Worried about surrendering control of its docks, especially to unionized companies, the State Ports Authority on Tuesday voted to block private businesses from running the new shipping terminals it plans to build in North Charleston and Jasper County.

The 5-3 decision comes as the agency is reviewing inquiries from firms interested in operating one or both of the proposed container facilities.

Carroll A. Campbell III urged his fellow board members to prevent the SPA from completely privatizing the new terminals, partly because the author-ity's only role would be to collect the rent.

"My biggest concerns, to be honest, are the union issues," Campbell said.

At privately run container yards around the country, he said, the operators are contractually required to hire only organized labor.

"When it comes to ports, privatization means unionization," Campbell said.

If the SPA relinquishes control of the new terminals to an all-union work force, it could raise operating costs, lead to work stoppages and make the port less competitive, he said. Also, the increased labor activity on the waterfront could spread to other industries in the state, he said.

Campbell said he's not opposed to the use of unionized workers on the docks, but he wants to make sure the numbers do not tip the balance of power. "At some point there's a percentage where you start to lose control," he said.

Campbell said the SPA's current business model "is the way it should be," noting that a mix of union workers represented by the International Longshoremen's Association and non-union state employees "do a great job" handling freight at the Port of Charleston. He pointed out that the authority just closed out a record-breaking fiscal year in its strongest financial position ever.

"It's not broken and doesn't need to be fixed," Campbell said.

The SPA is looking to set the ground rules now for any partnerships it might need to form as it expands its container-handling capacity. It's unclear whether the new North Charleston terminal, planned for 280 acres on the former Navy base, will require private-sector investment. The 1,800-acre Jasper County facility, if it is ever built, almost certainly will.

Anticipating that, the authority has solicited "expressions of interest" from private companies. Of the 21 respondents, 15 "are still in the mix," said Ber-nard Groseclose, the SPA's chief executive. Some of those requested "a landlord-tenant arrangement," Groseclose said.

Campbell is opposed to that. Reading from a lengthy statement, he said he would not support any proposal "that requires this board to surrender its responsibilities to a private company."

"While private participation is a good thing, privatization of our state's public ports ... is a very bad idea," Campbell said.

He also made reference to his father, former Gov. Carroll Campbell, who has battled Alzheimer's disease for six years and recently moved into a full-time residential care facility.

"I'm sorry my dad can't be here to speak to this issue," Campbell said. "He was able to sign a letter that other former governors signed urging the state to maintain control over all port facilities. But that letter, as direct as it was, did not communicate his intensity about this issue."

Board members John F. Hassell III, Thomas C. Davis and Glen P. Kilgore voted against Campbell's proposal, saying they did not have enough information Tuesday to make an informed decision.

Voting in favor of the measure was SPA board chairman Harry J. Butler Jr., as well as James A. Bennett, William H. Stern and Whitemarsh S. Smith III.

Gov. Mark Sanford would like to see the ports authority create some sort of public-private partnership to run the proposed terminals, said spokesman Joel Sawyer. "As for what form it ultimately takes, we defer to the board on that," Sawyer said.

The authority began seeking private partners after suing to block Jasper County from developing its own $450 million deep-water shipping terminal on the Savannah River. The SPA has argued it has exclusive power to develop ports in South Carolina. The state Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case Sept. 20.