TheState.com: Opinion
News, sports and entertainment from TheState.com

• City government study commission failed citizens
  IT’S DISAPPOINTING, but hardly surprising, that the commission charged with studying Columbia’s form of government acknowledged it is broken, but failed to offer a solution.The panel’s failure reflects the culture that grips this city under the council-manger form of government. The group was established just short of three years ago and given an October 2005 deadline. It spent $40,000 in taxpayers’ money and considerable time meeting, collecting public input and receiving data from municipal officials locally and elsewhere — and made no recommendation.That’s the kind of letdown Columbians get too often from their slow-plodding, unaccountable government. The commission saw the weaknesses. Its members rightly accused City Council of not operating properly under the current form — of micromanaging operations, asking staff for favors for constituents and pressuring the city manager to help friends and political allies. The panel found no one looking out for the overall vision of how the city should grow, and noted the difficulty the city manager has answering to seven bosses.How could anyone see all that, yet offer no remedy?A majority of the panel supported change, of a sort. But it needed support from a “supermajority,” 11 of its 14 members, to recommend a change. Only 12 members were present for the 10-2 vote. Essentially, two members — Dr. Lonnie Randolph and Crawford Clarkson — voted down the effort, apparently convinced Columbians are better off with the government we have.
• S.C. State board must explain action
  THE SOUTH CAROLINA State University Board of Trustees’ precipitous, unexplained firing of President Andrew Hugine this week was an excellent illustration of what is wrong with the governance of public institutions of higher education in our state.The incident contains much to appall, starting with the teleconference vote; trustees were in such an unseemly rush to give Dr. Hugine the heave-ho that they couldn’t be bothered assembling in person to do it.But the worst thing isn’t that; the worst thing is the trustees’ utter failure to give the people of South Carolina an explanation for their extraordinary behavior, a lapse that belies the root of the word “trustee.”The board members, in phoning in their firing, cited Dr. Hugine’s latest performance appraisal and an academic review of the school by the Education Commission of the States. But neither review was released at the time of their action.Rep. Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg, was exactly right when he said, “Based on the board’s explanation for the termination... nothing warrants the action the board took.”
• Why we don’t need tax caps
  THE POLITICIANS IN Greenville are staging a morality play on tax policy.The curtain rises with property owners opening their new tax bills to discover that two fire districts have raised tax rates by 18 percent and 41 percent respectively, in apparent violation of the new cap on property tax increases.When questioned, officials with the Parker Fire Department and the Berea Fire Department cite provisions in the law that allow emergency tax increases to exceed the artificial, legislatively mandated cap in order to 1) maintain a reserve account and 2) pay off deficits from the previous year.They’re dubious claims — particularly in the case where the department seems to have deliberately overspent its budget in order to create the “deficit” — and frankly, we can’t understand why in the world any fire department would have the ability to set tax rates, even if it is overseen by an elected commission. (Yes, we understand that these are special purpose districts, but those things are anathema to good — and cost-effective — government; city and county councils should be providing the services such districts provide, and setting the tax rates for them in conjunction with other local tax rates.)But their point — that local officials know better than meddlesome legislators what level of services are needed in each of the state’s varied communities — is indisputable. As is the fact that if people want services, they should be allowed to pay for them, whether the Legislature likes it or not.
• Richland 1 owes public explanation, plan for future
  IT’S UNDERSTANDABLE that many citizens question the Richland 1 school board’s ouster of a superintendent unanimously chosen to lead the district just over two years ago.How can someone so right for the job 29 months ago become so wrong so quickly? When Allen Coles was hired in 2005, board member Vince Ford said he “came to the table with the appropriate credentials.” Member Wendy Brawley, now board chair, said: “Dr. Coles really spoke to all of the things the board was looking for, the community was looking for.”What happened? That’s a question the board hasn’t clearly answered. Of the four board members who voted to end Dr. Coles’ tenure June 30 — Mrs. Brawley, Mr. Ford, Dwayne Smiling and Jeanette McBride — only Mrs. Brawley explained her vote publicly, and even then inadequately: “We are in a state of emergency. Our pace has been far too slow,” she said. She said she was displeased with a lack of focus on changes that improve academic performance.There’s no doubt the district of nearly 24,000 students, which was struggling to keep pace with rising state expectations long before Dr. Coles arrived, must improve. But can the lack of improvement be attributed to a superintendent who’s not been on the job long, and who inherited troubles not of his making? The state’s intervention in five of the district’s schools was a result of years of poor performance. The poorly managed school construction program, fraught with cost overruns, was well under way by the time Dr. Coles arrived.During his tenure, Dr. Coles has proposed impressive initiatives the board apparently liked. The board supported his merit pay plan as well as a $6.5 million initiative to improve the schools facing state takeover.
• Counties must devise solid plan for no-kill shelter
  WHILE IT’S ENCOURAGING to see Lexington and Richland counties embrace the concept of a no-kill animal shelter, the two have a way to go before this joint arrangement is a done deal.The counties’ councils have only tentatively agreed to fund the construction of the shelter. Also, they still must reach a formal agreement that outlines costs, who is going to run the center, how it’s going to be operated and who will own it. They already have a proposal before them. If they can reach a mutually beneficial arrangement — and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to — the effort would be well worth it.An effective no-kill program would reduce high euthanasia rates through adoption, control pet population by promoting spay-and-neuter services, and reduce the amount taxpayers pay to house and kill cats and dogs.The proposed center would be expected to rescue at least 2,400 animals yearly and provide financial aid to spay or neuter at least 1,000 pets annually in the two counties. The number of animals rescued would amount to about 8 percent of the 30,300 animals that passed through the two counties’ pounds during the past two years.Lexington and Richland are considering contributing $1.5 million each to help build the public/private shelter. The proposed “memorandum of understanding” between the counties states that the eventual operator would be asked to ante up $1 million toward construction. Also, it gives the counties an option to replace the private operator if it doesn’t perform well. Understandably, some officials want to see a business plan that justifies the proposed $4 million facility.
• Development rules for flood plains must be strong
  RICHLAND COUNTY Council must not succumb to pressure to allow increased development on flood-prone property.While it’s always been important to exercise caution in terms of what kind of construction, if any, should be allowed in the flood plain or floodway, that subject has garnered more attention as U.S. communities near rivers and creeks have been devastated by floods. The Katrina disaster is still fresh in many minds.Richland County has wrestled with the issue since the attempt to build the mega-development Green Diamond along the Congaree River several years ago (a proposal that’s now in Cayce’s lap). During that debate, County Council reaffirmed long-standing policy banning development in the floodway.Now the council is being asked to make it easier and less costly to build in the flood plain. Some want the county to allow the use of fill dirt to make land in the flood plain developable. Current rules discourage that. But about a year and a half ago, the Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia complained county staff was being too inflexible.The county does allow building in the flood plain under certain circumstances. But it discourages risky