Dear Constituents,

Thank you so much for your interest in the legislative process. I have received numerous Freedom of Information Act Requests for information regarding the recent Debate on H. 3066, legislation that creates the department of administration. Pursuant to Section 30-4-40(8) of the South Carolina Code correspondence from constituents or the work product of Senate staff are not subject to this requirement, however, I have disclosed communications from other government officials that were involved in the debate. Here is a link to view the letters from the Governor’s Office and the Treasurer’s Office.

Also, I have included links the Senate Journals to see how I voted on the numerous roll call votes in the amendment process of H. 3066. If you visit this link, you will find the history and full text of H. 3066, the Department of Administration bill that is the subject of your inquiry. This page also includes links to the Senate Journal for the entire debate in the Senate. You can also visit here for links to the thirty-one roll call votes the Senate has taken on this bill. Further, you can visit here for links to the fifty-seven amendments to this bill that were considered by the Senate. All of these pages will be contemporaneously updated if and when further action is taken on the bill.

If you do not have internet access, or need assistance with the database, please feel free to contact our office. Some elected officials may opt to disclose constituent correspondence, however, it is my judgment to decline. If you contact my office, it is my belief that the conversation should remain confidential unless you chose otherwise. We often get e-mails, phone calls, and personal meetings from constituents regarding legislation, regulatory issues, and requests for assistance with government services. Whether these are sensitive matters or not, I will let you be the judge.

I have always welcomed public debate since taking office in 2005. Since the beginning I have hosted a website (www.kevinbryant.com) allowing for questions and comments for public view. These comments may be signed anonymous or one may include one’s own name. These comments are sometimes complimentary and sometimes critical, however, I allow all comments to remain. Additionally, I’ve hosted a Facebook and Twitter accounts for the same purposes. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely, Kevin L. Bryant

We were told by the SC Department of Employment & Workforce (DEW) that Federal Law prohibited us from requiring drug tests before awarding unemployment benefits. Even though DEW has an agenda that they want to pay people to stay at home to use drugs (with your money of course), a new Federal statute specifically says we can require a drug test. S. 1050 is being blocked by Democrats, so I guess they (remember, its your money) want to pay people to stay high also.

Here’s the Federal Statute:

SEC. 2105. DRUG TESTING OF APPLICANTS.

Section 303 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(l)(1) Nothing in this Act or any other provision of Federal law shall be considered to prevent a State from enacting legislation to provide for–
`(A) testing an applicant for unemployment compensation for the unlawful use of controlled substances as a condition for receiving such compensation, if such applicant–
`(i) was terminated from employment with the applicant’s most recent employer (as defined under the State law) because of the unlawful use of controlled substances; or
`(ii) is an individual for whom suitable work (as defined under the State law) is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing (as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor); or
`(B) denying such compensation to such applicant on the basis of the result of the testing conducted by the State under legislation described in subparagraph (A).

s.1125 received a favorable report in the Senate Labor, Commerce, & Industry Committee this week.

We really should not need 1125, but we do, here’s why: In 2011, it was discovered that the Department of Employment & Workforce (DEW) distributed $50 million in unemployment benefits to employees fired for misconduct. Also, another $86 million were doled out for fraudulent claims. Had this $136 million “mistake” not happened. Our employers would have seen a 20% cut in their unemployment taxes. As we all know, our job creators can’t expand their businesses and increase their workforces if we continue to heap these burdens on them.

We heard from employers that fired employees for obvious reasons. These employees got checks to not work to the tune of $50 million. A bank teller caught stealing was fired. A farm manager was fired for using drugs, firearms, and sleeping on the job. A manufacturer fired an employee with 3 accusations of sexual harassment (one witness was the company nurse). A midlands doctor fired 4 of his staff that were convicted of prescription forgery. All of these claimants were awarded benefits. I have an extensive list from employers across this state of these kinds of ridiculous decisions by hearing officers.

Here’s another shocker. After the discovery of last year’s $136 million unlawful benefits, not a single employee at DEW has been fired for breaking the law. The department seems to think the solution is to better train its hearing officers. As an employer in the real world, I cannot stress enough, that memo’s, warnings, and employee education is totally ineffective if staff members are not held accountable. Ask any employer in the private sector and they will tell you, the only way to deal with misconduct is to terminate the bad apples. If you don’t, the performance of quality employees decreases rapidly.

S.1125 automatically disqualifies fired employers for misconduct. There are exceptions for extreme emergency circumstances.

Remember, if SC awards a single week of payment to not work, the Federal Government kicks in and extends these payments for 57 weeks. As you know, for every $10 Uncle Sugar spends, $4 is borrowed from China with your grandchildren stuck with the tab.

One would think the mission of DEW would be to get folks back to work, keep taxes low for our employers, and offer temporary assistance to workers that have lost their job at no fault of their own. But in the DEW fantasyland, a $136 million dollar problem can be solved with “go get ‘em!” office posters. They are obviously agents of socialism and our state’s employers are suffocating.

As Margaret Thatcher bluntly said “the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people’s money!”

Our employers need relieve if we want to grow out of this sluggish unemployment environment in South Carolina.

SCEIS, South Carolina Enterprise Information System, is a computer information SYSTEM boondoggle costing the SC taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the darlings of the SC Budget and Control Board, it’s JUST recently been a target of criticism by elected officials. However, Sen. Greg Ryberg (R-Aiken) has been railing against it for years.

In October of 2008, the General Assembly had to return to Columbia to deal with budget cuts necessitated by the ’08 recession. Ryberg offered an amendment that would have stripped SCEIS of nearly $25 million and restored a cut ($22 million) to EFA (classroom) and PPP, Child protection, & sex offender monitoring.

Here’s the journal entry from October 2008: Senator RYBERG proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (5300R006.WGR), which was laid on the table: Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page 59, by adding after line 39: / SECTION 80A-F03-BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD

80A.__. (BCB: Carry Forward) From the Budget and Control Board’s carried forward funds, the Board shall transfer: $1,459,403 to the Department of Social Services for Child Protective Services, $696,939 to the Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole for the Sex Offender Monitoring Program, $350,000 to the Department of Juvenile Justice for Sex Offender Monitoring, and $22,000,000 to the State Department of Education for Aid to School Districts – Education Finance Act. /

Unfortunately, the only argument to table was “the House has already left, we can’t amend this bill”, so the tabling motion only got 6 nays.

AYES: Alexander, Anderson, Campbell, Campsen, Ceips, Cleary, Courson, Cromer, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Hawkins, Hayes, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Lourie, Malloy, Martin (L), Matthews, McConnell, McGill, O’Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Pinckney, Rankin, Reese, Ritchie, Scott, Setzler, Sheheen, Thomas, Vaughn, Williams, Total–39

NAYS: Bryant, Gregory, Grooms, Massey, Ryberg, Short, Total—6

​H. 3241 was placed in special order Tuesday. This is the Charter School Bill. I firmly believe that parents are the primary educators of their children, and government should help, not hinder, parents from fulfilling their role. Unfortunately, most parents do not have the ability to make the most important decision regarding their child’s education—the decision of where their child attends school.
​ I am committed to working in the S.C. Senate to give parents more education options, including the ability to decide whether their child attends a public, public charter, private or home school. On Tuesday, February 21, 2012, I voted in favor of setting H.3241 as Special Order on the Senate Calendar.
This legislation removes many barriers currently in place and it makes it easier to create a charter school.