Treasurer election shows closed, antiquated political system

In the 1949 book "Southern Politics," V.O. Key Jr. wrote that "localism" was the chief characteristic of South Carolina state government. In some cases this has meant one region against another to the detriment of the state as a whole. In other cases, it has meant the perspective of those within the circles of power simply being limited, too often, to what amounted to that same group.

More than anything, this administration has been about changing this perspective and the governmental structure in Columbia that drives it, so that we more often look out rather than in as we search for solutions to the many challenges that confront the state. It has been with starts and stops, and I have certainly not made every step perfectly, but our push has been consistently toward changing structure and perspective so that as a state we are looking out into what writers such as Thomas Friedman consider the most transformative landscape of change the world has ever seen.

What we're up against was well demonstrated this week in the back and forth of the treasurer's race.

Consider the following: Our state's newly elected treasurer, Thomas Ravenel, was indicted on drug charges June 19. This fell in the middle of vetoes and the budget, but I suspended him that day. We filled the position the following day with an interim treasurer (Ken Wingate) who had an impeccable financial background and a commitment to reform at the Budget and Control Board.

Since a person is innocent until proven guilty, our replacement was temporary, as Thomas would have come back into that position had he been cleared of charges. We also thought that after the dust settled from the immediate crisis created in this vacancy, we would be able to allow Ken to get back to his real job after we had time to find a longer term appointee. Given that the judicial process moves slowly, this is something we thought we had plenty of time on and were deliberately vetting names. What we didn't know is that Thomas Ravenel would resign on July 24.

That day, the General Assembly set the election for eight working days later — though if you include the weekend you could make your way up to 10. On Wednesday — five working days into the election process — I made endorsements and suggestions on the treasurer's race, to which some members of the General Assembly reacted negatively, suggesting that it was too late to have done so and was therefore political. I'm not sure when the timing would have been right — day four vs. five? I just know conversation on this has taken nearly everyone's eye off the lunacy of having a 10-day race for something as important as the state Treasurer's Office.

A 10-day race guarantees only one thing — that only someone from the General Assembly will win the election.

Does it make sense to restrict our search for a treasurer to the 170 members who make up the General Assembly when there are 4.2 million people in our state, many of whom work in banking, accounting or financial services with direct experience relative to this role?

Does it make sense not to take an opportunity like this to correct what I consider a very strange part of South Carolina history, given the fact that we've not had an African-American constitutional officer for the last 130 years? In this case we identified a very competent gentleman, Tim Scott, who had both financial and managerial experience and could have changed this history. In this endorsement, we were equally clear that if the legislative body chose to select from within its ranks then they ought to listen to what the people of South Carolina have already said on this matter. In this instance, Sen. Greg Ryberg had run in a real election and had been the second highest vote-getter, which we thought ought to be relevant.

Does it make sense not to have a debate on what to do about the $18 billion in unfunded health and retirement benefits, how the next treasurer will handle the $15 billion that flows through that office, or on one's beliefs regarding whether or not the $550 million that the GEAR report identified as savings at the Budget and Control Board makes sense?

I believe the answer to all these questions was no. Our state would have been well served by a Ken Wingate, Tim Scott or Greg Ryberg, or another 10 names, which never surfaced during this so- called "election week."

The process also was another visible reminder of how closed our political system can be and the importance to all of us in working to change it.

Mark Sanford is governor of South Carolina.

---

Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

---

Comments

This article has  1 comment(s)