Policy Report: Record Every Vote

Executive Summary

The first step toward holding the legislative leadership accountable for their actions is to hold legislators accountable for their votes.  The people of South Carolina have a fundamental right to know how their legislators are voting. Yet, in spite of widespread public support for roll call voting, three-quarters of all votes remain off the record. 

1. The General Assembly recorded only 25 percent of its votes in 2010, the same as in 2009.
2. The percentage of recorded votes in the House declined from 31 percent in 2009 to 27 percent in 2010. In the Senate, the percentage increased from 16 percent in 2009 to 22 percent in 2010.
3. The General Assembly routinely passes significant legislation on anonymous voice votes. This includes measures seeking to: create new agencies; grant targeted tax exemptions and corporate subsidies; and impose new business regulations and fees.
4.  By contrast, 45 other states require a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.
5. 37 states have a constitutional requirement that lawmakers hold a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.

 In 2008, the Policy Council pushed for reforms that prompted rules changes in both the House and Senate that led to more recorded votes for the 118th General Assembly. But not only do these rules changes not have the force of law, they also didn’t lead to many more recorded votes. If roll call voting is necessary to a representative democracy, this duty should not be subject to the whims of the legislative leadership in its rulemaking capacity. Rather, it should be a right protected by statute, if not constitutional law.

The solution is simple:

1. Protect the right of citizens to know how their representatives are voting by providing for a statutory roll call voting requirement.
2. In the meantime, change the rules in both the House and the Senate so that every bill, resolution and amendment with the force of law receives a recorded vote during the 119th General Assembly Session for 2011-2012.

However you define it, roll call voting is essential to accountability. With it, everything in the Legislature will become more transparent. Without it, little will change. The future of South Carolina depends on it.

Policy Report: Record Every Vote

Download the PDF.

The first step toward holding the legislative leadership accountable for their actions is to hold legislators accountable for their votes. Yet, the Senate and House combined voted on the record less than 25 percent of the time in both 2009 and 2010. By contrast, 45 other states require a recorded vote on every bill that becomes law.

It is a basic principle of representative democracy that constituents have a right to know how legislators are voting. After all, one of the primary tasks of the legislator is to re-present, or be present for, individual voters. In this regard, legislators are expected to vote on behalf of their constituents. A legislator who fails to do so, who repeatedly votes in favor of his own whims and self-interests, is not properly representing his district—with the result (usually) being that he is not reelected.

In short, there is no defense for not recording votes. Not doing so undermines representative government and fosters a lack of accountability and transparency. In turn, these problems facilitate corruption, self-aggrandizement, and the abuse of power. And, as we have written in the two companion reports to this policy brief, the South Carolina Legislature is in need of reform precisely because a culture of political careerism and political privilege has taken hold in Columbia. Recording votes is a necessary first step to breaking this power monopoly.

Why record every vote?

It would seem no one is arguing the General Assembly should not record at least some votes—that is, perhaps, 25 percent of votes. Instead, the legislative leadership has suggested most votes are not “important enough” to be recorded. The implication is that it would be a waste of time to record these votes.

Yet this claim implies that much of what the General Assembly does—75 percent of its daily business—is not very important. Or, at least, not so important that citizens need to know how their representatives are voting on these issues. Indeed, as we have demonstrated in the companion piece to this report, Shorten South Carolina’s Legislative Session, the General Assembly does waste a great deal of time on trivial matters. In turn, this is why session should be shortened to 45 legislative days.

Moreover, the question of whether a bill is “important enough” to receive a recorded vote is subjective. Who decides whether a bill is important?Ultimately, the question can be used as an excuse not to record votes on controversial legislation. And this is what often happens in the General Assembly. During the 2009-2010 session legislators anonymously voted on the following matters:

• Targeted Tax Exemptions (H 3482): This legislation exempted air carriers operating a hub terminal facility in South Carolina from paying the property tax on personal property, including aircraft. (This bill passed the House and Senate on a voice vote, but the Senate did take a roll call vote to concur with the amended House version.)
• The Creation of New Agencies (S 1323): This legislation would have created an I-95 Corridor Authority empowered to carry out economic development and educational improvement activities in counties within 30 miles of I-95. The bill passed the Senate on a voice vote, but died in committee in the House.
• Corporate Subsidies (H 4343): This legislation sought to appropriate $15 million to create an Air Service Incentive and Development Fund to benefit airline carriers. The bill passed the House on a voice vote, but stalled in the Senate.
• Capital Construction Projects (S 700): This joint resolution authorized the University of South Carolina to build a new business school facility in the Innovista district. Construction was funded via bond revenue, thanks to another piece of legislation (H 3664) that also did not receive a recorded vote.
• Business Regulations and Fees (S 166): This joint resolution authorized the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop an outdoor advertising control pilot project aimed at eliminating what the Federal Highway Administration describes as nonconforming billboards. The resolution permits the DOT to charge application, annual, or other fees necessary to defray the administrative costs of implementing the program.

From the above examples, it is clear legislators routinely pass substantial legislation on an anonymous vote. For this reason, every bill and joint resolution, no matter how minor it may seem, should be given a recorded vote. (This excludes, of course, congratulatory resolutions and other measures that do not have the force of law.)

Simply put, every bill, resolution and amendment that would have the force of law should be given a recorded vote before it becomes law—for instance, on second reading. (Bills are read three times, with the second reading generally being the time for substantial debate.)

Percentage of Recorded Votes (Bills and Resolutions with Force of Law): 2009 to 2010

Why a rules change is not enough

In 2008, the Policy Council pushed for reforms that prompted rules changes in both the House and Senate that led to more recorded votes for the 118th General Assembly. But despite widespread public support for roll call voting, three-quarters of all votes remain off the record.

In addition, the rules changes made by the General Assembly do not have the force of law. Moreover, such procedural tinkering almost serves to reinforce the notion that the General Assembly is not obligated to record its votes. If roll call voting is necessary to a representative democracy, this duty should not be subject to the whims of the legislative leadership in its rulemaking capacity. Rather, it should be a right protected by statute, if not constitutional law.

Toward this end, the S.C. House passed a bill (H 3047) in 2010 that would have required more recorded votes. The Senate balked at the change, arguing that such a law would be an unconstitutional infringement of the chamber’s rule-making authority.

The measure passed by the House would have required a roll call vote on:

• Each section of the state budget on second reading
• Second reading of all bills and joint resolutions
• All amended bills and joint resolutions on third reading
• Amendments proposed by the opposite chamber
• Conference committee reports (necessary when House, Senate versions of a bill differ)

By contrast, current Senate rules only require a recorded vote on the following:

• The state budget as a whole
• Second reading of contested bills (one Senator may contest a bill)
• Second reading of bills authorizing expenditure of funds or with fiscal impact of $10,000
• Third reading of amended bills
• Conference committee reports

The Senate leadership’s argument that it would be unconstitutional to require recorded votes seems to be little more than a delay tactic. At the very least, the point is debatable, evinced by the fact that the House did not seem to think the legislation it passed was unconstitutional. In addition, constitutional scholars believe the law passed by the House would withstand a constitutional challenge. Writes John Simpkins, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at the Charleston School of Law:

There is a compelling argument to be made that the goal sought by H 3047 is more substantive than procedural. While the Legislature may craft procedural rules for its daily operations, those rules may not infringe upon fundamental rights. H 3047 is arguably a law that would have an impact on the direct relationship between citizens and their elected representatives, not simply a rule governing how the Legislature is organized or conducts its daily business. However, even if the proposed legislation is considered to be procedural in nature, the plain language of the South Carolina Constitution demonstrates that the houses of the General Assembly do not have the exclusive authority to determine their procedural arrangements.

To summarize Simpkins, legislation requiring recorded votes cannot be reduced to a mere procedural issue, but touches upon a matter so important that it may be considered a fundamental right.

In the end, constitutional objections to roll call voting are purely academic, at best. The solution to any potential constitutional road block is simple:

1. Change the rules in each chamber to require roll call voting on every bill and resolution
2. Pass legislation requiring roll call voting on every bill and resolution

Roll call voting is essential to accountability

Any remaining objections to roll call voting may be easily dispensed with. The cost to record votes is trivial (and the House already has the technical means to do so). Moreover, by discouraging the passage of special-interest legislation, requiring recorded votes will reduce spending, which hit an all-time high in 2010. Likewise, modern technology can streamline the voting process to a matter of seconds.

But questions of cost and efficiency are secondary to the fact that South Carolina citizens have a right to know how their representatives are voting. However you define it, roll call voting is essential to accountability. With it, everything in the Legislature will become more transparent. Without it, nothing will change. The future of South Carolina depends on it.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

Total State Spending: A 10-Year Overview

Download the PDF

As part of an ongoing analysis of state spending trends, this fact sheet looks at total state spending over the past 10 years. Taking this bird’s eye view of the budget illustrates state spending has consistently increased, regardless of economic conditions, inflation/population growth, or legislative/executive leadership.

Part I of this series looks at spending, in general, finding an increase of 44 percent over 10 years with an average increase of 4 percent per year.[1]

A closer analysis of the data reveals:

• Spending increased by 44.49 percent from FY2002 to FY2011.
• Spending increased by 4.14 percent annually over the past 10 years.
• Spending increased every year, except one (FY2010).
• The current $21 billion budget is the largest in state history.
• FY2005 saw the largest single-year hike in state spending, with appropriations increasing by 9.03 percent over FY2004.
• In the five-year period (FY2003-FY2008) prior to the beginning of the current recession, spending increased 34.56 percent, going up by more than $5 billion.

Budgetary Appropriations: FY2002-FY2011

Putting these findings into perspective will require adjusting spending for inflation and measuring spending increases in year 2000 dollars.

Part II of this series will accomplish that while also accounting for population growth.

In addition, it’s important to remember that the total budget is made up of three components: the General Fund, derived primarily from general tax revenue; Other Funds, derived primarily from fines/fees; and Federal Funds, which are federal tax dollars distributed to South Carolina from D.C.

Part III of this series will look at these three revenue sources in detail.

Here, however, we’re only attempting to point out that overall spending has steadily increased. Perhaps most interesting is that spending has consistently risen—regardless of gubernatorial or legislative leadership.

• Spending under Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who took office in Jan. 2003, increased by 37.10 percent: an average annual increase of 4.61 percent.
• Spending under Gov. James Hodges’ (D) last two years in office (FY2002-FY2004) increased by 5.39 percent: an average annual increase of 2.66 percent.
• Spending under Senate Pres. Pro Tem Glenn McConnell (R), elected as head of the Senate in Jan. 2001, has increased by 44.49 percent. This marks an average annual increase of 4.17 percent.
• Spending under House Speaker Bobby Harrell (R), elected speaker in June 2005, has increased by 17.27 percent. This is an average annual increase of 3.24 percent.

Again, these findings must be analyzed in light of their broader context. For instance, a slower rate of spending would have been expected during Gov. Hodges last two years in office because the country was emerging from a recession. Likewise, Gov. Sanford might be said to have very little control over state budget appropriations, given that the Legislature has frequently overridden his budget vetoes.

Still, the data shows one decisive point: spending continues to increase.

This sustained increase suggests two things:

1. The state’s current spending cap has not been effective
2. The next governor will be challenged to adopt innovative strategies to limit spending in any meaningful way

Both of these observations signify that reform must begin in the Legislature. Yet the Legislature has essentially proven that it can’t stop spending, that it is addicted to spending in both good times and bad.

The answer: an effective spending cap that limits spending to inflation growth. We’ll look more at that solution in Part II of this series.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright  © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.

[1]The budget numbers used here are derived from the appropriated budgets ratified by the General Assembly. We use the recapitulation section from each budget. This number does not include reductions owing to gubernatorial vetoes or mid-year cuts by the Budget & Control Board. They do show legislative intent, however. Moreover, they provide a standardized means of tracking budget appropriations. As we have written elsewhere, actual spending usually, but not always, exceeds appropriations.

South Carolina Counties Score Low in Transparency

Download the PDF

In 2009 the General Assembly passed legislation (H 3352) requiring all school districts to post a transaction register online, as well as a copy of the district’s monthly credit card statement. Initially, school districts had until October 2009 to comply with the new law, but the deadline was extended to June 30, 2010, after some districts asked for more time.

As reported by The Nerve, 70 percent—61 out of 85 school districts—of the state’s school districts have posted their check registers online.

Countywide compliance, however, is not as good. Only 29 counties (out of 46) can boast that all of their school districts have posted the required spending data. Counties home to school districts that have yet to comply with the law include: Greenville, Lexington (District One and District Five), and Dorchester (District Four).

Even worse, many counties are still not making basic financial statements available online—for instance, by posting their county-level Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Currently, only 25 out of 46 of South Carolina’s counties have posted their most recent CAFR online. Moreover, only 7 counties have created online check registers.

Check out the table below to see how your county and school district are doing in terms of fiscal transparency:

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Behind the Myths: Education Spending Up 20 Percent Since Start of Recession

Download the PDF

The ongoing practice of keeping state spending high, especially in the midst of the “Great Recession” that has lowered the standard of living for many South Carolinians, depends upon the perpetuation of a number of myths. The first of these is that the state budget is only $5 billion. In fact, it’s $21 billion. This myth makes possible a second: that the budget has been drastically cut over the past few years. In fact, overall spending has increased, and the FY10-2011 budget is the largest in state history. A third myth, accepted as fact by almost everyone, is that education funding, in particular, has been cut. The truth is that K-12 spending increased this past year and is up by nearly 20 percent since the beginning of the recession in 2007.

What does education spending include?

Education spending is derived from three primary sources: federal, state and local revenue. As delineated (proviso 1.3) in the FY10-2011 budget, these three sources combined make up what is referred to as average per pupil funding. In FY10-2011 alone, such funding increased by $130 to $11,372 per student, even as projected enrollment increased by 2,487 students.

Figure 1: Average Per Pupil Funding: FY10 to FY11

In other words, the projected total K-12 education budget is almost $8 billion ($7,895,613,716) for FY10-2011. Compared to last year, the K-12 budget has increased by 2 percent, or $118.9 million.

In terms of per pupil funding, both state and federal funding increased for FY2011 while local funding declined.

Although federal funding makes up the smallest component of total education spending, such funding increased rapidly in FY10-2011, rising by 26 percent. Likewise, state funding increased by 8 percent. Total funding increased by 2 percent. Local funding decreased by 9 percent; albeit in some counties local bond revenue is being used to supplement cuts in instructional spending.

Figure 3: Percentage Change in Education Funding from FY09 to FY10

So why are we being told education spending is down? More specifically, why did Secretary of Education Jim Rex recently claim that education spending has been cut by 20 percent since 2007—that is, since the beginning of the current recession?

In short, Rex is referring specifically to Department of Education (DOE) spending—not total K-12 spending. And, DOE spending is down. Department of Education appropriations were cut 16.4 percent from FY09-2010 to FY10-2011 (from $3.383 billion to $3.098 billion). Overall, the DOE budget has decreased by $629.6 million, or 16.89 percent, since FY07-2008.

But DOE appropriations only account for about half of total K-12 spending. Specifically, they exclude other K-12 education funding sources—such as local funding, bond revenues, intergovernmental transfers, and other miscellaneous accounting items. These sources historically account for at least half of all K-12 expenditures. And because average per pupil spending includes all of these sources, excepting bond revenue, it is a more accurate measure of total education spending.

Education Spending Increases Even During Recession

Thus we find that since the beginning of the current recession, total education spending has increased.

• For FY07-2008, average per pupil funding was $10,566
• For FY10-2011, it is $11,372
• Total increase: 8 percent

Figure 4: Average Per Pupil Funding Since Start of Recession

In aggregated monetary terms, K-12 spending has jumped from $7,222,928,166 to $7,895,613,716, or by 9.31 percent since FY2008. Likewise, with the exception of state funding, all other funding sources have increased as well:

• Federal funding has gone up by 55.59 percent
• Local funding has gone up by 8.26 percent
• State funding has declined by 0.35 percent
• Total increase in aggregated per pupil funding: 9.31 percent

Figure 5: Percentage Change of Funding Sources Since FY2008

It is important to note, however, that average per pupil spending does not include local bond revenue. Once we include such revenue, total K-12 spending since the recession shows an increase of 18.94 percent for FY2011.[1] Such revenue is anticipated to reach $1.226 billion for FY10-2011. Adding local bond sales to average per pupil spending results in an average per pupil expenditure of $11,218 for FY07-2008 and $13,138 for FY10-2011, compared to the respective appropriated amounts of $10,566 for FY2008 and $11,372 for FY2011.

Granted, local bond revenue has traditionally been set aside to pay for capital construction. Yet, these costs are real and add to the tax burden of South Carolina citizens. Moreover, school districts are increasingly tapping bond revenue to pay for instructional costs. During the 2010 session alone, the General Assembly granted 5 school districts special permission to use bond revenue to pay for operating and instructional costs. The governor vetoed each of these proposals, arguing that “a cardinal rule of prudent financing is that you do not fund short-term operations with long-term debt.” In every case, local delegations overturned the governor’s veto.

Figure 6: Total Education Spending, Including Local Bond Revenue: FY08 to FY11

Finally, even if we exclude local bond revenue, K-12 spending has outpaced population, plus inflation, growth since December 2007.

• Population growth since FY2008 is 2.6 percent.
• Inflation growth since FY2008 is 2.62 percent.
• Combined population and inflation growth is 5.21 percent.

In translation, K-12 spending grew faster than both population and inflation combined—by 4.1 percent since the start of the recession. Likewise, spending is also growing much faster than projected enrollment. Consider that projected enrollment has only increased by 1.57 percent (10,702 students) since FY2008.

Yet during the same period, aggregated funding, as demonstrated above, jumped 9.31 percent. This means education spending has increased by $62,856 for every new student entering the system since the 2007-2008 school year.

Figure 7: Education Spending vs. Population, Inflation Growth: FY08 to FY11

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; National Consumer Price Index; S.C. Budget and Control Board, Population Estimation and Population Projection

Categorical Restrictions Hamper Efficient Funding

Common sense tells us that more money should give teachers and principals more freedom to find the best ways to educate their students, but that will not be the case for the 2010-2011 school year. Even though total education funding has increased, that does not mean schools will have more money to reward good teachers or pursue innovative instructional techniques. This is because education dollars come to school districts and schools in one of two ways: unrestricted or restricted.

For all practical purposes, federal funding is restricted. Yet, as indicated above, the federal contribution to K-12 education spending is increasing rapidly—by 26 percent in the last year alone. Currently, federal funds make up 14 percent of total education funding whereas they accounted for less than 10 percent in FY05-2006. This increasing reliance on federal dollars is problematic because federal funding is subject to Title I (of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) guidelines and other categorical funding requirements (e.g., Reading First or the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program). In other words, more federal funds do not necessarily translate into more dollars for day-to-day instructional use. Likewise, it goes without saying that federal dollars are not “free,” but come out of the wallets of all U.S. taxpayers.[2]

State funding controlled by the Education Finance Act (EFA) is essentially unrestricted. As Hassel and Roza (2007) indicate, such funding accounted for 55 percent of state education spending in FY05-2006. The remaining 45 percent of state education funds were classified as restricted. As such, they are assigned on a categorical, or programmatic, basis and can only be used for specific programs, such as Arts in Education, EAA Technical Assistance, or the “iAm” Student Laptop Program.

Over the past few years, however, one of the essential components of the EFA—the “Base Student Cost” assigned to every student—has declined substantially. For FY10-2011, the Base Student Cost is $1,630 per student, down $714, or 31 percent, from last year’s $2,344. Moreover, while Base Student Cost accounts for 36.3 percent of state K-12 funding for FY10-2011, last year it made up nearly half of such funding. This decline in Base Student Cost indicates that more and more dollars are coming to schools as restricted funds. Consequently, principals and school districts are now even more hand-tied in terms of how they allocate monetary resources. Thus, we are faced with the irony that even as education spending has skyrocketed by 20 percent over the past few years, some school districts are still furloughing teachers and other employees.

Figure 8: Base Student Cost vs. State Funding During Recession

Figure 9: Base Student Cost as a Percentage of State Education Funding

Conclusion

As demonstrated above, it is a myth that education spending has been slashed during the current recession. This myth is being perpetuated by the assumption that more money automatically translates into better educational outcomes. But this also is not true. Instead of focusing on how to increase education funding, South Carolina lawmakers need to begin to look at how to better use the resources we already have. In particular, the elimination of categorical funding restrictions would enable schools to use per pupil funding in the most effective manner. Otherwise known as weighted student funding, this one reform would not only make education funding in South Carolina more efficient, equitable and transparent, it would also transform schools into innovative learning centers focused on the specific needs of each student. By contrast, blindly increasing education funding is not going to improve student performance. In the real world, better results in education will require smarter thinking about how we fund education.

To learn more about weighted student funding, visit us at unleashingcapitalismsc.com

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Download the PDF.

June Employment Numbers:

Total Employment Falls,

Local Government Hiring Continues to Grow

Last week we demonstrated that South Carolina’s improved employment picture hasn’t really improved much at all. Rather, government hiring and a shrinking labor force are making the job numbers look better than they are.

Our analysis looked at government hiring from January to May 2010. The numbers for June—which account for the elimination of thousands of temporary Census positions at the federal level—tell the same story.

Here are the government employment numbers for January, May and June 2010:

Federal hiring has obviously skyrocketed in South Carolina and across the nation. This is true even once we account for the drop off in federal Census positions from May to June.

January to May 2010: 

1.  Federal: 32.38 percent increase (31,500 to 41,700)
2. State: 1.52 percent decrease (99,000 to 97,500)
3. Local: 1.33 percent increase (221,900 to 226,200)  

January to June 2010: 

1. Federal: 15.5 percent increase (31,500 to 36,400)
2. State: 1.71 percent decrease (99,000 to 97,300)
3. Local: 2.16 percent increase (221,900 to 226,700) 

All in all, total public sector employment in South Carolina increased 2.27 percent from January to June 2010. That is to be compared to a 3.69 percent increase from January to May 2010. Granted, federal Census positions made up a significant part of the May increase, but what is even more interesting is that local government hiring continues to grow.

Now, let’s look at the June numbers within the context of the current recession. Since December 2007, private sector employment in South Carolina has declined by 124,100 jobs, or 7.71 percent. By comparison, public sector employment has increased by 19,600 jobs, or 5.75 percent.

In other words, the ratio of private sector to public sector jobs has declined from 4.72 to 4.12 since the beginning of the recession. This translates into a 12.7 percent contraction in the size of the private sector relative to the public sector. What is worse is that owing to the decline in private sector employment for June (see below), the ratio of private sector job losses to public sector job gains increased from 5.31 in May to 6.33 jobs lost for every public sector job created.

December 2007 to June 2010: 

1. Federal: 22.15 percent increase (29,800 to 36,400)
2. State: 1.22 percent decrease (98,500 to 97,300)
3. Local: 8.31 percent increase (209,300 to 226,700)           

Compare this to the numbers for December 2007 to May 2010: 

1. Federal: 39.93 percent increase (29,800 to 41,700)
2. State: 1.02 percent decrease (98,500 to 97,500) 
3. Local: 8.07 percent increase (209,300 to 226,200)  

Again, local government hiring has consistently increased during the recession.

Finally, the pool of potential workers (i.e., those looking for work) shrank once again from May to June 2010—from 2,159,200 to 2,149,600—a contraction of 9,600 persons.

Similarly, despite a decline in the state unemployment rate from May to June (11.1 percent to 10.7 percent)—something typically viewed as a good thing—there were fewer people actually employed in June than in May. As of June 2010, there were 1,919,404 persons employed in South Carolina, compared to 1,920,479 as of May. If we exclude government jobs from this figure, the total employed workforce would be 1,559,004, making for an actual unemployment rate of 27.5 percent.

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation.

Copyright  © 2010 South Carolina Policy Council.