TOAL’S COMMITTEE ALSO SHRANK BY TWO MEMBERS
FITSNews – February 5, 2008 – The controversial state salary report produced by Chief Justice Jean Toal‘s committee finished its work over a year past deadline, according to the 2006-07 budget proviso that created it nearly two years ago. It also somehow thinned by two members, as the proviso called for a nine-member committee but only seven individuals ended up signing the report.
Anyway, here’s the enabling language for the “Toal Report” from the 2006-07 state budget:
There is hereby established a committee to review the salaries and make recommendations for the appropriate salary levels of South Carolina’s constitutional officers, judges, and legislators. The review shall include, but not be limited to, a comparison of similar positions in other states, including comparable job duties, jurisdictions, workloads/caseloads, etc.
The committee shall be composed of nine members appointed as follows:
(a) four members appointed by the Governor,
(b) one member appointed by the State Treasurer,
(c) two members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
(d) one member appointed by the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and
(e) one member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.The committee shall submit a report to the President pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Governor by December 31, 2006.
The members of the committee may receive the per diem, mileage, and subsistence as allowed by law for members of state boards, committees, and commissions when engaged in the exercise of their duties as members of the committee. The per diem, mileage, and subsistence shall be paid from the accounts of the appointing authority. Staff support shall be provided by the appointing authority or the Budget and Control Board as necessary.
The report – which authorized gargantuan pay raises for all 170 state legislators, the Chief Justice, the State Superintendent of Education, the Governor and dozens of other judges and elected officials – was ultimately signed off on by Toal and six other committee members, State Sen. Jim Ritchie, House Speaker Pro Tempore Doug Smith, former U.S. Ambassador Bob Royall, former State Rep. Harry Stille, some guy we’ve never heard of named John M. Braund and former Free Enterprise Fund Chairman Mallory Factor.
Developing …
By 67chevy February 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Gargantuan pay raises? What does that mean? It means nothing, and is very poor reporting. Kind of like me saying, ‘FITSnews becomes irrelevant in a gargantuan way’. It doesn’t really mean anything, but it could stick in peoples heads.
So get off your ass and let’s have some empirical data on those raises there, sonny.
By 67chevy February 5, 2008 at 3:33 pm
obviously I didn’t read the post before this one. do us a favor and not post either of these, will ye?
Whatever though.
By fitsnews February 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm
67 Chevy,
It’s not our fault that you’re obviously too retarded to figure out how to scroll down or click on a link.
1980 called, dude. It wants YOU back.
Anyway, we would – and did – classify proposed pay raises of 53%, 47%, 41% or 20% as “gargantuan,” particularly when you compare them with the 0.8% growth in the average South Carolinian’s paycheck last year.
-FITSNews
By Gal Leo February 5, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I know little about admin/judicial/exec salaries. However, regarding legislative salaries, does it change the analysis to know that the base salary has not increased since 1982? I haven’t done the math, but annualized I think “gargantuan” becomes a misnomer.
This is a classic debate. Do we pay legislators (judges, cabinet members, governors) salaries competitive with the private sector? In favor is the argument that if we want better people in government, we should be willing to pay for it. The contra, obviously, is to ask whether we really want people who are in it for the money vs. the public service.
No good answer here. Bottom line: there are plenty of people who would take these jobs at current salary levels. That must be some indication that they are not underpaid.
By Todd February 5, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Be a lawyer and turn something into Queen Jean over a year late….. right…. Oh. That’s okay. It’s all discretionary in her court anyway. Who’s your Daddy?
By Me February 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm
As a matter of record, most dancers at strip bars pay to work at the strip clubs.
Why don’t members of the General Assemby have to pay to be in the GA? The conditions are the same…your job allows you to make obscene amounts of money for engaging in dishonarable acts. The more vulgar the act, the more you make.
So it make sense…new members pay 10 grand a year, sub-committe chairmen pay 15, chairman pay 20…
And the lobbyist should have to pay too. $25 grand a year will be a good start.$50,000 if you lobby for healthcare, or tobacco or insurance. $75,000 if you have ever been described as Leatehermans bitch.
Face it…they are all whores, selling thier honor for profit. So why not make them pay?
By piepton February 5, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I can’t believe you would degrade strippers by comparing them to legislators and lobbyists. At least strippers do honest work for their money.
By Believe It Not (a.k.a. Sic Willie's Stalker) February 5, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Ask sic(k) willie about strippers. He can tell you about the profession.
You see, for 2 months after the gub’ner fired him, sic(k) willie worked in drag as a stripper at http://www.derrieresclub.com in Myrtle Beach.
He gave discount table dances to truck drivers and elected officials.
Word is that’s where he got the bogus tip a Midland’s elected official has a Strom problem. Either from a drunk truck driver or an elected official. Or, maybe from an elected official’s stooge. Who cares.
You see, sic(k) willie believes anything a truck driver or a political stooge tells him, as long as they stuff cash in his panties.
Now, just try to picture sic(k) willie in a thong or g-string. Yuck.
By StanD828 February 6, 2008 at 4:09 am
I was late submitting an affidavit to the Court once because it was impossible to provide what they wanted, plus the Rules could be interpreted in a way that wouldn’t have required one. Within a few days the Clerk’s office called…I thought poor Betsy Stevenson was going to have a nervous breakdown because I actually bothered to explain why I wasn’t sending it. “But, you can’t just ignore the Supreme Court,” she told me. Yes, I can, and I did. So they held me in contempt. So now Jean Heifer Toal is over a year late with her report….but that’s ok.
Seriously, though, I don’t disagree with all the recommendations. I do think our legislators should get a raise, the rest not so much, but as usual, it seems like the Court presents these things without explanation and in a way that makes them appear worse than they are. Kind of like the Bar exam controversy.
It also reminds me of a couple years back when it was suggested during the Bar convention that public defenders and appointed lawyers weren’t making enough at $75 an hour. Of course, I don’t disagree with that…their caseloads are excessive…but that didn’t exactly play very well to the general public. It was embarassing and just more ammunition for folks who believe all lawyers are greedy. It shouldn’t have taken an Einstein to figure out what it would look like in the papers, and the same goes for this. But they don’t care.
Even so, does this thing even have a chance in this economy? Surely if it is considered and passed there will be outrage. Oh, wait…I forgot…this is South Carolina…we’ll just bend over and take it as usual.
By Mr. Speaker is a liberal February 6, 2008 at 9:39 am
Why didn’t all 9 sign off on the pay increase? Why was it over one-year late? Who were the other two members?
John Braund is a guy from Dorchester. I think he is involved with the tax payers association. (strange he would vote for it.)
It does look like some impropriety since some of the folks getting the pay increase, also signed off on this report.