PrintPrint
The S.C. Ethics Commission can decide what documents to release in its probe into Gov. Mark Sanford’s alleged misuse of state resources, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The court denied the request saying Sanford waived his right to confidentiality in his Aug. 28 letter to the commission.
Staff Report
Published Nov. 6, 2009
The S.C. Ethics Commission can decide what documents to release in its probe into Gov. Mark Sanford’s alleged misuse of state resources, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
“We respect the commission’s authority in the first instance to determine what matters and documentation are subject to the governor’s (confidentiality) waiver,” the court wrote in its findings.
The investigation began after Sanford returned to South Carolina from Argentina where he admitted having an extramarital affair. Questions have since swirled around the governor’s use of state resources and personnel. The Ethics Commission is investigating whether Sanford broke state law by flying business class instead of coach or by his use of state and private planes.
The commission is examining around 600 flights the governor has taken.
Sanford asked the court to intervene and stop the commission from releasing its report that the governor said would not allow him to give “his side of the story.”
The court denied the request saying Sanford waived his right to confidentiality in his Aug. 28 letter to the commission.
“In an effort to once again go the extra mile, I would like to waive my right to confidentiality in your upcoming ethics probe,” the governor’s letter said.
The justices said that the governor knew his rights and the language does not specify a limited waiving of his rights.
“The Governor asserts, however, that his August 28th letter effected a ‘limited’ waiver of confidentiality, and his expectation was that only the existence of an investigation and the contents of the complaint would be made publicly available. We disagree,” the justices wrote in the opinion. “The intent of the Aug. 28 letter — which Governor Sanford himself signed and was written on the Governor’s letterhead — is clear from the letter’s plain language.”
Also, the governor characterized this waiver as a “unilateral step,” they said.
“Governor Sanford’s August 28th letter did not limit the waiver in any way, shape or form. It did not reference the very specifically delineated restrictions,” they said.
Also, the governor specifically stated this is “my decision.” The language the governor used, regarding “fighting for transparency,” disclosure and the reference to travel records, indicates his intent was to “waive confidentiality without limitation,” the court ruled.
However, Justice Costa M. Pleicones, while concurring with the decision, said he did not interpret the governor’s letter as a blanket waiver.
“I conclude that the letter of Aug. 28, 2009, though grandiose and poorly articulated, is clearly the end-product of negotiations between the Governor’s counsel and the executive director of the Ethics Commission,” Pleicones wrote in a separate opinion.
The court, in its ruling, also denied House Speaker Bobby Harrell’s request to require the commission to release the document to House members. Harrell has said the House will use the report in its decision of whether to start impeachment proceedings against the governor.
However, Harrell said he is pleased with the court’s decision.
“From the beginning of this process Governor Sanford promised the public that this would be an open and transparent investigation. We were extremely disappointed when the Governor attempted to reverse his transparency promise to the public by suing to keep this investigation secret. The Supreme Court made the right decision (Thursday) in holding Gov. Sanford to his pledge for openness in this process,” he said in a written statement.
“As we have consistently stated over the past several months, any official action of the House needs to be based on impartial facts, free from political motivations. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, we will give full consideration to the facts presented in the Ethics Commission’s report and use that as a basis for any further official action.”
Print