Who will see the Sanford report?

Arguments will be heard over how the ethics commission's findings are handled

by Anna B. Mitchell

Published: Oct. 14, 2009, 12:59 p.m.

The South Carolina Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday (Oct. 19) over who gets to look at an investigative report by the State Ethics Commission and when they get to look at it.

The report in question – a look into the traveling practices of Gov. Mark Sanford – is still in the works and likely won’t be finished until November, said Herb Hayden, director of the South Carolina Ethics Commission.

“Ninety percent of the investigation is really public information, public documents,” Hayden said. “It’s flight logs, the manifests, his calendar, financial records, campaign disclosure forms, statements of economic interest.”

The balance of that investigation is interviews with key sources, including questions posed to the Governor’s Office.

The governor’s travel records are being investigation as part of the fallout of his revelation this past summer that he’d been having an affair and had met his girlfriend at least once in Argentina while on a state-paid trade mission. Media reviews of his travel records in-state revealed he often flew himself and family members in state-owned aircraft for personal or political purposes.

Ethics Commission staff had intended to hand over their report to the South Carolina House should its members pursue an impeachment trial against the governor for his actions. State law stipulates such investigative reports can only be provided to prosecutorial bodies, not members of the general public.

“We have always maintained that once the House initiates impeachment proceedings, they become a prosecutorial agency or authority and would be allowed to receive a copy of the investigative report,” Hayden said.

The governor’s attorney, Butch Bowers, told reporters during a September press conference at the State House the legislative body is never a prosecutorial body and therefore has no right to see the investigative report at any time. The House, should it decide to impeach Sanford, would hear arguments about the governor’s alleged misconduct in office, and the Senate as jury would decided on his fate.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell said in a statement last week the governor appears to want to keep the investigation’s findings secret.

“This needs to be an open, thorough and timely process,” Harell said. “But Governor Sanford is doing everything he can to make sure this investigation drags on in secret where nobody can find out what is going on, and that is 180 degrees from what he said a few weeks ago.”

The governor had said he was waiving confidentiality in the Ethics Commission’s investigation of his actions, but that waiver emerged as fairly meaningless. Waiving confidentiality meant the commission could confirm to outsiders an investigation was under way. Attorney General Henry McMaster blew that confidentiality immediately when he announced by press release that he’d requested the investigation.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Ethics Commission to continue its investigation but give its report to no one until it has a chance to consider who can have a copy of the report. The court will likely take several days to consider the case after arguments are heard Monday.

Harrell, meanwhile, has also filed a complaint to the high court saying he believes the Ethics Commission should provide him with a copy of the investigative report as soon as it is finished – not after impeachment proceedings are declared.

“The argument, and I use that term for lack of another, between us and the House is that the House, the speaker, is saying they are always a prosecutorial body because the Constitution gives them the right to impeach,” Hayden said.

Hayden said the House will have access to the information eventually, regardless of the high court’s ruling, because House members have subpoena power during impeachment proceedings.

“The House could issue subpoenas to the Ethics Commission for the report and testimony by commission investigators,” Hayden said.

Should wrongdoing be uncovered, Sanford could face consequences at three levels: he could lose his political position through impeachment; he could face criminal charges by the Attorney General’s Office; and he could face a public reprimand and fines from the State Ethics Commission.

Hayden said his commissioners, three of whom had donated to Sanford’s political campaigns before the governor appointed them to the commission, are approaching the investigation objectively. Commissioners serve one term, can’t be reappointed and can’t be removed by the governor.

“None of these commissioners are personal friends of the governor. Maybe two have ever met the governor,” Hayden said. “To us, it’s a non-issue.”

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites