Thoughts on SC Constitutional Amend vote today?

[CU12341234]

The following Constitutional Amendment Question will appear on ballots in the November 6, 2018 General Election:

Amendment 1

Must Section 7, Article VI of the Constitution of this State, relating to state constitutional officers, be amended so as to provide that beginning in January 2023, or upon a vacancy in the office of Superintendent of Education after the date of the ratification of the provisions of this paragraph, whichever occurs first, the Superintendent of Education must be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate; to provide that the appointed Superintendent of Education shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor; and to require the General Assembly to provide by law for the duties, compensation, and qualifications for the office?

Explanation

A 'Yes' vote will require the Superintendent of Education be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate.

A 'No' vote maintains the current method of electing a Superintendent of Education.

I'm thinking about voting "No" on this issue but wanted to weight other thoughts on the subject.

 

[chassc]

Seems like the teachers I know are pushing a No vote

 

[CU12341234]

Seems like the teachers I know are pushing a No vote

I don't see why there's a need to change it from it's current form. Why the push, I wonder?

 

[CU1TruTiger4Life]

Cliffs?

 

[chassc]

I don't see why there's a need to change it from it's current form. Why the push, I wonder?

That’s my question, too. I can’t recall anything that would have set this in motion.

 

[scotchtiger]

I skipped it. Not sure what the intent is.

 

[Samtiger]

That’s my question, too. I can’t recall anything that would have set this in motion.

Most "professional politicians" are for a YES vote. Doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat, they think we are better served with Columbia making the decision. Many teachers and others are for a NO vote. They want the position to remain elected.
That is summation. There are reasons for each. I'm not taking sides, just trying to explain as an educator.

 

[chassc]

Most "professional politicians" are for a YES vote. Doesn't matter if Republican or Democrat, they think we are better served with Columbia making the decision. Many teachers and others are for a NO vote. They want the position to remain elected.
That is summation. There are reasons for each. I'm not taking sides, just trying to explain as an educator.

Are you a No?

 

[MBRO]

Voted no. Generally not in favor of giving politicians more power.

 

[YouHaveToCallMeDragon]

Do whatever the teachers want .

 

[Samtiger]

Are you a No?

I was a No, although I can see the merits of a Yes. My fear is that the Governor, whomever that would be, might use it as a political reward for a supporter. It would be nice, on the other hand, for the person not to have to campaign, but to actually work full time for education.

 

[Flo-Tiger]

I am voting YES. The superintendent needs to be held accountable by/to the Governor. And then we can hold our Governor accountable to His/Her choice. The way we have been doing it sure hasn't been working. You can't get much worse than last. Let's change this up!

 

[chassc]

Voted no. Generally not in favor of giving politicians more power.

I’m this way too. But I can see the POV of not wanting the person out campaigning instead of doing the job.

 

[Chefkdh]

The Superintendent herself is in favor of a YES vote. Mainly that she didn’t feel like it should be a position that campaign dollars influence, that it should be about the Governor finding the best possible person for the position to lead the state’s education system.

I agree

 

[jroller]

I voted No.

 

[MBRO]

I’m this way too. But I can see the POV of not wanting the person out campaigning instead of doing the job.

I get that and it's a valid argument. I guess I feel like there would still be "campaigning" even if it's an appointed position.

 

[Flo-Tiger]

Here's a good rundown for why to vote YES


https://cindiscoppe.wordpress.com/2...-an-appointed-sc-superintendent-of-education/

 

[End Zone 81]

As a retired educator I am voting and encourage you to vote no.

Reasons for me are:
1. Betsy DeVos - Amway millionaire that donated heavily to Trump with no education background or experience. It should never be a position that is rewarded to a donor but in this case it certainly is.
2. Mark Sanford - openly opposed to public education. His wife was given lots of money by a New York group that was pushing for vouchers which are intended to take money from public education.
3. Nikki Haley - was so out of it in regards to public education she even said a couple years after becoming governor that after having been in schools they are not as bad as I thought. Gave no support to teachers and ended TERI which actually made money for the retirement system and has caused a looming crisis in the teacher shortage.
4. Appointing people has worked so well with the roads and other parts of our state infrastructure.
5. Having to go through confirmations and possible changes constantly stagnates progress and effectiveness of the state department of education.

There is simply no reason for this change.

 

[Rychek4]

Voted no. Generally not in favor of giving politicians more power.

It's a consolidation of power I am not in favor of.

 

[Rychek4]

The Superintendent herself is in favor of a YES vote. Mainly that she didn’t feel like it should be a position that campaign dollars influence, that it should be about the Governor finding the best possible person for the position to lead the state’s education system.

I agree

The campaign dollars just get shifted up the chain to the Governor. This does not remove the politics from the job.

 

[Rychek4]

Here's a good rundown for why to vote YES


https://cindiscoppe.wordpress.com/2...-an-appointed-sc-superintendent-of-education/

I like how that last reason is "The Governor will do a better job than you"

 

[scartiger]

Cliffs?

Vote No

 

[CU12341234]

Here's a good rundown for why to vote YES


https://cindiscoppe.wordpress.com/2...-an-appointed-sc-superintendent-of-education/

Thanks for the link. Looks like I'll be voting Yes then.

 

[wdrcu75]

Voted no. Against giving the governor any more power. Was also against a combined ticket.

 

[Rychek4]

Thanks for the link. Looks like I'll be voting Yes then.

You thought that was a good list?

 

[CU12341234]

You thought that was a good list?

I think it would hold the Governor more accountable. Seems the current model isn't working all that great and with the amount of our overall budget going to education, it seems the Governor needs to be in charge of electing the right person for the job.

 

[CU12341234]

I like how that last reason is "The Governor will do a better job than you"

Well considering our education system isn't all that great in it's current form, maybe it's time to rethink the issue.

 

[Rychek4]

the Governor needs to be in charge of electing the right person for the job.

Well, that's about the least American thing I have heard today.

 

[Rychek4]

Well considering our education system isn't all that great in it's current form, maybe it's time to rethink the issue.

False dichotomy, there are many other, better ways to fix our education system that don't come at the expense of our freedom to elect our own officials.

 

[CU12341234]

Well, that's about the least American thing I have heard today.

You serious? We're founded on that principle. We live in a Representative democracy. Are every cabinet position up for a vote when we elect a President?

 

[Rychek4]

You serious? We're founded on that principle. We live in a Representative democracy. Are every cabinet position up for a vote when we elect a President?

I'm not advocating a direct democracy, Representative democracy is inherently a mixed system. I prefer not to give the government more power. I would prefer less government control. I think the phrase use to be "smaller" government.

 

[chassc]

I went with No. Didn’t really care before this thread started and then I ended up being legitimately torn.

 

[CU12341234]

I went with No. Didn’t really care before this thread started and then I ended up being legitimately torn.

Same here but went w Yes. Enjoyed the convo and insight, fellas.

 

[1Clemson]

I am voting YES. The superintendent needs to be held accountable by/to the Governor. And then we can hold our Governor accountable to His/Her choice. The way we have been doing it sure hasn't been working. You can't get much worse than last. Let's change this up!

Can we get rid of the governor instead?

 

[CU Alumnus]

Cliffs?

A yes vote makes the State Secretary of Education a governor-appointed position.

No keeps it an elected position.

I voted no because I wasn't happy with the gubernatorial candidates anyway so I'd rather they have less power than more.

But I can see both sides of it. Either way the position is a political thing.