate goal is to improve the overall health of the tri-county area through healthy eating.
Strategies the hospital is using to make the plan a reality include:
-Expanding existing services by bringing information on healthy living to churches as well as continuing school and community gardens.
-Starting food boxes connecting local farmers to food pantries.
-Encouraging more roadside stands and the use of government benefits.
-Encouraging more healthy foods being provided at community functions.
-Promoting healthy food truck options.
AND implementing a diabetes-prevention program.
With RMC’s own recent survey confirming that residents here continue to struggle with chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and obesity, the good news is hospital trustees are unanimous in support of the CHIP proposals.
Diabetes can cause a reduction in quality of life, psychological trauma, amputation of limbs and ultimately premature death. There is no higher health priority here than doing battle with the disease.
Online: https://thetandd.com
___
July 18
The Index-Journal on a bipartisan effort to help small businesses grow:
We hope South Carolina’s U.S. Sen. Tim Scott doesn’t get battered and beaten for consorting with the enemy the way fellow U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has in past years, but Scott, a Republican, is to be commended for joining Delaware’s Democrat Sen. Chris Coons and Colorado’s Republican Sen. Cory Gardner for introducing legislation that is aimed at increasing investment in the country’s small manufacturers.
Some things, you see, really ought to be bipartisan and America’s ability to help small business grow is one of those.
SIGMA - or Strengthening Investment to Grow Manufacturing in America Act - has at its crux supporting manufacturers through more affordable loans, incentives for operation growth, and expanding financial resources and education assistance to small manufacturers. U.S. Reps. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, and Tom Reed, R-N.Y., introduced companion legislation.
A press release issued … by Scott’s office noted the loan programs will assist small businesses by providing federally guaranteed loans for businesses. These, along with the Small Business Investment Company, “provide investment in America’s start-up manufacturers and growing businesses that have limited access to cash reserves,” the release noted.
Also of note is where the SIGMA Act is directed in that it puts additional investment in “small manufacturing businesses in low- or moderate-income areas, rural areas, areas of high unemployment, and those that are veteran-owned, minority-owned, woman-owned, or are important to national security.”
“Having been a former small business owner and entrepreneur, I understand the challenges that many across our nation face when trying to start a business and build their American Dream,” Scott said in the release. “By investing in, and providing our manufacturers and innovators with access to, necessary resources, we are advancing our communities and creating more jobs for Americans.”
Coon echoed the need for SIMGA: “Small manufacturers provide an outsized role in growing the U.S. economy and are vital links in the domestic industrial supply chain. This bill will help our small manufacturers secure adequate lines of credit so that they can expand their businesses, create new jobs, and continue to support U.S. economic growth.”
At a time when there seems to be greater support for a wall dividing the two sides of the U.S. Senate and House as opposed to a wall dividing the U.S. from Mexico, it is refreshing and good to see sensible, forward-thinking bipartisan legislation making its way through Washington, D.C.
Online: http://www.indexjournal.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.