rss
mobile
Feeds
But had Gov. Mark Sanford not waived his right to secrecy we would have known very little about the specific charges against him, and just as importantly, we would have known very little about how the state Ethics Commission did its job.
Lawmakers are making that easier to do. Legislation is moving in the House and Senate that would release information about such investigations when the Ethics Commission has found probable cause. Today, the public must wait until the commission has made a final decision unless the person being investigated waives confidentiality.
The idea is that frivolous charges against public officials should not see the light of day until the commission determines whether the law has been broken. That's a legitimate concern, but it keeps the public out of what is very rightly their business -- whether the people they elect or pay are following the law, and that includes the Ethics Commission.
Waiting until investigators have found enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant continuing the inquiry is a fair approach. (The Senate version of the bill states the information is kept confidential until there is a finding of probable cause or a dismissal.)
And the concept of waiving confidentiality proved far less straightforward than one would have expected. Sanford doubled backed on his waiver when the House took up impeachment. It took the state Supreme Court to get things back on track, and even then there was the possibility the Ethics Commission could have kept secret the preliminary report on Sanford because he asked them to do so.
In the end, Sanford pleaded no contest to the 37 charges against him, and Wednesday, his lawyers delivered a check for $74,000 in fines and $36,498 to cover investigation and other commission costs. He has also agreed to pay state agencies and his campaign a total of $29,736 for travel and personal expenses.
(We're still waiting to hear from Attorney General Henry McMaster on whether Sanford's actions warrant criminal charges. McMaster, who asked for the ethics investigation of Sanford, has had enough time to make up his mind.)
While we applaud the bills to open up the ethics investigation process, there's more work to do. Unfortunately, lawmakers work under a different set of ethics rules, so the changes made through the bills would not apply to them. They should fix that and operate under the same rules as other public officials.
Openness is almost always better, and people deserve to know how their public officials are conducting themselves and how the watchdogs are doing their job.
