Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves ‘efficiency’ commission after debate over subpoena power, data access
Summary
The South Carolina Senate voted to approve S.318, a joint resolution creating a state commission to study government efficiency and recommend cost-saving measures, after approving amendments barring access to individuals’ financial and medical records and removing subpoena authority.
The South Carolina Senate voted to approve S.318, a joint resolution creating a commission to review state government efficiency and recommend cost-saving measures, after more than two hours of debate and multiple amendments.
The commission will study agency operations and make public recommendations; senators added provisions that bar commissioners from accessing an individual's personal financial or medical information and that remove the commission’s power to issue subpoenas. Senator Sutton, who spoke against the bill, warned it could become “a paper tiger” that attracts partisan attacks rather than systematic reform.
Senator Hutto proposed and the chamber approved two protective amendments: one spelling out that “the commission shall not have access to an individual's personal financial or medical information” and another clarifying that the commission lacks subpoena power. Those changes followed lengthy concerns raised on the floor about the federal model that inspired the bill and about potential harms if private data were exposed.
Other amendments targeting the Legislature’s own budget and staff pay failed. A floor amendment that would have directed the commission to “first undertake the review of expenditures of the House and Senate” was defeated 10-35. Sponsor and supporters said the measure is designed to identify inefficiencies across state government, not to single out legislative staffing.
After final debate, the Senate gave S.318 third reading approval by a 34-11 vote.
Senator Sutton (Charleston) framed his opposition around transparency and precedent. “We already have mechanisms in place to root out inefficiency and waste,” he said, citing the Legislative Audit Council and the state inspector general and urging lawmakers to strengthen existing oversight bodies rather than create a new, lightly constrained commission.
Supporters argued the commission will produce recommendations that the General Assembly and governor can act on. Opponents on the floor repeatedly raised concerns about enforcement, consultant costs and the commission’s potential to be used for political harassment of agency heads.
The bill now proceeds to the House for consideration (the House had adjourned for the day before the vote on the Senate floor).
