Latest news with #WesClimer
Associated Press
4 hours ago
- Business
- Associated Press
South Carolina senator sues his own legislature over $18,000-a-year pay raise
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A state senator is suing his fellow lawmakers in the South Carolina General Assembly saying they are illegally giving themselves what is effectively an $18,000-a-year raise for all members. The increase in the 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent — is set to go from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members starting July 1. But Republican Sen. Wes Climer's lawsuit said the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their term. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection. His lawsuit compared it to asking a judge to preside over his own trial or a police officer to investigate himself. The legal question will likely hinge on whether the extra money is considered part of a per diem for lawmakers and meant to pay their daily expenses or if it is personal income that is taxable. Lawyers for the House and Senate have not answered the lawsuit. The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. Climer said Monday he and other opponents of the increase think it should have passed as a stand-alone bill with hearings and a full debate. 'Regardless of how you feel about a legislative pay raise, this is the wrong way to do it. It violates the Madisonian principles that the legislature cannot take the people's money and appropriate it to themselves in real time,' Climer said. Hours after receiving word of the lawsuit, the state Supreme Court ordered both sides to submit briefs before the end of the month in what appears to be an effort to make some kind of decision before the raises start when the fiscal year begins July 1. Otherwise 'we'd have to try to claw back money from legislators. And we don't want that,' said former Democratic state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, an attorney who filed the lawsuit on Climer's behalf. Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 a year that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May. The House sent an email to its 124 members giving them a chance to refuse the extra in-district compensation, and 34 declined the money, House Clerk Charles Reid said in an email. Senators could ask their clerk directly not to pay them, and Climer and two other Republicans have refused the raise, Senate Clerk Jeffrey Gossett said. Joining Climer in the lawsuit is retired educator and Republican activist Carol Herring. She said the raise going into effect immediately is counterproductive to being a good servant. 'I am concerned we are sending people to Columbia to serve in the General Assembly, and somehow it is seen more as a job than part-time service to our state,' Herring said.
Yahoo
9 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
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
SC legislators pass $14.7B spending plan despite concerns over legislators' pay raise
Rep. Brandon Guffey, R-Rock Hill, and Sen. Wes Climer, R-Rock Hill, speak on the South Carolina House floor during a joint session of the General Assembly Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025. Guffey and Climer both opposed an increase in legislator pay included in the state budget. (Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette) COLUMBIA — South Carolina legislators sent their final budget plan to Gov. Henry McMaster on Wednesday despite complaints from some legislators about their $18,000 raises. This year's $14.7 billion spending plan, which the Senate approved 37-5 and the House 88-25, includes a clause that would raise the amount legislators receive for in-district expenses from $1,000 to $2,500 per month. In a budget with no earmarks, pay raises for teachers and employees, and more than $500 million for higher education projects, the pay raise became the biggest point of contention when legislators returned Wednesday — three weeks after the session officially ended — specifically to pass the budget deal that negotiators agreed to last week. McMaster will have until midnight Tuesday to decide how — or whether — he'll use his line-item veto powers. But he told reporters he won't strike the legislative pay raise from the budget. Between inflation and a growing population in the state, it's likely legislators are incurring greater costs to be accessible to the people they serve and stay informed on issues impacting their districts, he said. 'I think it's justified,' said the Republican governor. SC legislators advance $14.7B spending plan that includes pay raise for themselves The money is meant to go toward expenses that come from legislating. However, since the payment comes with no actual rules, legislators will effectively receive an additional $18,000 per year to spend however they wish. That's an additional $3 million total for the 170-member Legislature. House Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister had some advice for colleagues squeamish about voting 'yes' to a budget that provided themselves a raise: Spend the money for its intended purpose. 'If you don't spend the money on your constituents, that is on you,' the Greenville Republican said. It's the first raise for in-district compensation since 1995. The new in-district sum of $30,000 annually comes on top of an annual salary of $10,400 — unchanged since 1990 — plus a daily stipend of $240 meant to cover the cost of food and lodging while the Legislature's in session (which is a set amount no matter how far they have to travel to the Statehouse). They also get mileage reimbursement for a weekly roundtrip to Columbia. House Speaker Murrell Smith gave legislators the option to turn down the extra money, an offer some legislators said they would take. They included Rep. Kathy Landing, R-Mount Pleasant, who said the process was of more concern than the raise itself. 'I believe that there's a very good chance that this body deserves a raise at some point, because 30 years is a heck of a long time to stay at the same money,' Landing said. 'Thirty years ago, the dollar stretched a lot, lot further.' But any potential raise should've gone through the full committee process, including public hearings and votes in both chambers, she said. 'When you go to give yourself a pay raise, it shouldn't be a last-minute situation, and it shouldn't be one that didn't have any kind of public hearing or any kind of input from the public,' Landing said. She noted the chamber has previously rejected proposals that give themselves a raise. Senators added it during their floor debate, and the three budget negotiators from each chamber agreed unanimously last week to include it in the final plan. Some legislators said they would donate their raise to charities. Rep. Brandon Guffey said he would use the money to support Hungry Heroes, which feeds first responders and military personnel; Palmetto Women's Center, a pregnancy resource center; and the National Center on Sexual Online Exploitation, a cause particularly close to Guffey's heart since his son died by suicide following a sexual extortion scheme. The Rock Hill Republican's plan is to consider what charities in his area are hurting the most financially each month and fund them likewise, he said. The money 'gives me the ability to make those decisions,' Guffey told the Daily Gazette, adding that he took a significant cut in pay so he could spend part of the year at the Statehouse. $500M for colleges, a bigger share for traditional public schools: How SC budget funds education Despite Guffey's reluctance to accept the pay increase, he voted in favor of the full spending plan, joining several others who expressed concern over the raise but supported the spending as a whole. After all, the $3 million it will cost to increase legislators' pay is a small portion of a $14.7 billion spending plan with which legislators were otherwise pleased, Guffey said. This year's budget included a $1,500 increase in the minimum salary for teachers, pay bumps of at least 2% for state employees, a guarantee that college tuition remains frozen for in-state students a sixth year and $200 million for the Department of Transportation to repair aging bridges. 'Would we walk away without all the good that's in the budget?' Guffey said. For others, the pay increase was too glaring of a problem to approve the overall package. Freshman Rep. James Teeple, R-Johns Island, said he already donates his salary to two charities: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital — which he credits with saving his daughter's life — and Camp Firefly, a weeklong retreat outside Atlanta for terminally and seriously ill children. Teeple, who voted against the budget, said he intends to split his $18,000 raise between those two charities. The raise was 'a horrible wart on an otherwise great piece of fiscal policy,' said Sen. Wes Climer, a Rock Hill Republican who voted against the budget. Climer called the implementation of a raise in a year other than an election year unconstitutional and threatened to sue the state if it remains in the final version of the budget. Dick Harpootlian, a former senator and Columbia attorney, has offered to represent Climer in that case for no charge, he confirmed. Senior reporter Jessica Holdman contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘A core priority': York County Republicans push for closed primaries in the state while others hope to abolish them altogether
YORK COUNTY, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Hundreds of York County Republican voters filed through a Courtyard Rock Hill conference room to re-register their names in the party roll. While it may seem like a routine procedure, they're gearing up to support the push for closed primaries in South Carolina. York County Senator Wes Climer recently introduced legislation for it in the Senate. 'A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with the chairman of the York Republican party, the chairman of South Carolina Republican party. And they both identified this as a core priority for a lot of their members. And government ought to be responsive to the wishes of the people,' said Republican Senator Wes Climer. Lancaster County Representative Brandon Newton introduced similar legislation in the house. Open primaries are open to all voters, regardless of their political party affiliation. Voters in states with closed primaries must register with a political party before voting in the party's primary. Independent and unaffiliated voters are not able to vote in closed primaries. 'I feel that people should vote for the people who are going to do the right thing and actually do what they're supposed to,' said Republican voter Melissa Stewart. PREVIOUS | A small GOP group around Greenville called 'America First Movement' was pushing the idea from county to county to abolish Republican primaries altogether, allowing the group to have the final say in candidates for local and state offices. Something York County representative Brandon Guffey was not in support of. 'It's trying to say that 'oh, we don't have conservative enough legislators in office.' Essentially what they're saying is the local party is saying if y'all don't do what we tell you to do, then we're going to get you out of office,' Guffey said. Local GOP chair Larry Barnett says that's not the case in York County. He wants candidates and voters to match their party affiliation. Barnett says they've been trying to do this for 20 years, but even with an overwhelming majority in support, it fails to pass. 'We proposed as an option to primaries. Perhaps we should consider going to a convention or a caucus-type system that our constitution allows us to do that if we so choose. It does not cut out people. It's just a different way of us selecting our republican candidates,' Barnett said. It's possible to switch the process in the state. South Carolina law says 3/4 of the delegates at a party convention would need to agree to transition from open to closed primaries. 'We don't need to be so insular that we only have one set of ideas, or we have a commonality, but you don't want to exclude people. And so I think ultimately legislatively we will work to close the primary, but I think we need to continue to have primaries,' Pope said. The county Republican convention will be on April 12. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
