Hunley project can be public or private but not both

October 10, 2004

In 2001, Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, convinced his fellow lawmakers to allocate $3 million to purchase a private collection of Civil War naval relics. He said it would be the centerpiece of a new market for tourism, a museum dedicated to the Hunley submarine — in Charleston, of course.

In July, we wrote disapprovingly of that request, and noted at the time that our state was in the midst of the largest shortfall in state history. While we acknowledged that the collection likely was worth that amount of money or even more, it was ironic that the legislature did not see the same value in retaining the numerous programs that were cut and jobs that were lost as the state tightened its belt.

But alas, our view was apparently not shared in Columbia; the authorization to make the purchase was a one-paragraph item in the state budget and the news didn’t reach the public until the deal was already struck.

The good senator, who took great exception to our editorial back then, likely won’t like this one either.

Public money committed to the project has grown ($8 million has been invested, from the state and the federal government, according to published reports) and perhaps, as is claimed, interest in the Hunley has brought money back into the equation.

Yet the legislature, after allocating the money, your money, essentially washed its hands of the project and in essence said to a private group, "Go ahead, do as you please." The Friends of the Hunley, a group handpicked by the Hunley Commission, which Mr. McConnell chairs, has kept more than $1 million of the revenues from the Hunley. They claim that as a private entity, Friends of the Hunley is exempt from state open government laws and is not only entitled to the money but to not disclose its finances unless it chooses to do so. The senator agrees.

We do not.

In fairness, when the Friends were asked for documents by newspapers, they turned over those documents. They had not been so obliging, according to published reports, when asked for those same documents by members of the public. There are several coincidences noted in these documents that we find of concern.

The same firm that has been paid more than $275,000 to market the Hunley also directs Mr. McConnell’s political campaigns.

A company that has opened a tourist attraction on the Hunley has donated to his campaign. The company is, we acknowledge, giving money to the Friends of the Hunley organization, a pittance to be sure, but nothing they are obligated to do. But the Hunley project overall begs the question: If public money built it and public money continued to support it, why isn’t the public, i.e., the lawmakers who are obligated to answer to the public, in charge of its operations and its budget?

When budget time rolls around again, this project should be no different from any other state entity, should receive no more consideration than any other that relies on public funding, should be placed under the direction of a state agency and its revenues should be put into public coffers. Its continued support should be discussed and debated in full view of the public.

If those concerned wish to remain a private entity and not be subject to public laws, then the project should not receive public funds. And if they do wish to remain private, well, we might like that original investment back. It might be better used on health care or education or public safety — in short, projects that would benefit a wider range of South Carolinians.

Copyright 2004, Anderson Independent Mail. All Rights Reserved.