DOGE in SC: More bureaucratic bloat will not fix government waste

The federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is new and trendy, but the desire for efficient and effective limited governance is rooted in America’s founding principles that the South Carolina Policy Council works to uphold.  

State lawmakers have proposed their own version to address waste at the state level, but South Carolina already has one of the most “extensive” auditing systems in the country. This naturally raises the concern: does South Carolina need more bureaucratic bloat, or should we reform what’s already in place? 

Auditing overlap 

South Carolina currently has three agencies and a legislative committee all tasked with auditing and investigating the finances of state entities. 

The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) is an executive agency established during the Great Depression and currently led by Interim State Auditor Sue Moss. The office’s main responsibility is to conduct financial audits of state agencies annually and report their findings to the governor, lawmakers, and the public. Legislation grants the OSA access to all necessary records for conducting audits, but it does not give the OSA a mechanism to ensure complete and accurate information, such as subpoena powers. 

The Legislative Audit Council (LAC), a legislative branch agency created in 1975, performs comprehensive audits of state agencies when requested by members of the S.C. General Assembly and reports their recommendations and findings to them. Like the OSA, the LAC has access to “necessary” records, but no subpoena powers. 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is a separate executive agency established in 2012 and led by Inspector General Brian Lamkin. The OIG is charged with investigating state agencies accused of “fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, misconduct, violations of state or federal law, and wrongdoing.” Unlike the OSA and LAC, the OIG has the power to subpoena agencies and their employees, increasing their auditing efficiency. 

Lastly, the House Government Efficiency & Legislative Oversight Committee. Created in 2014, the committee is tasked with reviewing state agencies once every seven years to “ensure state laws and programs are being carried out in accordance with the intent of the General Assembly.”  

The complexities and overlaps can be difficult to follow, so here’s a chart to simplify things: 

Conflicting leadership 

The redundancies extend beyond agencies’ purposes and into agency leadership. The OSA is overseen by the State Fiscal Accountability Authority (SFAA), whose governing board appoints a state auditor. This is a stark contrast to the typical process for executive offices where the governor nominates a candidate and the Senate votes to confirm them. SFAA’s board is comprised of five members, all serving by virtue of their office: the governor, the state treasurer, the comptroller general, and the chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees. 

The LAC’s nine-member board also includes the chairmen of Senate Finance and House Ways and Means. Although the chairmen are non-voting members of the board, this overlap presents a potential conflict of interest, giving the same leaders significant influence in both audit agencies. 

Negative results 

Despite the endless stream of audits coming from the existing agencies, lawmakers continue to ignore their recommendations. For example, in 2016, the LAC conducted a performance audit of the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), reviewing financial management and procurement practices. This was in conjunction with a similar 2006 LAC audit, a handful of targeted audits from the OIG and broad annual audits by the OSA. 

Despite repeated audits, a report from The Nerve found SCDOT continued to fall behind on project deadlines and misallocate funds, all while holding onto a $1.41 billion surplus. Additionally, when SCPC contacted the LAC, informed us very few of the recommendations they provided to the general assembly in their 2016 report were put into legislation. 

An effective solution 

On May 8, the Senate passed a bill creating the “Delivery of Government Efficiency Commission,” a DOGE-type initiative in the state government pending passage in the House and the governor’s signature.  

On the other hand, the House passed H. 4337 on May 1, a bill that would grant subpoena power to the LAC if passed by the Senate. While this equips the LAC with the necessary tools to compel agencies into providing complete records quickly, efficient audits are pointless without lawmakers acting on agency recommendations.  

The House Government Efficiency & Legislative Oversight Committee should draft legislation based on the findings of the LAC, rather than attempting to audit the agencies every seven years. These agencies operate year-round with the sole purpose of conducting extensive audits, but these audits are useless without legislative reforms.  

In the same vein, the OSA and LAC serve similar purposes with significant overlaps in leadership. To enhance both audit efficiency and independence, the OSA should be decoupled from the SFAA and rehoused as a division under the authority of the inspector general. The inspector general, unlike the state auditor, is chosen by the governor with Senate confirmation, so the position is answerable to the governor. By amending state law to allow the inspector general to appoint a state auditor instead of the SFAA, the SFAA can prioritize other responsibilities, like providing insurance products and procurement services for state agencies. 

The last thing South Carolina needs is more bureaucratic bloat. Creating yet another commission to address government waste will only serve to exacerbate the issue instead of solving it. Lawmakers already have the tools to implement solid reforms, but it’s up to them whether they choose to pass legislation. 

This report may be republished in whole or in part, provided that proper credit is given to the author(s) and the South Carolina Policy Council.