South Carolina has a long history of gender inequality. From the early colonial era to the present day, men continue to have leading roles in government, academia, business and community organizations.

South Carolina has been plagued with a past of racial inequities in all scopes of life. For the state to move forward in a positive direction, equality in education, the workforce, the judicial system, and government representation must be achieved. Racial inequities still exist in these areas as nonwhites are going to jail twice as often as their white counterparts, earning half as much and are not represented proportionally in the state government.

Because of a series of unique characteristics of South Carolina’s state government structure, the state is subject to issues less problematic in other states. These issues sometimes include 1) marked tension and an uncooperative relationship between the executive and legislative branches; 2) confusion generated by the role of the state Budget and Control Board; 3) concern over the system of legislative appointment of state judges; and 4) unusual (by national standards) autonomy of elected executive offices other than the governor. The relatively weak institutional role of the governor has been the subject of controversy and conflict.

On February 26, 2007, Governor Sanford issued Executive Order #2007-06 establishing the nine-member GovernmentEfficiency and Accountability Review (GEAR) Committee. Through the order, the Governor instructed our committee to“analyze the systems and services within and provided by the South Carolina Budget and Control Board in an effort to propose changes which will reduce costs, increase accountability, improve services, consolidate similar functions, return functions to the private sector and help South Carolina become more competitive in a world economy.”

From the South Carolina legislative website, a link to all versions of pending Restructuring Act of 2011. The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Campsen and Rose, was introduced in the Senate January 11, 2011.

Commission created by Governor Campbell on March 6, 1991, per Executive Order 91-07. This report presents the justifications by the Commission for the restructuring of State government based on problems of inefficiencies, lack of agency accountability, the presence of overlapping and duplicative services, and no clear central authority that presently hinders the operation of State government.

In the following discussion, several significant components of state restructuring implementation, stratagems or strategies if one prefers, will be touched upon. These include: 1) the question of timing, i.e., “Is this the most beneficial or gainful opportunity or time to execute a reorganization effort?” 2) the issue of tactics, i.e., “Should restructuring be done massively or on a large scale, that is all at once, or rather, is it more appropriate to proceed more slowly or incrementally?” 3) the question of adoption mechanism, i.e., “Does the restructuring effort require a constitutional and statutory change, or a statutory change alone, or can restructuring be effected by executive order?” 4) the role of the governor, i.e., “Does the governor’s role affect the enactment or passage of reorganization legislation?” and finally, 5) the issue of promotional campaign, i.e., “What methods or forums should be utilized to promote and lobby for state restructuring?”