Brown reports on session, thanks teachers for calling

In an column published in the Herald Independent, Rep. Boyd Brown offers his perspectives on Governor Nikki Haley's recent vetoes of funding for public schools, South Carolina Educational Television and other state services, as well as his thoughts on the "privilege" of voting to override those vetoes.

Also in the time since my last Update, the Governor vetoed 34 items in the state budget, including, but not limited to: law enforcement, economic development, K-12 education, the arts, agricultural research, conservation, S.C. Educational Television and rural health care. Out of those 34 vetoes, the S.C. House of Representatives overrode 27 of them.

While the Governor touted her vetoes as budget-balancing proposals, we passed a balanced budget, per state law, which funds all of those programs. Also, it should be noted that in all, the Governor’s vetoes amounted to a small amount of the State Budget, and were political maneuvers, shunned by even the Republican-controlled Legislature. In essence, her cuts would have been equivalent to taking half a pepperoni off of a large pizza.

With that said, it was a privilege to override her vetoes, which blatantly targeted rural areas such as Fairfield County. She tried to cut rural health, which would have reduced the number of primary care physicians in places like Ridgeway and Jenkinsville.

Then she tried to cut S.C. ETV, which does much more than just broadcast, as she put it, “Big Bird.” ETV trains law enforcement officials to use a statewide alert system like the Amber Alert, it broadcasts the General Assembly while we’re in session, keeping us transparent, and it uses its satellite system to go into schools and provide educational programs to students. We’re lucky to have this program, touted year after year as one of the best public broadcast systems in the United States.

While she was at it, she cut agricultural research, which would have eliminated the Clemson Extension Service. She tried to strip money from the Department of Commerce, the agency that recruits jobs to South Carolina, and is headed up by Fairfield’s own, Secretary Bobby Hitt.

Honestly folks, I was blown away by the Governor’s idea of governing. We had cut the fat out of the budget, we have watched state agencies layoff hundreds upon hundreds of workers, and the Governor wanted us to eliminate entire programs, even though we had written a balanced budget. It was unbelievable.

I would also like to thank those who have emailed or phoned me in regards to the budget vetoes. Whether you’re a librarian supporting ETV, a Trooper supporting law enforcement, a teacher supporting K-12 education or a farmer supporting Clemson Extension, the Statehouse heard you loud and clear! It was your persistence that beat back these cuts to your essential programs.

Here's one lawmaker who appreciates hearing from educators.

Educators, let's welcome and accept Brown's invitation to share our views on state priorities.

Haley flew to New York fundraiser after issuing school funding vetoes

Intrepid reporters at The State newspaper have uncovered part of Governor Nikki Haley's itinerary in New York City, no thanks to Haley's office help. "Haley left Columbia the evening of June 29, according to her spokesman, on a flight paid for by the Republican Governors Association," the newspaper announced this week.

To get to this scrap of information, reporters discovered donations totaling $32,000 made to Haley's campaign account on June 29, 34 donations coming from out-of-state donors and six coming from South Carolinians.

June 29 was a big day, the day that lawmakers voted to override a majority of Haley's vetoes and restore millions of dollars to public schools and SCETV, among others. It was curious that Haley wasn't present to twist arms, and that her man Godfrey issued such a terse, brief statement when the overriding was done.

According to financial reports released Sunday, Haley raised nearly $49,000 in contributions from individuals and organizations during the second quarter, which ended June 30. The majority of that money came from out-of-state donors, including attorneys, company executives and homemakers who attended the New York event.

Democratic lawmakers criticized Haley for heading out of town to raise money as they took up her budget vetoes. That day, lawmakers voted to override 26 of Haley’s 35 vetoes.

State Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, said Monday that Haley may have been playing politics instead of fighting for her reforms.

“It raises the issue whether she had any intention of (her vetoes) being successful,” Stavrinakis said. “Why issue those vetoes and abandon town if you really thought they were needed changes and you were willing to fight for them?”

Stavrinakis also criticized Haley for trying to call lawmakers back into session in early June to vote on four bills but leaving town during the mid-June legislative special session. “That was wrong, and it displays a level of judgment that is certainly questionable,” he said.

Hey, that's a great point. When lawmakers left town without meeting her expectations by the end of the last day of session, she issued an ill-fated executive order calling them back to Columbia.

So, with work on the budget left undone on June 29, should Haley have flown the coop for a glitzy fundraiser in Manhattan?

Haley on Monday defended her decision to attend the fundraiser, saying it had been planned long in advance, before she knew the Legislature would be in special session. She said it was the only fundraiser she held in the quarter, adding that she did not hold any during the regular legislative session.

“That fundraiser was planned for months, and we went ahead and we did it,” Haley said.

Mm. But the legislature's sine die had been planned for months, too -- everyone knows the legislature ends its regular session on the first Thursday or June, so it's easy to predict today what date sine die will be adopted for the next ten, twenty, fifty years -- yet Haley demanded that lawmakers ignore their sine die resolution and come back immediately to pass her agenda. Shouldn't the goose live by the expectations she sets for the ganders?

Then there's this little bobtail that Haley added onto her defense of the trip:

“It wasn’t during (my) regular day schedule. It wasn’t on the state dime, and it was a private event.”

Haley left Columbia the evening of June 29, according to her spokesman, on a flight paid for by the Republican Governors Association. The following day, Haley attended Republican Governors Association events in New York. She then spent Friday and the weekend with her husband and children on a family vacation before returning to South Carolina.

It's interesting that the governor said the expenses for the trip were not "on the state dime."

When I first mentioned this in an earlier post, I posed questions that have gone unanswered, to wit:

But when the governor travels outside the state, a security detail is dispatched to travel with her. Did one travel with her to New York? If so, did her security return when her "business" was finished on Thursday night, or did security go sightseeing in New York with her?

So, did any SLED agents participate in Governor Haley's Excellent Adventure in New York? If so, how many, and were they paid by South Carolina's taxpayers? Did they stay in hotels; and if so, which hotels? Did they take their meals in little brown bags from Columbia, or did they eat food in New York's eateries; and if so, where? Were these hotel and meal expenses paid for by the Republican Governors Association, or by the taxpayers of South Carolina?

The difference is more than semantic. We have a right to expect our governor to tell all the truth. When she says that her outing to New York, which even her man Godfrey acknowledges included "Friday and the weekend with her husband and children on a family vacation before returning to South Carolina," was not "on the state dime," then we should know that it's a totally true statement, a partially true statement, or an untrue statement.

Gina Smith, of The State newspaper, can you help answer these questions? Is this a question that State Treasurer Curtis Loftis could answer?

Hypocrisy defined, denied by Haley on ETV services

In her January address to the General Assembly, Governor Nikki Haley described her desire to effectively privatize South Carolina Educational Television. When the opportunity arose, she sacked the whole SCETV Board of Directors and replaced it with a new board of her acolytes, without regard to experience or knowledge of ETV's mission, history and services. Later in the legislative session, she apparently negotiated a deal with Rep. Kenny Bingham to see her privatization scheme implemented, then vetoed ETV's public funding altogether. Had the legislature not overridden her veto, ETV would have been a shell of its former self, no longer a public good.

All of which makes this item from the Post & Courier of Charleston special:

Gov. Nikki Haley wanted the state to nix funding for ETV, but that hasn't stopped her from using the station's services.

ETV provided lighting for the governor's television interviews Monday, despite the fact that Haley vetoed funding for the public educational broadcaster. Lawmakers later overrode the veto.

One imagines a soused lout, after beating a bony dog, instructing the poor animal to come and show affection. Or a vicious overseer, having berated a slave, demanding happy subservience. The malevolent parent requires tribute after lashing out at an child. The metaphors continue, all illustrating hypocrisy, meanness, arrogance.

"We have never said that ETV is not a good service to have," Haley said. "What we are saying is, if we use ETV they should bill us. We should pay them. To give them $10 million on a line item just because is wrong. To give them payment for services rendered is the way that we should have them in state government. That's what we fought for from the beginning. That's what we will continue to fight for."

So, did the governor's office pay for the ETV crew?

"I think they should be very happy," Haley responded. "It looks like they got $10 million this year, so once again we will go back to watching them get a lot of money and not necessarily know the services that they give."

Notice how Her Excellency framed the issue so as to beg the question, then dodged that question.

Her inconsistencies draw attention.

S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian said the action was typical Haley.

"It suits Nikki Haley to say one thing and do something else," he said.

What vetoes? Haley threatens focus on education next year

Classroom teachers will recognize this behavior: Student ignores effective instruction for a semester, performs poorly on occasional tests and blows off the final exam entirely, earning a failing grade. When the class resumes for the second semester, the student pretends nothing was wrong, that despite the albatross of a failing grade weighing down her prospects, she will continue last semester's poor study habits, inattentiveness in class and general disregard for instruction, fully expecting to complete the course with an A.

Governor Nikki Haley took a thumping at the hands of the legislature late last month, after wielding her veto pen without necessary prudence and expecting her subordinates in the chambers to fall in line.

Now, without having addressed fully the deeper meanings of those events, and apparently pretending they never occurred -- which means no learning took place -- Her Excellency has announced she "will use her first executive budget in January to take a “back-to-basics” approach to a range of issues vital to the long-term future of the state."

Back to basics, she says. This can't be good news for South Carolina's public schoolchildren.

“You will see me focus on things like law enforcement, like infrastructure, like education, like mental health and rehabilitation,” Haley said Monday in Columbia. “Those are the things we really need to focus on so that we can start to get South Carolina really moving again.”

Indeed, South Carolina's public schoolchildren are on next year's menu.

But where? The appetizer? The main course? The dessert?

When it comes to issues such as education, infrastructure and law enforcement, Haley said too much attention is focused on how much money is spent, rather than how the money is spent.

Haley said her focus will be to move state education “in the right direction.” That means, among other things, changing the funding formula, she said.

It's the main course. Haley presumably intends to strike directly at the heart of South Carolina's public school system, aiming squarely at the Education Finance Act.

The mother of two children attending public schools in Lexington County, Haley, responding to a question about school vouchers, said she has “always been a strong proponent of options for parents” in schools.

There we find the proof that Haley has learned none of the lessons of the past decade in South Carolina politics and education policy. How many times have lawmakers defeated voucher legislation since Haley's mentor, former Governor Mark Sanford, first dragged them out of Libertarian think tanks and into our public discourse in 2003? Five? Six? Seven? How many public hearings have been held on the topic? How many polls have been taken? How many rallies have dragged little home-schooled children and their parents to the State House steps for the airing of cathartic declamations and demands for public subsidies of private choices?

The lessons taught time after time, the opinions voiced by our collective consciousness in poll after poll, the will of lawmakers expressed in vote after vote, are so crystal clear: Parents want high-quality public schools for their children in their communities, wherever they live. Parents in every city and town, crossroad and glade want the same access to opportunities for their children as exist for the children of other parents, elsewhere, across our happy land. When beaten about the head and neck with messages of public schools' inadequacies, parents have not yielded and said, Yes, close the schools and give me a voucher to Heathwood Hall. Rather, parents have rejected those messages and said to state leaders, Fix the problems, repair the schools, treat my child as you would treat your own, and let public funds serve the public good.

But Haley learned none of these lessons, read none of the polls, apparently knows nothing of all those previous votes. Next year, she declares, she will push our system of public education in right direction, using "vouchers" as her compass.

One grows weary.

In the same article, buried well beneath the lead, Haley announces to the citizens of South Carolina that they have no governor to focus on state interests. Rather, they have a governor focused on matters of national import. This, of course, does nothing to help the moms and dads and little children of South Carolina's communities. Perhaps we were fooled into thinking we'd elected a governor.

First, Haley returns to the horse she hobbled and bled out months ago, to administer additional lashes.

As she has in the past, Haley roundly criticized the National Labor Relations Board for its suit against Boeing for locating a 787 Dreamliner plant in South Carolina rather than Washington state, citing anti-union motivation.

Haley has been out front in some national media outlets defending Boeing’s decision, and deriding the Obama administration for not speaking out against it.

“I am not gonna stand by and allow any of our companies to be bullied, especially by unions,” Haley said to a round of applause by the Rotarians.

The Rotarians love a show.

What might the Rotarians have done if South Carolina's governor had declared, "I am not gonna stand by and allow any of our public schoolchildren to be bullied, especially by their governor"? Might the applause have rocked the walls?

Or this: "I am not gonna stand by and allow any of South Carolina's workers to be bullied, especially by their elected leaders"?

Or perhaps this: "I am not gonna stand by and allow any of our citizens' rights and freedoms to curbed or dictated by out-of-state corporate interests through ideologically-motivated campaign contributions, especially by those who supported and continue to support my political aspirations"? Surely the roof would spontaneously combust.

Then comes the abdication of any responsibility for what occurs, or doesn't occur, to promote the general welfare of our own friends and neighbors who pay taxes in South Carolina:

“Being a governor is no longer about leading on state issues,” Haley said. “What I’ve noticed is we have to deal with a lot of federal issues, and that’s OK.” Haley has taken criticism for inking a book deal and catering toward national media exposure, perhaps harboring national political ambitions.

Translation: We have no governor. We are materially supporting, instead, a candidate-in-waiting for federal appointment or election.

And another term of office is wasted, while our children want for leaders.

More local fallout, comment on Haley vetoes

Not all of the state's newspapers have correspondents in Columbia to cover the State House -- unfortunately -- so many papers opt to wait for lawmakers to come home and brief the 'lectorate before tackling some of the big issues of the past week or two. Such is the case with Governor Nikki Haley's vetoes and the legislature's quick disposals of them.

Sen. John Matthews told the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg that it was "telling" that legislative majorities of Haley's own party overturned so many of her vetoes.

"Those issues were vetted on the floors and we thought they were important. The four or five vetoes that were sustained were not significant. It was telling that the Republican leadership is not on the same page with the governor. It would seem to show she is out of step with many South Carolinians."

Drafting her memoir might have distracted her from the needs and wants of the citizenry. After the book is published in January, she may be able to focus better on her work, Senator.

Sen. John Land rapped Haley's attack on funding for public schools, and her inscrutible positions on economic development.

"She vetoed $110 million in the Capital Reserve Fund bill that had 60 to 70 needed maintenance projects for higher education without adequate explanation," Land said. "This was excess revenue we didn't get until late, and she said we didn't need to spend it on education.

"There was even a section where money was allocated for the Department of Commerce to recruit jobs. It didn't make any sense at all."

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, reflecting a general concern that Haley is not as well-versed in the affairs of the state as a chief executive needs to be -- or merely as observant of conditions on the ground, offered some advice:

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg said Haley's request that lawmakers use Capital Reserve Fund cash for future budget contingencies is disingenuous.

"To Gov. Haley I would say, ‘Wake up and smell the coffee, the storm is here,'" Cobb-Hunter said. "We are way beyond a rainy day in South Carolina.

"Until the governor is willing to exert the leadership required to deal with the tax mess, there is no real reason for her to lecture the General Assembly on a rainy day fund."

Rep. Bakari Sellers echoed his veteran colleagues.

"She vetoed measures that would improve public education and we can't stand for that in South Carolina," Sellers said. "She is out of touch with the people. We need the Arts Commission and ETV. In this I'm glad to see that common sense prevailed."

Editors of the Charleston Post & Courier issued their own verdict on Haley's misguided vetoes and found the new boss the same as the old boss. "This was pointless," they declared. They advised South Carolinians to pay attention.

To which I offer, politely: 'Tis too late for that. Haley may be a poor excuse for a governor, even a malignant one, but she's what we have for the next 42 months or so. Where were the attention-paying editors of the Post & Courier when the window of opportunity was open? Who did the Post & Courier support in the last election?

Nevertheless, the editors make the most of hindsight, and they make their points well:

We're coming off an instructional week for South Carolina's electorate. Nearly six months after Gov. Nikki Haley took office, everyone finally got to see what she's really all about.

Haley's budget vetoes -- a small percentage of the budget -- were concentrated largely on education, the arts, the environment and routine maintenance to keep the state running. Programs to keep public school teachers in the classroom and train the workforce were inexplicably discarded.

At least when Mark Sanford differed with lawmakers, whether or not you agreed, he always had a serious point. But this was pointless, and the damage could be permanent. The one area where Haley had Sanford beat -- her relationship with lawmakers -- is now out the window.

No wonder the state's business ranking has dropped.

The editors do express gratitude for the General Assembly.

Lawmakers overrode most of Haley's anti-public-education vetoes. They restored $56 million for per-pupil spending in schools and $20 million to some relatively wealthy school districts, like Charleston's, that suffer under the existing funding formula.

And they put back $13 million to help technical colleges train workers for jobs like those at Boeing. Which the governor took ample credit for bringing here.

Sure, the state needs to put a microscope on every dollar it spends. But those are core functions of government. And someone who claims to be so interested in catering to business should realize that companies look at more than tax rates when scouting new locations.

Perhaps some of those areas where the state is lacking, or has little political support, hurt South Carolina's ranking in CNBC's ranking of "America's Top States For Business 2011." This year it dropped to 37, down from 31 last year.

The Legislature gets it. The governor, apparently, doesn't.

Quite right. What this governor got was the Post & Courier's endorsement.

It takes a big editorial board to admit it was wrong. Of course, the Post & Courier hasn't actually done that, yet.

Rather, they put the onus on Haley.

The biggest damage Haley did last week was to herself.

Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate publicly derided her for not keeping her word; they said her staff had misled them. Of course, Haley couldn't be distracted to confirm or deny the charge.

Well, she'd already boarded her flight for New York. Fourth of July weekend was coming, and there were a lot of yet-to-be-disclosed activities to do there. Planes can't wait forever, even for state business.

Back in January, Haley offered few specifics for cutting the budget, but made a point of mentioning the negligible funds devoted to ETV and the Arts Commission. Republican leaders say that later the governor's staff instructed them to just stick those line-items in various other corners of the budget and they'd be fine.

So much for transparency. When Democrats pointed out the shell game, Haley was forced to make good on her threat and veto the money.

The upshot? The Legislature restored the money, publicly derided Haley and swore they wouldn't make the mistake of trusting her again.

And so, we are back to where we started.

Zais focuses on presidential politics rather than schools

I have to believe that May was an extraordinarily slow month for Superintendent of Education Mick Zais.

After initiating a 50-person purge that would play out over the next several weeks; and after scrambling to keep certain federal funds for special education; and after deciding absolutely not to ask for other federal funds to which South Carolina's public schoolchildren are entitled; and after watching the legislature dispatch with a voucher-and-tuition-tax-credit bill for the umpteenth time; and after talking a little more about his desire to privatize student transportation statewide so he wouldn't have 450-plus transportation workers and bus drivers on his payroll, Zais must have found himself without anything to do.

And everyone knows that idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

So our state superintendent, whose constitutional responsibilities have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with presidential politics...

Our state superintendent, who has never spent a day on the payroll of a public school district, or in a public school classroom...

Our state superintendent, who presumably is not now, nor has ever been, a member of the largest professional association for public school educators in America and the world, the National Education Association...

Our state superintendent, who has never before held elective office and, in late May, had occupied his current position for only four months...

...decided that the best thing for him to do on behalf of South Carolina's hundreds of thousands of public school children, their parents and their educators, was to write a letter to the president of the National Education Association and tell that man not to endorse President Barack Obama for a second term of office.

Bugs Bunny said it most politely, folks: What a maroon.

According to the CNBC poll measuring a state's suitability to attract business, South Carolina ranks 46th out of the 50 states in education, which is probably why the state's overall score dropped to 37th in the nation.

Yet Mick Zais's highest priority at some point in late May was to write a letter to a man sitting 500 miles from Columbia, the president of a union that Zais surely hasn't joined, who leads 3.2 million educators across America, and to tell that man, and that union, and those 3.2 million educators, not to tend to their own business at their annual convention this year.

What a spectacular maroon.

South Carolina stands to collect $144 million in federal funds to protect public educators' jobs if only Mick Zais would file for a waiver, just as Texas did, knowing that filing for the waiver takes no effort and is likely guaranteed to have that money in South Carolina by the first day of the school year. Yet Mick Zais, our illustrious superintendent, finds it too taxing to his political ideology to ask Barack Obama's Department of Education for the waiver, while districts across our state cut 2,400 jobs between April and May alone, helping to pump our unemployment rate back to 10 percent.

Instead, he felt it necessary to express his "concern" to the nation's organized educators -- who gave his "concern" the correct amount of attention, none -- about their own relationship with the President and his administration vis a vis America's system of public education and who may have influence over that system from January 2013 to January 2017.

What a shiny, gleaming bright maroon.

Acknowledging that various groups of students in various states take the SAT, and that in some states only college-bound students take that test, South Carolina's students taking the SAT ranked second-worst in the nation in 2010, according to the Commonwealth Foundation. And our governor, apparently no fan of programs to help students prepare for the SAT and presumably improve their scores, took the opportunity to veto state funding for just such a program in her letter to House Speaker Bobby Harrell last Tuesday. And our lawmakers on Wednesday, when given the opportunity to override that veto, let that one stand, depriving our state's high schoolers of one more chance to improve their lot in life, all apparently without a peep from our venerable Superintendent Mick Zais.

Yet our superintendent, who by now may crave the endorphin rush that comes when state media cover every burp or hiccup his digestive tract proffers, presumed it squarely within his bailiwick to release an advisory that, at last report, no other state superintendent of education was arrogant enough to suggest.

One wonders if this has to do with Zais's attitude toward Inez Tenenbaum, the tremendously popular two-term state superintendent of education -- in fact, our last two-term superintendent -- who did begin her career as a classroom teacher and who now serves in the Obama administration as an agency chief. Can it be that Zais is jealous of, or bitter toward, a state superintendent who was widely respected as a powerful advocate for South Carolina's public schools?

Whatever motivated Mick Zais to bloviate beyond the borders of his portfolio and his state, obviously the elected delegates to the NEA's representative assembly didn't bother to sniff at his advice. According to the NEA's website,

CHICAGO—Delegates to the National Education Association’s (NEA) 2011 Representative Assembly (RA) voted overwhelmingly to support President Obama for a second term today, making NEA the first union to recommend the President for next year’s election. In addition, the delegates adopted a policy statement that observers agree will establish a clear course for overhauling teacher evaluation and accountability systems.

“Today our members have stated loud and clear that they will no longer allow the voice of teachers and educators to be silenced and marginalized by people who don’t have a clue what teaching is,” said NEA President Dennis Van Roekel. “This policy statement puts NEA on the record in calling for a comprehensive overhaul for both teacher evaluation and accountability systems.”

The body also heard from Education Support Professional (ESP) of the Year Ernest “Jameel” Williams, a bus driver from North Carolina. Williams spoke passionately about the critical role that support professionals play in the daily lives of students.

He also spoke about the need for all professionals in schools to work together—he compared educators to a football team. “If the blockers don’t block the quarterback, or the tight ends or running backs don’t work together, the team is set up to be defeated because the opposing team senses weakness and that gives it an extra edge. We don’t need to show division in the ranks!”

On the fourth and final day of the 90th RA, delegates will hear from the 2011 Teacher of the Year, Michelle Shearer, from Maryland. RA delegates will also use the last day to say goodbye and convey their appreciation to retiring NEA Executive Director John Wilson. Wilson has led the national organization’s staff for 10 years, and will retire on September 1, 2011.

Did you notice who was mentioned as a speaker at the NEA's convention? A school bus driver from North Carolina.

What message does that communicate? Let's see: In NEA, bus drivers get respect and attention; in South Carolina, their jobs get privatized by Mick Zais and Nikki Haley.

And after the outright stupidity of his letter the NEA president about presidential politics, Zais had the incomparably poor judgment to pout about it to The State newspaper.

Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, a Republican, is expressing disappointment after the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union, voted July 4 to support Pres. Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

In late May, Zais wrote to the organization, saying it was a bad idea to endorse a candidate so early.

“I am deeply concerned that this action sets a terrible example for the students across the country because only one possible candidate will be considered for endorsement by your labor union,” Zais wrote to NEA president Dennis Van Roekel. “This decision, if approved by your membership, effectively slams the door shut to all other presidential candidates before a single one has been duly nominated by a political party or filed necessary legal documents.”

The NEA sent a response letter to Zais, expressing appreciation for his input.

Please tell me these letters exist somewhere on the internet. Educators in South Carolina have a right to see exactly what earns their state superintendent's "disappointment" if emaciated funding for public schools, apathy toward a constitutional obligation to support public schools in our state, underpaid and overworked education professionals losing their jobs, and more children being packed into fewer classrooms doesn't do the job.

We don't have a superintendent of education in South Carolina. We have an unvarnished political operative bent on eliminating the last best chance that poor children in South Carolina have to escape low-skill, low-wage fast-food-and-factory jobs and make something of themselves and their communities.

Aiken delegation sends mixed signals to school board

Aiken County residents rejoiced last Wednesday when members of its legislative delegation voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's vetoes of funding for public schools. The county stood to gain $2 million in increased per-pupil expenditures.

But the celebration ended Thursday when the school board received a letter from the delegation.

Then on Thursday, the five Aiken delegation Republican House members - Roland Smith, Tom Young, Bill Taylor, Bill Hixon and Kit Spires - sent a letter to School Board Chair Rosemary English asking the board to set aside the non-reoccurring dollars "for any future funding shortfall."

In the letter to English, the legislators cited the $2 million the Aiken County School District will receive through a late proposal to increase the per-pupil allocations.

"We think by doing this," the letter stated, "this will be the wisest use of these funds, considering the current status of the economy."

Huh? Lawmakers voted to override Haley's veto, so that more funds would flow to school districts to increase their per-pupil expenditures. But the same lawmakers are asking school boards to hoard the additional funds, because next year... what?

"The School Board and the administration will try to be frugal with the funds," Wesby said. "We'll make wise decisions whether to put those funds in reserve to deal with possible shortfalls or try to initiate some programs we feel are instrumental."

It's ironic, [School Board member Richard] Hazen said, that the extra funds allocated by the General Assembly stemmed from an improved economy. That being said, the School Board approved the 2011-12 budget that included new projects but without those funds, he said.

"This left us slightly in the hole without having to do a tax hike," Hazen said. "But we also had 'flex' money that made up that difference. Even if the vetoes had been sustained, we would have been OK."

With the way education funding had been cut in recent years, [member Donna] Wesby said, she was surprised by the overrides by a huge majority of senators and House members.

"I'm not exactly sure about what the catalyst was for the delegation voting the way they did, but I'm certainly glad about it," Wesby said. "We're thankful for the delegation and I'm hopeful that we'll continue on this positive trend."

This is the state of affairs in South Carolina, when local officials are surprised and grateful when state lawmakers do the right thing, then micromanage the local officials' work.

Paris, Munich, New York, and New Delhi is next

In the past month, Governor Nikki Haley has indulged her professed love of travel by visiting Munich, Paris and New York City. This fall, she's headed to India.

The trip to New York took some by surprise, as Her Excellency demanded -- by way of an executive order -- that the General Assembly ignore the sine die joint resolution it adopted in early June and return to Columbia until its work -- as she prescribed it -- was done. The Supreme Court kicked the order to the curb, lawmakers returned to Columbia as they intended and worked through the end of last week to dispatch three dozen vetoes that Haley sent them.

But while lawmakers were doing the governor's laundry, the governor was in New York City. Last I knew, the business of the South Carolina is not conducted in the Big Apple. But Haley was there, spending one day on the business of the Republican Governors Association and the next three days presumably taking Manhattan by storm.

It's not clear what our governor was accomplishing on behalf of South Carolinians for three days in New York City during the July 4 weekend. Most people who didn't have jobs while she was here didn't suddenly have work because of her efforts in New York. Godfrey, her spokesperson, told The State newspaper it was "personal time," and "time with her husband and children."

This is puzzling. For educators and school district employees, "personal time" is time away from work, time spent at home, time grieving the loss of loved ones or addressing other issues of a personal nature. If Haley is, indeed, a state employee now, does "personal time" mean something different for her?

When the governor travels outside the state, a security detail is dispatched to travel with her. Did one travel with her to New York? If so, did her security return when her "business" was finished on Thursday night, or did security go sightseeing in New York with her? Are there photographs? I've never seen the Statue of Liberty in person; I wonder if my tax dollars helped to pay for the Haleys to see it? Did they take in a show on Broadway? Did they go to the top of the Empire State Building?

Will the governor post her photographs so that the rest of South Carolina's children can enjoy vicariously what her own children enjoyed in person?

Oh, to be the child of a jet-setting governor: The fine hotels, the haute cuisine, riding down Fifth Avenue in style, the cameras and attention, the fawning tourists clamoring for autographs, safety provided by South Carolina's finest, all so far from the red clay and dust, the common collards and grits, the humidity and inescapable summer sun, the huddled masses yearning for jobs.

We know from Godfrey, her spokesperson, what Haley didn't do: She didn't meet with her publishers at Sentinel, the "dedicated conservative imprint" of Penguin Books, although Sentinel happened, by coincidence, to announce the publication of Haley's memoir on the first day she spent in New York.

Rep. Leon Stavrinakis is one lawmaker who is as puzzled by the governor's behavior as I am.

Stavrinakis said Haley’s a hypocrite for taking a trip out of state before the budget was completely finalized after she tried to force legislators back into session to restructure government. Haley’s attempts to bring lawmakers back to Columbia, saying they hadn’t finished their work for the year, failed under a ruling by the state Supreme Court in early June.

“If she is going to chastise legislators and try to cost the state tens of thousands to try to bring us back to Columbia, then she needs to be there, too,” he said.
...
Her public schedule, released Tuesday, made no mention of her trip to New York but lists on Thursday three RGA meetings, three calls for the group and a newspaper interview that spanned from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. The schedule does not list any events for Friday.

The Legislature adjourned Wednesday after the House and Senate voted on the budget vetoes.

The governor did not respond to questions about her decision to leave the state during part of the budget veto discussion.

She may not be answering questions from South Carolina's reporters, but Her Excellency granted an "exclusive" interview to reporters for India Abroad, "the oldest and most widely-circulated Indian-American weekly newspaper." This is the same newspaper who named Haley the 2010 India Abroad Person of the Year at a dazzling ceremony in the Cotillion Ballroom ("the setting for Al Pacino's memorable tango scene from Scent Of A Woman") and the Grand Ballroom of New York's The Pierre.

It isn't surprising that Haley would grant an interview to India Abroad -- after all, it published an item titled 'South Carolina laps up Nikki Haley' after her primary victory in 2010 -- but it is surprising to read how Haley characterizes South Carolina to the foreign media.

Let's consider, for example, the word "progressive." There was once a "Progressive" movement in America, "with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women."

Wikipedia notes further that

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Paul Wellstone.

Clearly, "progressive" is a term that has specific meanings in American culture.

Yet, when India Abroad asked Haley to comment on what her election proved about negativity and racism in the South, Haley answered, "South Carolina is not the label that people have given. It is a very progressive state; it's a very smart state." One assumes that South Carolina is progressive and smart because it elected Haley its governor; had it not, we might all still be negative and racist.

Ready for more? Says India Abroad: "And now with a clear-eyed agenda for America, she's thinking of revisiting her roots. In October, she plans to visit India and her focus is clear."

Clear-eyed agenda for America? Seven months in the Governor's Mansion and she's already measuring for drapes in the White House?

Pop quiz: What nation has the most-educated populace? Let's ask a national leader with a "clear-eyed agenda for America."

What I want people to know about the Indian American community is that they are the most educated, they make the most money per capita, they are the ones least dependent on government assistance. And the fact that I am most proud of -- they give more to charity than any other minority in the country. And I want the entire world to know that.

So the answer is not America? Since when was the answer not plainly, simply, America?

Following an earlier interview with India Abroad, the writer characterized former Governor Mark Sanford as Haley's mentor. But in this exchange, it appears clear that Haley (a) has done a good job communicating to India her opposition to President Barack Obama and to health care for all Americans, and (b) isn't afraid of pushing Sanford under the bus:

Q: You were among the newly elected governors who met US President Barack Obama just weeks after being sworn into office. You had no compunctions in expressing your strong reservations and concerns about his health care reform bill. Will you continue to try to overturn it in South Carolina even though there was all this criticism that yes, you've spoken out against it, but you had no compunctions in accepting federal money?

A: Well, first of all, the previous administration accepted federal money. I did not. But what I would tell you is we have to look at our states and ask 'How do we get the most health care for the least amount of money?'

Haley, the national leader with the "clear-eyed agenda for America," also opined on immigration, an issue that must weigh heavily on the mind of South Carolina's chief executive. In a nutshell, Haley opposes letting any new immigrants into the country unless "they put in the time, they put in the money," and they are professionals. To let in immigrants who don't "put in the time, ...put in the money" is "offensive" to Haley's parents, she reports, and presumably to Haley.

She explains,

What we do need is professionals. We do need workers that we can't find in this country. That's the reason you expand the worker visa programme. That's the key to making sure that we get who we need.

Yes, we need more professionals, we need more researchers, we need more engineers and we need more help. But we need to make sure that the worker visa programme is a good one, so that we can bring them over easily and we know exactly who's documented and who's not.

To make it crystal clear: Investing in South Carolina's children so that those who want to attend college and become professionals is a bad thing; it shouldn't be a high priority in South Carolina's budget, and to invest more dollars in the education of South Carolina's children risks a veto from the governor.

But the same governor wants to expand a worker visa program so that we can bring more -- but specific -- foreign nationals into the United States to assume highly-skilled, high-paying jobs here.

If there's another way to read Haley's public pronouncements -- both here in South Carolina's media and in the foreign press -- I'm delighted to hear it.

In her expansive, exclusive interview with India Abroad, Haley comments on several other matters. No, she won't run for vice president. No, she's not going to endorse Sarah Palin for president yet. Yes, she's going to India in October, "taking a very high-powered trade delegation" with her.

No, seriously. The governor of South Carolina had this exchange with India Abroad:

Q: So, you will be taking a very high-powered trade delegation with you?

A: Absolutely, with the whole emphasis of trying to see how much trade we can bring to the United States.

That's well and fine. South Carolinians need jobs. Foreign investment may help our economy. I suspect our Treasurer, Curtis Loftis, will be pleased if Haley's "clear-eyed agenda for America" includes an improvement in our economy.

But Haley offered one more note that may intrigue the good folks at the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the working-class folks who don't get to spend a long weekend in Manhattan on the taxpayers' dimes when they feel like it.

Said Her Excellency to India Abroad:

We are a great state; great pro-business state. The cost of doing business in South Carolina is low, our trained work force is great. We keep the unions out so a lot of companies want to come to the state and invest in aerospace, automotive, research and development. So, I am heavily recruiting. Since I've taken office, we've brought 7,000 jobs. The unemployment number is down for the fourth time in a row. Exports are up, tourism is up and it would only make sense that we go to India and say, 'We want you here, we welcome you here, please come to South Carolina.'

Keeping unions out, but importing more foreign professionals on worker visas.

Demanding our lawmakers stay in town to finish the job, but taking the family for a long weekend in New York City.

Seven months in our chief executive's office, but traveling the world "with a clear-eyed vision for America."

Vetoing funds for children and working South Carolinians, but declaring to the world that we're a "progressive" state.

Unemployment has resurged under her administration, but says unemployment has dropped under her administration.

Hasn't finished a full term in office, yet publishing a memoir on the state's time.

Who, exactly, did we elect governor?

And what, by the way, was the total cost of the Haley family vacation to New York during the July 4 weekend, including the costs of security, paid by taxpayers?

Where do children rank among state budget priorities?

This is not a trick question: Of these three states -- South Carolina, Alabama or Kentucky -- which values the lives of its children most?

I'll give you a hint: The answer isn't South Carolina.

In fact, South Carolina won't even take second place out of the three options, given the choices made by our lawmakers in recent years.

This week, the General Assembly voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of a plan to use $12.4 million in unclaimed lottery money to buy school buses. That's great. Nearly 400,000 public schoolchildren in South Carolina ride school buses. But will we be buying new buses, or used ones?

An item in yesterday's Bluffton Today raises the issue.

"A couple years ago I put my child on a school bus for a field trip, and I walked up and talked to the bus driver and said, 'How many miles do you have on this bus?'" said Sen. Joel Lourie, D-Richland. "He said, 'Sir, I couldn't tell you. The odometer is broke.'"

It's not a funny story, and I'm sure Lourie didn't tell it to get a laugh. It's tragic, and it's a perfect illustration of the immorality of our state budget.

It appears that when faced with the need to provide transportation for all of South Carolina's public schoolchildren to and from their schools, our state's leaders have done what they always do: They compare prices and look for the cheapest way out. It seems that not even the lives and safety of our children are worthy of being a first, or high, priority in state budgeting -- especially not when their lives and safety are competing against such proposals as tax breaks for corporate interests.

Consider:
In 2005, we bought 72 used buses from Kentucky. Kentucky appreciated our business and apparently kept our number for later reference.

In 2007, the Charleston Post & Courier published a series titled "School Bus Breakdown," concluding that our school buses are "the nation's oldest, most polluting and least safe."

--The average South Carolina bus is 14 years old, while the national average is nine years old. A substantial number of buses built in the mid-1980s are still transporting children to and from school.

--The state recorded nearly 12,000 bus breakdowns during the 2005-06 school year, many of which required children to get off the bus and wait on the side of a dangerous road until another bus arrived.

--Other state agencies have more modern buses than the Education Department. The Corrections Department's buses average 10 years in age, meaning prisoners enjoy newer buses than schoolchildren.

Read that again, with feeling: "Prisoners enjoy newer buses than schoolchildren."

When the Post & Courier published its series, a proposal was under consideration to adopt a plan to annually replace school buses.

Under the replacement cycle, the state would buy about 375 new buses every year at a cost of nearly $30 million. Many states and individual school districts around the country already have laws that force aging school buses into retirement.
...
The average age of a South Carolina school bus is 14 years, five years older than the national bus average age of nine years. Many of the state's buses are much older and lack modern safety features, such as additional emergency exits and anti-lock brakes. The average Palmetto State bus has traveled more than 200,000 miles, and many have clocked more than 400,000 miles.

Three guesses about how that plan turned out.

In 2007, lawmakers approved the plan to annually replace school buses.

In 2009, lawmakers appropriated no money to buy buses.

In 2010, lawmakers appropriated no money to buy buses. But we were lucky: Kentucky called us again. That state "discarded" scores of 18-year-old school buses -- meaning that Kentucky's leaders judged them unfit to transport Kentucky's little children to and from school, even one more day -- and Kentucky put these buses up for auction. We bid on 87 of them and won the right to buy 85 -- which means that Kentucky profited from our highest bids -- at an average price of $3,800. With these, we were able to "retire" some our 26- and 27-year-old buses.

In January 2011, we bought 24 used school buses, with an average age of 11 years, from an Alabama school district "that replaced them with new vehicles," according to The State. We used these to "retire" some more of our 23- and 24-year-old buses. Since the legislature didn't appropriate any funding for them, how did the Department of Education pay for them? The State tells us:

To buy the Alabama buses, the Education Department used money it raised from selling to scrap metal companies the skeletal remains of S.C. buses cannibalized for replacement parts.

And how did Alabama sell its buses? It auctioned them, which means that Alabama, too, profited from our highest bids. We bid on 44 and won the right to buy 24 of them, at an average cost of $8,000. Their mileages, The State said, ranged 44,000 to 110,500.

So it was against this backdrop that our governor this week vetoed a proposal to spend $12.4 million of unclaimed lottery money -- not new appropriations from the General Fund, which would represent a state funding priority, but from a pot of money that inattentive lottery winners never stepped up to claim; or, not to put too fine a point on it, but FREE MONEY, accidentally available to the state -- on buying slightly-safer school buses for our children. Her Excellency's reason for depriving schoolchildren of slightly-safer school buses paid for with found money?

Haley's veto message said she objected to the unclaimed lottery money being spent on school buses because the state should be focused on privatizing the bus system.

Privatization: A system by which someone profits from South Carolina's appropriations for public schools -- just as Kentucky and Alabama profited several times in the past seven years from our purchase of their aged, decommissioned vehicles at auction.

The answer to the question at the top of this note is both Alabama and Kentucky. If we cared as much for our children as they do, we wouldn't buy another state's cast-off school buses. We would appropriate the funding necessary and buy new ones.

Haley's vetoes, legislative debate earn NPR coverage

South Carolina earned more coverage by the national media this week. As usual, it wasn't for the sweet succulence of our peaches.

Hosts of the syndicated "Marketplace" on National Public Radio reported on Thursday that the legislature of Texas "hacked off $4 billion from the education budget" earlier this week. "In South Carolina though, there's a different problem: what to do with all their extra revenue," they reported.

NPR's correspondent Lisa Miller of WFAE in Charlotte reported on the windfall of $210 million in revenues, and quoted Sen. Wes Hayes of Rock Hill saying, "We certainly haven't had surplus money the last few years. We've had the other problem."

Miller mentioned Hayes's proposal to spend "half of the extra money as tax relief for some businesses, and the other half to start making up for past cuts in K-12 education. The state senate voted to increase per pupil spending from about $1,600 to nearly $2,000."

"Still substantially less than where it was a few years ago, but it would be better," Hayes told NPR.

Enter Her Excellency, the Governor.

But two weeks ago, Republican Governor Nikki Haley said that wasn't going to fly.

(Nikki Haley): "The fact that we had additional money going to the senate doesn't mean you go and say 'Oh, where can we spend it and how fast can we spend it?' It means you say, if you're not giving it in tax relief, if you're not giving it to pay down debt, you send it back to the taxpayer."

South Carolina's House agreed to only send $56 million of the extra money to public schools. But even that was too much for Haley. Yesterday, she vetoed the funds. The House votes today on whether to override that veto.

This was another one of those moments that makes South Carolinians cringe to hear our state's name mentioned in national news coverage.

Miller spoke to a Lancaster County principal, Linda Blackwell of North Elementary School, about the impacts of recent annual budget cuts to public schools, include increases in class size and fewer positions for teachers.

Over the past few years, [Blackwell has] had to cut summer school, lay off five teachers and trim work days for remaining teachers. She says, lately, teaching has become much more challenging.

Miller: How many desks are in here?

Linda Blackwell: This is 28 and there's two more here, so that's 30.

Some classes have swelled by almost a third.

Blackwell: You've got to be everywhere and you got to have eyes on everyone and it's hard to do that if you're on one side of the room and someone thinks, 'I'm not going to get called on and it's going to be a little while before she gets over here.'

Whether the extra education money comes through or not, Blackwell is getting ready to prepare her teachers for more of the same next year.

She, and more than a thousand other principals across the state.

Anderson editors: Haley is "short-sighted and politically motivated"

The editors of the Anderson Independent Mail called Thursday's showdown in the legislature "high noon in Columbia." Their editorial in yesterday's edition spells out their amazement at the governor's contempt toward, and disregard of, the educational services provided by the state's public schools and South Carolina Educational Television.

And in no small measure, the editors were clearly pleased with the legislature's handiwork in overriding the governor's vetoes.

They write, in brief,

It’s almost stunning how Haley fails to see the connection between economic development, tourism (our state’s biggest moneymaker), quality of life and job training. Remember how she boasted of her efforts with Boeing? The job training she cut from the budget included $13 million for training at our technical colleges for Boeing workers. Even the CEO of Boeing understands how the arts and business complement each other: “At Boeing, innovation is our lifeblood. The arts inspire innovation by leading us to open our minds and think in new ways about our lives — including the work we do, the way we work and the customers we serve,” James McNerney told Psychology Today. He understands what we have long maintained: Businesses create jobs and facilities in communities that value the arts and education and provide a good quality of life for employees.

Earlier, according to an email from Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, “As noted by Gov. Haley in her press conference on Tuesday, there is ‘no pork included in this year’s budget.’”

Yet when it came down to it, Haley apparently reversed that opinion. In the case of SCETV, Haley’s veto was puzzling — and apparently puzzled lawmakers as well. Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly overrode the veto.
...
What a disappointment that the governor fails to see what SCETV has done for South Carolina. In addition to entertaining and educating even the most casual viewer and listener on television and radio, many of its contributions benefit public schools through student programming and continuing education for teachers. (Maybe that explains it.)

Haley said she “appreciates SCETV,” according to the Associated Press. Funny way to show it.

While Haley’s desire to reduce state debt with the additional tax revenues is admirable, her alternative plan to “send the money back to taxpayers” wouldn’t be much of a windfall for the individual citizen. The money is better spent to keep teachers in the classrooms and improve public education.

Haley noted regarding her vetoes that it was time to concentrate on the classroom and students. We couldn’t agree more. Putting $56 million of the $210 million in additional tax revenues back into the mix makes that all the more likely.

Haley is showing she is serious about cutting spending, but at what cost? Retained in the state budget without veto are reductions in spending for the people who can least afford it — the poor, the elderly and the disabled — and a raise for lawmakers that sends a dangerous message to voters: We don’t feel your pain. Despite that, with its support in overriding Haley’s vetoes, the General Assembly is clearly saying that even in hard financial times public education still matters in this state.
...
Haley’s emailed statement at the end of the day was short and to the point: “It’s a shame that the General Assembly chose to spend more tax dollars than we can reasonably afford.” This, despite her earlier contention that the budget “contained no pork.” The statement continued: “Ultimately, the citizens of our state will decide whether they want a legislature that spends less than was done this year.”

Ultimately, the citizens of our state will also decide if they want a shortsighted and politically motivated governor or one who considers people’s lives as carefully as she professes to consider their wallets.

Haley makes heroes of local lawmakers

Following in former Governor Mark Sanford's footsteps, Governor Nikki Haley has accomplished a tricky feat: She has made heroes of local lawmakers across South Carolina who voted to override her vetoes.

Today's edition of the Aiken Standard offers one example of the phenomenon:

On Tuesday, S.C. Rep. Roland Smith, R-Warrenville, said he couldn't predict how the House members would react to 34 budget vetoes from Gov. Nikki Haley. About 24 hours later, he was expressing surprise by the huge margins that the House overrode 26 of those vetoes.

The Senate also overrode all but one of those vetoes, leaving funds in the budget for K-12 education, higher education, ETV, the S.C. Arts Commission and much more.

Smith said Lexington lawmaker Kenny Bingham was frustrated with Haley over her veto of $6 million going to ETV to cover the agency's education programming and training for law enforcement and other programs. In effect, Bingham felt the governor had vetoed a funding plan for ETV that she herself had requested.

"He was very upset, and that's putting it mildly," said Smith. "At a meeting this morning, (Haley's) staff people did a briefing, and some legislators felt they (the staffers) didn't have the information they should have. That was somewhat surprising, but the governor has been in for six months with a totally new staff. They are still learning."

But she seems unaware of what's she done: "The Associated Press reported Haley stated the overrides of her vetoes indicate that legislators are overspending."

In addition to counting their local representatives as saviors, local officials are counting the benefits from all those overridden vetoes.

The overrides of education funding means a swing of about $3.6 million for the Aiken County School District, said comptroller Tray Traxler. The General Assembly reinstated $56 million toward raising per-pupil allocations statewide. Aiken County had budgeted $1,860 per student in anticipation of the increase. If Haley's veto had been sustained, the amount would have been $1,788, a loss of about $1.6 million, Traxler said. With the override, however, the district will get an allocation of $1,880, which will mean about $2 million overall.

In addition, state lawmakers put back supplemental funds for several districts, which will mean another $1.6 million for the Aiken County school system. Traxler said the School Board didn't budget that amount in anticipation of a change in a school funding formula that wold reduce the allocation in that amount. However, the House and Senate will provide $20 million overall for Aiken and other districts, "holding them harmless" for that prospective loss of funds.

"This is great news," said board member Levi Green. "We have to make sure we use that money wisely. If something happens and we get a hit (in funding) next year, we can tap those funds."

When the House members saw all the governor's vetoes directed at education, Green said, "I think they had a clear understanding of what she was doing. They couldn't let her take money off the table that's desperately needed for education."

It's good news for all public schools in South Carolina, said another board member, Keith Liner. The money is not a windfall, he said. Under the state's own funding formula, school districts should be receiving nearly $2,800 per student.

"This really sends a message that at least the House and Senate are supportive of public education."

Seeing the backlash against the vetoes -- and against lawmakers who voted to sustain them -- even Haley's supporters have to say something to keep them in local voters' good graces:

S.C. Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, voted to sustain the veto of the $56 million for K-12 education, opposing one-time funding for ongoing needs. However, he agreed to override the other $20 million, because those funds were preventing the loss of formula funding for Aiken County and other districts. Overall, however, Massey wasn't happy with the governor, either.

"The vetoes she issued were relatively insignificant," he said. "The big money items where there is significant growth in spending, she didn't touch. A lot of conservatives thought she would try to trim down things. We're very disappointed."

Those who have been around since Haley was in college are managing the matter with deftness.

S.C. Rep. Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken, agreed that the Wednesday session was one of the most unusual in his 15 years of service.

"I feel so much better about the education spending," he said. "Everybody knows how important ETV is and public safety training. This is not a party thing."

Senate overrides Haley's veto of school funding

South Carolina's chamber of greater deliberation, the Senate, voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's vetoes of $76 million in public school funding, which will leave the base student cost for 2011-2012 at $1,880 -- still well short of the roughly $2,700 prescribed by the Education Finance Act's annual funding formula, but more than either chamber passed in its original budget plans.

More analysis will come in tomorrow's papers, I'm sure, but the initial takeaway from today is that the General Assembly has delivered Her Excellency as sharp a rebuke as it ever gave to former Governor Mark Sanford. Members of both chambers voted easily to override the vast majority of her vetoes, despite her letter praising them for working more agreeably with her than they had with Sanford, and exhorting them to sustain her vetoes to establish a "new mindset" for governing through her term.

Will Haley accept her rebuke and amend her course? Hard to predict, but if past behavior is a good predictor, that's not likely. Sanford used each veto fight as an opportunity to dig in his heels and denigrate detractors in his own party. Haley, Sanford's ideological and political heir, isn't likely to approach her opponents with any more maturity, at least not in private. We'll see what she says in public, tonight or tomorrow.

Something tells me her staff already has a statement prepared.

Senate overriding Haley vetoes now

While there's no fuller media reporting of the Senate's specific actions, John O'Connor of The State has tweeted that the Senate voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of $12.4 million in funding to purchase school buses, her vetoes of funding for SCETV, and vetoes of funding for technical schools.

Senators are taking the House's overrides in a different order than did the House, so it isn't clear whether they have agreed to keep the $76 million that Haley stripped from public schools or the $2 million she took from the state arts commission.

House sustains Haley's veto of treasurer's funding

Effectively taking sides in the brouhaha between Governor Nikki Haley and Treasurer Curtis Loftis, the House just voted to sustain Haley's veto of funding for the State Treasurer's office to conduct follow-ups to audits. The vote was 18 to 93.

Loftis told media last night, "She chose to take a swipe at me and harm taxpayers. There’s nobody in state government whose job it is to follow up on those audits."

Haley has sought to exclude or ignore Loftis since they both entered office in January.

Rep. Murrell Smith asked the body to sustain Haley's veto, claiming that the language would allow Loftis to bring legal actions on behalf of the state. A letter circulated by Attorney General Alan Wilson to House members supported Haley's position. Rep. Ted Vick asked whether Wilson was acting as a "puppet for the governor." Smith said he'd heard no such rumor.

Rep, Harry Ott asked for help to understand fraud and abuse, saying, "If you identify somebody who has defrauded the government, the state, and they have money that they have kept or obtained under flse pretenses, who in state government now... goes after recouping that money that somebody has defrauded the state government out of, if not the State Treasurer?

A solicitor or the attorney general prosecutes criminal action, but the attorney general can bring legal action on behalf of the state, Smith explained.

Smith said Wilson would be willing to work with Loftis to craft appropriate language to resolve the issue.

"If we do as you would ask, then who can I go to and hold them accountable for weeding out and finding people that I hear about, abusing state government, taking money? Who is in charge?"

Smith said the state inspector general would serve that role.

"But we don't have one," Ott said.

Smith said the state has a "de facto inspector general."

So such investigations would be left to "an inspector general, who works for the governor?" Ott asked, without receiving a clear answer.

Ott asked why constitutional concerns were not raised when the issue was originally going through the House and its committees, then asked, "Can you assure me that we have someone working for the state who will answer to the voters and taxpayers?"

Smith said there was such an authority.

Ott alluded to the feud between Haley and Loftis, asking, "What was the momentum behind this?"

Smith deferred to Rep. Jim Merrill, who herded the issue through committee. He said committee members drew up a proviso that was flawed, and that by sustaining Haley's veto, the House would give itself a chance to draft new, appropriate language next year.

House overrides Haley's veto of Clemson PSA funds

By a vote of 106 to three, the House just voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of funding for Clemson University's Public Services Authority, a program that provides research, educational programs and other services to farmers across South Carolina.

Several members rose to speak against the veto.

Rep. B.R. Skelton told the body, "This veto virtually eliminates the public services authority at Clemson. I know that Governor Sanford tried to do it piecemeal, but this tries to do it at one fell swoop. All of you are aware of the impact that it has across the state. This veto would eliminate 246 positions: 246. South Carolina would be the only state in the nation that didn't fund agricultural research at its land grant institutions."

He urged members to override Haley's veto "so that the farmers... can have the kind of research they need and have access to county agents and other services offered to them."

Rap. Mack Toole reminded lawmakers that "the agricultural business is the number one economic engine in the state of South Carolina. It has not been tapped. The opportunity is absolutely great. We have a lot more potential. We have skilled and unskilled people waiting to get into the agriculture business."

"As a rural legislator, representing a rural area," Rep. Joe Neal said, "one of the things I've found Clemson to be adept at, is adapting cutting-edge research for use by rural farmers. We are about, through this veto, to cut our noses off to spite our face. If South Carolina is ever going to be competitive in the area of renewable energy, it's going to come out of our agricultural sector."

House overrides Haley's veto of arts commission funds

By a vote of 105 to eight, the House just voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of funding for the South Carolina Arts Commission.

White said Haley vetoed the funding that had been negotiated by House members to move most state funding into a grant program. Up to 70 percent of the funding approved by House members pass through the state commission to local arts commissions.

Rep. Leonidas Stavrinakis reminded members that the commissions, state and local, serve all the citizens of the state, and that student scores go up when students are exposed to music and the arts.

House overrides Haley's veto of school bus funding

By vote of 103-6, the House just voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of $12.4 million for the purchase of new school buses.

House Ways and Means Chairman Brian White explained that the state hasn't purchased school buses "in quite a while" and that Superintendent Mick Zais "actually wants to buy new buses." Funding for the buses comes from "out of unclaimed lottery proceeds," he said.

Members voting to sustain Haley's veto included Rep. Tracy Edge, Rep. Thad Viers, Rep. Ralph Norman and Rep. Nathan Ballentine.

House overrides Haley's veto of ETV budget

By votes of 111-1, 107-0 and 108-1, the House just voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of funding for South Carolina Educational Television (SCETV). In each case, the only member voting to sustain the veto was Rep. Ralph Norman.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell called upon Rep. Kenny Bingham to speak to the issue. Bingham defended funding for ETV, saying it provides "services that are core missions of the state of South Carolina, such as our emergency broadcast network." He cited several examples of services provided by ETV, including Amber Alerts, the filming of House and Senate sessions, contracts for broadband services, public radio, and classroom portals in every public school in the state.

"Last time I checked, public education is a public function, and it is being provided for by ETV," Bingham declared.

Bingham described, angrily, the case of a constituent who provides studio services and who now is losing contracts to ETV because of Haley's insistence to make ETV a "private business model," forcing it to rent space, equipment and services in the private sector. He said he talked to Haley and her staff about the problem, yet Haley vetoed the agreement that was reached.

"Character, integrity and honor are more than just words to me, they are the core of what we are," he said. "I am sick and tired of people politicizing this body for their own personal benefits. The governor of SOuth Carolina was involved in every step of the way like she asked to be. We owed that to her," he said. "But I'll tell you what I'm not going to stand for: There's no educational value in the second kick of a mule."

"I may not ever be elected again and I do not care, if this is how it's going to operate," Bingham added. He spoke of "80 people" who work for ETV, "80 people who have families, who have done absolutely nothing wrong. I am not willing to throw those 80 people under the bus to make a political point."