McConnell’s assertions; what The State reported

The State newspaper ran a three-day series that started Sunday on various projects surrounding the recovered Confederate submarine, the H.L. Hunley.

The series addressed increasing costs, the lack of public debate and the unusual roles state Sen. Glenn McConnell has played in acquiring money for the sub.

McConnell spoke on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, criticizing various aspects of the stories.

Here are his key assertions — and the facts as reported in The State.

Statement: McConnell disputed The State’s estimate of $97 million in spending for various Hunley projects, calling it too high. He also said the paper wrongly implied most funding would be from state sources.

In fact: The State said the $97 million would come mostly from a mix of state, federal, and local public funds, together with some private money. The newspaper also made clear there are four separate Hunley spending components, each with its own funding source or mix of sources. The paper reported the funding mix for each component. The components are 1) Clemson’s $35 million North Charleston campus, to be built around the Hunley lab. Clemson would operate the lab and oversee the sub’s preservation. 2) The proposed $42 million museum, which would feature the Hunley as its star attraction. 3) More than $17 million has been spent on raising, excavating, preserving and promoting the Hunley. 4) $3.5 million is being spent by the state to buy a Civil War artifacts collection for the museum.

Statement: McConnell chided the newspaper for saying the Hunley Commission used unusual budget channels. What’s usual? he asked his fellow senators.

In fact: The usual route would be to introduce an appropriations bill in the House or the Senate, then have it debated before a vote. What McConnell did was personally lobby state agencies for services or a cancellation of charges. And, in a highly unusual move, he acted as Hunley paymaster, apparently without legal authority, helping facilitate the movement of money to the Hunley foundation from accounts operated by the state. The initial approval of $10.3 million for Clemson’s Hunley-centered campus, too, was approved in an arena that avoided public debate: a panel that addresses research universities’ infrastructure needs.

Statement: McConnell disputed the notion he was acting as the Hunley’s paymaster.

In fact: Here’s how it worked over a period of years, involving $8 million: McConnell would receive a letter from the Hunley foundation asking for money. Then he would write the State Budget and Control Board, directing state officials to send money to the foundation. Sometimes his requests for cash were supported by invoices and specific documentation; sometimes they were not.

It’s an arrangement state Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom called “obviously outside the framework the state has provided for disbursement of public funds.” State Auditor Tom Wagner Jr. said, to his knowledge, McConnell’s money-approving method is unique.

Statement: McConnell disputed that he was the only senator who sponsored a budget provision to purchase a $3.5 million Civil War artifacts collection.

In fact: McConnell sponsored the provision. But he did work with two other senators to put it in the budget — Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, and Sen. John Drummond, D-Greenwood.

Statement: McConnell said The State got two dates wrong concerning the Hunley’s history.

In fact: The State did, in a timeline, misreport the dates for the Hunley’s sinking and the final crew’s burial, each by one day. The sub sank Feb. 17, 1864. The crew was buried April 17, 2004. (See correction on Page A2.) A graphic on the same page had the correct date for the sub’s sinking.

Statement: McConnell said he didn’t bully or push Clemson University to build a Hunley-centered campus, as the paper reported.

In fact: The State did not say McConnell pressured Clemson. The stories said McConnell worked behind the scenes for more than a year trying to make the deal a reality.

Statement: McConnell said the newspaper was wrong to say Hunley accounts have not been audited.

In fact: What the newspaper said was that the accounts have never been independently audited by the state, according to Wagner, the state auditor. An auditing firm hired by the Hunley foundation examines Hunley finances annually. But that is not a state audit.

— John Monk