Student journalism, statehouse reporting and community news

A couple of interesting things today from the University of Vermont's Center for Community News for faculty involved in running or developing community news projects and especially  those trying to fill the loss of statehouse reporting.

Statehouse reporting report

The decline in statehouse reporting across the US has been well- documented. It's also been documented how damaging this is to public knowledge since it can be argued that what hapoens at state legislatures has far more impact on people than what happens in Congress or at City Hall.

University journalism journalism programs have in some cases stepped in to fill the gap. The University of Vermont's Center for Community News now counts about 20 such programs.

The center has put out a report taking a deep look at such programs. It's worth downloading.

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Center-for-Community-News/pdfs/Final_Statehouse_Report_HK_3.31.2023.pdf

Resources for faculty

There are a couple of interesting community journalism conferences this month https://www.uvm.edu/ccn/events

One focuses on university-sponsored news operations covering statehouses Sept. 28-30 at Missouri.

The other (Sept. 8 online) is aimed at improving the faculty resources page put out by the Center for Community News. You can find the page here. 

 https://www.uvm.edu/ccn/faculty-resources

SC Legislature 2013 outlook

I'll be updating this post throughout the day from the S.C. Press Association's annual legislative update. It's in the form of notes, so some of it may be a tad disjointed. This is not a running transcript, so I will be leaving out some of the less-relevant comments,

Les Boles, state budget director

(State budget details)

State is a little bit ahead of initial revenue projections. Growth went from 4.2% to 4/% = 47.1 million surplus in FY12 available for FY13.

General fund for FY13 is $6.3 billion, or 2.7% growth. (Growth is slowing, from 4.7% in FY13, 5.2% FY12, 6.4% FY11)

Will take $50.9 million to get back to full local government funding - Legislature must decide on that.

Medicaid growth estimated at $142 million.

Total recurring revenue $263 million + $47 million surplus = $310 million new recurring and nonrecurring revenue.

When various funding issues taken into account, the state is $182 million short. (Medicaid being $142 million of that.)

Some additional revenue: $80 million from tobacco settlement, $112.6 million from capital reserve fund, $16 million in Education Improvement Act. But lottery projected to be $30.6 million in the hole.

---

Budget Panel 
Senators: Harvey Peeler (R-majority leader), Thomas Alexander  (R-chairman Labor, Commerce and Industry), Yancey McGill (D), Kevin Bryant (R- chairman cybersecurity subcommittee) - all are members of the Finance Committee.

Reps: Brian White (R-Chairman House Ways and Means), Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D), Rita Allison (R-chairwoman sales/income tax subcommittee), Murrell Smith (R-chairman health care finance subcommittee), Harry Ott (D - minority leader), Bruce Bannister (R-majority leader).

Discussion begins with review of what is happening with SC Revenue Department data breach that in which hackers stole the private tax information of millions of South Caroilinians.
 
Bryant::
- South Carolina was apparently a target because of the lack of security it should have had.
- Could have had a temporary password, key fob system and could have segmented access to database instead of allowing everyone access to the whole thing.
The committee is probably going to approve some type of credit ID protection beyond the initial year. Experian has said it can extend the current protection for $10 million a year. but this seems expensive

We get to the bottom of what it seems happened and then we find more.

Bannister:
Doing many of the same things inHouse as Bryant's committee in Senate. We're going to spend a lot of time looking across all agencies nd what they should be doing.

We apparently haven't been doing basic education of workforce. You should know not to open suspicious email with attachments.

In too many cases, no one is monitoring the network. Important to have common protocols for security. Finally, need to look at how we respond to a breach - need a centralized protocol. Revenue knew there was a "bad" email and took that computer off line, but then no one monitored the network.

Cobb-Hunter:
Need to stop "knee-jerk" reaction to latest headlines. Need to look at what already is in place. State already has a budget proviso creating a technology committee - need to look at how that' working. Also need to look at State Information Office under the Budget and Control Board. We should not allow agencies to maintain their own security; it should all be under that office.

Ott:
No one has stepped up and accepted the overall responsibility. "I'm still waiting on a full explanation on how we got intuit he mess." No one's told us what the protocol was to deal with bad emails. Until we know that, we are still vulnerable.

Key panel members say they don't have total costs estimates yet. Butt Cobb-Hunter says she's still nagged by the fact the deal with Experian was a no-bid contract (Gov. Nikki Haley's administration has said it was an emergency). Thinks at least some of the services being provided already were available for free under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Ott:
Doesn't see this as more likely the Legislature will give governor more power by creating a Department of Administration. Says Haley and her predecessor, Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, haven't well-used the powers they already have.

Peeler:
We need a Department of Administration - governor should administer and Legislature should legislature - the separation needs to be made in this state. Says Y2K never happened though millions were spent on it.

Ottt:
Says Peeler is trying to distract attention with Y2K, but Y2K never happened, while the Revenue Department hacking did.
"You all can stick your head in the sand all you want to, but it happened and South Carolinians are angry about it."

Peeler:
I expect every agency will come forward asking for money for cyber security and we should pay what is needed, but the control needs to be centralized.

Ott:
This wasn't difficult to do - took a skill level of about 4 out of 10. But the problem is that once we knew we had a bad email, we didn't know what to do. It wouldn't have taken millions of dollars. "This wasn't some high-tech breach. This was a low-tech breach because we didn't have a security policy in place, and that clearly falls on the executive."

McGill:
"We're dealing with a very confused public that has no idea what is going on" and most of the General Assembly has no idea either. Could have happened in any administration.

Peeler:
We don't know yet what it will cost to protect the entire state, but we'll have to pay it.

Other budget matters
Medicaid

Smith:
"One of the most vexing issues" this session.
Opting in or out of Medicaid expansion under Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will be one of the most lively debates this session. There are other health care issues we have to deal wit as well.
We must fund Medicaid with recurring revenue. Over half of the increase in revenue we have this year is going to be needed for ACA. Expects 160,000 people trying to enroll in Medicaid this current year. Expects many employers to pay the $2,000 fine because it will be cheaper than buying employee health insurance.
In addition, there will be added costs for state employee health insurance.

Even without Medicaid expansion, projected to need $166 million more this year, $256 million more next year and $471 million after that.

Ott:
Health and Human Services Director Tony Keck said it will take $190 million to cover existing Medicaid enrollment, while Haley budgeted $150 million. Says Keck's figure is "wishful thinking" and Haley is  "not accepting reality."
Not accepting Medicaid expansion will kill many rural hospitals as they have to deal with people who dont. And we will put every hospital at some risk

Cobb-Hunter:
It's an economic development issue. How long will companies look on SC favorably if there is a large portion of the population uninsured and unearthly?
Need to deal in reality, not rhetoric.

Smith
Responding to Ott: Abut 17% of SC residents now uninsured. Even if that increases under ACA, there will be health insurance exchanges that will help cover the uninsured.

There is no reduction through 2016 in what hospitals will be paid to treat uninsured. He expects stare's uninsured could drop to 5%, so he says that will mean more money for hospitals treating uninsured, at least through 2016.

McGill:
We are not meeting the health care needs of this state and are unlikely to. Hospitals writing him saying the impact will be disastrous. If we don't opt in and the hospitals lose about $400 million in "disproportionate share" money for treating uninsured, many rural hospitals will close. Sate has three years to make a decision, but "to say absolutely no today is not making the right decision."

White:
The federal government is broke. "I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the federal government" providing the payments. We are expanding Medicaid, but not willing to do the "cash grab" of the next three years under ACA. The problems of rural hospitals are not new; taken long time to develop. We need to figure out how we take care of our state without the extra federal money that the feds are going to have to borrow anyhow.

Alexander:
We have a lot of good programs already we need to look at and optimize.

Cobb-Hunter:
Feels better after hearing the panel today. The concern is to make sure the figures being thrown out are accurate.

Education (and highways)
Allison
There are winners and losers in the funding plan put forth by education groups in the state. It would take $500 million to $600 million to meet education funding that would "hold harmless" ( This includes the plan put forth by the education groups that would set a uniform statewide property tax rate to support schools of 100 mills.

Ott:
We would get the greatest benefit if we funded early childhood education, especially for 4-year-olds. There area always going to be winners and losers when distributing tax money. We have to give students in "pockets of poverty" the same opportunity as those in "pockets of wealth." We must have equalized state funding.

Cobb-Hunter:
Stop diverting limited money to private schools.

Bryant:
"I think what I'm hearing from my socialist colleagues on this panel is that the Legislature knows the educational needs of the entire state" better than parents. Competition is essential for improvement in education throughout this state. …


Cobb-Hunter
"Who's a socialist?"

Smith:
Infrastructure funding also has to be thrown into this mix.

Peeler:
About finding formulas: Formulas work in chemistry but seldom in government. I think the budget tug of war this year will be between Medicaid funding and road and infrastructure funding.

Smith:
Continues the push to fund controversial Interstate 73. Says it will help much more than Horry County. Says other areas have had their share of major state funding, such as the Ravenel Bridge in Charleston.

Peeler:
864 and 803 (Upstate and Midlands area codes) make it, 843 (coastal areas) spends it. Says the Upstate has to get money to repair I-26 and I-85.

Ott:
Agrees with Peeler, but says public does not trust us to spend the money properly. We have to take care of our existing needs.

---

House legislative agenda
Republicans: Speaker Bobby Harrell, Majority Leader Bruce Bannister, Reps Murrell Smith and Brian White.
Democrats: Minority Leder Harry Ott and Reps Joe Neal, Chandra Dillard and Mandy Powers Norrell.

Harrell
Columbia is less partisan than you might think.
Takes a moment tot praise AP Statehouse reporter Jim Davenport, who died on New Year's Eve.

"So many major reforms pass the House and die a slow, painful death in the Senate."

GOP agenda:
- Election changes: Change the way candidates file and qualify for the ballot after many were knocked off last year.- State data security: Address what changes need to be made after the Revenue Department hack.
- Update ethics laws
- Oppose Obamacare: Oppose Medicaid expansion
- Tax changes: flatten person income tax rates, eliminate outdated sales tax exemptions, reduce tax assessments on manufacturers from 10% to 6%. Bannister says that will bring SC in line with rest of country
- Grow economy with various changes: Regulatory changes, more capital for small business, better skills training.
- Government restructuring: Make government operate more like a business.

Democratic agenda:
Ott also praises Davenport and thanks him for always getting the minority's view.

- Election changes, especially early voting.
- State data security:
- Education; Ott - "Amazingly I didn't hear anything on the Republican side about education" We continue to believe public schools and early childhood education are key.
- Health care/Medicaid expansion: Expand Medicaid to insure 300,000 more people and protect rural hospitals from what Democrats believe will be financial disaster if not done.
- State employees health insurance: If the state Supreme Court does not overrule the Budget and Control Board's decision to make state workers pay part of the premium, introduce legislation to overturn that and restore original legislative intent to have state pay all of the premium increase.

Neal says as many as 450,000 SC residents could qualify for Medicaid expansion under Affordable Care Act.. Says Legislature should stop wasting time fighting ACA.

Election:
- Dillard says want to focus on cleaning up the language so it is clear how you file as a candidate and so there is equity between incumbents and challengers.
- Bannister says early voting is not part of GOP agenda, but will look at it.
- Ott: "We do not understand the Republican resistance to early voting." What better way to get more participation?
- Bannister: It's not that we oppose people going to the polls early, but the proposals so far (such as a six-week window) overreach. "We believe Election Day is Election Day and you should go to the polls."
- Ott: Let's make a deal right now.How about two weeks?
- Bannister: That;'s what's effectively on the books now. We'll look at it.
On the paperwork debacle of last year - we want to clarify so it's clear how you file. And the plan is to make it consistent so that incumbents and challengers have same rules. Dillard agrees. (In 2012, incumbents did not have to file their statements of interest at the same time they filed their candidacy paperwork, while challengers did.)
- Ott: The focus should be on making it easier for people to stay on the ballot, not kick them off.

Tax changes:
- Smith: Some of ht seam proposals as last year, such as reducing the manufacturing assessment. Not sure whether it will cost the state money - haven't gotten to details.
- Ott: We've heard lots of talk about lots of revenue needs, so I hope that as these changes decrease the revenue coming in, the GOP will propose proportionate cuts "so everyone knows" the impact.

Education:
- Smith: Education always a GOP priority. You can find duplication in services in the state and like a business save money by eliminating those.

Cyber-security
- Norrell: Government has a duty to make life easier for people. As a freshmen, spending $12 million for credit monitoring sounds like a lot of money. SC could have passed a law allowing residents to check their credit reports more than once a year. It did not. Federal law also limits people's liability to $50 for a fraudulent charge. She is a bankruptcy lawyer and says the state is wasting that money. "I think we are doing a citizens a disservice by telling them we are protecting them."  Could better spend the money giving people detailed help about what to do if their identity is compromised  (cites Illinois attorney general's program.)

---

Afternoon roundtable
Senators: (GOP) Larry Martin (chairman, Judiciary Committee), Wes Hayes (chairman, Banking and Insurance; member of Ethics),  Shane Massey. (Dem.) Vincent Sheheen.

Reps: (GOP)  Murrell Smith, Bill Taylor, Rita Allison, Dehram Cole. (Dem.) James Smith (chairing House ethics study committee), Chandra Dillard (Democratic caucus ethics study committee),

Martin:
Just considered S2 today to make many of the election filing changes, but working on amendment to eliminate a "gotcha" moment where you are off the ballot for some technical error. There would be an opportunity to correct such errors.This will be the No. 1 bill on the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda this coming Tuesday.

Hayes:
Key to ethics changes will be having the investigation of legislators done by an outside body but leaving enforcement to the House and Senate so you don't have to change the state Constitution.

James Smith:
Agrees with Hayes on the ultimate jurisdiction issue. It's a two-year process if we are going to make changes to the State Ethics Commission, but the question is what to do in the interim. Answer may be in working with with the public integrity unit the attorney general has formed. We wanted to have a bill out by session start, but now want to wait to see what governor's ethics committee also recommends.

Dillard:
We need work on following the money as well, especially some of these now-secret groups funding ads for and against candidates. (Hayes later agrees that the Legislature needs to come up with a definition of "committee" that meets constitutional muster so the law can force disclosure.)

Hayes:
We need to distinguish between a technical violation and criminal violations. It's not fox guarding henhouse for Legislature's ethics committees to police their own because solicitors already are the ones that have to press criminal cases.The legislative committees need to pay attention to the small things, however, because those small things can turn into big things.

Sheheen:
One-party rule is a major structural problem in the state - Republican or Democrat. That's when you see corruption. But it also start with ethical and honest people being elected - and SC voters often haven't done that. (Takes shots at Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who beat him in 2010, for taking gifts, as well as former GOP Lt. Gov. Ken Ard who stepped down for campaign finance violations.)

Hayes:
We also need to take a look at full disclosure of income by elected officials.

Sheheen:
Challenges Republicans to abolish political action committees run by legislative leaders (that support other legislators' campaigns).

Murrell Smith:
Has concerns about eliminating those. Not sure it can be done by ethics rule but might require a law change.

Dillard:
Money buys influence. So "leadership PACs" are an issue.

Freedom of Information Act
Taylor:
This year's version of the bill adds the ability to go to Magistrate's Court (don't even need lawyer) for some relief. The FOIA as it is now "is pretty unenforceable."

Allison:
Expects the bill to pass the House again this year (it stalled in the Senate last year). But there needs to be a "happy medium" of openness versus need for some privacy. But there are cases where the general public also abuses the law.

Taylor:
There are pesky citizens, yes, and that's wrong, too. But if you listen to most government officials, most FOI requests are pretty reasonable. And not only can a reporter or citizen go to the magistrate, so can the school board, etc., and can ask that the request be thrown out.
Lat year's bill was amended to remove the legislative exemption (there was concern it would expose constituents' communications). That was introduced by Rep. (Rick) Quinn, and I have encouraged that if he wants to do it again to do it as a separate bill.

James Smith:
Haley has not lived up to her bumper sticker slogans for more open government - used private funds for government business, deleted private emails, etc. So the bill has to include provisions to keep officials from trying to get around public scrutiny by using private accounts and it must be clear that records must be kept. Would also like to see provisions to ensure open Cabinet meetings.

Sheheen:
Thinks Legislature should play by the same rules as the rest of state government. (References the thousands of pages of emails he printed out as gubernatorial candidate.)

Cole:
FOI bill originated in my subcommittee last year and we heard some "atrocious stories of stonewalling" for public records. In these days of electronic records, it should not be hard to get public records.

(Question about making clear autopsy reports are public after a court ruling they are not. No legislators said that as on the agenda.)

Government restructuring
Sheheen:
Massey and I have co-sponsored a bill again this year to overhaul the State Budget and Control Board and government oversight. We also need to get rid of some state elected officials - he mentions secretary of state and comptroller general. But after years of fighting this battle, he concludes we need a state constitutional convention to do a complete overhaul and avoid the attempts at piecemeal change. State government is "at a low point."

Massey:
Thinks there is a "very good shot" this year at getting some of these changes passed. But regular oversight by legislative committees also means legislators' workload will increase.

James Smith:
The problems at the Revenue Department show the problems. Tying to get information after the department's computers were hacked "was like pulling teeth." Nothing compels them to respond to us. We also need a biennial budget and one that focuses in programs, not agencies.

Dillard:
It will take a groundswell of voters to get it done.I was on restructuring committee two years ago and all that resulted in was "a shuffling of chairs." It was "the culture of the Legislature" that prevented progress.

Hayes:
State education superintendent should be appointed, not elected.

Massey:
It's become a competitive issue when SC is compared with other states.

Sheheen:
The most important part of this bill is establishing legislative oversight. Right now, SC is "government on autopilot" - governor does not have the authority and Legislature is not set up to do oversight.
Says Kentucky is a good example of a programmatic budget. And federal government is a good example of holding oversight hearings.


(Session ends 2:30 p.m.)

Oops - here's how they spin you

Note to one of South Carolina's best-known PR firms: It's probably a good thing to mark the parts of the advice to clients that you don't want forwarded to the news media.

The case under consideration is that of a reporter for The Nerve, a reporting site run by the very conservative S.C. Policy Council. I've been vocal in my criticism of the site's prosecutorial tone and need for good editing.

But it is one of the few reporting organizations actually trying to hold officials', especially state officials', feet to the fire.* On balance, its flaws are more of overzealousness, and the former traditional media reporters working there tend to try to keep the policy council's politics out of it. (They're smart enough to realize their credibility would be less than zero if they did.)

(It is often argued by the targets of investigative reporting and aggressive questioning that the reporters are being political and biased, but I'd say the definition depends on whose ox is being gored.)

The story in question is a look at some of those behind the top salaries in state government, most of them at South Carolina's colleges and universities (all of the top 10 -- in fact, all those earning over $200,000 -- are in higher ed, according to the story; the governor, by contrast is No. 1,739).

Of course, the reporter -- a former student -- wants to talk to all those on the list he is going to cite as examples. In particular, he asks for an interview with Jay Moskowitz, the state's second-highest earner at $392,135. A phone call to Health Sciences South Carolina, where Moskowitz is CEO, produces the answer to email the questions. HSSC is a statewide biomedical research collaborative.

Unfortunately, the administrative assistant emailed back the entire response document from that PR firm I mentioned at the beginning. Here's the first page:

Always good to see the spin cycle in action. Reporters, if you had any doubts (and if you did, you've been in this business less than five minutes), here's how they like to spin you. (See the beginning of this piece for my thoughts that The Nerve has its faults but is not a partisan outlet.**)

The point, though, is just to illustrate the behind-the-scenes stuff that goes on to spin a message, no matter what the outlet.

It's also a good reminder why you should push back hard against demands that you do an email interview. Email has become the best friend of the obfuscation brigade, and the answers are almost guaranteed to such the life out of most writing.***

Here, by the way, are those last two questions and the "suggested" answers. I thought the questions were pretty reasonable and represent what would be readers' questions too:

Also worth noting in the story is how the University of South Carolina is flouting the spirit of the state FOI law.

  * See Jay Bender's excellent column in the SC Press Association about how S.C. news media need to grow a pair.
** No more, and actually a little less so, than Fox News or MSNBC are.
*** You will probably disagree with me, but I think news outlets should run at least once in every story that is forced to resort to email interview, something like "Smith would not make himself/herself available to answer questions. These answers were provided through email, so we can't be sure who actually answered the questions." (OK, the last part's a bit snarky. Drop it, but it is a reminder to reporters not to assume.)

Support reporting

Columbia Journalism Review and Steven Waldman, special assistant at the FCC who authored its report last year warning about the dangers of declining journalism resources in local markets, have teamed up to try to bring the point forcefully home to the masses.

Check out http://cjr.org/supportreporting/

There's also a neat video that goes with it.

AP's Jim Davenport gets well-deserved recognition

Being a statehouse reporter these days can be a lonely job with all the cutbacks, especially if you are an AP reporter to whom newspapers and broadcasters look even more to cover their flanks.

One of the best, the AP's Jim Davenport, has been struggling with cancer but still pressing ahead with his job of keeping the folks under the dome in Columbia honest. I had the pleasure of recommending Jim's hiring more than a dozen years ago and the distinct pleasure of working with him as he covered my news editor's flank with consistently stellar and solid reporting.

This week, Jim got a well-deserved honor, a resolution from the S.C. Senate recognizing his work:

A SENATE RESOLUTION

TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND JIM DAVENPORT, ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTER, FOR HIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Whereas, it is with great pleasure that the members of the South Carolina Senate recognize those who give of themselves for the betterment of this great state's citizenry; and
Whereas, Jim Davenport is among the most respected of such public benefactors, having devoted the past thirteen years to serving as political reporter for the Associated Press in the Palmetto State and, in so doing, helping to educate South Carolina's people on issues that vitally concern their well-being; and
Whereas, in preparation for his life's work, Mr. Davenport graduated from Summerville High School and the University of South Carolina. Prior to his years with the Associated Press, he served as a reporter with The State newspaper in Columbia; and
Whereas, over the course of his career, he has become known as one of the most talented, influential, and admired journalists in South Carolina. He is widely respected at the State House for his thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, and cool-headedness, along with his trademark tenacity, no matter how tight the deadline, no matter how big the story; and
Whereas, Jim Davenport has set the standard in State House and South Carolina political coverage for current journalists and generations of those to come. His intellect and knowledge of state government have made him a valuable force for indispensable public information in the political arena; and
Whereas, he has not gone unappreciated. In recognition of his consistent excellence in reporting, he was named 2009 Associated Press Staffer of the Year for South Carolina; and
Whereas, in addition to being an outstanding reporter, Jim Davenport is also a good friend. A devoted family man, as well, he enjoys the committed support of his wife, Debra, and daughter, Mary Catherine; and
Whereas, grateful for his dedication, the Senate is pleased to pause in its deliberations to honor Jim Davenport for his many years of valuable service to the people of South Carolina, and the members wish him much success and fulfillment in all his future endeavors. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate:
That the members of the South Carolina Senate, by this resolution, recognize and commend Jim Davenport, Associated Press reporter, for his distinguished service to the citizens of South Carolina.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be provided to Jim Davenport.

Here's wishing the best for Jim as he battles his illness. I'm proud to call Jim a fellow journalist, but even more proud to call him a friend.

Reporting Resource: Governors Journal

Got the pointer from J-Lab ...

Governor's Journal is all about the nation's governors.

It's edited out of a PR agency in D.C., but from what I've seen, it's pretty straight-up stuff, and at least the transparency level of who's behind it is high. Worthy of adding to your feeds.

O'Connor leaving The State

Statehouse reporter John O'Connor says he's leaving The State for a new NPR/WUSF project in Tampa, Fla.

John doesn't provide details, but I assume it is part of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's local journalism initiative - WUSF is part of the Central Florida/Gulf Coast cluster (more here).


(Note the absence of South Carolina's ETV/ETV radio from any of this, probably because when it comes to news, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "black hole" (with apologies to the folks at "The Big Picture," who have the Sisphyean task of trying to elevate ETV's otherwise dismal record).

Good luck, John. He's been a wonderful thorn in the side of various pols at the Statehouse - a life well lived.

Smart move by AP

AP's announcement that it's promoting Texas news editor Wendy Benjaminson to be assistant bureau chief in Washington coordinating coverage of state-federal relationships and overseeing the stable of regional reporters is a smart move.

First, moving the position up from that of a news editor to assistant chief gives it more heft. Second, and from the details in the announcement and follow-up by Poynter, it also seems the AP is moving a bit farther down the path I suggested the other day of integrating the state reports more into the national report.

The idea of creating more contextualized reporting is critical at this stage. Despite Mike Oresekes' comments that state news reports are the AP's "core franchise," there's the reality of comments I often hear from editors and publishers that were crystalized by Morris executive Steve Yelvington: The only place you see a significant member-generated component is the state wires. They're not available to commercial clients. They're also not generating high-readership content; anybody who's done any market research knows that state news is a dead zone.

(Yelvington was actually pointing out that AP critics who say the news service primarily just repurposes others' work are off the mark, that most of its material is original reporting.)

The "news graph" for many consumers has become dumbbell-shaped: Nodes at the international/ national and at the local/neighborhood levels, with little interest in the state level. At the same time, much of the action that actually affects them is happening at the Statehouse, partly the result of state budget crises but also of the now three-decade federal push to devolve power (and in some cases cost) back to the states.

So anything AP can do to integrate state issues into the national news context is a good thing.

Watching state government - striking a 'Nerve'

Yes, The Nerve sometimes wears its ideology and prosecutorial attitude on its sleeve.

And many times its stories could use a good editor.

But it also deserves kudos for what is becoming a consistently good job of reporting on state government in South Carolina even as the various newspapers reduce their coverage.

The stories have become a must-read for me, a former statehouse reporter in several states, mostly through the S.C. News Exchange.

Among The Nerve's recent fascinating stories:

• That a tax-study commission is considering a minimum filing fee for all S.C. taxpayers. (That has the potential to become an explosive issued, but I don't recall reading about it in any of the S.C. papers I follow.)
• That "other" fees in the state budget are ballooning far beyond what the Legislature appropriated. This includes tuition, which looks to be a big stalking horse in the 2011 General Assembly.
• That outgoing Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has rehired two key aides at tidy little salaries to help his transition out of office. (Disclosure: I consider one of them, Frank Adams, to be a friend I often see at the local media club.)

Critics will dismiss some of these as much adoo about nothing. And they and others may point to the Nerve's affiliation with the S.C. Policy Council as evidence of partisan bias. (The council goes to great pains to stress it is a nonpartisan organization and doesn't lobby, but it's also one of the more conservative you'll find, a fact not lost on S.C. politicians who have been known to cite Policy Council positions as heavily influencing their thinking.)

That misses the point: The professional journalists at The Nerve (all hired from other publications) are doing the kind of junk yard dog reporting that seems to have gone out of fashion at too many other outlets. It's good to see a little outrage now and then in a state where too many good stories die on the altar of indifference (equally shared by the public and some of its news media).

For that, they deserve some recognition.

Playing around with the photos in W.Va. - dumb, dumb, dumb

Well, at least we know Photoshop has made it to West Virginia.

Seems a Morgantown newspaper didn't like that a bunch of legislators were standing behind the governor when he signed a bill to toughen penalties on hit-and-run drivers. It just wanted the members of a victim's family, who also were there.

So, poof, no more legislators.

The paper's explanation: It's election year and it doesn't want to run pictures of folks seeking re-election. And besides, it called the picture a "photo illustration."

Like that changes anything. It's a news photo, folks. Not an "illustration." As they say in golf, you play it as it lies, you don't improve your "lie."

So while we know Photoshop has made it across the Ohio River, photo ethics apparently are still a bit behind. But, hey, in these days of struggling newspaper revenues, maybe The Dominion Post (warning, the site is an Olive e-edition that requires a subscription beyond the headlines) has hit on a new revenue stream: photo retouching.

(More on this from Ralph Hanson's blog, including the strange tale of how AP reporter Larry Messina broke this on his blog, then took the story down. No credit to Messina or the AP that he won't comment. I'm betting the D-P complained as an AP member. There are no sacred cows in AP - just members (lol).)

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 4

(This is the last of four parts. See part 1, part 2, part 3)

Afternoon legislative panel primarily on government restructuring and the censure resolution in the House against Gov. Mark Sanford.

Participants:

• Sen. Larry Martin (Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee)
• Sen. Brad Hutto (Democrat and member of thehttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6408033 tort reform committee)
• Sen. Danny Verdin (Republican chairman of Agriculture and Natural Resources and member of Medical Affairs heading a subcommittee looking at combining state agencies)
• Sen. Jake Knotts (Republican and opponent of Gov. Mark Sanford)
  
• Rep. Jim Harrison (Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee)
• Rep. Kenny Bingham (Republican. Ways and Means member and heading ad hoc committee looking at restructuring of Employment Security Commission)
• Rep. Bill Sandifer (Republican chairman of Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee)
• Rep. James Smith (Democrat and member of Constitutional Law subcommittee)

Restructuring of Employment Security Commission (Background)
Rep. Kenny Bingham: Look at the entire agency. Big job. Anticipates also having Legislative Audit Council report within a couple of weeks.

Sandifer: One of the problems is that we're dealing with a lot of federal regulations, not just state laws. So we have to conform to the feds, too. Much more complex.

Why is it necessary to restructure the ESC?
Bingham: Problems in the insurance trust fund have allowed some employers "to overuse or abuse" the system, legally but still abuse. Plus the fund is running into the red ($600 million in red with projections of next year as high as $1.7 billion). We were not notified by the commissioners as the law requires. We're the only state with a commission. Most are part of governor's Cabinet. Need to ensure it is a temporary cushion, that it is not being used for people fired for cause, etc.

Restructuring of health agencies. (Background on DHEC, on DDSN, overall background)
Verdin: Expects lively debate when full Medical Affairs Committee begins taking it up later this month. Took unusual step of allowing people to submit testimony online.
Disabilities and Special Needs: Require it to have regulations relating to fees and fee increases, also transfer licensing and related responsibility to Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Merging of Mental Health, Continuum of Care, and Alcohol and other Drug Abuse Services into a new Department of Behavioral Services: We are not recommending the merger. Instead, elevate Mental Health to a Cabinet-level agency but keep the governing board.

Department of Health and Environmental Control: We are recommending it be elevated to Cabinet-level status. There are benefits from having a unified environmental and public health agency, but more should be required from the commissioners regarding their job in hearing appeals. So proposing standards for commissioners: four-year bachelor's degree plus five years of work experience in field related to department's work. Also would require hiring internal auditor. Expects "considerable debate" on Cabinet-level status.

Hutto (one of those who wanted changes in the agencies): DDSN not going to go anywhere in Senate. Mental Health likely to get Cabinet-level status. DHEC won't be split, but we will streamline the appellate process. The real issue comes down to whether it is a Cabinet-level agency and so you "politicize" the appointment of the DHEC head. The agency oversees several politically sensitive areas, so he has his doubts it will get Cabinet status.

Harrison: In the last session we selected DDSN and Mental Health to move to Cabinet-level agencies. DDSN spends hundreds of millions of dollars but is governed by a part-time board that does not have the time to resolve all the agency issues and is too easily manipulated by staff. Hopes Senate will send DDSN bill back to House, but if not will pursue it another day.
He would like to take up the proposal (requiring constitutional amendment) that would have the governor and lieutenant governor running on the same ticket.

FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)
Smith: Wants to talk about Freedom of Information Act. The impeachment proceedings against the governor showed the FOIA process is broke. Has been talking with colleagues about a unified retention policy for records, also possible ombudsman that allows for dispute resolution short of suing. He also wants to look at cost reform to keep agencies and governments from using their highest-paid employees and then levying charges based on that. Also, "I think we need to look at some penalties." These are things already done in many other states.

Later, Bingham and Knotts said they both support FOIA changes.

Governor/lieutenant governor on same ticket (and censure of governor)
Knotts: Gov. Sanford's escapades have shown the importance of the lieutenant governor's position, but he does not support having them run on same ticket. "Sometimes you need a little change."
Martin: There will be a discussion about this proposal. Doesn't know of any case where a governor asked a lieutenant governor to take over. Reality in other states is that when the governor is gone, the governor's staff runs the office, and these days governors rarely are out of touch. But should consider eliminating the office as some other states have. "That's something I think we should seriously look at if we want to streamline government." If we keep the lieutenant governor, make a job for him, perhaps heading the Commerce Department or some other agency.
Harrison: Just wants it clear that if the governor is out of state, the lieutenant governor can act in case of emergency (it's in the constitution, but Sanford did not tell Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer he was heading to Argentina). If both of them are working together, it's less likely the lieutenant governor would not know of the governor's absence.
Martin: It's been this way for years – governors and lieutenant governors have seldom exchanged that information.
Hutto: Doubts the same-ticket proposal will pass. Long tradition of elected lieutenant governor. Doesn't expect voters would change the constitution. "As I read the public now, they want the chance to help us make decisions." Asking them to change they would see as taking away one of their chances to do that.
Verdin: Agrees with Hutto. S.C. residents have had eight years to consider government restructuring, and he does not see any call from his constituents to give up ballot access. "It's just not out there."
Knotts: Lieutenant governor already has a job – overseeing the office of the elderly. And he does a good job. … "It's solely a communications problem between the governor and the lieutenant governor, the governor and the legislature. I don't know anyone he hasn't been in a fight with." As for the censure resolution against Sanford, if it comes to the Senate, he'll move to take it to committee because he won't participate in a "whitewash." Should have looked into use of state planes. Should have cross-examined witnesses, not just taken affidavit. Sanford already looks bad from fighting for so long. "And I'm not willing to take up the time of the Senate" with many other important issues pending. "It can go to committee and it can die in committee." Censure means little anyhow, just "a slap on the hand." People don’t understand why he isn't being impeached after all they've read. The censure is just political cover.

Harrison: The censure bill is expected to be taken up in the House Jan. 13.

Martin: Wants to go on record in condemning Sanford's conduct. Many of the other issues will be taken up, as the House Speaker said, in other bills and venues during the session. "We should take it up, we should act upon it very quickly and move on." He thinks it can be handled in 30 minutes if no one objects. Don't "leave it to fester in a committee."

Knotts: "I'm an old boxer and the fight's over. No need to keep kicking him."

Sandifer: We're missing part of the point, which is that "this governor's actions … will have a profound impact on how government is run in the state of South Carolina from henceforth. … a profound impact on the way we treat each other." Called into question is the assumption that we are trying to do the best for S.C.. "We've had to do business a totally different way as a result of this governor being in office." We used to send legislation to the governor with the expectation it would be signed into law. Now, "We fully anticipate he will veto everything sent and we must make every bill veto proof when it leaves the House and Senate." All of this says to us is that how government is run has to be looked at critically to make sure character does come first.

Without a lieutenant gov, what would succession be?
Senate president pro tem and then speaker of House.

Tort reform?
Martin: Not sure can ever get folks together completely, but there are three to four major sections out of 10 we might move forward on. Limiting punitive damages is one. Give the state a competitive advantage while keeping things fair. However, little chance of getting whole bill through.
Harrison: Met with the speaker and both sides of issue. Speaker said he'd like to see a bill passed. "He said he would use his 'extra influence' if he had to but he hoped he didn’t have to." Thinks can get a bill with two to three items to the point where trial lawyers, while they may not support it, "at least do not actively oppose it." Sees room for negotiation.
Hutto: We already have a business-friendly state. "This is an attempt to trample on people's right to speak in the jury box."
Sandifer: Interesting that Harrison, who chairs Judiciary, "the lawyers' committee," and I, who chairs Labor, Commerce and Industry, "the business committee," are working on trying to achieve something. "We are not trying to trample on people's rights."

Talk about opening FOIA, what about opening Ethics Commission process and House/Senate ethics committees? Martin: Sees it as a protection of the integrity of the process, from having it abused by political adversaries. He favors "pretty serious" criminal penalties for those who level scurrilous complaints. "But then you have to read people's minds, and that's pretty hard to do."

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 3

(See part 2 here - morning legislative panel on fiscal issues)

Luncheon remarks from the House speaker and Senate president pro tem:

House Speaker Bobby Harrell (Republican)

"We are queued up even in a bad economic year to do a lot of good things for the economy and the state even in a bad economic year."

Cites increasing reserve fund, lowering from 4% to 2% the trigger for budget cuts,

Expects when session is done people will say the Legislature accomplished things that are good for the state and economic development without raising taxes. Themes: Fiscal responsibility

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell (Republican)
"This state has got to be on a job hunt, not on a revenue hunt."
We're a trillion dollars into federal stimulus and says to both political parties in Washington he's seen nothing on a "dynamic energy policy." See gas price increases as not foreshadowing good economic things.

Revenue Stabilization Act, constitutional amendment:
"It will prevent a glut of spending" as we come out of the recession. Evens things out by putting restraints on spending and shifting money into reserve accounts in good years and then spending it out in bad ones.

Very high on the government streamlining commission. Make agencies go to zero-base budgeting, justify positions and funding. Also make sure Legislative Audit Council audits get implemented.

"I don't see it as being a menu of new taxes but a menu of what we can do without."

Refers to changes that drastically reduced governor's control of S.C. Ports Authority. "We got it back running like a business." Says economic development can't be a political football.

Revenue stabilization account: First 15% of revenue would go into the account to be spent back out in lean years. Can make government more efficient and leaner and smooth out budget process. Also expects this would lessen the number of governor's line-item vetoes.

Harrell: Supports it as a constitutional amendment and since the House has passed similar bills expects a proposal from the Senate to pass the House.

Had the stabilization act been enacted a decade ago, how would the budget be now?
Harrell: Probably similar, but you wouldn't have had the huge bubble of spending we had a few years ago, up about $900 million, but then followed by the $1 billion in cuts now.

Local governments say they have to raise taxes to the max under Act 388 or they can't go back and recover that money. Reaction?
Harrell: They didn't have to raise taxes. If they had raised taxes and put it in a secure account for a downturn, maybe they have an argument. But they did not; they spent it.

McConnell: "I am totally opposed to going back and repealing Act 388 as it applies to people's homes." Calls property taxes "paying rent to the government" for living in your home. Says it would become a "treasure chest" for government. He is willing to go back and look at any adjustments if there are problems.

Censure of Gov. Mark Sanford, how quickly House to take up?
Harrell: Like to see it come up next week. People "would like to see us move on" and then deal with jobs and the economy. Have a debate – all day and into night if needed – and dispose of it.
McConnell: If it comes over from the House, if even one senator objects it has to go to committee. By the time it comes back, we will be well into our work schedule. "So unless we can deal with it very quickly, to me it is just a waste of time." It doesn't change anything; it’s just an expression of opinion. Won't bring it to the floor unless he can be assured of quick debate and passage without numerous amendments.

Sen. Jake Knotts (a Sanford opponent) has suggested he might hold up the censure unless it is strengthened. Will that be a problem?
McConnell: Many of the issues Knotts wants, such as restrictions on use of state planes, may come up in other bills and contexts, so that may take care of itself.

What about the idea of a BRAC (base realignment commission) approach to reorganizing state government, where the recommendations of a commission are reported out as a whole and can't be amended or can only have limited amendments?
McConnell: Problem is twofold – unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and that legislative rules supersede any law. So if the rules allow amendments, you can't deal that away with a law.

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 2

(See part 1 here - Les Boles, state budget director)

After Boles there was a legislative panel with the following

• Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler (Republican)
• Sen. Billy O'Dell (Republican)
  
• Rep. Dan Cooper (Republican, chairman House Ways and Means)
  
• Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (Democrat, member House Ways and Means)
  
• House Minority Leader Harry Ott (Democrat)
  
• Rep. Brian White (Republican member House Says and Means)
  

How do you approach a budget with a $563 million hole?
Cooper: FY10 cuts do anticipate deficit by Corrections. Most agencies operating at FY05 level. So far this year 76 layoffs and more than a thousand furlough days. We're not going in FY11 going to be able to fund things even at current level.

Projected budget gaps in FY12 and 13 are as high as $1.3 to 1.4 billion.

Thinking of increasing general reserve fund from 3% to 5%. Will require constitutional amendment. Also delay use of capital reserve fund from beginning of year to end of FY. Now it is the first place we go.
Increase the number of trigger dates for general fund reductions. Add one in the third quarter and lower the trigger from 4% to 2% (in other words, if Board of Economic Advisors projections show 2% drop, Budget and Control Board must reduce budgets).
Create government streamlining commission – consolidate, eliminate, privatize, outsource.

Peeler: "The good news is that fiscal year 2010 is not fiscal year 2009. 2009 was terrible."
Got to do things differently, mainly how we budget. Nervous among members about AAA credit rating. "That's going to be foremost among our minds, how we maintain our AAA credit rating."
"Get away from this boom and bust situation."

Ott: "We've got the same guys shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic."
Leadership wants to shift responsibility to a gov streamlining commission.
"I think we are way past the day we can make across the board bjt cuts and hide behind the Budget and Control Board to make those cuts for us."
When we left in 2008, the BEA certified an amount and we spent that. "They did a lousy job of predicting how much money, $1.2 billion." I gave them some slack, maybe they didn't know recession. "But I want to know what the BEA's excuse is for the second year."
"It is an impossible thing for the General Assembly to pass a balanced budget if we don't get good numbers." Need to change way we budget. "I no longer have confidence in the BEA to give us a number that we can depend on as legislators" for revenue.

Yes, increase reserve fund, but that acknowledges BEA will miss estimates.
I'm ready to work with the GOP leadership to work on ways to change the way we project revenues and budget.
I've been huge supporter of public ed, but maybe we need to take a look at all the new programs over the past few years and suspend them till we can fund them. I'm willing to look at everything. We have a responsibility to not have midyear cuts over and over so people/agencies can plan. May mean some RIFs.

Peeler: "We're all in this same boat." You need to get your guys to go along with McConnell's spending caps bill to create a "true reserve."

Government restructuring task force recommendations ready in time for this budget year?
Cooper: probably not. We'll have to do it in XGR. Biggest drivers are aid to education and aid to local govs and Medicaid (+3 to 4% year). Plus prisons and DJJ have to be funded. But "We're going to have to cut a lot of government" to come up with a half-billion shortfall.
(He and Ott exchange words)
Cooper: We've deviated from the education and local gov funding formulas. If we had to follow those, we'd be in worse shape.
Ott: "We can't raise taxes." Have to figure out how to "provide the absolute necessity of services" with that restriction.

Cobb-Hunter: I'm listening to this and hearing we're all in same boat. "I want people in this state to remember that we're not in the same boat, but who's been captain of the ship … Republicans."
All people in my district say is "I want to know why you all aren't doing your job up there." Been here 18 years and seeing little new. See how many commissions we've had since 1990 and how much we've done with the reports "absolutely nothing."

{Note: Act 388, passed two years ago, eliminated the use of property taxes for school operations and replaced the money by replacing the sales tax and funneling the money back to school districts through the state.}
Cobb-Hunter on formula-driven items: "For me there are no sacred cows." Act 388 "has been one of the biggest budget busters that I've seen in the time I've been here" in the name of property tax reform. Have the TRAC commission refocus on Act 388. Wants specifics from Peeler on how we do things the different way. (TRAC – tax realignment commission -- was set up to study exemptions and effect on state budget.) She questions why TRAC looking at "fair tax" and not Act 388. It's time for legislators to stop the across the board cuts and make targeted cuts.

Peeler: "Nothing happens in the economy until the cash register rings." Have to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Gov doesn't create jobs, but it can run jobs away. Look at Boeing (Boeing recently announced it would build its 787 jet in Charleston), the ports, Clemson wind thing. Some good things are happening.

Ott: (About Peeler) He says we need a gov that creates jobs, but he's been in charge of it for 20 years.

Cobb-Hunter: Boeing – everyone took credit for bringing them here. So if we took credit, what does Peeler mean that gov. doesn't create jobs? Hopes for a media that goes back to being inquisitive and not just based on press release. State not being served well by not following up, such as not asking the disconnect between Peeler's gov doesn't create jobs and legislators taking credit for landing Boeing.

O'Dell: Bickering between parties unfortunate. Until we create jobs, no revenue. Boeing showed we can create jobs and that gave us "lots of credibility." Reps and Dems can't work it out alone – take united effort. "If we don't have the revenue coming in, we're going to have to cut programs and it's going to be a tremendous disaster."

TRAC is prohibited from looking at Act 388. Any chance of changing that?

Ott: A comprehensive review of taxes requires including Act 388. "We are way behind having any of these sacred cows." "We get locked in and don't ever want to say we made a mistake."

Cobb-Hunter: Need to revisit all the limitations we have put on that "hamstring" local governments and schools with unfunded mandates, etc. At least do that if we are not going to look at Act 388. "If it's bad for the federal government to send unfunded mandates down to the states, it's bad for the state to send unfunded mandates down to local governments." School boards can't do what they think is morally right for their constituents.

Cooper: I hear unfunded mandates all the time. But we appropriate 4.5% of the previous year's revenues to local government support (more than $200 million). And with homestead exemption, we send more than $500 million to local governments to make it up. Total $772 million sent to local govs, so where is the unfunded mandate?

Cobb-Hunter: Tax relief is not funded. Act388 rolled back property taxes for school operations. We provided tax relief but have not paid for it. "Unpatriotic … irresponsible" to take the credit but not provide the funding. We are not taking into account inflation. GOP talks about not increasing taxes. But look at the increases in the budget in fees and assessments. How is this different than not increasing taxes? "What we have done in this state is a shell game that has increased taxes but we call it fees and assessments."

Cooper: Act 388 not off the table. And he understands from the TRAC meeting yesterday that TRAC may ask for authority to look at Act 388.

Peeler: Act 388 not off table, but "tax increases in owner-occupied homes, that's off the table as far as I'm concerned." But $1.7 billion is lost in past two years "it's not under any shell; it's gone" because of the economy. The No. 1 thing that brought Boeing: "Our right to work laws."

Ott: No one here saying any tax increase. But you've shifted the tax burden to small businesses, and they're the ones that will bail us out of this recession. We've got to look at Act 388 and see if we have put the burden on the business community and if we have, change it. Need to set priorities and fund them.

Peeler: A House bill will give tax credits to those small businesses that will hire people on the unemployment rolls. (Cobb-Hunter: "Good bill.")

Taking the rainy day fund from $150 million to $250 million – we are saying we are going to divert money from our current shortfall to fund the next shortfall?

Cooper: Probably be implemented in FY12 (that would be the year $700 million in stimulus money goes away). We need a larger reserve fund. It would minimize some of the midyear cuts. Other states have bigger reserve funds than we do.

Board of Economic Advisors – are its estimates a reflection of reality or politics?
Cooper: I don't influence my appointee to the board. Doesn't think Sen. Leatherman does either. Can't speak for the governor. It's looking at a crystal ball on the economy.
Ott: "Their crystal ball is broken." "I think every one of us in the business community knew that we had better be planning for hard times going into last year." Across the board cuts hurt programs that can bring in additional dollars. When I came up here as a freshman, the GOP leadership wasn't talking savings but spending. Same leadership still here.

If Act 388 went away, what's the average hit to the homeowner?
Panel demurs on providing figure. Depends on home value.

What responsibility do legislators have to improve the state's position in many rankings we hear about nationally?
Peeler: I was born in this state, like the state, think there are many good things (talks about the weather and the soil). I think we have a good government. Optimistic about the state.
Cooper: We're trying to do the best we can with limited – very limited – resources.

Had Democrats been in charge since the 1990s, how would things be different?
Ott: We wouldn't have wasted all this time on debate about school vouchers but we probably would have had some ability for parents to choose their children's schools. Probably would have had some relief on children's health care.
Cobb-Hunter: We would have settled the 17-year school funding equity lawsuit. We also would have had tax relief targeted at the middle class, not a "tax shift."

In Charleston County in 2008 Dems did not challenge GOP in many legislative seats. Will that change this year?
Cobb-Hunter: People don't want to become legislators. "It's just no fun anymore." We're encouraging people to run. But people, and in S.C. in particular, people are basing decisions on party, not issues. In S.C., if you are white, it's presumed you are a Republican and black presumed a Democrat. But if we had informed voters, she thinks the GOP would not have the clout it does. Need to vote class, not just race – the only color that counts is green, money, but people don't realize that and continue to vote against their economic interests.
Ott: I'm not looking so much for Dems and GOP, but for those who will uphold S.C. "values" – "family values."

Proposed cigarette tax increase and its role?
Peeler: The House-passed bill is on the Senate's contested calendar. 50 cent/pack increase. Biggest issue is what to do with the money and do we have the votes to override an expected veto by Gov. Mark Sanford.
Cobb-Hunter: Wait to see what happens with federal health care bill. Raise the tax but put the money in a health savings account for now till we see what the federal system finally funds.

White joins panel: "We've got to fund our needs and not our wants." You can't raise taxes on people who don't have money. "Maybe not turn to the government looking for a handout. Maybe talk to your neighbor" for help.

What sort of rollbacks or changes in education funding?
Ott: May have to look at rolling back – "I want to cut programs in K-12 that don't actually go into the classroom." He talks about physical education mandates that were passed in recent years.
Peeler: We have an Education Department, so why do we have an Education Oversight Committee? Sacred cow: economic development.
Ott: Prisons have to be funded. "What can I say? This is a law-and-order state."

Status of 10th Amendment resolution on state sovereignty?
Peeler: The sovereignty resolution is on deck in the Senate. Hopes that it will move and then can get to bill that would limit the tax provision that raises property taxes/valuation on a home when it is sold.

Reduction in school days?
Ott is not in favor of reducing number of school days. He does want to look at teacher furlough days.

S.C. Legislature - outlook for 2010 - Part 1

The S. C. Press Association is holding its annual legislative preview session today. I have been taking notes, and in a modified form of live blogging will be posting those throughout the day. This first is from Les Boles, state budget director. Again, these are raw notes, complete with some shorthand and abbreviations. If they are not clear, leave a comment, and I will try to clarify my notation for you. (part 2, part 3, part 4)

Les Boles, state budget director

Next two years "some of the most challenging" he has seen.
His office's Web page has lots of budget info, including three-year budget projections. www.budget.sc.gov

Summary of revenue shortfalls (there was also an accompanying handout)
SC economy started declining March 08

FY08-09
BEA (Board of Economic Advisors) shortfall predictions six times plus the 13-month additional year-end shortfall in 08-09 totaling 1.2 billion. When other shortfalls taken into account, total shortfall $1.3 billion.
BCB reductions totaled $1.1 billion. Shortfall $207.3 million. We used reserve accounts – that will be problem. So final year-end shortfall $98.2 million.

FY10
BEA reductions 450.7 million Add homestead exemption shortfall and it's $452.4 million.
BCB action so far reduced $566.5 million, or $114.1 million more than

Medicaid: Used to be 70/30 fed/state. Stimulus made it 79/21, freeing up some money, but that's going away.

Since we ended FY07, our revenue stream has dropped 24%
Rev. est. FY 10-11 zero growth.
Hope that in 18 months people get back to work and sales and individual income tax picks up.

"The next two fiscal years are going to be extremely challenging."

FY11 (Begins July 1, 2010)
Begin with $199.4 million in lower revenue. Total est budget gap $563.3 million (the $199 million plus $364 million in statewide funding issues such as replenishing general reserve fund, more money for homestead exemption (property taxes) etc.

Questions:
Any other time where estimates coming out of a recession growth essentially flat?
No. "Historically our revenues have jumped." BEA project flat for year to 18mos and slow after that, 1 to 2%/yr.

Where budget now in meeting state educational requirements – maintenance of effort
Did not meet. Got waiver. We meet all the Medicaid requirements.

18 month lag is normal but it's the limited growth after that that's unusual?
Yes.

Question about thrust of budget change proposals
We're trying to level off the peaks and valleys. That means putting more into reserve funds.

Mathematically did property tax reform exacerbate (Act 388) {NOTE: Act 388 was the property tax change enacted two years ago. It essentially eliminated property taxes for school operations on owner-occupied primary residences and raised the state sales tax, with that money to go back to the schools to make up the money lost from property taxes.}

Yes. The projections were valid at that time on projections. "The bottom dropped out on the economy and the sales tax." Thinks online sales also hurting - people not paying sales/use tax.

Homestead exemption, property tax relief for schools?
We're seeing need go up 2 to 4% while revenues decline.

Sadness at the Statehouse

After you've read the Baltimore cops piece mentioned in my previous post, read Marc Fisher's lament about the state of Statehouse coverage. And throw in Howard Kurtz's look at the sagging newspaper industry overall. There's a fair amount to quibble with in both pieces (though Fisher's quoting my old AP colleague and friend Bob Lewis isn't one of them). For instance, I don't completely buy Fisher's thesis that bloggers and other alternatives can't competently cover state government. Andy Brack's Statehouse Report here in South Carolina shows that it can be done. (That's along with host of bloggers who opine on the state political scene and do break stories. South Carolina may be a tad unusual, however, as one of the few states where state-level politics is also the state sport.)

But the larger issue is, however, that even as the feds have been pushing power back to the states for the past two decades, newspapers have been cutting coverage. To say editors and execs don't get it is too simplistic. I'm not sure exactly why, but as a longtime Statehouse reporter or editor in four states (Indiana - where I generally covered it from afar, Ohio, Rhode Island and South Carolina), let me take a stab at it. First, jut consider this graf from Fisher's story and let it hang there for a while. We'll get back to it:

In one hour in the Virginia House the other day, I watched debates on raising the cost of vanity license plates (the No's won), letting employers pay workers with debit cards rather than paychecks (Yeses won), and making it a felony to hang a noose on someone's property (approved). Hardly earth-shattering issues, but each has an impact on people's lives. Yet none got any press; a couple of years ago, they would have.

Here's what I've observed over the years:

1. Most editors, either those I worked for directly or the ones I dealt with at AP, define the Statehouse beat as a political one. In fact, the Statehouse reporter often was also the chief political reporter. For efficiency's sake, it probably can't be avoided. But it tends to conflate things and cast every story as political.
2. Which too often leads to the narrow view that most of the news comes from the Statehouse and probably has a political twinge. And political news, usually except in even-numbered years, tends to get buried under the theory that readers really aren't "focused" on such things. Again, the reporters on the ground know better, but we're talking about the editors back at home base.
3. That, in turn, tends to lead to a view that it's the pols who are important. Again, anyone with state capital experience knows that's far from the truth. But the result is that too often reporters are sent with the mission to cover "the local delegation." Noble idea, but if your men and women are relative newcomers or in the minority, they're going to have about as much say in things as a slow talker at an auctioneers convention. But I've actually had editors tell me they wouldn't run stories because their local members weren't involved or weren't quoted.
4. The corollary is that there is much less news when the pols aren't in town (in other words, in non-legislative months). Again, any veteran reporter of the Statehouse will tell you that's far from true. Some of the best stories come when you can get unhinged from the chambers and get into the agencies. But we reinforce this pattern by ramping up legislative staffing and then cutting it - a natural thing, but one that unintentionally reinforces the idea that only certain times of the year are rally important (and during those other times, Statehouse reporters often are called on to put on their "political reporter" hats and travel away from the capital).
5. Part of the problem is that Statehouse reporters too often fall into or have to gingerly step around the "process" coverage trap. There are still editors who think most of it should be meeting/committee coverage. As Lewis notes, they are moving away from that, but that legacy is a heck of an albatross.
   
6. Truth is, though, that with one vote, one bureaucratic decision, someone at the state level can more profoundly affect your readers' live than can anyone in Washington or even at your own City Hall.
   
1. Most of what Washington does is "big picture" stuff that may have long-range consequences but most of that is going to be funneled back through the states anyhow.
2. For most of what City Hall can do, the power must be granted by the state anyhow. For instance, the city might decide how much your property taxes go up next year, but whether they can go up at all is in most places a state function.
3. The state licenses the doctor you see, the person who cuts your hair and fertilizes your lawn; it probably regulates where that trash that you put out yesterday gets dumped and makes sure - or not, when the system breaks down - your house isn't built atop a toxic waste dump. It makes sure the gas pump you are using is accurate, sets curriculum standards and chooses books for your children's education, decides whether you can go to that hospital near you for that heart operation, or have to go across town -- or even across the state. I could go on. For pages.

The point is that just as good reporters know the courts/cops beat is a goldmine for short (or long) narratives -- you know, those kinds of stories the Readership Institute and others have stressed for years -- so too is the state capital beat a mother lode of "news you can use" stories that can speak to people if told the right way, not just ground out.

Let's get back to that graf from Kurtz's story:
In one hour in the Virginia House the other day, I watched debates on raising the cost of vanity license plates (the No's won), letting employers pay workers with debit cards rather than paychecks (Yeses won), and making it a felony to hang a noose on someone's property (approved). Hardly earth-shattering issues, but each has an impact on people's lives. Yet none got any press; a couple of years ago, they would have.

Let's see. Vanity plates? Mildly interesting for the relatively few thousand who have them.
Hanging a noose? Again, probably carries a bit more interest with some segments of your audience (and have you thought about the increased risk to your teenager, you know, the kind of thing teenagers tend to do as a prank). But overall, mild to medium.

But what about this debit card-for-paycheck issue? What will your readers/users say if all of a sudden their employer told them their upcoming checks would be a debt card? Why didn't you tell me? I'm thinking this might be a better story, well told, than the latest eight-incher (or, god help us, the longer versions I've seen in some places) from the local (fill in your own blank - sewer, zoning, etc.) board. Yes, those are important, too, but seldom do they have the impact on your entire city that one edict from the Statehouse does.

Sure, there's the AP, but it's not equipped to flood the place with eyeballs as would be the case if individual publications had their own person or shared someone.

Does this mean you have to rush someone to the Statehouse and pay all those expenses, etc.?st No. Find a blogger whose work you respect and who covers the Statehouse. Or, if an alternative service like Statehouse Report exists, support it. Neither will break the bank.

Just don't abandon readers by abandoning the Capitol.

From the hustings

The assistant editor of the UK's Telegraph, Justin Williams, advises copy editors to consider other careers as the Telegraph experiments with a system that lets reporters file online first before their content is "moderated":

"The cost of publishing has now fallen to zero and that's ultimately what we're struggling with. We have to get to a point where our journalists deliver their content to whoever wants to get it and it has to cost us nothing to do that if we are to survive," he said. (Emphasis added.)

"What does that mean for sub-editors? I would not become a sub-editor now. The future for sub-editing is bleak, there may still be a future, but we have to drive down costs."

His advice, look at "content generation" or becoming "data practitioners."

"We're going to need lots of people to help us move in areas that we are already in and into new areas, to create content in imaginative new ways. But it [the future] will not be about the interminable multi-staged editing process," he said.

---

While we're talking "money" quotes, this one is from a National Press Club forum release last week titled "Reporters Getting Burned Out Wtth New Technology":

"I have been blogging for years," said Tony Messenger, a state capital bureau correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "I have yet to have a discussion in my newsroom about why we're blogging and to tie that somehow into the newspaper's business model."

(Again, my emphasis.)

He said he Twittered during a gubernatorial election debate, taking time from blogging and writing the next day's newspaper story. Yet just 13 people were following his Twitter posts.

"I should be sitting down with editors and other reporters who are using this technology and discussing whether it worked for this situation or that situation," he said. "And how can we save jobs in the newsroom if we do this?"

---

The proud St. Pete Times state capital bureau in Florida, long the stamping ground of the legendary Lucy Morgan, has been cut back enough that it is merging with the also-trimmed statehouse bureau of the Miami Herald. The bureau chiefs of each paper will take turns leading the office.

Wither the statehouse bureau

The New York Times reports today on the woes of the dwindling Albany statehouse press corps, but its report could be extrapolated to almost any of the 50 states.

Watching editors increasingly write off state government coverage as irrelevant or a luxury continues to remind me how out of touch so many seem to be. If you want to talk hyperlocal journalism, I can't think of much more hyperlocal than that. Much more than Washington, the folks in Trenton or Boise, Tallahassee or Bismarck, Des Moines or Dover have far more power to reach into your wallet or pocketbook and affect your daily life. How much more hyperlocal do you want to get than that at a time when the feds are devolving large amounts of oversight and power to the states?

If you think the financial crisis or Iraq war or a bushel of other things blamed partly on the press' supposed lack of watchdogging things in D.C. cause you heartburn, wait until the boys and girls under the statehouse dome get the notion they can ride wild without the sheep dogs keeping watch. D.C. may give you heartburn, but the statehouse will give you a migraine like you've never felt before -- and it will be in so many tiny ways, like so many pinpricks, that you probably won't notice until it is too late.

Fortunately, Jeremy W. Peters of the Times shows us that graceful, vivid writing still is possible from the dusty statehouse corridors, even if it is a prelude to the dirge:

The statehouse correspondents association in Albany dates to 1900, when a group of reporters decided to host a farewell dinner for Gov. Theodore Roosevelt, who was leaving the state capital for Washington to become William McKinley’s vice president.

It is an organization known for clinging hard to vestiges of its past. Women were banned from being members during World War II, a policy that was not reversed until the late 1960s. Women were also not allowed to participate in the organization’s annual gridiron dinner until 1972. Now a third of the association’s members are women.

But through much of the 1980s, the organization still had the feel of a stodgy gentleman’s club. Nightly poker games with legislative staffers and lobbyists were a revered tradition, as was “the library,” a metal cart of liquor that was wheeled out every afternoon.

Today the liquor cart is gone. The poker table still sits on the second level of the association’s office space — a balcony known as “the shelf” that looks down on the main press room floor — but it is covered by a piece of particleboard stained with coffee mug rings.

Downstairs on the main level, the sets of wood and brass plaques that hang from a wall on the first floor name various recipients of the association’s reporting awards. But they read like a death notices column for the newspaper business.

A day of upheaval (Updated)

In this post:

• McClatchy cutbacks
• Online Journalism Review shuts down
• Elegy to copy editors

If you are in, related to or just breathe the air around anyone in the newspaper business, it is unlikely you haven't heard today about the large numbers of layoffs coming at McClatchy -- 1,400 jobs or about 10 percent of the company's work force. But there was a bit more to drink another pint about, as you can see from the list above.

Let's start with McClatchy, however:

• E&P's story
• Charlotte's
• Columbia's
• Raleigh's
  
• The McClatchy Watch blog with a numbers breakdown and links to stories around the country.
  

The numbers are stark, just another drumbeat. But it was this, buried in the Raleigh story (with similar wording in Charlotte) stories, that I found more interesting: The newspaper will begin a closer relationship with The Charlotte Observer, also owned by McClatchy. The two newspapers will combine their political, sports and research departments. The features departments also will produce sections jointly.

Watch that space, because it is the shape of thing to come. Yes, Media News' Dean Singleton has been slashing and consolidating -- especially copy editing jobs (more from John McIntyre) -- at his papers around San Francisco and the San Jose Mercury News. But except for the Merc, there wasn't a lot of meat left on those bones to start with.

McClatchy is a different beast, however, not so easily dismissed. The McClatchy announcement does not talk about centralized copy desks, but believe me the rumors in the Carolinas are there and have been for more than a year. With seven papers (Raleigh, Charlotte, Rock Hill, Myrtle Beach, Columbia, Beaufort and Hilton Head) clustered even more tightly than McClatchy's original California operations, staffers at all the papers are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Beaufort/Hilton Head, though a special case (two smaller papers in the same county with one printing plans) have effectively -- if not in absolute fact -- combined many operations already.

But let's not dwell on copy editing and it challenges, which I've written about extensively. More intriguing to me, and more significant, is the move to combine sports, research and political coverage, and some features. Let's examine each one:

• Research: Well, with the digital age's shifting of most research to reporters' and editors' desks and the withering of news libraries, you had to see this one coming. In fact, I'm surprised several papers in an area, even from different chains, don't get together and create virtual reference centers and split the cost. It might even be a cost-effective way to extend higher-quality services to smaller papers. But there are questions: If we push more and more to hyperlocal, what is the working model? Can a shared research system reach down and provide news people with the local information they need? Maybe the digital assets are refined enough that it can. But the realist in me says there are gaps, because I seem them all the time. So does the new model become that the researchers, such as they are, handle the "big-picture" stuff, but the local research continues to be pushed farther down to the desks? OK, you librarians who read this blog (and I know there are some), weigh in. Are we missing anything? How could this work?
• Sports: The best way for this to play out would be for coverage of those big, but largely staged, events (Carolina Panthers, major college football, NBA, NASCAR, PGA, etc.) and more smartly put the remaining local resources into covering local sports. But, boy, could this be a tough sell. I can think of no other area of a newsroom where a caste system/pecking order is more in evidence. Suggest to some sports reporters that they cover high school sports and you will produce spasms of uncontrollable shaking. Sure, they likely did it at one time, but that was part of their due to get to the "bigs." Trust me, there's not much worse than some hacked off, hackneyed sport reporter sent back down from the bigs (or who saw his or her door close) going through the motions of covering local sports. I've seen it here and elsewhere. And it's going to require some interesting reprogramming of those young sports reporters coming out of college -- I'll make a broad-brush statement that will certainly miss the bull's eye but won't be too far off the total target: Most don't have local sports as their goal. How do you sell it. Again, more details would be useful --any McClatchy folks out there who can fill in the blanks, please comment.
• Political: Things are abuzz on the Association of Capital Reporters and Editors listserv about this one. And I've got to say, this is the one that concerns me the most. The digital age seems to be giving us a barbell shape for news -- the big national stuff on one end, the hyperlocal stuff on the other, and in-between? But in between is where the state capitals lie.
  
• A decade ago, American Journalism Review documented the sad state of staffing statehouse press rooms. (Parts 2 and 3). It has continued unabated. And all this has come at a time when administrations -- Democratic and Republican -- have devolved more responsibility onto the states and as state legislatures (and courts and agencies) increasingly have been diving into the social issues pool (think same-sex marriage, creationism/evolution debates, abortion regulations, etc.), not to mention the pivotal role those legislatures play in health and economic well-being (tax policy, insurance issues, etc.)
  
• We need more reporters at the Capitol, not fewer. Yet editors seem to cling to the idea that no one cares about the Statehouse (no one, that is, until their ox is gored by some zoning twist that required state OK or an additional huge fee tacked onto a speeding ticket or an incompetent professional who nevertheless was licensed). Not only are there cutbacks, but too many papers see the "news" as just being when the legislature is in session, when the reality is that most of the governing is done outside of those spectacles and in the bowels of the bureaucracy.
• We need more people covering the states' "shadow government." Yet, for instance, Zane Wilson, Myrtle Beach's longtime and respected S.C. Statehouse reporter is leaving and does not expect to be replaced. It's likely The (Columbia) State's stories will simply be more widely spread. (The State hasn't exactly wowed with depth coverage either, especially in the off-season, though it does occasionally field a good one, such as exposing S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell's efforts on behalf of a health insurer that is likely to buy its generic drugs from his company.) Will it be the same in Raleigh? And then there is this confounding of "politics" with state government coverage. They certainly overlap, but I fear too many editors define it that way, effectively limiting statehouse reporters. Again, more details would be nice, but I think ACRE members have a right to be concerned.

UPDATE: Fiona Morgan at Indy Week out of Durham has some details (and my comments):

• A single capital bureau for state government reporting will combine five N&O and two Observer reporters, and be edited by current N&O staff and based in Raleigh. (Good news for now in that there do not seem to be any cutbacks. Seven people perhaps can be used more efficiently to extend coverage, though it means a little less competition.)
  
• 
  
• The sports departments will merge and be edited by a Charlotte-based editor. (As noted above, the jury's out on this. This has the same problem as having overseas copy editors handle stories -- how is that editor going to know the nuances of those local schools, the kinds of things that can get people really riled? The ultimate result is usually a blanding of copy so as not to offend people.)
  
• 
  
• The news research departments will merge and be headed by an N&O staffer. (Probably not too bad, though you again question whether local nuances will be missed.)
  

---

I was in the middle of reading for all that when an e-mail came pointing out that Robert Niles, editor of Online Journalism Review, had announced that OJR was suspending publication after a decade.

This is deeply disturbing. The all-online OJR, based at the University of Southern California, consistently has been one of the best publications in the field, both for professionals and for academics who have much to add to the professional discussion (as opposed to publishing in a refereed journal). It's to be hoped that USC will keep the archives around for a long time. The tutorials, for instance, are worth a ton.

It's not easy to tell from Niles' post whether he had "editorial" differences or there is a funding problem:

One of OJR's goals over the years has been to help mid-career journalists make a successful transition from other media to online reporting and production. I'm pleased to say that USC Annenberg will continue to provide support in that area, through the Knight Digital Media Center. I encourage OJR readers to click over to the KDMC website and its blogs, if you are not already a regular reader there.

I am hopeful that OJR will continue to live at the KDMC, and that the publication might be revived under the KDMC's blogs.

Meanwhile, Niles has left USC and set up shop at SensibleTalk.com, where you can find lots of good stuff, including links to all his great math tips for journalist. You also can find them and more at the original Robertniles.com.

---

So much to write about, including the latest blow-up between the AP and bloggers.
But let's finish on a sweet-sour note, todays' elegy to copy editors by Lawrence Downes in the New York Times.

Downes, lamenting the lack of any recognition of copy editors at the Newseum (though my boss says the museum does have exhibits of bad heds and other errors over its urinals), writes:

Copy editors are the last set of eyes before yours. They are more powerful than proofreaders. They untangle twisted prose. They are surgeons, removing growths of error and irrelevance; they are minimalist chefs, straining fat. Their goal is to make sure that the day’s work of a newspaper staff becomes an object of lasting beauty and excellence once it hits the presses.

Yeah. Presses. It has probably already struck you how irrelevant many of these skills may seem in the endlessly shifting, eternal glow of the Web.

The copy editor’s job, to the extent possible under deadline, is to slow down, think things through, do the math and ask the irritating question.

That is inexorably being changed in a digital age that values speed over perfection, he writes. True, and things will have to change. But it's nice to see at least an understanding of why copy editors continue to be important.

David Sullivan has a nice commentary on the issue.