McConnell justifies Hunley outlays, says report erred

BY GLENN MCCONNELL

Your recent editorial about the CSS Hunley project was based on incorrect assumptions. For starters, the projected cost of preserving and displaying the submarine is not $97 million.

Secondly, I have not amassed the power to spend at will the public money that you say makes up that sum. The assumptions come not from the facts, but from what I believe is outcome-based journalism. If the audit you seek is an attempt to get the truth, the search needs to start with the allegations in your editorial.

You stated: "... collects money for the Hunley from state agencies rather than subjecting the project to public legislative scrutiny via the budget process."

The documented facts are that all of the state money for the recovery and preservation except $30,000 was appropriated by the General Assembly and was part of the public budgetary process. Our bank accounts are handled by the S.C. Budget and Control Board and to quote an official, "All the Hunley accounts are established within the state's public financial accounting system and are fully subject to regular independent audits like all other public funds."

You stated: "... designated Clemson University to take over the Hunley's preservation, tapping university money that ..."

The facts are Clemson University was to receive a multimillion-dollar research lab in exchange for finishing the sub, all of which still had to be approved by the State Bond Review Committee and the Budget and Control Board.

Furthermore, this was Clemson's idea.

Also, you ignored the research that had been going on in high-tech restoration there in the laboratory, and the fact the Hunley was a small part of a much larger restorative institute by Clemson University.

You stated: "Personally transferred millions from the State Budget & Control Board ... to a Hunley foundation whose board he controls."

The facts are, all state monies over $4.6 million were appropriated and have been spent to date on the costs to recover and preserve the sub by documented invoices. The foundation, appointed by the full commission (not by me), was reimbursed for documented expenses of the project by state funds appropriated or federal funds disbursed pursuant to an agreement for incurred expenses and overseen by the Budget and Control Board.

The foundation is audited [annually] by an independent accounting CPA firm, whose statements, audits and records are open to public review.

You stated: "But how did it get to be one of the most expensive public projects in S.C. history, exceeded in cost by only a few highway and bridge projects?"

Again, the truth is it is not one of the most expensive projects in South Carolina history. The facts are to date that $4.6 million in appropriated state funds has been spent on recovering and conserving the sub, and $4 million-plus has been appropriated for the Southern Maritime Collection, a collection bought by the state in a public appropriation process. The city of North Charleston has pledged $13 million to build the museum plus donate the waterfront land.

Clemson University identifies only $2.4 million of its $35 million, 20-year campus [project] as [spent] on restorative materials research in North Charleston as Hunley-related, and that deal has not yet been finalized. The federal government has spent $5.3 million to date on recovery and conservation in the federal budgetary process.

The city of North Charleston has appropriated $100,000 toward the conservation of the sub. The total amount spent and committed to the recovery project, plus related expenses of security and other collections and federal, state, city, and private funds, is at most $29.4 million, as also confirmed by another major newspaper, which researched and reversed the assertions of The State newspaper and John Monk's articles.

An audit, which could cost up to $500,000, while a waste of taxpayer money, would strengthen our case against the injustices heaped on this project, but, if you clear away the distortions and deal with reality, what is there to audit that is not already public? You can't audit funds that haven't been spent.

You claim that you were in search of the facts. If that is true, read the Charleston Post & Courier's in-depth [article], not [Columbia State newspaper reporter] John Monk's. Then the question becomes how and why did he get it so wrong?

McConnell, of Charleston, is president of the S.C. Senate.