Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
March 5
The Times and Democrat of Orangeburg on wildfires and prescribed-burn awareness:
Wildfires are not unusual this time of year around a state rich in woodlands. We lose thousands of acres of forest annually to fire.
It doesn’t have to be.
That’s the message from Gov. Henry McMaster and South Carolina experts. The governor has proclaimed March 2019 Prescribed Fire Awareness Month in South Carolina.
A coalition of state, federal and non-governmental land-management organizations under the umbrella of the South Carolina Prescribed Fire Council requested the proclamation to raise awareness of the essential role that fire plays in both the stewardship of our natural resources and the protection of lives and property.
Prescribed, or controlled, burning is the skilled application of fire under planned weather and fuel conditions to achieve specific forest and land management objectives. Controlled burning is an ancient practice, notably used by Native Americans for crop management, insect and pest control, and hunting habitat improvement, among other purposes.
The practice continues today under the direction of land managers who understand the appropriate weather conditions, fuel loads and atmospheric conditions for conducting such burns. These carefully applied fires are an important tool to reduce wildfires, enhance wildlife habitat, and keep the nearly 13 million acres of forested land in South Carolina healthy and productive.
The fires also help restore and maintain vital habitat for wildlife, including bobwhite quail and other grassland birds, wild turkeys, white-tailed deer, gopher tortoises and red-cockaded woodpeckers. Beyond the many wildlife species that require fire-dependent habitat, many plants thrive only in regularly burned forests.
The demise of the longleaf pine forest and associated grasslands, which once made South Carolina one of the best quail-hunting states, is tightly correlated to the decrease in woods burning.
Prescribed fire enhances public safety by reducing or even eliminating fuel loads, thereby making wildfire on that area impossible or unlikely for some time afterward. And wildfires are usually less destructive on areas that have been prescribed burned. Wildfires often either lose intensity or go out when they reach areas that have been prescribed burned.
The message about prescribed fire as one of the best ways to keep Smokey Bear and his associates from being busy fighting catastrophic wildfires is an important one. Support and education are vital.
…
Online: https://thetandd.com/
___
March 6
The Post and Courier of Charleston on former state Rep. Mike Pitts dropping his bid to head the South Carolina Conservation Bank:
Former state Rep. Mike Pitts did the state a favor by withdrawing his name from consideration to head the S.C. Conservation Bank. The $115,000-a-year position as head of the vitally important agency should be as apolitical as possible, and taxpayers will be better served by the appointment of a conservation professional well-versed in making land deals rather than someone more suited to making political deals.
And, as former Gov. Nikki Haley correctly pointed out in a tweet: “South Carolina should get out of the practice of giving outgoing legislators government jobs. It does not move (the state) in the right direction to allow this to move forward. Hoping good government prevails.”
The Conservation Bank has a had a fraught relationship with the Legislature since a critical 2017 audit led to the resignation of its executive director and lawmakers stripped the bank of its dedicated source of funding from real estate fees.
The intent of Mr. Pitts’ nomination for the job, according to Senate testimony, was to help heal the bank’s rift with the Legislature and to re-establish a dedicated source of funding for the bank. That might have been politically expedient because the Conservation Bank now relies on year-to-year funding through the Legislature’s budgeting process. But it could have also opened lawmakers to the appearance of impropriety.
Mr. Pitts, a former police officer and Laurens County councilman, wasn’t necessarily the most qualified applicant for the job, one that requires experience in real estate, natural resources and land management. Lawmakers had passed over about 30 other applicants in favor of Mr. Pitts, who ultimately withdrew his nomination due to health concerns following two contentious Senate hearings last week.
The Legislature can now focus on finding the best-qualified applicant for the job, preferably someone with a background in land preservation and the protection of natural resources.
In Senate testimony, Mr. Pitts was taken to task for voting against a bill that would have prevented lawmakers from heading a state agency until they had been out of office for at least a year. This after the former Republican lawmaker recused himself from other votes related to the Conservation Bank. That put his nomination in an uneasy position. Plus, had Mr. Pitts been confirmed, he surely would have been viewed as susceptible to political pressure from his former colleagues, who now control the bank’s appropriations.
The Conservation Bank deserves a leader committed to the agency’s mission and as free as possible from political entanglements and the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Established in 2004, the Conservation Bank preserves land though publicly financed purchases and conservation easements. Examples include property surrounding the Angel Oak on Johns Island and land on Morris Island and in the ACE Basin - about 300,000 acres in total.
It was unfortunate that Mr. Pitts resigned his seat last year so he could be considered for the job and then suffered a heart attack, but he was right to withdraw his nomination for his own sake and that of the Conservation Bank’s future.
Certainly, there are other willing and able conservation professionals capable of both furthering the Conservation Bank’s important mission and healing its relationship with the Legislature.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/
___
March 6
Index-Journal of Greenwood on a bill seeking to ban felons from being sheriffs:
And now, from the “Are you serious? We need such a law?” file comes this. Apparently, it will be necessary for some legislation to come out of Columbia that would spell out that felons cannot seek one of the state’s highest law enforcement positions - sheriff.
Based on a rather rich history of abuse of power in office carried out by no fewer than eight sheriffs in the past decade, lawmakers are eyeing legislation that would prevent anyone from running for sheriff who has been convicted, pleaded guilty to, or been pardoned of a felony or crime of moral turpitude, the Associated Press reported this past week.
A law is already on the books that ostensibly would prevent such a ridiculous scenario since sheriffs have to be certified law officers. A felony conviction would prevent certification. But the “moral turpitude” clause surfaced because of scenarios such as the one involving former Saluda Sheriff Jason Booth. Booth pleaded guilty to misconduct in office in 2012 for using inmate labor for construction projects at his home. He also allowed that inmate unsupervised visits with the inmate’s girlfriend, who wound up pregnant.
As much as one would think that should spell the end to Booth’s career in law enforcement that very nearly was not the case. Four years later, Booth filed to run for his former post and got 31 percent of the vote. …
As state Rep. Bruce Bryant, who was sheriff of York County from 1997 to 2017, said, “A sheriff needs to be held to the highest standards. If you have been convicted of a crime, how could the public have any confidence in your ability to uphold the law fairly for them?”
That certainly is a reasonable expectation, but given the percentage of votes Booth received in 2016, we wonder about voters’ recall abilities. Really, one would reason that a sheriff who abuses his office for personal gain, whether a misdemeanor or felony, would have the decency not to run again. And one would reason that voters would know better than to return such a person to the most powerful law enforcement position in the county.
Maybe not.
Online: http://www.indexjournal.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.