The state Highway Commission's interest in getting what it describes as an "independent review" would be better served by having the Legislative Audit Council examine department operations. A review by the LAC would have a higher degree of credibility than that of a hired consultant.

The commission voted recently to pay for an outside review following allegations about the administration of DOT executive director Elizabeth S. Mabry by commission chairman Tee Hooper. He raised questions about the purchase of SUVs for the personal use of high-ranking employees and the expense of a DOT conference in Myrtle Beach. He contended that two DOT executives may have been forced out because they were critical of Ms. Mabry and that the department missed out on federal grant money totaling $145 million.

In a letter to the DOT director, Mr. Hooper said that the agency is financially mismanaged and suffers from a serious morale problem. The seriousness of his allegations is underscored by his suggestion in the letter to Ms. Mabry: "I don't have the authority to ask you to step down, but if I did, as a result of the facts, I would be asking you now."

Ms. Mabry has denied the allegations, saying they derive from "turf" issues in the department and Mr. Hooper's unfamiliarity with DOT operations. He has served as chairman for two years.

The commission's decision on the review of department operations was accompanied by a 6-0 vote of confidence for the director. The chairman, incidentally, doesn't vote except in the event of a tie. Apparently, the commission majority doesn't expect a consultant's review to turn up anything to give credence to Mr. Hooper's complaints.

In a news report, Mr. Hooper said he supports the commission's call for an independent review. He tells us, however, that he is convinced that the Legislative Audit Council would produce a more credible report. Indeed, the Legislature should recognize the importance of the department's fiscal credibility and request the LAC to look into Mr. Hooper's charges and generally review DOT operations.

The Audit Council has previously done audits of the department, including a recent review of its paving contracts. Its familiarity with DOT operations and reputation for even-handedness would lend its findings greater authority than those of a paid consultant less familiar with this state agency.

Mr. Hooper said in his letter that he is reluctant to support requests for additional funding to DOT in view of its questionable spending. While Mr. Hooper is in the minority on his views of the director and department operations, it should be emphasized that he has a different point of view than other commissioners. As the governor's at-large and sole appointee on the commission, the chairman should share the chief executive's statewide perspective. Other commissioners are chosen from congressional districts.

A DOT spokesman tells us that no contract has yet been approved for the review endorsed by the commission. The Legislature still has the opportunity to make other arrangements with the LAC, which serves as its investigative arm.

The chairman's allegations deserve to receive the most authoritative review available. Surely there are legislators sufficiently concerned about the allegations hanging over DOT to give the Audit Council the job.