Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
May 21
The Herald of Rock Hill on a recent public records law:
Proponents of legislative reforms to improve South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act didn’t get everything they had hoped for in the bill that passed on the last day of the session. But the bill came close, and it should be regarded as a victory for open government and citizens’ ability to gain access to public information.
Another reason this bill is so welcome is that it was more than seven years in the making. South Carolina was at the forefront four decades ago when it first passed the Freedom of Information Act. But in recent years reformers have struggled to fine-tune the law to make it easier for private citizens and the media to challenge efforts by public officials and agencies to conduct their business behind closed doors.
Over the past seven years, reform efforts have fallen short, often because of procedural roadblocks in the S.C. Senate. That might have been the case again this year, as a single senator sought to halt the bill because of a provision that would have established an Office of Freedom of Information Act Review.
Under that provision, a hearing officer would settle disputes over requested information rather than forcing those seeking information to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer and take the case before a circuit judge. Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Columbia, objected, saying that creating the new office would be too expensive.
Her objection killed an almost identical bill last year, and this year, senators decided to drop the section creating a hearing officer and pass the rest of the bill. While eliminating the hearing officer was regrettable, lawmakers did succeed in requiring an initial hearing within 10 days and a decision from the court within six months in most cases, which at least speeds the process.
But despite the setback, we think lawmakers made the right decision in moving forward with other much-needed reforms.
Under the new law, for example, public bodies have 10 days to give a yes or no to a FOIA request and 30 days to respond. Under the old law, public groups had 15 days to respond, and that response could simply be an acknowledgment of receipt, allowing the agencies to drag out the request indefinitely.
The law also limits the amount agencies can charge for providing public documents to the standard charge for producing copies. They also cannot charge for existing electronic records.
In the past, agencies often have charged exorbitant prices for copies to discourage requests for information.
Significantly, under the new provisions any recording made on a police dash cam that involves a death, injury, property damage or use of deadly force must be made available to the public unless specifically blocked by a Circuit Court judge.
The law also establishes civil penalties in addition to existing criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law. Civil fines are $500.
But the law also has provisions to protect public agencies from frivolous requests, allowing agencies to ask for a hearing on requests they regard as overly burdensome.
We hope that reformers will continue to push for provisions that allow South Carolinians to use the law without filing a lawsuit. But this law nonetheless is a big step forward.
After seven years, it’s about time.
Online: https://www.heraldonline.com/
___
May 23
The Post and Courier of Charleston on police body cameras:
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., has renewed his efforts to provide federal funds to outfit police with body cameras. It’s a good idea, and Congress should follow through with its support.
It’s all but a certainty that police body cameras eventually will become standard-issue equipment - if not by choice, then by law - and big manufacturers like Axon, formerly Taser, are practically giving them away. So why wait?
They provide a dispassionate, objective view of police encounters that protect officers from frivolous lawsuits and citizens from abuses. And, so far, they have had a positive effect.
Sen. Scott has cited research that showed public complaints against officers wearing body cameras fell by nearly 90 percent, and that the use of force by officers decreased by about 60 percent.
Sen. Scott’s bill would create a Justice Department grant program that enables departments with body-cam policies in place to apply for funding to buy them and cover the initial set-up costs for managing recordings. He has said the costs of the grant program would be fully offset. An earlier version of the bill called for using the savings from limiting federal employees to 20 days of paid administrative leave per year.
The legislation would augment a similar 2016 Justice Department grant program that provided $20 million in funding to more than 100 police agencies in 32 states.
North Carolina became the first state to require police to wear body cameras, and Nevada is poised to soon follow suit with the governor’s signature on a pending bill. Others are sure to follow.
In 2015 alone, 46 states addressed police body cameras in some form. Four states, including South Carolina, require some officers to wear body cameras. Five other states have ongoing pilot programs or studies.
In the wake of Walter Scott being shot to death by a North Charleston police officer, South Carolina started requiring police agencies statewide to develop policies for the use of body cameras and made $5.8 million available for gearing up departments, but the Legislature stopped short of mandating their use.
Video of that shooting recorded by a passerby prompted Sen. Scott - no relation to Walter - to sponsor legislation aimed at making the cameras available to agencies ready for them. Now, two years later, it’s time to move forward with the resources to equip officers nationwide.
“Our nation has experienced too much pain and heartache from tragedies that could have been more clearly explained if body cameras were in use,” Sen. Scott said when he announced his renewed legislation.
Even if body cameras won’t solve all policing-related problems, they’ve been shown to be useful tools. And it’s clear, people tend to follow rules when they know they’re being watched.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/
___
May 23
The Index-Journal of Greenwood on moped legislation:
It should not have taken seven grueling years to get moped legislation off the shoulder of the road, but we are glad legislators saw fit to support what most would say is a common sense approach to regulating the two-wheeled vehicles.
The measure adopted by the state Senate and House, and signed into law Friday by Gov. Henry McMaster, is not an attack on the sale and use of mopeds; rather, it is a law that addresses a very real public safety issue.
Sure, many of us have been frustrated when caught behind a moped operator, but that’s not what is at issue. The law is designed to focus on abuses similar to those committed by operators of cars and trucks, namely driving while intoxicated. Still 18 months away from taking effect, the law will allow moped operators to be charged with DUI.
Logical. Common sense. Yet, it was fought for too many years. It’s no secret that in more than a handful of cases, mopeds are the go-to method of transportation among people who have lost their licenses to DUIs. That was a loophole that needed closing. Consider state Department of Public Safety data that reflects there were 41 moped operators killed last year in a total of 785 crashes.
The law is not perfect. To get the DUI loophole closed, lawmakers had to drop the bill’s initial requirement that operators wear reflective vests at night but retained a requirement that teens wear helmets when operating mopeds. That too seemed to be a common-sense approach, but similar legislation was vetoed last year by then-Gov. Nikki Haley who saw the vests, and a requirement that operators under 21 wear helmets, as overreach on the part of government. Requiring reflective vests for nighttime moped operators is as sensible as requiring the use of seat belts by drivers of cars and trucks.
Perhaps next year the issue of reflective vests will resurface. Requiring the vests is as much for the safety of the moped operator as it is for the safety of those sharing the road with them and will no doubt equate to lives saved.
Online: https://www.indexjournal.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.