‘THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT Dartick Jackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, Petitioner, Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, ‘Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board; Glenn F. McConnell, President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr., Speaker of the South Carolina House of Respondents, Representatives, NOTICE OF COMPLAINT TO RESPONDENTS AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:Petitioner Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, files an action in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, The Complaint may be found at Exhibit 1, attached to the Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR, Respondents have twenty (20) days from the-date of service to file a return with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. July 30, 2010 LoS lbbl. 5 James E. Smith, Jr. James E, Smith, Jr, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 933-9800 Debra S. Tedeschi ‘The Tedeschi Law Firm, P.A. 1422 Laurel Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 540-3090 Attorneys for Petitioner‘THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT Darrick Jackson, Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, Petitioner, 7 Mark Sanford, Governor of the State of South Carolina and as Chairman and Ex-Officio Member of the State Budget and Control Board; Converse Chellis, Treasurer of the State of South Carolina; Richard Eckstrom, Comptroller General of the State of South Carolina; Hugh Leatherman, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the South Carolina Senate; Daniel T. Cooper, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives, as Ex-Officio Members of the State Budget and Control Board; Frank Fusco, Executive Director of the State Budget and Control Board; Glenn F. MeConnell, President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, and Robert W. Harrell, Jr, Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Respondents, PETITION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONPetitioner Darrick Jackson, as Mayor of the Town of Timmonsville, respectfully requests that the South Carolina Supreme Court entertain the instant action in its original jurisdiction. A Complaint for declaratory judgment is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR, Petitioner asserts that an urgent matter affecting the public interest is involved, and therefore, the Count should exercise its original jurisdiction. See also S.C. Const. art. V, § 5;S.C. Code Amn. § 14- 3-310. I. BACKGROUND 1, Veto 52 On June 3, 2010, the General Assembly sent Respondent, Govemor Mark Sanford (“the Governo:”), Bill H. 4657, the Annual Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2010-2011 (“the Bill”). The Governor returned the Bill on June 9, 2010, with 107 separate vetoes. Of significance to the instant action, the Governor issued Veto 52 which targeted funds appropriated to the State Budget and Control Board (“the Board”). See Exhibit 2. Veto 52 reads as follows Veto 52 Part IA, Section 80A;! Pages 258 through 272; Budget and Control Board; (All General Fund line amounts), $25,234,009.00. ‘Our purpose with Veto 52 is to veto all items and sections that appropriate general funds to (the Board). All items and sections that we are vetoing are identified on pages 258 through 272 and total $25,234,009 as identified on page 272 on the line “Total Funds Available” in general funds. ‘We are vetoing $25,234,009, the total amount of state general fund appropriations that [the Board] receives in this budget, because this agenoy has sufficient carry- forward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year. ‘The Board has over $1 billion in camy-forward funds, including approximately $60 million in unrestricted accounts. Additionally, the Board receives a total of $223,648,033 in other funds that it receives from state agencies in the form of rent, fees, and other charges. The Board and the General Assembly could also implement millions in ’ Part JA, Section 80A of the Budget is included at Exhibit 3. 2savings recommended by the GEAR Commission. We believe that using available funds and implementing cost-cutting measures will sustain this agency easily over the next fiscal year (Emphasis added). For fiscal year 2010-201 1, the total appropriation to the Board by the General Assembly is $248,882,042,00. Veto 52 specified that the Governor was vetoing only a monetary portion of that total appropriation —an amount of $25,234,009.00, The explanation provided for in the Governor's Veto 52 message on the one hand indicates that the veto affects “all items and sections” that appropriate monies from the general funds to the Board. On the other hand, itis clear from the veto message that the Governor did not seck to eliminate the Board or its operations. Rather, the veto sought to eliminate solely the $25,234,009.00 in funding that was to come from “general funds.” Although the Legislature overrode approximately half of the Governor's 107 vetoes, Veto 52 was sustained. As azesult, the Board was without general funds money for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010. For reasons diseussed infra, Veto 52 is unconstitutional. 2. The Transfer from the Rural Infrastructure Bank ‘Trust Fund On or about July 1, 2010, the Governor and the Board’s Executive Direotos, Respondent Frank Fusco, approved a transfer of over $13 Million Dollars in order to provide stop-gap funding for the Board. The Board explained the transfer in the following message which was posted to its website? on July 2, 2010: The Governor and the Executive Director have endorsed the transfer of subfiand 3482 Rural Infrastructure Bank in the amount of $ 13,295,390.64. The transfer is pursuant to legislated authorizing provisos 80A.38 and 89.87. A portion of these funds will be used for payroll and essential operating costs for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Balances in this subfund have accumulated since its creation and there have never ? See http://yww.beb se.gov/BCB/BCB-index.phtm. Ona sidebar of the home page of the Boards website is @ link entitled “Joint Flexibility and Reform Project.” This hyperlink downloads a pdf file called “VetoRestoration1-1.” 3been expenditures fiom the subfund. See Exhibit 4 (hereinafter “Veto Restoration Message”), ‘The Rural Infrastructure Bank “subfand” referenced by the Board is derived from the Rural Infrastructure Fund (“RIF”), which itself was statutorily authorized by the Rural Development Act of 1996. The purpose of the RIF is outlined in $.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-85, which provides as follows: (A) Funds received by the [Department of Revenue] forthe State Rural Infrastructure Fund must be deposited in the State Rural Infrastructure Fund of the Council? ‘The fund must be administered by the council for the purpose of providing financial assistance to local governments for infrastructure and other economi Geyelopment activities including, but not limited to: (1) training costs and facilities; (2) improvements to regionally planned public and private water and sewer systems; (3) improvements to both public and private electricity, matural gas, and telecommunications systems including, but not limited to, an electric cooperative, electrical utility, or electric supplier described in Chapter 27 of Title 58; or @ fixed transportation facilities including highway, rail, water, and ait S.C. Code Ann, § 12-10-85 (emphasis added). Significantly, section 12-10-85(B) requires that the Department of Revenue “retain unexpended or uncommitted funds at the close of the state’s fiscal year of the State and expend the funds in subsequent fiscal years for like purposes.” The RIF is funded from job development credits (“IDCs”).* 2 “Council” means the Coordinating Council for Economic Development which is part of the Department of Commerce. See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-10-30. According to the South Carolina Department of Commerce website, this Council was established in 1986 by the General Assembly, and “was formed in response to a general need for improved coordination of economic development efforts by those state agencies involved in the recruitment of new business and the expansion of current enterprises throughout the state.” See _http://secommerce.com/locate-sc/grants- incentives/diseretionary-incentives; see also S.C. Code Ann. § 13-1-1720 (outlining the purpose and duties of the Council and stating that it “shall enhance the economic growth and development of the State through strategic planning and coordinating activities”). * See $.C, Code Ann, § 12-10-80(E) (The Coordinating Council “shall certify to the [Department of 4