rss
mobile
Feeds
The Senate Medical Affairs Committee stripped a proposal to put the agency under the governor's office from a bill that's been under consideration for more than a year. Gov. Mark Sanford's troubles might nothave killed the proposal, but they haven't helped. He certainly was in no position to push for reform.
That's unfortunate because this important state agency too often has fallen short in its primary mission -- protecting the health and environment. It is far too subject to political pressure from the people and entities it regulates. And
it is far too subject to political pressure from lawmakers.
When it was reconfigured 16 years ago, the idea was to insulate the decision-making from politics. Board members are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The board hires the agency chief, hears permit disputes and sets policy. Board decisions can be appealed to the Administrative Law Court. The agency chief runs the day-to-day operations.
But agency decisions are anything but insulated from politics.
Persistent complaints include that DHEC officials are too timid and too quick to compromise in favor of business interests. Those business interests too often have the ear of state legislators who pressure agency regulators and control the agency's purse strings. The agency also spends too much time "working with" businesses who have violated the law, dragging out a process that should respond quickly to threats to health and the environment.
Momentum for change was strong after a series of stories in 2008 by The (Columbia) State newspaper chronicled problems at the agency. The newspaper later found many examples of lawmakers contacting the department about environmental permits, enforcement actions or other matters involving constituents.
We saw the writing on the wall in October when a Senate subcommittee considering the bill heard from only one person, DHEC commissioner Earl Hunter, who to the surprise of no one told lawmakers he opposed changing the way the agency was run.
But that was just one blow of many. Leaders from the S.C. Chamber of Commerce and the S.C. Manufacturers Alliance, as well as companies and other business associations, signed a letter in January opposing the Cabinet plan. They cited unemployment as a reason the state couldn't afford to put the governor in charge of the agency and said it would make the agency too political.
How the agency could become more political is baffling.
We still hold out hope for meaningful change for this important agency. But without the accountability offered through oversight by the governor and the governor's direct accountability to the people of South Carolina, we probably won't get it.
