Latest news with #Climer
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Senator sues over his own raise, arguing it violates SC constitution
Sen. Wes Climer, R-Rock Hill, in Senate chambers on opening day of the 2024 session, Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, at the Statehouse in Columbia. Climer is a plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming a pay raise for legislators is unconstitutional. (Mary Ann Chastain/Special to the SC Daily Gazette) COLUMBIA — A state senator is asking the state's highest court to halt a $2,500-monthly raise that legislators voted for themselves. Sen. Wes Climer, a Rock Hill Republican, filed the request Monday. He and his attorney, former Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Columbia Democrat, contend the $18,000 annual raise approved as part of the state budget violates the state constitution. Climer and fellow plaintiff Carol Herring, who is identified in the lawsuit as a taxpayer, are asking the state's highest court to stop the payments before the July 1 start of the fiscal year. The state Supreme Court agreed Monday with their request to take the case directly, allowing a quick resolution. 'For a General Assembly to vote to give its own members public money is akin to a judge presiding over his own trial, or to a police officer investigating his own alleged conduct,' the legal filing reads. The central question could become whether the state constitution's ban on legislators increasing their own per diems actually applies to the raises. SC legislators pass $14.7B spending plan despite concerns over legislators' pay raise Generally, a per diem is considered a daily allowance. Legislators do receive a specifically designated $230 subsistence payment for each day of session. That's meant to cover the cost of food and lodging while they're in Columbia, though they don't have to spend it on that. Each legislator gets the same amount, no matter where they live. That's in addition to legislators' annual salary of $10,400, which hasn't changed since 1990. The state's chief accountant says the in-district compensation, which is set to increase from $1,000 to $2,500 per month, is not a per diem. Rather, it's considered personal income and taxed accordingly, unlike the designated per diem, said Kim McLeod, spokeswoman for the Comptroller General's Office. In their lawsuit, Climer and Harpootlian argue the combined $22,400 legislators receive currently for their annual salary and in-district compensation counts as a per diem. The money pays legislators for their services on a daily basis while in session, making it a daily funding allotment, the lawsuit argues. The 1868 version of the state constitution was the first to use the term 'per diem' in addressing legislators' pay. According to the lawsuit, the term was meant to differentiate between legislators' salary, then $6 a day, and mileage reimbursements. Similar language carried over to the 1890 constitution that still governs the state. Along with prohibiting legislators from increasing their own per diems, the state constitution also requires they receive an allowance for mileage in order to travel to the Statehouse and that they get the same amount of pay for meeting outside of normal session as they do during it. Columbia attorney and government transparency advocate John Crangle had initially offered to join the lawsuit but changed his mind after learning the comptroller general didn't consider the money to be a per diem, he said. Crangle still disagreed with the raise conceptually, he said. But in his understanding, considering the raise to be personal income would mean the state constitution doesn't cover it, he said. 'I don't think you can use that as the basis,' he said of the argument that the money counts as a per diem. The in-district compensation is meant to pay for legislative expenses outside the Statehouse, though they can spend it however they want. The money comes in a lump sum, not a reimbursement, so legislators don't have to report how they spend it. If the raise were a reimbursement, that might change things, the lawsuit argued. As is, the money is clearly meant to compensate legislators for their day-to-day work at the Statehouse, the lawsuit argues. 'Most importantly, there are no restrictions on how members may use this money — they may use it entirely for any personal purposes,' the lawsuit reads. 'Periodic payments of money, reported and taxed as personal income, with no restrictions on use for personal purposes, to which the recipient is entitled because of services provided to the entity paying the money, are compensation.' Climer and Herring also criticized legislators for putting a pay raise in place without going through the public hearing process typical of a piece of legislation. 'For shame,' the lawsuit reads. 'The people of South Carolina cannot look over the shoulder of every member of the General Assembly every minute of every day.' Legislators don't have to take the raise. Some, including GOP Reps. Kathy Landing of Mount Pleasant and Sarita Edgerton of Spartanburg, have publicly said they plan to refuse the raise. Others, such as GOP Reps. Brandon Guffey of Rock Hill and James Teeple of Johns Island, said they planned to donate the money to charities. Asking the state Supreme Court to let the lawsuit skip the lower courts, Climer and Harpootlian noted the normal appeals process could take years — longer than the budget is in effect. And the case would eventually reach the justices anyway. Technically, the raise is only for the 2025-26 budget, which is a one-year law. But it would stay in effect indefinitely. That's because spending directives in the budget, called provisos, generally roll over from one budget year to the next, unless legislators take action to remove them. The justices need to rule before the raises take effect, the lawsuit reads, because it could be impossible to force legislators to pay the money back if the payments are later found unconstitutional. 'It is unclear whether those payments could be clawed back months or years after legislators spent the money on their personal affairs,' it reads. This is a developing story. Check back for details.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
South Carolinians are renting out their cars to boost their income
Peer-to-peer car sharing has been around for more than a decade but has recently garnered legislative attention in South Carolina. (Photo provided by Turo) When Marion Platt's youngest son left home to attend music school in Manhattan, the Charleston native was left with a Kia Soul taking up space in the family's driveway. So he decided to put it to use. Now, the boxy, kale green car is one of more than 200 vehicles in South Carolina — ranging from luxury sports cars to residents' daily drivers — available for rent on the car sharing mobile application Turo. 'Right when I put it on the platform I started getting requests,' Platt said. And the income Platt makes from renting the car helps pay for his son's college education. In the same vein as renting out your house or a spare bedroom on Airbnb for a few days, users can rent someone's private vehicle or rent out their own to others to earn some extra cash. The practice known as peer-to-peer car sharing has been around for more than a decade but is garnering more attention from South Carolina's state leaders. Sen. Wes Climer introduced legislation, both in 2023 and in the current legislative session, that sets insurance requirements and other safety measures. The Rock Hill Republican said the impetus behind the bill is actually to grow — not control — the industry, so South Carolinians such as Platt can earn income from it. 'This industry is relatively new, and it is currently operating in South Carolina, and it is currently operating in sort of a wild west type environment where a lot of questions around liability, questions around regulation, remain unanswered … We have offered this bill to give them sort of guard rails,' Climer said when explaining the bill on the Senate floor last week. 'Uncertainty has been an inhibitor in this case,' Climer later told the SC Daily Gazette. Turo has about 350,000 active vehicle listings worldwide and 3.5 million active users, according to a federal securities filing. On the other hand, a competing car sharing company called Getaround, announced last month it was shutting down operations in the U.S. while staying operational in Europe. Climer expects a vote on the bill this week. If it ultimately passes in the Senate, it still must go through vetting in the House. Meanwhile, the industry is in favor of the measure as it currently stands. Turo, the world's largest car sharing platform, actually provided input to the National Council of Insurance Legislators, said Turo spokeswoman Catherine Mejia. The organization drafted the legislation Climer used to model his bill. Mejia said 28 other states have enacted similar statutes. 'We don't believe it's negative in any way,' she said. That's because Turo has worked for years putting protections in place for both car owners and car renters, Mejia said. The company wants to ensure any new companies that may develop abide by the same rules, she said. Namely, the company carries liability insurance for all cars rented through its application, Mejia said. Turo also tracks safety recalls on vehicles and makes sure those with an outstanding issue can't be rented. And the company reportedly keeps drivers' and owners' information on file, providing that information to law enforcement and insurance companies in the case of an accident so claims are processed quickly. All of this would be required under Climer's proposed legislation. Mejia said Turo then takes things a step further. The company works with airports to make sure users don't disrupt operations. It has permits for airports in Charleston, Columbia and Greenville. It also runs background checks on each person who rents from them. But safety concerns have been an issue. Turo made national headlines in January after the drivers of the Ford truck that plowed through a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans and the Tesla Cybertruck that exploded at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas both used the platform to rent the vehicles. The company, in a statement following the tragedies, offered condolences to the victims' families. Turo officials said they screened both drivers but neither had a criminal background that flagged them as potentially dangerous. Sen. Darrell Jackson said he supports the care share concept. He sees it as a popular option for college students without a vehicle or a temporary solution for people in rural areas where there's no public transportation or ride-sharing options. And for vehicle owners, 'this allows everyday citizens to actually use a vehicle to make a little extra money on the side.' 'This is something so different and could be a gamechanger in that industry,' the Hopkins Democrat said. Jackson was at first concerned the legislation may have been a move by the insurance and rental car industry trying to 'get out in front of it' before it really gets popular. 'A lot of people aren't aware of it, but they're going to be,' he said. While on a business trip in Phoenix, Mike McCurdy chose to rent a Jeep Wrangler through Turo so he could take the top off and enjoy the beautiful weather while driving between meetings. He liked that he was able to research it, read reviews from other users, and he was guaranteed to get that exact vehicle rather than being assigned a vehicle at random from a traditional rental car company fleet. McCurdy began using the app every time he traveled. He said it also worked well when he was researching vehicles that he wanted to purchase. Rather than going straight to the dealership for a test drive, he'd rent a similar make and model from someone on Turo. It gave him a few days to test out how the vehicle would handle without the pressure of a salesman riding along in the passenger seat. Working in digital marketing, McCurdy said he's long been open to different technologies and ideas, 'not stuck in the mindset of it's always been done this way. You can innovate.' Eventually, the McCurdy's got into the business for themselves. The couple lives in the Nexton mega neighborhood near the Charleston suburb of Summerville. In that community, everything they need — stores, restaurants, schools — are within walking distance. And because they both work from home, they don't always need a car. They started with one vehicle on Turo. Now they have four, renting them out largely to families coming to Charleston on vacation. In addition to the vehicles, the McCurdy's offer restaurant and sightseeing recommendations to their customers. And they throw in extras, such as beach chairs, umbrellas, coolers, child safety seats and strollers. With Turo they've gone from the expense of a monthly car payment to having an added source of income. Platt, too, mostly rents his vehicle to people visiting the Holy City, though he has local customers, too. Sometimes he rents to students at the College of Charleston who need a car to get home to Columbia or Greenville for the weekend. Other times it might be an elderly resident living in an apartment near downtown who only needs a vehicle on occasion to run errands. Having worked as a pastor for decades, Platt views it as part of 'God's call to show hospitality' as well as a business venture. When he had a customer fly into Charleston and rent the car so they could drive to Orangeburg for a family member's funeral he prayed with them, trying to offer comfort. Platt said car sharing has largely been a positive experience. Though there have been times when a renter has returned the car in less than stellar condition. 'Like when someone spills Chick-fil-A sauce on the seat, that's just part of it,' he said. 'I don't find it terribly bothersome. I just consider it part of my ministry.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SC legislature rejects candidate for York County judge after Republicans opposed her
Rock Hill lawyer Melissa Inzerillo lost her bid for Circuit Court judge for the 16th Circuit that includes York County in a vote Wednesday by the both houses of the S.C. General Assembly. She was the only judicial candidate for the seat and would have become York County's first female Circuit Court judge, but Republicans in the legislature led an effort to reject her despite her being found qualified by a state review panel. The vote at the S.C. Statehouse in Columbia was not close. The combined vote by the state Senate and House of Representatives was 93 against Inzerillo, and 54 for her. The results came after a push by York County Republican legislators — including Rock Hill Sen. Wes Climer — to ask their colleagues to vote against Inzerillo. Climer previously said Inzerillo's record showed 'insufficient concern for the victims of crime.' Republicans have a large majority in both the SC Senate and House. Climer told The Herald in late January he was asking others senators from around the state to vote against her. He said after the vote Wednesday he looks forward to the next election for the seat after Inzerillo was defeated. 'The people of York County got a big win today,' Climer said. 'We now have an opportunity to elect a conservative jurist to the bench.' Inzerillo, 48, has worked as a public defender the past 20 years. The 16th Judicial Circuit is made up of York and Union counties. Reached by phone after the election Wednesday, Inzerillo declined comment on the election. Voters don't elect judges in South Carolina. The legislature chooses them after a review process by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which is made up of six legislators and four other appointees. South Carolina is one of only two states where judges are elected by the legislature — Virginia is the other. Inzerillo, who has never before sought any office, was found qualified by the the legislature's Judicial Merit Screening Commission, according to documents the commission released earlier this month. Those qualifications include judicial temperament, experience, and other categories. Some Republicans representing York County, such as Rep. Brandon Guffey, told The Herald before the election they were opposed to Inzerillo because they wanted a larger pool of candidates to choose from. Climer told The Herald in late January he was asking others senators from around the state to vote against her. York County has four state Senators — all Republicans. Three of York County's senators — Climer, Michael Johnson and Everett Stubbs— voted against Inzerillo. York County has eight House members — all are Republicans except John King, the sole Democrat. Republicans Tommy Pope, Brandon Guffey, Heath Sessions, Randy Ligon and Jackie Terribile voted against Inzerillo. King, along with House Republicans David Martin and Dennis Moss, voted for Inzerillo. Pope, formerly York County's top prosecutor, has said for weeks he did not believe Inzerillo could pull enough to votes to win. New rules that take effect next year allow for as many as six candidates. 'I regret it had to come to a vote,' Pope told The Herald. 'Ms. Inzerillo did nothing wrong, but we need a choice in the 16th Circuit. I look forward to the next election with a full slate of candidates.' King told The Herald after the vote he was 'appalled' that the legislature rejected a woman candidate who was qualified by every measure the legislature has for a judgeship. King, the only African-American in the York County delegation, had pushed fellow legislators for weeks to elect the first woman based on her qualifications and the courts' need for diversity on the bench. 'What happened today is a shame,' King said. 'It is an assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion.' King and 16th Circuit Chief Public Defender B.J. Barrowclough — Inzerillo's supervisor — said legislators voted against her because they didn't like the process where she was the only candidate. Barrowclough, a former judge candidate himself who attended the vote, said it was 'extremely disappointing' more legislators did not support the sole candidate who met all qualifications for judge. 'She is unquestionably one of the smartest, most hard working members of the York County Bar,' Barrowclough said. 'Today was a shameful day.' He said the political allegation that Inzerillo — whose job as a public defender is required by the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions — is a 'liberal Democrat' who would be 'soft on crime' has no merit. Yet that political refrain 'developed a life of its own' and helped tank Inzerillo's candidacy, Barrowclough said. With the vote against Inzerillo, the seat remains vacant until another election can be held. It is unclear when that will be, but the process will start over with screening of candidates. Inzerillo can run again if she chooses under judicial rules, but she declined to comment after the election on her future plans. The 16th Circuit has two resident judge seats. The seat for which lawmakers rejected Inzerillo will become vacant on Feb. 14 with the retirement of current 16th Circuit Judge Dan Hall. Judge Bill McKinnon of Rock Hill, the other 16th Circuit resident judge, is not up for election this year.
