| Printed Page 231, Jan. 11 | Printed Page 250, Jan. 12 |

This provision creates a pilot School Based Counseling Program that is intended to be expanded to a statewide program at a cost of approximately $20 million. I believe an expenditure of this amount on a relatively untested and experimental program without first taking significant steps to address the root causes of the problems confronting our children such as absentee parents, broken homes, and lack of discipline and respect for authority amounts to the kind of social engineering that is counter-productive to family preservation. I do not believe we should consider such a program until we first do everything we can to eliminate present societal disincentives to the maintenance of strong families.
Veto 4 Part I, Section 39, Human Affairs Commission, page 292, line 10, Other Operating Expenses - $174,227

I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. The Human Affairs Commission recently notified the Budget and Control Board that their projected deficit will only be $25,000. They were allocated an additional $225,000 in their base budget to cover the agency deficit which was anticipated to be a recurring expense. Obviously, the agency no longer needs the additional money.

Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent as a back door way to increase an agency's budget. A base budget increase should be analyzed and broken down by the appropriate financial standing committees. By giving a general increase, there is no oversight as to how the agency is accounting for the increase. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the Agency manage the reduction.
Veto 5 Part IB, Section 3.57, page 438, State Agency Mission and Goals

I am vetoing this proviso as it infringes upon the executive budget authority granted during the 1993 Legislative Session by making the agency missions submitted by the Governor subject to approval by the Legislature during the budget process. I regret that the performance-based budgeting system amendment to this Proviso was not adopted, as I would have supported that activity.
Veto 6 Part IB, Section 17E.12, pages 460-461, Museum Food Service

I am vetoing this Proviso at the request of the Budget and Control Board, Office of General Services with the consent of the State Museum. OGS has informed me that their efforts to secure a food vendor for this space have been unsuccessful and that the flexibility provided by this veto will allow income for the State.

This Proviso establishes a dangerous precedent by using State Appropriations to fund increases in "Other Funds" positions. It is not equitable to provide Higher Education with a supplement for raises while denying the same to the other state agencies who would expect equal treatment in the future. Additionally, Higher Education entities received $57.6 million new dollars over the 93-94 base appropriation.
Veto 8 Part IB, Section 19.84, page 497, Other School Personnel Pay Increases

According to information received by my office, this proviso is inappropriate. The South Carolina Association of School Administrators, the Palmetto State Teachers Association, and the School Boards Association requested this veto. School districts already have the ability to accomplish what this proviso directs. The increase in EFA funds over the prior fiscal year can be used to help fund pay increases for those school personnel who are not receiving EIA salary supplements. EFA appropriations are used every year along with locally generated funds to meet the obligations of the school district. These obligations include the local share of raises for all teachers and the entire salary burden for teacher aides, secretarial, and maintenance staffs. This proviso does not mandate a different use nor in any way change the local authority of a school district.
Veto 9 Part IB, Section 44.1, page 545, Compensation Supplements

Duplication, replaced by Section 8, Part II.
Veto 10 Part IB, Section 44.2, page 545, Revenue Retained and Carry Forward

Duplication, replaced by Section 9, Part II.
Veto 11 Part 1B, Section 67.1, page 558-559, Procurement Review Panel Membership

Replaced by amendment to 11-35-4410(2) in Act 178 of 1993.
Veto 12 Part IB, Section 31.15, page 597, Department of Mental Health, School Based Counseling Services

This proviso is vetoed since it is the companion language to the money line item in Veto 7 as discussed above.
PART II PERMANENT PROVISOS
Veto 13 Part II, Section 2, pages 591-592, Constitutional Officers Compensation

As well-intentioned as it might be to "tie" the salary increase of constitutional officers with that of state employees, this proviso as written by the General Assembly is an unconstitutional enactment. Article VI,

Finally, this proviso also affords the potential for a conflict of interest for the state's executive officer. The executive officer, as well as the eight other constitutional officers, would receive a direct pecuniary benefit from signing into law or by allowing a state employee salary increase of two percent (2%) or more to become law without his signature. This quid pro quo could amount to a technical violation of the ethics laws, which sought to eliminate the practice of public officials monetarily benefiting from their official actions.
Veto 14 Part II, Section 89, page 699, Additional Federal Retirees

I am vetoing this proviso because it is duplicative of H. 4691, R. 599, which I intend to become law this same day. This should not be interpreted as opposition to the federal retirees refund but only administrative cleanup.
Veto 15 Part II, Section 95, page 700, Department of Archives and History

I am vetoing this proviso as it is duplicative of SECTION 4, of H. 4911, R. 620 relating to the issuance of capitol improvement bonds and will be signed into law this same day.
Veto 16 Part II, Section 114, page 711, Citizenship of the State Guard

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
Veto 17 Part II, Section 126, page 723, Motor Vehicle Inspection Fee Increase

I am vetoing this proviso because of the concerns that I have regarding its inclusion in the Appropriations Bill. First, I do not believe that this proviso is germane. It mandates a $2.00 increase per vehicle inspection that does not follow through any state entity or the general fund. The net

Secondly, the matter of increasing the motor vehicle inspection fee was not thoroughly debated by the General Assembly; in fact, the S.C. House of Representatives voted to repeal the motor vehicle inspection laws altogether. I believe that a matter affecting 2.8 million vehicle owners should go through the appropriate legislative review rather than as a last-minute amendment to the Appropriations Bill.

Finally, this proviso, regardless of its name, is a "backdoor tax" on the citizens of this State.

A $2.00 increase in the fee does not solve the problems in this system. If I could, I would do one of two things: (1) abolish the entire inspection program; or (2) overhaul it by determining the real cost of conducting effective inspections and charging the appropriate fee.
Veto 18 Part II, Section 138, page 736, Definition of Life Guard

This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.

For these reasons, I hereby veto these items.

Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Rep. SHEHEEN moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am returning H. 4822, R-611, the 1994 Supplemental Appropriation Act with my vetoes.

Actual revenues have far exceeded budget estimates and have resulted in surplus revenues as of the latest budget report. This fortuitous surplus

In addition, this money will help with critical needs in the Departments of Corrections, Juvenile Justice, and Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. I strongly support crime-fighting expenditures.

While it is a luxury to have supplemental funds, I feel that there have been some inappropriate allocations of this money. There is no compelling reason to spend it on programs of questionable merit and ill-defined purpose. For that reason, I have vetoed $16 million.

This Proviso establishes a dangerous precedent by using state appropriations to fund pay increases for employees paid by "other funds" such as federal monies. It is not equitable to provide Higher Education with a supplement for raises while denying the same to other state agencies who would expect equal treatment in the future. I have noted and strongly support the fact that higher education entities this year received $57.6 million new dollars over the 93-94 base appropriation.
Veto 2. Section 2, item (13), Department of Forestry Fire Control Equipment-$4,600,000

This money was to be used to purchase 46 fire fighting units consisting of a truck, tractor, and plow with a unit cost of $100,000. I have been informed by the Forestry Commission via their Supplemental Budget request that the units will be allocated one per county. The preservation of our forest for recreation, conservation, and logging purposes is a vital interest of the State. My executive budget included a total allocation of $1.25 million for fire control equipment in recognition of the need for new equipment.

I am vetoing this provision because the allocation formula of one unit per county is clearly inefficient. An allocation of the units according to forested acres per county or similar criteria would seem to be a better use of the money. I would support the purchase of fire control units in the future with more efficient allocation guidelines.
Veto 3. Section 3, item (4), Clemson PSA Garrison Livestock Arena-$1,900,000

Although the livestock arena serves a worthwhile and important purpose, I am vetoing this appropriation. This capital expenditure may be more appropriately placed in the next Bond Bill.

I am vetoing this appropriation because I believe there are other areas and programs in greater need of financial support. If this teacher exchange program is important to the betterment of higher education, the money can be obtained from the current budgets of the Budget and Control Board or higher education agencies.
Veto 5. Section 3, item (26), Department of Health and Human Services Other Medicaid Services-$445,000

This money was intended to provide additional reimbursement to the Federally Qualified Health Centers in excess of the Medicare Rural Health Clinic rate cap. In the past, these centers filled a gap in rural health care needs. However, with the advent of this state's movement toward a managed care system for Medicaid, the continued state support of these centers signals a reluctance to change. Furthermore, the Palmetto Health Initiative (our Medicaid managed care waiver) which is pending before the Department of Health and Human Services could be placed in jeopardy by appropriating these funds.

I am vetoing this appropriation in an effort to help continue the states move towards a more cost efficient and medically effective system of health care.
Veto 6. Section 3, item (29), DHEC-Coastal Council Developer's Handbook-$20,000

This expense could be absorbed by DHEC's current budget if the project is deserving. While this is not a great sum of money in light of the total budget, it is a good example of how state agencies must more actively attempt to control the rising cost of government.
Veto 7. Section 3, item (30), DHEC-Coastal Council Coastal Zone Management Plan-$20,000

I am vetoing this message for the same reason stated in Veto 6.
Veto 8. Section 3, item (32), John de la Howe Sewer Repairs-$425,000

This agency's original request was for only $50,000 to pay for an engineering study to upgrade the sewer system at the school. My executive budget allocated the full fifty thousand dollars for the study. Apparently, the additional money was to be used to pay for the upgrade itself; the cost of which has not been determined. I am vetoing this allocation because it is more sensible and cost effective to have the study done before additional money is allocated for the upgrade. This veto may require the school to pay for the study out of other money, but I would support reimbursement to the school for the study in next year's appropriations as well as the actual cost of the upgrade.

This $300,000 allocation is for the purchase of equipment. Item number (18) of Section 2 of this Bill appropriated $1,000,000 to the same program for infrastructure. I did not veto that item.
Veto 10. Section 3, item (41), Adjutant General Armory Maintenance-$200,000

Section 3, item (18) of this Bill appropriated $209,000 to Adjutant General for maintenance which I did not veto. I am vetoing this appropriation because I believe this money should be used in conjunction with the other vetoed money to more directly benefit the taxpayers of this State.
Veto 11. Section 3, item (43b), Department of Education Tugaloo Environmental Education-$150,000

Programs such as this one for at-risk children are worthwhile and I am supportive of their efforts. However, I am vetoing this item because it was added at the last minute of the budget debate. There ought to be some discussion and thought concerning these programs at the committee level, where a more deliberate and thorough approach can be taken.

I am vetoing this allocation because I believe there are other educational areas and programs that could better use such an appropriation.

Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Rep. CARNELL moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4691, R-599, the 1992-93 Surplus General Fund Revenue Appropriations, with my vetoes. While I support many of the provisions and sections of this legislation, I do not support certain other sections that are either nongermane to the purposes of this legislation or otherwise inappropriate. The following sections are vetoed:

SECTION 2. Repeal of Section 12-47-447 of the 1976 Code. After discussing this provision with the Department of Revenue, I believe this provision should not be repealed since it was originally adopted to deal with future litigation in addition to the settlement of the federal retiree lawsuits.

SECTION 7. Retirement Incentive: This provision violates Art. III, Section 34, of the South Carolina Constitution because it is special legislation. I also believe it conflicts with the original intent of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993. Section 17P.6 of the 1993 Act was intended to encourage those individual receiving higher compensation to retire so that others being compensated at a lower rate could replace them, thereby creating considerable long-term savings for the State. This new section will neither create savings nor serve any worthwhile public purpose other than to unduly profit one individual.

SECTION 8. Retirement Incentive: I am vetoing this section which expands the purpose of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993 to those individuals who face certain unexpected "hardships." However, it fails to provide sufficient clarity to ensure a subjective application by individual agency heads is not used. Under current law, employees with health problems may apply for disability benefits, so this provision is unnecessary. To extend the same principle to individuals for other undefined "hardships" is contrary to the original intent of the 1993 provision and may result in unfair application.

For the reasons stated above, I am vetoing Section 2, 7, 8 and 9 of the 1992-93 Surplus General Fund Revenues and returning H. 4691, R-599 without my signature.

Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Rep. ROGERS moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4460, R-589, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PRIOR SERVICE CREDIT FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE CREDIT MAY BE ESTABLISHED FOR MATERNITY LEAVE AS PROVIDED BY LAW IF THE MEMBER APPLIED FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF GOING ON MATERNITY LEAVE AND WAS REHIRED WITHIN TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LEAVE AND TO PROVIDE THAT MATERNITY LEAVE INCLUDES

The form of the legislation is improper because it is not a Supplemental Appropriations Bill. Additionally, Section 2 of this legislation violates Article III, Section 34, of the South Carolina Constitution because it is special legislation. I also believe it conflicts with the original intent of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993. Section 17P.6 of the 1993 Act was intended to encourage those individuals receiving higher compensation to retire so that others being compensated at a lower rate could replace them, thereby creating considerable long-term cost savings for the State. This section was not designed for political appointees who, by electing the incentive, create no reduction in manpower and no cost savings. This new section serves no worthwhile public purpose other than to unduly profit one individual.

It is for these reasons that I return H. 4460, R-589 without my signature.

Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor

Rep. HUFF moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.

| Printed Page 231, Jan. 11 | Printed Page 250, Jan. 12 |