Appointed supervisor vs. elected supervisor?

Among the expected choices between Republican and Democrat on the ballot this November, Berkeley County voters will be provided with an inquiry of a less common nature: do they prefer a council-supervisor or council-administrator form of government?

The question sounds daunting, but essentially boils down to the leadership of the county. Council-supervisor is the present system utilized. A supervisor is elected by the residents of the county, like most other government officials. Bill Peagler currently holds the post. He presides over the county council and acts as chief administrative officer of the county, casting the tie-breaking ballot, if needed, when council votes.

The proposed council-administrator system is similar to the current form of government, but it replaces a citizen-elected supervisor with a county council-appointed administrator. The administrator performs very similar duties as a supervisor, but cannot vote in council.

Comparing South Carolina Code of Laws 4-9-420, which outlines the supervisor position, and S.C. Code of Laws 4-9-630, which describes an administrator’s responsibilities, reveals that administrators have less power over council, but have comparable duties to fulfill. County council members are still required to be elected by Berkeley County residents.

Councilman Josh Whitley of Daniel Island prompted the vote to add the form of government change to the ballot.

“It was based on my belief that a professional administrator for the fastest growing county in the state, one of the fastest growing in the country, with all the infrastructure issues we have, with running a public utility, with all the industries, and all the issues, we needed a professional, both from experience and education,” said Whitley.

In January of 2017, during Berkeley County Council’s second reading of the proposal, Councilman Dennis Fish expressed his thoughts on keeping the elected-supervisor system.

“If you don’t like what the supervisor does, then you as citizens have the right to remove him,” stated Fish, prior to voting against adding the question to the ballot.

If the constituents of Berkeley County vote in favor of an administrator, Supervisor-elect Johnny Cribb will finish his term through 2022, then the position will be relinquished to the administrator chosen by the council.

Currently the town administrator for the City of Hanahan, Cribb believes that the council-administrator form of government is something voters should consider for the county.

“All forms of government can work well and they can all have challenges,” said Cribb, who will assume his new post as Berkeley County supervisor on Jan. 1, 2019. “I think our current form of government lends itself to more issues than less.”

The supervisor-elect’s concerns lie in the amount of power the supervisor has over the council and the county, while administrators are at the mercy of the county-elected council.

Cribb added that he will “conduct himself like an administrator” in the supervisor position.

Berkeley County is one of four counties in South Carolina that employs the county-supervisor system, according to the South Carolina Association of Counties. Thirty-four of the 46 counties in the state use the county-administrator form of government.

Switching to a council-administrator system means the loss of a tie-breaking vote on county council. There are eight council members, and administrators are not allowed by state law to vote as a member of council, as the current supervisor does. But, to remedy this dilemma, the ballot also allows voters to opt for a ninth member of council, if the council-administrator vote is successful.

Berkeley County Public Information Officer Hannah Moldenhauer said that the ninth member will not speak for a specific segment of the county.

“It would be an ‘at-large’ member who would represent the entire county,” she said.

The option for voters to live under a council-administrator form of government has been talked about several times before and was even offered on the 2008 ballot (citizens voted against the change then). The question was brought to the council’s attention again in 2017. Soon after, council members approved the possibility, leaving the decision up to voters.