South Carolina editorial roundup: Friday, May 28, 2021

Posted

(Charleston) Post and Courier

May 24

S.C. Senate wants to ground most legislative flights. House should agree

We were reminded this spring of how badly legislators are abusing state planes, using them to attend conferences of questionable public value, often in resort areas, often accompanied by spouses or girlfriends. Again.

The reports of high-flying lawmakers prompted the predictable outrage from a few legislators and a knee-jerk proposal to just sell off the state planes - which might save the state money and might in fact cost it money but in any event was a sledgehammer-to-kill-a-gnat proposal since most flights do not involve legislators.

And then something amazing happened. Just as we had urged, the Senate voted to put some restrictions on legislators' use of the planes.

State law already limits the state planes to "official business," which isn't defined except to explicitly exclude travel to or from legislative meetings, news conferences, bill signings and political functions. The proviso added to the do-not-fly list "conferences" - which have been legislators' favorite way to use the planes as a perk instead of a tool since the restrictions were imposed. (Before then ... well, thankfully, those days are over.)

Columbia's State newspaper reported this spring that House Democratic Leader Todd Rutherford took 34 flights on state planes since 2012, often to vacation destinations, where he was speaking at a conference or had some other type of business that was tangentially related to his job as a legislator. He was accompanied on six trips by his girlfriend and now wife, whose presence apparently wasn't even tangentially related to legislative business.

The newspaper reported that Rep. John King took 24 flights and Rep. Carl Anderson took 14, while 17 legislators hitched a ride on a state plane between three and 10 times; 15 lawmakers flew twice and one once.

There are occasionally legitimate reasons for state legislators to use a state plane, which costs $1,000 to $1,500 per hour to fly; that's why state law allows it, as long as they sign a form stating that they're on official state business. But most of Mr. Rutherford's trips - like many other legislators' trips - were for conferences of the sort that lawmakers have agreed count as official state business but that certainly aren't an essential part of their jobs.

Although banning travel to conferences will have the most direct impact, the proviso approved by the Senate - proposed by Republican Leader Shane Massey, Republican Sens. Wes Climer and Penry Gustafson and Democratic Sen. Dick Harpootlian - includes other provisions that should further scale back the abuse: Legislators could use the planes only with prior approval by the president of the Senate or the speaker of the House or if they were invited to tag along on a trip arranged by one of the agencies in the governor's Cabinet - and then only if the Cabinet director certifies in writing that the legislator's attendance "is in furtherance of the official business of the State."

That means if legislators find a way to abuse the planes again, the speaker or president or the governor would be on the hook to explain why he authorized that abuse - and thus, we hope, unlikely to approve questionable trips.

Additionally, legislators' guests would have to pay for flights at commercial rates within 30 days, with penalties assessed against the legislator every 30 days if the payment isn't made.

There's plenty of room to improve those provisions. For instance, we'd like to see legislators (and other flyers) explain why it's essential to reserve the state plane, rather than driving, or flying commercially, for instance by showing it's less expensive to use a state plane than to take a commercial flight. And this is a small thing, but why not require lawmakers to file a written explanation of their travel before they climb aboard rather than within 24 hours after a flight?

But outlawing the most common abuse, and requiring legislative leaders and the governor to take ownership for the trips, should reduce the frequency of lawmakers' flights.

Of course, it's easy for the Senate to pass such a change, since the most frequent flyers are House members: Only five of the 36 legislators who reserved the state plane between January 2012 and March 2021 were senators. Two of those senators have since retired, and among them the five took a total of 15 flights, which is fewer than half the trips taken by Mr. Rutherford.

What will happen next isn't clear, since the poster child for abusive flights has a surprising amount of pull in a body that doesn't need any Democratic votes to pass … anything.

But we know what should happen next: House budget writers, who are taking their second pass at the budget this week and next, should accept the Senate proviso, and build on it. And if they don't, then other representatives should propose that during full House debate in two weeks.

(Orangeburg) Times and Democrat

May 23

Death penalty should be used per S.C. law

With the continuing unavailability of drugs for lethal injection, South Carolina leaders have decided to move ahead with executions after a 10-year delay. To do so, lawmakers will give death row inmates a choice between the electric chair or newly formed firing squad, though lethal injection will remain the state's preferred method of execution.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed into law the legislation that forces death row inmates to make the choice, but just when or if executions can resume is unclear. Two inmates who have exhausted their appeals immediately sued, saying they can't be electrocuted or shot since they were sentenced under a prior law that made lethal injection the default execution method if an inmate rejects the electric chair.

The continuing delays are unacceptable if the state is to have capital punishment. As McMaster said via Twitter: "The families and loved ones of victims are owed closure and justice by law."

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the worst criminals.

We must be certain, with a defense being vigorously mounted for accused criminals, that guilt is established. After it is, at present, a flawed legal process allows those sentenced to death to remain on death row for decades as appeal after appeal is filed. That's not the way the process should work. Capital cases should receive top priority, getting a thorough and complete review. And they should be handled quickly.

Appeals should be prioritized. Last-minute stays, as a matter of routine, are as inexcusable as the years it takes from sentencing to execution.

Recent years have seen the problem grow more pronounced.

Executions and new death sentences have been declining in South Carolina and across the United States. South Carolina has not executed anyone since May 6, 2011.

The complication has been in the method: use of lethal injection.

States have been unable to obtain drugs because pharmaceutical companies that compounded them in the past have received a great deal of outside pressure to end the practice.

Without the drugs, states have had no way of executing inmates on death row unless, as in South Carolina, they choose to die by electrocution.

While lethal injection remains the most acceptable method of administering capital punishment, complications surrounding the process should not mean capital punishment is non-existent.

Still, the method of execution is not the primary problem.

Until we change the legal procedures surrounding capital cases, the death penalty is not even very good as societal retribution. Too many times there is sympathy for the person being executed as the stories of the victims are deep in the past. The victims, let us remember, are not around to tell their stories. Their family and friends are punished as cases drag on and on.

Call punishment by death or life in prison with no chance to get out nothing but retribution if you will, but time it is for people to pay the price for their actions.

If the electric chair and firing squads are the only certain methods of execution available in South Carolina, use them.

(Greenwood) Index-Journal

May 22

Relationships are key to building community

At a time when the nation yet grapples with evidence that skin color can determine how a law officer treats people while in the line of duty and when people are compelled to take to the streets to protest such treatment, it is more than just heartening to hear a different tale in Greenwood, South Carolina.

Words of praise for the city's police chief, T.J. Chaudoin, and his officers were publicly spoken earlier this week during a meeting of Greenwood City Council.

While praise might not seem all that unusual, the fact that the words were shared by Bishop Oliver McCray makes the message all the more compelling and telling.

McCray is pastor of one of the city's largest predominantly Black churches, Morris Chapel Baptist Church. Since coming to Greenwood, McCray has done more than pastor his church congregation. He has been active in the community, and not just within the bounds of his church's neighborhood.

He cares about the community as a whole, whether through service on The Salvation Army board or through working with others to improve race relations and address violence and crime.

And so it meant a great deal when McCray stood before the council and said: "This Black man in Greenwood standing right here got something good to say about the police." As he said those words, he made sure to speak directly to Chaudoin, who was in the audience. "You guys have done what you are supposed to do and you help me as a pastor, as a community leader, as a father, as a grandfather," McCray said.

This was not McCray's first occasion to speak with council members, and not just publicly. He has established himself as a liaison, connecting the Black community to the council and the police department.

What is happening in Greenwood is what needs to happen in every town, city and county across the nation. What is taking place is good old-fashioned relationship building, trust building.

That is not to say that there are not and will not yet be issues that arise and that pit residents against law enforcement, or even vice-versa. There will always be bad cops, and there are always bad people. Developing better understanding of people's backgrounds and perspectives, building a community in which residents know the officers and the officers know the residents will, however, serve to strengthen the community.

People need to realize that a police presence in one neighborhood might not get the same reaction - one of trust - in another.

In addressing the chief and council, McCray said he hopes dialogue will prevail over violence when or if something bad happens.

In 1992, during a violent riot following the 1991 car chase and subsequent beating of Rodney King, King sought calm and made famous the phrase "Can't we all get along?"

Nearly three decades later, McCray made a pointed and poignant observation: "I am proud of the blue here in Greenwood. I hope that the blue, the black, the white, the green - all of us can work together."

The steps McCray, the chief and council are taking will go a long way toward achieving that goal.