Long-awaited inspector general bodes well for state

It's easy to get so frustrated by all the things the Legislature is not accomplishing - or even trying to accomplish - that we fail to notice when it finally does something significant. That happened last month, when good-government advocates prevailed in a quarter-century effort to create an independent state inspector general with significant authority to not only root out the cliched "waste, fraud and abuse," but force state agencies to do things in a smarter way.

Gov. Nikki Haley managed to draw some attention to the new law, by holding a ceremonial signing ceremony after the media went for three weeks without reporting its passage. But while the event generated some coverage, the law came across as a mere formality, extending the powers of a position Haley had created last year by executive order. That characterization grossly downplays the significance of the law - and of the governor's role in getting it passed.

The position Haley created fell woefully short on two counts: It had no formal authority, deriving its power only from the governor's support, and it had no independence. Although we have far too many positions in state government that are insulated from political accountability, an inspector general is one of the handful of officials who need that independence, so he doesn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of the governor, or anyone else. But, by creating a dependent inspector general to look into allegations of abuse in her Cabinet agencies, Haley probably pushed the Legislature to finally stop playing games and pass the law that creates a real inspector general, with full investigative powers.

Fully empowered state inspectors general exist in only a handful of states, but they can play a powerful role in identifying and correcting small and large cases of abuse as well as practices that are legal but just don't make any sense. The Legislative Audit Council does some of that already, but only at legislators' request, and because its investigations tend to be exhaustive, often zeroing in on procedural niceties, it isn't able to look at most complaints. An inspector general can pursue a single complaint - from a legislator, an agency director, a state employee or just an interested citizen - verify that there is or isn't a problem, and move on to the next complaint.

LAC reports sometimes produce change, but often are ignored by the Legislature. South Carolina's inspector general can recommend cases for criminal prosecution, prosecute cases before the State Ethics Commission and file civil actions for recovery of funds. Potentially more important, he has the authority to "recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, misconduct, violations of state or federal law and wrongdoing in state government." And where he finds that employees have engaged in "wrongdoing" (which is broadly defined to encompass far more than just criminal activity), he can require agency directors to submit a report "describing any and all actions taken with the employee and within the agency to prevent the alleged conduct from occurring again."

Think of, oh, I don't know, the state Transportation Department. Or DHEC. Now imagine an investigative reporter who is armed with subpoena power and who, after digging up the story of an abusive or mismanaged program, can force the agency to fire the people responsible, or overhaul the program. In fact, some states have turned to investigative reporters to fill the position. Haley chose a law enforcement veteran, and as long as he has the right attitude, he should be just as effective.

I'm not sure whether I've come to consider the creation of an inspector general significant because my expectations have been lowered so much, or whether I previously under-appreciated the idea because it always was wrapped inside of larger reform initiatives that didn't go as far as they should have. While it has had a handful of sincere advocates, as often as not it's been used as a fig leaf. Sen. Mike Rose first latched onto the idea in the 1980s, and his only (momentary) success was in 1993 when the Senate, trying to pretend it embraced government restructuring without actually embracing it, included an inspector general in its embarrassing answer to the House's plan to turn over power to the governor; like the Senate's faux overhaul, it didn't survive.

I even grew cynical about the idea when Sen. Jim Lander used the call for an inspector general to help him win the comptroller general's office in 1998; he never did explain why it made sense to believe he would be able to convince the Legislature to pass a law by leaving the Legislature. Drew Theodore tried to revive that idea in his 2006 campaign against Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, but the idea, like his campaign, fizzled.

For several years, Sen. Vincent Sheheen and Rep. Laurie Funderburk have tucked an inspector general inside their proposals to overhaul the Budget and Control Board and the Legislature's operating procedures. And the House and Senate have played ping-pong with the larger bills and, when it was pulled out separately, the stand-alone inspector general bill - one body passing the legislation one year, the other body passing it in a different bill the next, never both at the same time.

The pattern seemed to be repeating in April, when the Senate passed Sheheen's inspector general bill on a unanimous vote, and sent it to the House, where it sat in committee for the next month and a half. The House gave its unanimous consent to recall it from committee, but that was on the next-to-last day of the session, too late for it to pass; that's the sort of thing both bodies frequently do to make it look like they're taking action on important legislation when they have no intention of doing so. But then rather than sending the bill back to committee when they reconvened in January, House members passed it. Unanimously, just like the Senate. And suddenly, South Carolina found itself with what Sen. Rose calls "the strongest inspector general system in the United States."

Of course, an inspector general is only as strong as he chooses to be - and as strong as the Legislature gives him funding to be - and so it's far too early to say just how strong our new inspector general actually is. But he wouldn't even have the chance to be strong if he didn't have any power - or if he didn't even exist.

- Cindi Ross Scoppe is an associate editor with The State newspaper in Columbia.