S0318 creates a temporary “Delivery of Government Efficiency Commission” to review South Carolina state government for ways to reduce spending, streamline operations, and cut regulatory burdens. The commission is tasked first with examining appropriations in the state budget and identifying specific spending reductions, then with reviewing regulations and state entities to find redundant, conflicting, or burdensome rules and programs that could be repealed, consolidated, or restructured. It is also directed to consider impacts on businesses, property rights, quality of life, and economic development.
The commission would have nine voting members: three appointed by the Senate President, three by the House Speaker, and three by the Governor. Members may not be legislators or have conflicts of interest, and the chair would be the Director of the Department of Administration or a designee. The commission would serve without pay, could use legislative and executive branch staff, and could hire outside experts, but would not have subpoena power or access to personal, financial, or medical information. It must report recommended budget cuts by October 1, 2025, and its remaining findings by October 1, 2026, after which the joint resolution sunsets on October 2, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would create a new temporary advisory commission and direct it to produce recommendations that could influence future appropriations, regulatory repeals, agency consolidations, and other government restructuring efforts. It does not itself cut spending or change statutes directly, but it establishes a formal process for reviewing state law, the Code of Regulations, and the structure of state agencies and boards, with reports to legislative leaders and the Governor. The measure also specifies that commission membership is not considered holding an office for dual-office-holding purposes and requires publication of the commission’s reports on state websites.
The Senate votes suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s core purpose of government efficiency and fiscal restraint, with the bill advancing comfortably on second and third reading. At the same time, the recorded votes on proposed amendments show meaningful disagreement over how the commission should be structured or what changes it should include, indicating some internal concern about the details even among supporters. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record reflects support for the concept but not a detailed public debate.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope and structure of the commission rather than its overall mission. The bill’s restrictions on membership, conflict-of-interest rules, lack of subpoena power, and limits on access to personal, financial, or medical information may have been debated as safeguards or as constraints on effectiveness. The failed amendment votes also suggest disagreement over specific changes to the proposal, though the available record does not identify the substance of those amendments. In general, supporters likely favor spending cuts and regulatory relief, while skeptics may be concerned about the commission’s authority, composition, or potential effects on public services.