2008 Legislative Alerts
June 23, 2008
Governor Vetoes Jail Recodification Bill — S. 181
May 28, 2008
Inmate Quota Elimination — State Budget Proviso 51.32
May 23, 2008
S. 590 — Jail Recodification Bill
May 19, 2008
Online Expense Registry Provisos
May 16, 2008
Online Expense Registry Provisos
May 8, 2008
Online Expense Registry Mandate
April 7, 2008
Revision of the Point of Sale/
Assessable Transfer of Interest — H. 4942
March 7, 2008
Repeal of Home Rule Act
Constitutional Amendment — S. 1105
Feb. 29, 2008
Home Rule Act Constitutional Amendment
(a.k.a. Repeal of Home Rule) — S. 1105
June 23, 2008
Governor Vetoes Jail Recodification Bill — S. 181
YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP IS NEEDED! S. 181, the work product of SCAC's Local Detention Committee (made up of county administrators, sheriffs who run jails and jail administrators), re-codifies chapters in Title 24 dealing with local detention. The LDC undertook this project because county officials had complained that these statutes contained obsolete language, did not reflect current practice, or were ambiguous or confusing.
The Governor vetoed S. 181 because of one provision that was inserted at the request of a single Senator. This provision requires the Department of Corrections to place inmates in prisons in close proximity to their homes, but only "to the greatest extent possible" and "unless this placement jeopardizes security." The section ends with, "Proximity to a convicted person's home must not have precedence over departmental criteria for institutional assignment." Despite the Governor's concern with codifying this language, it gives great leeway to the Department of Corrections for placement of prisoners. The Governor had no other problems with this bill.
The General Assembly will be considering the Governor's vetoes THIS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25. We need a two-thirds override of the Governor's veto in both chambers.
Attached are phone numbers and e-mail addresses for members of the House and Senate. Please contact your legislators NOW, and ask them to override the Governor's veto of S. 181. Please let us know any feedback you receive.
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!
May 28, 2008
Inmate Quota Elimination — State Budget Proviso 51.32
Gov. Sanford has VETOED Budget Proviso 51.32, which would continue funding to expand the capabilities of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to more expeditiously accept and process newly-sentenced inmates who are awaiting transfer from local jails [This proviso was first enacted last year]. The General Assembly will be back TOMORROW (Thursday, May 29) to act on the Governor's vetoes.
In his veto message, the Governor said he vetoed this proviso, because it "...can be directly linked to the deficit being created at Corrections that could climb as high as $12 million next year....this proviso gives the agency little flexibility in accepting prisoners from around the state. This proviso supersedes all funding requirements and, in light of the fact that Corrections was not adequately funded, we are left with little choice but to veto this proviso."
This proviso requires nothing more than the state to timely pick up their prisoners as they are required under state law. Please contact the members of your legislative delegation, and ask them to OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR'S VETO. Since time is of the essence, you need to CALL or E-MAIL your members NOW. E-mail addresses and telephone numbers can be found at: www.scstatehouse.gov.
Please stress to your legislators why they should override the Governor's veto of Proviso 51.32:
- It provides a permanent solution to DOC not accepting its prisoners from local jails in a timely manner.
This has been a source of frustration for counties for a number of years and was further aggravated by the imposition of a "quota system" by the Corrections Director.
- It recognizes that DOC must comply with its statutory obligations.
Section 24-3-20(A) provides that a person convicted of a state offense and sentenced to more than three months is in the custody of DOC. Further, Section 24-3-60 provides that DOC must transport these inmates as soon as it receives notice from the county. These are state inmates, not county detainees, and the custody and financial responsibility rest with the state.
- There is no legal authority to impose a quota system.
The opinions of numerous Attorneys General over the past 30 years have concluded that there is no legal authority to grant DOC any discretion in accepting its prisoners. Further, DOC must accept them "with due diligence and reasonable promptness."
- It recognizes that this is a state problem requiring state funding.
The net effect of not timely accepting state inmates from local jails is to shift the financial responsibility and liability to the counties and to aggravate already overcrowded conditions in local jails.
- It would help alleviate jail overcrowding and reduce potential liability.
The counties do not have the additional space, staff, resources and services that are required for sentenced prisoners that are not required for detainees:
- Sentenced prisoners CANNOT be placed in any unused bed space. Classification requires that pre-trial be separated from sentenced; males from females; juveniles from adults; etc.
- The U.S. Constitution, federal and state law, case law, and state standards require a different level of care for sentenced inmates, particularly in regards to medical care.
May 23, 2008
S. 590 — Jail Recodification Bill
S. 590, the work product of SCAC's Local Detention Committee (made up of county administrators, sheriffs who run jails, and jail administrators), recodifies chapters in Title 24 dealing with local detention. The LDC undertook this project because county officials had complained that a number of these statutes contained obsolete language, did not reflect current practice, or were ambiguous or confusing.
S. 590 has passed the Senate and will be before the full House Judiciary Committee this Tuesday, May 27, at 2:30 p.m. The bill is FIRST on the agenda. This is our last chance to get this bill passed.
Attached is a copy of the bill as well as a copy of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Please contact these members before Tuesday's meeting, and ask them to give a favorable report to S. 590. Please let us know any feedback you receive.
Thanks for your help!
May 19, 2008
Online Expense Registry Provisos
The budget conferees are currently meeting in Columbia and adopted the House version of the online expense registry proviso. The conferees did reject the Senate version of the proviso.
If there is any chance to get the conference committee members to revisit House Proviso 75 and reject it, contacts must be made now. Contact the members of the conference committee, and ask that they reconsider the adoption of the House proviso and reject it as well.
The budget conference committee is expected to wrap up its work possibly on Monday evening—more likely on Tuesday.
The budget conferees and their contact telephone numbers are:
| Sen. Leatherman |
(803) 212-6640 |
| Sen. Land |
(803) 212-6180 |
| Sen. Peeler |
(803) 212-6430 |
| Rep. Cooper |
(803) 734-3144 |
| Rep. Merrill |
(803) 734-3138 |
| Rep. Joe Neal |
(803) 734-2804 |
All members of the House and Senate should also be contacted to ask that they support the deletion of both provisos from the budget and that they communicate that position to the budget conferees.
Both of these provisos require every expense of $100 or more—from whatever source or for whatever purpose, paid by check or credit card—to be posted to a website and updated monthly. The requirement excludes wages and compensation paid to individuals.
Many counties have no website at all, or their website is inadequate to handle this volume of content with the required features. Those that do have a sufficiently sophisticated website will still have issues with the personnel or amount of time involved for the required monthly updates. Even if a county has a website or the Comptroller General provides the site, it may involve entering expenses twice. This is a needless expenditure of tax dollars at a time when the millage rate cap has budgets strained to the limit to continue existing services.
May 16, 2008
Online Expense Registry Provisos
Now is the time to contact the members of the budget conference committee and ask that they reject both versions of this proposal. The budget conference committee is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, May 19.
The budget conferees are: Sens. Leatherman, Land and Peeler, and Reps. Cooper, Merrill and Joe Neal.
All members of the House and Senate should also be contacted to ask that they support the deletion of both provisos from the budget and that they communicate that position to the budget conferees.
The Senate version is Proviso 86.2, and the House version is Proviso 75.
Both of these provisos require every expense of $100 or more—from whatever source or for whatever purpose, paid by check or credit card—to be posted to a website and updated monthly. The requirement excludes wages and compensation paid to individuals.
Many counties have no website at all, or their website is inadequate to handle this volume of content with the required features. Those that do have a sufficiently sophisticated website will still have issues with the personnel or amount of time involved for the required monthly updates. Even if a county has a website or the Comptroller General provides the site, it may involve entering expenses twice.
May 8, 2008
Online Expense Registry Mandate
The House and Senate have different versions of the online expense registry in their respective budgets (the text of the House proviso is contained in Item 2 of the May 9 Friday Report, Issue 18-08).
Both of these provisos require the posting of every expense of $100 or more—from whatever source or for whatever purpose, paid by check or credit card—to be posted to a website. The requirement excludes wages and compensation paid to individuals.
The budget will go back to the Senate next week for action on the House amendments and a conference committee consisting of three members of the Senate and three members of the House. When those members are named, SCAC will forward that information to you.
Many counties have no website at all, or the website they have is inadequate to maintain this type of labor-intensive activity. Even if a county has a website, or the Comptroller General provides the site, it may involve entering expenses twice.
SCAC will work to oppose both versions of this mandate.
ACTION REQUEST: Contact the members of the Senate and House, and let them know the burden these provisos will place upon the resources of the county. Ask your House and Senate members to reject both versions of this proviso.
April 7, 2008
Revision of the Point of Sale/
Assessable Transfer of Interest — H. 4942
The SCAC Board adopted no position on the point of sale/assessable transfer of interest (ATI) issue contained in H. 4942. SCAC staff will not advocate any position on this issue. If you have thoughts or concerns on this issue, you should communicate them directly to your House member and to the members of the subcommittee listed below.
On Tuesday, April 8 at 3 p.m. in Blatt Building Room 523, the House Ways and Means Property Tax Subcommittee will take up H. 4942 which revises the recognition of full fair market value for real property subject to the valuation cap once it is transferred. The subcommittee members are: Reps. Bill Cotty, Chairman; Bill Clyburn; Annette Young; Joe Neal and Jim Merrill.
The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to meet Wednesday, 1½ hours after the House adjourns, in Room 521 of the Blatt Building. This will probably be no earlier than 1:30 p.m., and most likely in the 2 – 2:30 p.m. timeframe. If the sub-committee passes this bill on Tuesday, it will be up for debate in the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday.
How is Point of Sale/ATI Currently Handled Under Act 388?
When real property subject to the 15 percent valuation cap is sold or otherwise transferred—called an "assessable transfer of interest" (ATI) in Act 388—the property is reassessed then, and the full fair market value becomes the value subject to property taxation and the 15 percent cap going forward in time.
How does H. 4942 Change Point of Sale/ATI?
H. 4942 allows the recognition of full fair market value of a property when it is sold, but delays that recognition until implementation of the next reassessment program. If the property is improved or built on before the next reassessment program, the property is reassessed at that time to include the value of both the addition and the previously capped value which was exempted from taxation.
H. 4942 does not explicitly address how implementing the point of sale as part of the scheduled reassessment affects the rollback millage calculation. It may be that the rollback millage calculation would treat the increase in value from the ATI/point of sale adjustment in the same manner as it does increases in value which result from ordinary reassessment. The result would be no net revenue increase when the value of the parcel was changed to reflect the ATI/point of sale change.
March 7, 2008
Repeal of Home Rule Act Constitutional Amendment — S. 1105
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL AVAILABLE COUNTY OFFICIALS COME TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON S. 1105:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12 AT 9:30 A.M.—GRESSETTE BUILDING, ROOM 307
The Proposed Constitutional Amendment
S. 1105 proposes to replace the prohibition on laws for a specific county found in Article VIII, §7, with another provision allowing local acts of the General Assembly addressing a single county for "traditional state functions."
S. 1105 would reverse one of the cornerstones of the Home Rule Act. Without the constitutional prohibition on local acts, virtually no decision made by a local council would be exempt from reversal by a legislative delegation.
S. 1105 is a Trojan Horse
The explanation as to the need for S. 1105 is to address certain specific examples, such as voter registration and election boards or the devolution of the appointment authority for other boards or commissions—many of which have been combined or altered in some other way in conflict with the constitutional prohibition on single county local acts.
However, "traditional state functions," as used in item 1 of S. 1105, is extremely broad. Upon examination, the local acts adopted by the General Assembly prior to the Home Rule Act included: adoption of the county budget (then referred to as the county supply bill), setting hours of operation of county offices, providing which services the county would offer, providing for zoning, and any number of other topics commonly thought of as local decisions.
S. 1105 would allow a reversal of virtually any decision made at the local level by the county council, if the legislative delegation passes a bill addressing that service or decision.
Item 2 in the amendment clearly relates to special purpose districts (SPDs).
S. 1105 is Not Necessary
It is not necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to reach the same stated goal in either of these areas. The alternative is to create a statewide mechanism in general law addressing all SPDs or boards and commissions in the same manner. The difference would be that a specific board in a single county or SPD could not be singled out with a process specific to it.
Where is S. 1105 in the Legislative Process?
S. 1105 is in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee including Sens. Larry Martin, Chairman; Gerald Malloy; Chip Campsen; Kent Williams and Shane Massey. A copy of the Senate Judiciary Committee roster is attached with the subcommittee members noted.
What Action to Take?
- Call your Senator, and ask them to work to defeat S. 1105.
- Come to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee meeting Wednesday, March 12, at 9:30 a.m. in the Gressette Building, Room 307.
Feb. 29, 2008
Home Rule Act Constitutional Amendment
(a.k.a. Repeal of Home Rule) — S. 1105
S. 1105 proposes to amend one of the constitutional cornerstones of the Home Rule Act. It replaces the prohibition on all laws for a specific county found in Article VIII, §7, with another provision allowing acts of the General Assembly addressing a specific for traditional state functions.
The Proposed Amendment
S. 1105 amends Article VIII, §7 of the South Carolina Constitution by striking the prohibition on passage of laws for a specific county. The amendment then adds the following two provisions to the constitution:
Except as provided in Article III, Section 34, no laws for a specific county shall be enacted. (Art. VIII, §7)
Provided further that, special laws may be enacted if those laws:
(1) are necessary to implement traditional state functions as determined by the General Assembly, or
(2) concern entities created by legislative enactments passed prior to March 7, 1973, and provide for a change in the boundaries or service area of the
entity, change in the membership or composition of the board governing the entity, dissolution of the entity, or devolution of all powers, duties, and
responsibilities that affect the entity upon the local governing body of a county or municipality. (Art. III, §34)
"Traditional state functions," as used in item 1, is very broad and upon examining the local acts of the General Assembly prior to the Home Rule Act included: adoption of the county budget (then referred to as the county supply bill), setting hours of operation of county offices, providing which services the county would offer, providing for zoning, and any number of other decisions that may commonly be thought of as local decisions.
S. 1105 would allow a reversal of virtually any decision made at the local level by county council, if the legislative delegation passes a bill addressing that service or decision.
Item 2 clearly relates to special purpose districts (SPDs). It is not necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to achieve the same result as the constitutional amendment. The alternative is to create a statewide mechanism addressing all SPDs in the same manner. The difference would be that a specific SPD could not be singled out with a process specific to it.
Where is S. 1105 in the Legislative Process?
S. 1105 is in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee including Sens. Larry Martin, Chairman; Gerald Malloy; Chip Campsen; Kent Williams and Shane Massey. A copy of the Senate Judiciary Committee roster is attached with the subcommittee members noted. No meeting has been scheduled at this time.
What Action to Take?
Now is the time to begin having conversations with all members of the Senate, whether they are on the subcommittee or not.
There are only a handful of members in the General Assembly who were present when the Home Rule Act was adopted. Most members of the General Assembly have never served as a member of a local governing body and may not know the extent to which basic county operations have become very complex as a result of federal law, court decisions and the overall fiscal restrictions and conditions under which the county operates.
When you have conversations, please let the SCAC staff know the feedback you receive.
View 2007 Alerts, 2006 Alerts, 2005 Alerts, 2004 Alerts, 2003 Alerts