GOV. MARK Sanford says that the Budget and Control Board’s decision to re-hire its executive director over his objection sends a bad message to other state employees and to the public in general.

He’s right to criticize the action, but wrong about why.

The case of Frank Fusco highlights a problem in state government that’s far more important to our state’s future than what the governor described — and fixing the real problem, actually, is a goal near and dear to Mr. Sanford’s heart.

Mr. Sanford’s concern — beyond the fact that he was ambushed in a gross display of power politics by fellow members of the Budget and Control Board — is that Mr. Fusco received special treatment that ordinary state employees don’t receive. That, he said, will increase voters’ cynicism toward government, which they see, often correctly, as protecting people in and near power.

I’m sure some people will in fact view the decision that way; but they’re wrong. What the board’s action illustrates is that people who work hard and do a good job can get rewarded for it. That message, which too often is not sent in government, is one that that Mr. Sanford ought to be applauding.

What the board voted to do is re-hire Mr. Fusco in his current job when he bumps up against a law that forces him to retire next month. The board was able to re-hire him because of a new law passed this spring that, among other things, allows the state to reward excellence.

While there are some serious flaws about this new law, the unquestionably good thing is that it replaced the old TERI law that offered the same, very generous reward to everybody, no matter how good or bad a job they did.

The new law is designed to entice the very best government employees to stay on the job longer than they otherwise might. It does this by allowing them to retire, draw their full retirement pay and then be hired back, under terms they and their employers agree upon. (The unconscionable TERI program allowed similar double-dipping but left the decision of whether to draw both retirement pay and full salary in the hands of the employee.)

Mr. Sanford and a lot of other people consider the double-dipping allowed under the new law inappropriate. I consider it smart: There’s nothing to stop a state employee from retiring after 28 years, drawing full retirement pay and then going out and getting a job in the private sector. If that’s a valuable employee who is going to retire no matter what, it just doesn’t make sense for the state to prevent itself from being able to hire her back, as the old law effectively did in many cases.

In this case, Mr. Fusco’s bosses decided he was a valuable employee they didn’t want to lose. So they voted to hire him back to his old job — and they decided to cut his pay to the bottom end of the salary range, partially offsetting the fact that he will be drawing retirement pay.

So on one level, the system works the way everybody who believes in merit pay wants it to: The state made the decision about whether the employee would continue working. The state determined what that person’s salary would be. And since the total compensation is higher than it was before, the message is sent: If you do a good job, you get rewarded.

The problem with all this has nothing to do with TERI or double-dipping. It has to do with the way the Budget and Control Board is constituted.

I’ve written before that Mr. Fusco has a nearly impossible job, because he works for five bosses — five bosses who often have very different ideas about government in general and how he should do his job in particular.

Last week, Mr. Fusco’s job got a lot easier: He found out that he can ignore what two of his bosses say and just concentrate on the three who voted to hire him.

Now, Mr. Fusco is a dedicated professional, and I believe him when he says he intends to “give this job and the five board members 100 percent every day.”

But whether Mr. Fusco chooses to act that way or not, the fact is that last week’s coup demonstrated that the chief executive of South Carolina — the governor — has absolutely no control over the agency that handles the administrative functions of the executive branch of government.

Worse, the people who do control that agency are two legislators — Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman and House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper — and state Treasurer Grady Patterson. It’s hard to see how a rational person could look at a situation like this and fail to conclude that this violates the separation of powers mandate of the state constitution.

It’s also hard to see how a rational person could consider this a rational system. Our dual-controlled administrative agency, which in reality is controlled by two legislators, is unique to South Carolina. And little wonder. Other states care about having a functional, efficient, accountable and constitutional government. But as the politics and policy that allowed Mr. Fusco’s re-hiring demonstrate, those are not concerns here in South Carolina.

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