TheState.com: Opinion

Cash-starved city must set priorities, fund top needs

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:48 EST

IT'S NO BIG surprise that budget cuts have severely weakened the ability of Columbia firefighters to respond to fires.

City leaders might not have known to what degree they would be hindering the Fire Department, but they were well aware the cuts would hurt service. Just as they knew that cutting garbage pick-up for apartments and other commercial entities and charging retirees for free health care promised to them long ago would hurt. The city's poor financial state demanded deep cuts that spared few, if any, departments. The question is whether the cuts made did the least harm possible.

The Columbia Firefighters Association doesn't think so. Its study said reducing staffing at two fire stations hurt the city's ability to meet national response time standards and placed a strain on the rest of the system. The City Council's decision to take one truck at Station 9 on Devine Street and one at Station 8 on Atlas Road out of service will save $1.2 million a year. But, the association said, the cost is that the city can reach only 73 percent of property in the city in less than eight minutes. The national standard is 90 percent.

Candidates for mayor already are using the fire reductions as an issue in the April election. While calls for restoring fire coverage are understandable - and even warranted - the city can't respond in a vacuum. The fact is that a case can be made for restoring any number of cuts the city has had to make.

As important as it is to have adequate fire service, this is deeper than the Fire Department cuts. The real problem here is that City Council's failure to exercise sound financial stewardship in recent years severely hampers its ability to meet Columbia citizens' service needs. Bad bookkeeping, faulty budgeting, unchecked spending and other mismanagement ate away at city reserves and created deficits the city still is trying to deal with.

It's hard to trust fiscally suspect city with TIFs

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:40 EST

NOT ONLY IS Columbia rushing headlong to create two ill-timed special tax districts that would siphon off money for needed services, including schools and fire and police personnel, but to make matters worse all three local elected bodies involved have inappropriately discussed the matter in secret.

Although taxpayers deserve better, it's evident city leaders, who managed Columbia into an inexcusable fiscal mess over the past several years, aren't operating in the real world. Why else would they attempt to divert tax dollars for special projects in the midst of a recession and at a time when services have been cut - and could be cut even more - due to dwindling revenue and poor stewardship? It's hard to imagine that Richland County and Richland District 1, which were forced to trim their budgets because of state cuts, would desire to participate in this unwise endeavor.

That's particularly true in the case of the school district. While it's not prudent for Richland County to forgo tax dollars, at least it would be acting in its natural capacity as a local government with the authority and responsibility to provide infrastructure and improvements to areas in its jurisdiction. But it's not the school district's job to build or fund parks, roads or other amenities to spur development. The school district, which has lost teachers and programs due to budget cuts, should concentrate on its mission of educating children.

The district needs its limited funding - present and future. But under the city's proposal, Richland 1 would provide 57 percent of revenues for the projects, while the city would pitch in 21 percent and the county, 17 percent. That's too big a burden for the district, which should keep the children out of this bad deal.

Frankly, it's too big a burden for city and county taxpayers as well. Capturing all new commercial taxes in the proposed districts until 2034 doesn't directly cause a general tax increase. But when these tax increment financing districts take money away from local governments, they shift a disproportionate burden for paying for city, county and school services to property owners outside the district.

Ethics secrecy undermines public trust

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:48 EST

IN DOCUMENTS FILED last week with the Supreme Court, Gov. Mark Sanford argued that the only way to maintain or restore (take your pick) public confidence in the governmental ethics process is by keeping the work of ethics investigators secret.

He argued that the Legislature drew a giant black-out curtain around the Ethics Commission "as a necessary means to assemble relevant witnesses, to obtain proper documents, to avoid outside pressures from the General Assembly and the media, and to preempt politically-motivated leaks."

And he crowned it off with this: "The State Ethics Code was designed to restore the citizenry's trust in South Carolina's government in the wake of Operation Lost Trust. Its procedural safeguard of confidentiality over the agency's internal papers is meant to ensure fairness for respondents and independence for the Commission."

We're not sure whether he is right with his ultimate argument that all these rhetorical flourishes are intended to bolster: that the Legislature didn't really allow the targets of investigations to waive their confidentiality when it passed a law that ... allows the targets of investigations to waive their confidentiality. It could be that the Legislature was just trying to quell complaints by good-government advocates who argued that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It certainly wouldn't be the first time legislators went to extremes to make it look like they were doing something they really weren't doing.

But this we do know: Mr. Sanford's assertions about the value of secret government are outlandish. (The fact that he would have been the first to castigate anyone else who had said such a thing is irresistible to point out - although completely irrelevant to our point.)

Thorough review needed following deaths at jail

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:50 EST

TWO RECENT DEATHS at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center demand a thorough review by Richland County of the circumstances that surrounded them as well its policies. But that's just the start: The county also has an obligation to give the public a clear explanation of how these deaths occurred and what if anything the county could or should have done to prevent them.

It's imperative to give families a full understanding of what happened to their deceased loved ones and to reassure the public that the jail is operating properly.

It's a tragedy when even one person dies in government custody. But last month, two inmates died just days apart in the Richland County detention center. Angela Meitzner, who had been booked on fraudulent checks and forgery charges, was found hanging by the neck in a cell. Days earlier, Olin Taylor, who had been arrested for driving under the influence and assault and battery with intent to kill, was found dead in his cell, hanging from a cord made with his shoelaces. Both deaths tentatively have been ruled as suicides.

Running a jail is difficult. There are unfortunate accidents, even deaths, at even the best-run ones. But once an inmate ends up in jail, for whatever reason, it becomes the obligation of the county to ensure his safety. Although they have been charged with crimes, most local jail inmates have not been convicted; they should expect to survive government's custody.

There needs to be a review anytime someone dies in custody, to ensure that the system didn't fail that person. That's doubly so in Richland County, which went through an unfortunate stretch - from 2000 to 2006 - when seven inmates died under questionable circumstances. During that period, one mentally ill inmate died of complications from hypothermia and two others hanged themselves; another, not known to have a history of mental illness, also hanged himself. The families of the three mentally ill inmates sued Prison Health Services, which at the time was providing medical services at the jail. The county fired Prison Health Services and hired Tennessee-based Correct Care Solutions to provide medical and mental health services at the jail.

Celebrate, build on Boeing coup

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:52 EDT

WE'LL ALL BE ANALYZING the whats and whos and hows of the Boeing deal for months, perhaps years, to come, because understanding how South Carolina landed its biggest industrial coup ever will help determine the policies we need to pursue in the months and years to come:

- Does this deal mean that Gov. Mark Sanford isn't the drag on our state that many believe he is? Or does it suggest that governors really aren't as important in economic recruitment as we've always been told?

- Does it vindicate the power that has been maintained by the Legislative State, as guest columnist Bob McAlister reluctantly argues on the facing page? Or does it simply mean that a bad system can on occasion work?

- Could lawmakers have given away less in tax breaks and direct aid or demanded better wages, given our attractive non-union workforce and low cost of living? Or is nearly $200,000 per promised job as hard a bargain as a state could reasonably be expected to drive?

- Does Boeing's decision mean that recent reforms to our workers compensation laws and our tort laws really are sufficient, and that we don't need to do more in those areas in order to attract jobs to our state?

Pesky doughnut holes result of poor annexation laws

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:36 EDT

THERE'S NO justification for two different governments providing duplicative services to residents living on the same street, but it happens all the time in communities across South Carolina.

In Richland County, there are places where all but one or two homes on a given street are inside the city of Columbia. County contractors send a garbage and recycling truck to that lone house in the county, while the city serves all of its surrounding neighbors. While Columbia police cars might patrol the street, Richland County sheriff's deputies must respond when there's an emergency at a house outside the city's limits.

That's wasteful and confusing. It simply makes more sense - practically and economically - for one government to serve all residents on that street.

Columbia is working aggressively to annex those areas - called doughnut holes - where city land surrounds parcels in unincorporated Richland County. But the state's archaic annexation laws make that a difficult task. In South Carolina, residents have to ask to be annexed; the city can't just do it.

There are 2,560 parcels across the city that officials want to bring into town. The hope is that the owners will come in willingly. But many won't. That would put the city in a position to determine whether to apply pressure some consider to be heavy-handed. If residents refuse to willingly be annexed, Columbia suggests it will stop supplying water and sewer services.

Lawmakers should decline expense pay for this week

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:07 EDT

WHEN SENATE President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell and House Speaker Bobby Harrell announced that they were bringing the Legislature back to town this week to fix the law that was denying thousands of laid-off workers the federal unemployment benefits to which they were entitled, they said lawmakers would not receive a salary. That was true, but it wasn't exactly the truth.

It is true that legislators do not receive any extra salary when the regular legislative session goes into overtime. And it's true that they will not receive the $260 per day pay to which the state constitution entitles them if the governor has to call a special session. That's because Sen. McConnell and Rep. Harrell - with the blessing of the full Legislature - wisely made provisions to be able to call lawmakers back to work if needed as an extension of the regular session.

But while they won't get a paycheck for each extra day in town, legislators are eligible to be reimbursed for mileage for one round trip to and from Columbia and to receive $132 per day, which is supposed to offset the cost of hotel and meal costs.

Now, normally we don't begrudge legislators these reimbursements - though we've never entirely understood why those who live within easy driving distance of the State House need to be reimbursed for the costs of hotel rooms they don't rent - but these are not normal times.

In the first place, lawmakers have had to slash spending throughout state government, resulting in some cases in the elimination of travel altogether and in other cases even more critical expenses. Everybody is having to do more with less, which raises the question of why legislators should receive the same liberal reimbursements they always have.

Whose interests are being served in town of Lexington?

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:05 EDT

LEXINGTON MAYOR Randy Halfacre's decision to take the job of executive director of the Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce while continuing to hold public office was an eyebrow-raising choice in and of itself.

With the town's recent hiring of Lexington County Councilman Johnny Jeffcoat as its economic director, we're running out of eyebrows. And we're at a loss as to how these two men can do the jobs they've been hired to do and represent citizens' best interests in the jobs they've been elected to do without being, in a word, conflicted.

While both men insist there is no conflict, the possibility is quite evident.

When the town's interests conflict with the agenda of members of the Chamber of Commerce, whether on zoning and planning or other issues, whose side will Mr. Halfacre represent? That certainly was hard to determine when the mayor pushed to water down the town's toughest-in-the-region smoking ban. Some businesses, specifically bars and restaurants, want the town to remove language that prohibits employees from serving customers on outside decks and patios. Was Mayor Halfacre representing the people who voted him into office or the people who pay his salary? Fortunately, the council hasn't yielded but continues to recognize that secondhand smoke is harmful regardless of where it's encountered - as other governments should.

For his part, Mr. Jeffcoat's new job entails trying to bring new restaurants, retailers and corporate offices to the town of Lexington. Who will he represent when the town's interest conflicts with that of the county? Mr. Jeffcoat says that doesn't happen often and when it does he would recuse himself. We aren't sure how often such conflicts might occur, but they do occur.

Richland council must reject idea for new market

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:05 EDT

RICHLAND COUNTY Council should resist any urge to fund a regional market that might rival the State Farmers Market being built in Lexington County.

That battle has been fought, and in a strange turn of events, Lexington won, although it remains to be seen if the new market going up along U.S. 321 will be the success the state and its private partners think it will be - and that the taxpayers helping foot the bill need it to be.

Richland County initially won the right to play host to a new state market that would have replaced the current Bluff Road facility when it pledged millions of dollars to support the effort. But the county ended up with egg on its face when the state backed out of the deal, which never should have been struck, considering neither the state nor the county could afford it. By then, of course, Richland had purchased a $4.55 million site on Pineview Road and deeded much of it to the state.

The state refused to return the land, saying the county first had to reimburse it for money spent "improving" the site. A legal fight that ensued has since been resolved. But now that the land might not be used for a market, the county is scrambling to find a way to pay for it. The county has been repaying the loan for the land using proceeds from a 2 percent restaurant tax, which must be used for tourism-related projects.

That outstanding expense alone should be reason enough for Richland to rule out any effort to build a county-funded farmers market. But there are other reasons as well. First of all, it would be an act of bad faith to finance a duplicative market that could undercut the taxpayer-supported facility that will replace the State Farmers Market. As much as some people act as if the river divides two distinct communities, Lexington and Richland counties make up one economic community. It doesn't matter which side of the river the market is on; it would be foolish to do anything that would hinder the success of the market, expected to open in April.

Test-score dip underscores need to end distractions

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:51 EDT

THE FIRST THING that ought to be said about South Carolina's most recent performance on the Nation's Report Card is that it was disappointing and that we must find a way to reclaim the momentum that until recently had produced some of the nation's fastest gains on this as well as a number of other measures.

But the political climate that has poisoned debate over education policy for the past seven years forces us to start somewhere else: The National Assessment of Educational Progress - the only test available that can be used to fairly and accurately compare educational progress among the states - finds South Carolina clustered with many states around the national average.

Our state was tied for 31st in eighth-grade math and 34th in fourth-grade math, the only results released this month. (Only fourth- and eighth-graders are tested, and reading scores will be released in the spring.) Our eight-graders scored an average of 56 percent on the 500-point test, compared with the national average of 56.4 percent; those figures were reversed when the test was last administered two years ago. Our fourth-graders scored an average of 47.2 percent (down from 47.4 percent), compared with the national average of 47.8 percent (unchanged from two years ago).

The scores demonstrate, yet again, that South Carolina is not "dead last in education." That we are not bad and getting worse, as some are determined to make us believe. That our public schools are not hopeless.

But being in the middle is nothing to celebrate, less still when our scores actually drop, even if by only a fraction of a point. We need to use this latest report card as a wake-up call, as a reminder that we cannot continue to let ourselves be distracted by those who want to start throwing money at the private schools whose (highly varied) quality we never will be able to control. Instead, we need to get back to the task of improving the schools that we do control - and that we have a responsibility to make work.

Graham's posture on climate bill fosters civil debate

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:21 EDT

TWO THINGS seem inevitable about health care legislation: The Congress almost certainly will pass something this year. And it almost certainly will fall short of what we need - in part because Republicans essentially took themselves out of the negotiations that could have brought about a better product, by making it clear that they wouldn't vote for any bill unless the majority party caved on central points.

We could spend all day talking about how the idea of the minority party serving as "loyal opposition" fell out of favor, or how much blame Democrats share for the partisan divide that has prevented the legislative process from working as it should in this and so many other cases. Instead, we'd like to celebrate the possibility that the other legislation that is consuming the Congress this year might not suffer the same fate - in large part because of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Earlier this month, Mr. Graham joined with the Democrats' leading negotiator on climate legislation, Sen. John Kerry, to call for a bipartisan approach to the issue that seemed sure to compete with health legislation on vacuous partisanship. In a column in The New York Times, they described a package designed to "address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation" and expressed confidence that "a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again."

Simply making the effort would be unexpectedly good news. But it's also a smart effort, backed by their aggressive argument that alternative energy sources and restrictions on carbon emissions are essential to protect not just the environment but also our national security, by reducing our dependence on energy from the very nations that want to do us harm.

Moreover, they laid out something close to the "all of the above" approach to energy that this editorial board has long considered essential to dealing with those dual threats. In a town hall meeting the next night where he was booed, yelled at and called a traitor for refusing to simply reject every proposal with a "D" next to it, Mr. Graham explained that he was more than happy to work across party lines if he can increase nuclear power and open up off-shore drilling - elements that almost certainly would not be in an energy package that lacked significant Republican input. (At that same town hall meeting, Sen. Graham declared that he was going to do everything in his power to keep the Republican Party from becoming "the party of angry white guys" - a most encouraging pledge, which only further inflamed the angry white guys who were booing him.)

Legislature must make quick work of fixing blunder

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:17 EDT

BRINGING THE General Assembly back to town between sessions — even outside the current fiscal and political climate — is never a riskfree venture. Bills can mount up quickly, and there’s no guarantee that the Legislature will do what it came back to do — or that it won’t do other things. It’s even dicier when the state is bleeding red ink and legislators are salivating over the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings against the governor.

But that risk is limited in this case and in any event pales in comparison to the devastating effects of a justdiscovered blunder that is causing more than 30,000 laidoff South Carolinians to lose up to 20 weeks of unemployment benefits that wouldn’t cost our state an extra dime. Every day that goes by without fixing this problem is another day that people who can’t find a job are not receiving federal funds that could help them stay out of foreclosure or keep purchasing health insurance that can keep them out of the emergency room. It’s another day that they’re not receiving the money — which S.C. taxpayers are paying for, whether people in our state receive any of it or not — that can remove a tiny bit of the stress that could tip the balance on alreadystrained marriages or other relationships, with the resulting social costs that we all pay. In some extreme circumstances, it could be the difference between eating and not.

Indications are that the Congress isn’t in the mood to once again come to the rescue of a state whose people are so clearly in need and whose governance is so clearly inept, and so House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell really had no option but to bring the Legislature back to town next week to correct one of the most colossal examples of bureaucratic incompetence and political dysfunction we can recall.

Under rules the Legislature passed for itself before adjourning in May, lawmakers won’t be able to deal with anything other than problems relating to federal stimulus funding (which this is) without a twothirds vote in both bodies. But even as they jockey to meet that goal, lawmakers must keep focused on their most essential duty, which is to get the federally funded unemployment benefits flowing as soon as possible to those who are otherwise eligible. Even if they can’t find any procedural shortcuts, there is no reason this cannot be accomplished in five days. While lawmakers aren’t eligible for the $260perday pay they would receive during an actual “special session” called by the governor, they do receive daily subsistence payments, which, with a budget as tight as ours is, can mount up if too much speechifying occurs.

Sen. McConnell and Rep. Harrell noted that this blunder is yet more evidence of the need to overhaul the state Employment Security Commission. They’re right, although there is enough blame that the Legislature and the governor can share some. But they need to rein in any temptation by their colleagues to try to fix the agency next week — or even to dial up the rhetoric too much. It was, after all, a politically charged and personalitydriven debate over that very topic that resulted this spring in the House ignoring the one warning lawmakers got about the pending problem.

It's council's job to balance budget, not a consultant's

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:48 EDT

THE STATE'S RECENT analysis of pay increases within Columbia city government not only gives us yet another look at how free-wheeling the city has been with public money, but also reminds us of how deep a financial hole the municipality is struggling to climb out of.

Columbia officials have taken a number of difficult but necessary steps to improve city finances - from cutting services and instituting layoffs and buyouts to requiring employees to pay for health insurance and cutting holiday pay. But things are so critical - reserves have dwindled to less than $3 million - that more must be done.

With more than 75 percent of the city's general fund budget dedicated to salaries, the issue of pay is front and center. Salary increases between 2004 and 2009 helped create this mess. In his report, State staff writer Adam Beam noted that even as the city was running up multimillion-dollar deficits and extinguishing nearly $25 million in reserves, some of the highest-paid employees saw pay increases of a combined $5 million.

As of January, nearly one in five of the city's 2,100 employees made more than $50,000 a year. More than half of the 412 paid at that level were either police officers or firefighters, who received an average pay increase of $13,981 over the five-year period.

But the largest average pay increases - $22,036 over the five years - went to 12 employees who worked for then-city manager Charles Austin. Eight received increases because of promotions. One moved from court director to assistant city manager for administrative services and received an increase of $45,000; others received increases of $30,000, $26,000 and $24,000 following promotions. Three people in Mr. Austin's office didn't change jobs, yet they got pretty hefty increases - ranging from $14,000 to $21,000. Mr. Austin also added two positions, one at $101,000 and another at $63,000.

Cities, towns must step up and ban workplace smoking

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:35 EDT

THE TOWN OF Springdale's wise decision to implement a smoking ban is a welcome sign that momentum is growing among Lexington County municipalities to protect workers from secondhand smoke.

Springdale adopted a workplace smoking ban just a few weeks after Lexington County Council approved one. The town is the second municipality in the county - the town of Lexington acted even before the county - to embrace a ban against smoking in restaurants, bars, stores and offices.

Springdale Mayor Pat Smith rightly asserts that Lexington County's 11 remaining municipalities that don't have bans should join in to avoid public confusion. "We need consistency, not a checkerboard pattern where it's allowed in some places and not in others," Mr. Smith said.

Officials in most Lexington County municipalities had said they would wait for County Council to act before considering a ban. Now that the county has done that, it's time for cities and towns to come aboard. And it's past time for all of the municipalities in Richland County to join the county and the city of Columbia in outlawing workplace smoking on the other side of the river.

The primary reason to implement a ban is to protect workers from secondhand smoke that the U.S. surgeon general has declared to be a serious hazard. But it also would create a level playing field for businesses by addressing concerns that patrons might leave an establishment in a jurisdiction that bans smoking to spend money at bars, restaurants and other establishments where smoking is allowed.

Grant highlights added benefit of endowed chairs

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:40 EDT

A REPORT ISSUED earlier this year concluded that the $180 million our state has invested since 2006 in the endowed chairs program had generated $246 million in non-state funds, primarily from the private sector and federal grants. That's a pretty good return on investment even before you consider what that money has produced - and what it promises to produce in years to come: It already has created jobs for 2,000 people, among them 22 of the nation's top academics, lured to South Carolina to produce cutting-edge research that can be spun off into business ventures and drive the growth of an information economy in our state.

But if we look only at the dollar returns - or even at the job returns - we miss the full value of the program, which holds great potential to help people far beyond those who will work in a vibrant information sector. Most promising in this regard is what it can do to improve the health of average South Carolinians, who have some of the worst outcomes in the nation.

Last week, the University of South Carolina announced that professors who were hired through the program there and at the Medical University of South Carolina had been awarded a $4.8 million federal grant (money not included in that earlier calculation) to create a "medical lifeline" to make it easier for people with cancer and other illnesses to locate and participate in the clinical trials that might save their lives.

Savvy patients already find these trials, although it requires a lot of energy and persistence that they could better be using elsewhere, but many people who could benefit personally while also contributing to research that might help countless others never even know about them. The grant will pay to build out the infrastructure for the Research Permissions Management System, which will allow patients to sign up for clinical trials and be informed when additional trials are launched while, the university said, allowing researchers to "manage legal, ethical, social and bioinformatics requirements."

This is just the latest instance in which the endowed chairs program has the potential to improve lives. In fact, an initiative announced just last month has even greater potential to help lift South Carolina from our bottom-dragging status in terms of our health. The endowed chairs board approved a proposal by USC and MUSC to tackle diabetes, stroke, heart disease and cancer by nudging people to exercise more and eat better.

Donations from special counsel should be banned

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:07 EDT

IT SEEMS FAIRLY obvious that Attorney General Henry McMaster was right when he said it was legal for him to accept campaign donations from attorneys he had authorized to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the state.

The law his critics claimed he violated prohibits people from making campaign contributions to officials who awarded them a government contract. Although that term isn't defined in the law, as Circuit Judge Roger Couch explained in dismissing complaints made by the drug company that the attorney/campaign donors sued on behalf of the state, "there are huge differences between retainer agreements between Special Counsel and the Attorney General and commercial contracts between a municipality and its vendors."

Special counsel appointed by the attorney general are essentially awarded the right to gamble that they'll win a huge verdict if they're allowed to bring a lawsuit in the name of the state. If they succeed, they get a cut; if they fail, they have to eat their costs, which can be considerable.

But while that distinction is important when it comes to figuring out what currently is and isn't legal, it's all but meaningless in terms of what the law should be.

The purpose of the ban on contractor donations is to protect the public, by making sure that officials dole out state business based on the best interests of the state, rather than on their own hope of personal or political gain. It's the same reason that kickbacks are illegal.

City, county should merge fire, EMS departments

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:04 EDT

WHEN RICHLAND County and Columbia resume negotiations over a new fire contract in January, they should not only continue the joint service, but also merge fire and emergency medical services.

The need for fire and EMS to be under one command became clear recently as controversy swirled around whether a delay in transporting a 3-year-old led to his death. Although it turned out that the delay did not cause Jadan Myers-Pugh's death - Richland County Coroner Gary Watts said he already was dead, from swine flu, when his mother found him - the whole heart-breaking matter shone a spotlight on the senseless lack of coordination between the Columbia Fire Department and Richland County EMS. It's only a matter of time before that does cost lives - if it hasn't already.

In Jadan's case, firefighters arrived on the scene first and administered CPR until county EMS workers arrived. With only two EMS workers on an ambulance and both needed to care for Jadan, they had to wait for a second ambulance to arrive so someone could drive the first ambulance to the hospital. EMS policy forbids firefighters from driving ambulances - even when patients are in critical condition and need the care of both EMS workers.

Firefighters and EMS are dispatched to emergency calls to increase the likelihood of saving lives. Yet there's at least one policy that poses a barrier to their ability to deliver the best service possible. If the two departments were under one administration, such barriers would be much easier to remove.

County Council members are open to a change in county policy that would allow firefighters to be trained so they can drive ambulances in dire situations. While that's a good idea, it doesn't go far enough.

Developer right to drop lawsuit over flood maps

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:17 EDT

WHILE THE future of thousands of acres along the Congaree River once slated for a billion-dollar "city within a city" remains in limbo, it was refreshing to learn that a lawsuit over flood maps that rendered much of the property undevelopable has been dropped.

Columbia Venture's eight-year legal fight to get federal officials to loosen building restrictions on the property was counterproductive and only served to ratchet up discontent many have harbored for the controversial proposal to build on the flood-prone land.

The developer's decision to drop the lawsuit comes not long after environmentalists and others said they had less of a problem with a recent proposal to build a scaled-down development. Interestingly, Columbia Venture subsequently nixed the sale of a portion of the property to the developer who had proposed the mixed-use development that garnered the positive reception.

Greenville developer Larry McNair Jr. had said he would buy and develop about a third of the 4,600 acres once proposed as the home for the mega-development Green Diamond. One of the most attractive elements of Mr. McNair's $80 million plan was that it would not have disturbed the existing levees. A major concern about previous proposals was that they included fortifying the current levies, which would have put land on the Lexington County side of the river at much greater risk for flooding.

With the McNair plan sacked, it's unknown whether Columbia Venture, which has been trying for years to recoup its investment in the property, will attempt to develop something similar.

Dispute between governor, ethics panel unnecessary

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:34 EDT

ONCE AGAIN, the courts are being asked to settle what is essentially a dispute between Gov. Mark Sanford and the Legislature. This time, it's over the stated intention of the State Ethics Commission to turn over its preliminary investigative report of Mr. Sanford's travel and expenditures to the House, to use as part of an expected impeachment effort.

Unlike previous court-refereed disputes (the governor's illegal refusal to request federal stimulus funds, the Legislature's unconstitutional practice of loading up bills with unrelated amendments), it's not clear which side is right this time. Our Supreme Court is obviously much more capable than we of sorting that out.

But it is likewise unclear that this even needs to be sorted out by the court.

This is what is clear: The ethics review and impeachment are entirely different processes - with entirely different standards and requirements. Although there is a legal element involved, impeachment is a political process.

If the Ethics Commission finds a pattern of violations of the law in the way the governor spent campaign funds and used state, private and commercial aircraft, it's possible that a respectable argument could be made that he committed the crime of misconduct in office; that almost certainly would rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But if the commission simply finds a scattering of violations that usually are handled with a reprimand or fine, that is not in itself automatically grounds for impeachment.

Ending fire deal not an option for city, county

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:40 EDT

RICHLAND COUNTY officials' suggestion that they might dissolve their unified fire service agreement with Columbia is crazy talk.

Merging county and city fire service created a superior, seamless system, ensured high-quality protection for residents and greatly reduced insurance rates. Why would anyone want to tamper with that?

No one should. But that's the nature of the relationship between Columbia and Richland County: It's been up and down and, at times, contentious. While they've managed to work together to get many things done, they also have spent years haggling over others. When one gets worked out - for instance, a joint animal shelter - it's well worth celebrating. But there always seems to be something else unraveling; for example, the county took back control of its business license operation because it said the city, which was administering the program, wasn't doing the job.

The unified fire service agreement often has been cited as an example of how the governments can and should work together to streamline services in the best interest of taxpayers. Yet the city and county have battled over some aspect of it each time it's come up for renewal. Unfortunately, they're at it again.

This time, they're sparring over how much money the county should pay. When the fire service agreement expired in June, the city said the county needed to pay $2.7 million more; county officials said that was too steep. The two sides agreed to a one-year extension, with the county paying $1.9 million more.