Posted on Thu, Jan. 18, 2007

email this

print this

reprint or license this

What Sanford support of Mabry buyout tells us about reform

By CINDI ROSS SCOPPE

Associate Editor

MARK SANFORD is not a man of surprises, but when he voted along with the rest of the Budget and Control Board to give what amounted to a $40,000 state-funded retirement incentive to help push out embattled Transportation Director Betty Mabry, he surprised a lot of people.

The fact that the taxpayers have to pay a single penny to relieve themselves of Ms. Mabry’s presence is an awfully good example of why governors need the power to hire and fire agency directors. But Mr. Sanford’s explanation for his vote, which will strike many as even more surprising than his action, further underscores the value of giving our governors more of the executive control that their counterparts take for granted in the rest of the country.

Offensive as the buyout was, the structure and politics of the Transportation Department made it economically sensible: Without the state buying credit for her to draw full retirement benefits, Ms. Mabry wasn’t about to retire, and with the majority on the governing board in no mood to fire her (reason enough in itself to scrap that system), taxpayers would shell out as much to keep her on the payroll in two months as Mr. Sanford and his colleagues agreed to pony up to make her disappear. Beyond that, the buyout included an agreement that she wouldn’t file a lawsuit that the state would have to waste money defending.

But all that was secondary, Mr. Sanford told me, and might not have been enough to overcome the stark political reality that Ms. Mabry’s continued presence was probably good for Mr. Sanford and his push to overhaul the agency. No, he explained, the reason he held his nose and agreed to the buyout was that Tee Hooper asked him to, and he trusted Mr. Hooper’s judgment.

Mr. Hooper is the chairman of the Transportation board, the governor’s sole appointee. Unlike too many members of part-time boards and commissions, Mr. Sanford noted, the Greenville businessman did not “go native” when he agreed to take what has traditionally been one of the most coveted part-time posts in government. To the contrary, it was Mr. Hooper who raised the stink about obscenely generous contracts, high-level favoritism and efforts to deceive the Legislature, prompting the audit that proved to be Ms. Mabry’s undoing. As a result, Mr. Hooper has spent as much time as the governor feeling very much alone, and wondering whether his efforts were worth all the criticism.

So when Mr. Hooper told Mr. Sanford that he really believed the best way forward for the Transportation Department was to approve this perverse reward for someone who had tried at every turn to block reform or even improvement, the governor sucked it up and voted “yes.”

This is not the first time Mr. Sanford has been persuaded by his appointees to take positions he wouldn’t normally take. He has consistently pushed to restore funding to the Department of Social Services, whose mission can hardly be considered a Republican — much less a libertarian — priority: He trusted Kim Aydlette, and if she said the agency was grossly underfunded, he believed her. Likewise, he has become a vocal advocate of First Steps, an anti-libertarian program if there ever was one in state government, since shortly after his choice for director, Susan DeVenny, took over.

The thread in all these cases is knowledge and trust. Put a smart, honest person in charge of a state agency, and that person will soon come to understand and enunciate the strengths and weaknesses, the value and the shortcomings of that agency — even if that means abandoning preconceived notions.

If the governor in turn trusts that person, he is more likely to abandon his preconceived, ideological or ill-informed notions about the agency and start making decisions based on reality. The result will be a better-informed governor who is using what power he has to advocate better policy.

It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Sanford would have supported additional funding for a welfare agency if it were run by someone he didn’t know or trust — just as it’s hard to imagine he would have taken as many ill-informed or even deceptive shots at the Education Department if that agency had been run by someone he did trust. What’s more likely in the latter case is that the person he trusted, assuming it wasn’t an ideological hack, would have changed his opinions and priorities about public education, to the betterment of us all.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to Mr. Sanford, although it’s particularly noticeable in his case because he was such an absolute stranger to state government and issues when he took office.

All governors — indeed, all people — are more likely to take advice from people they trust, even advice that goes against their instincts, than from strangers or, worse, enemies.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that South Carolina’s government ignores this basic tenet of human nature. After all, it was designed by a Legislature reeling from Reconstruction, whose primary goal was to make sure that nothing progressive or forward-looking could ever be accomplished.

It’s time to set things up so someone can get something done for a change.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.