Gov. Nikki Haleyís latest argument for replacing the Budget and Control Board with a new Department of Administration controlled by governors is that we need a muscular information technology division that can make sure state agencies protect their records from cyber attacks.
When she talked with editorial writers last month, she said requiring her Cabinet agencies to adopt more aggressive security measures not only protects those agencies, but also reminds legislators that ďthis is all I can do.Ē
In fact, itís not.
We agree entirely that the governor should control the stateís central administrative agency, and that the agency should oversee the stateís information-technology network, rather than simply serving as a vendor. But like her three predecessors, Gov. Haley has significantly more power over state government than she acknowledges.
Governors have always been able to replace the members of a ridiculous number of agency governing boards once their terms expire. But one of the least-appreciated changes in the 1993 restructuring law allowed them to replace most of those people at any time, for any or no reason. That means that while the governor canít fire the director of, say, the Department of Mental Health, she can tell her appointees to the agencyís governing board that she will replace them if they donít fire the director. Or if they donít see to it that the director carries out whatever policies she wants carried out.
Itís a bulky, difficult-to-execute sort of power, and needlessly so. And as Gov. Mark Sanford discovered when he tried to make the most limited use of it Ė not to directly influence policy but simply to replace some board members before their terms expired because that was what he wanted to do Ė the Legislature doesnít like for governors to exercise it. (Lawmakers stripped governors of the power to replace their appointees to the Ports Authority and Santee Cooper when Mr. Sanford had the nerve to actually do that.)
But itís power nonetheless. And while it obviously needs to be used judiciously if the governor wants to avoid further alienating the Legislature Ė and this is something she should want to do Ė itís power that needs to be used from time to time. Like, for instance, when the state has discovered in the most embarrassing of ways that it has been far too lax about computer security and there are obvious steps that need to be taken.
When the governor ordered her Cabinet agencies to use the Division of State Information Technologyís 24/7 computer network monitoring services, which can spot unusual uploads or downloads and malicious programs within minutes, she also ďencouragedĒ other state agencies to do likewise. And that is in fact all she can do with colleges and universities and handful of other agencies that are completely outside of her reach.
But she can and should make it clear to her appointees to the governing boards of most state agencies that she expects those agencies to take action as well, or else they should expect to be replaced. It would be a nice little test run of governorsí unacknowledged power over a large swath of state government.
We canít imagine any legislator objecting to the governor using her removal authority in order to achieve that particular policy goal. And we have a feeling that the voters would deal harshly with any who did.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.