 What's your view? Click here to add your comment to this story. |
|
COLUMBIA -- When senators decided to begin placing state Department of Transportation officials under oath to talk about findings of a management audit, Rep. Annette Young took notice.
Young, a Summerville Republican who chairs a House committee looking at the audit report, announced as her panel's hearings began last week that she would ask each witness to take the oath.
"I've been told by a lot of people if I didn't put individuals under oath I would not get the truth," she said.
Using the oath is not unusual for lawmakers but also not a standard practice in hearing from those who talk to legislative committees, lawmakers say.
|
Advertisement |
 |
It's used regularly in confirmation hearings and sometimes used when committees are investigating issues or agencies.
"We've done it very sparingly," said Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But when you have a situation like this, regarding the testimony involving an Audit Council report, I would highly recommend they be placed under oath. Otherwise, there's no compelling authority to require them to be truthful."
The DOT hearings started without any oaths. Legislative Audit Council staff reported their findings to a joint Senate committee. Then DOT staff, including the agency's executive director, Elizabeth Mabry, rebutted the findings.
Sen. Larry Grooms, a Berkeley County Republican who chairs the Senate Transportation Subcommittee looking at the LAC audit, said he decided to place witnesses under oath to increase his confidence that people were being honest in their answers.
"There are penalties for perjury, and you're not subject to those if you're
not under oath," he said. “At least when the witnesses are under oath, for me
there is a higher degree of confidence what they are saying is the
truth.”
Young said she had to ask witnesses to voluntarily take the oath
because her committee is a study committee and can’t require the oath. Each of
the witnesses has complied.
Grooms said that people under oath may not
be as free with their comments, cutting out speculation that they may have
offered otherwise.
“So it cuts both ways,” he said.
Sen. Chip
Campsen, a Charleston Republican who sits on Grooms’ panel, said placing people
under oath isn’t something that should be used for routine hearings or meetings
at which opinions are being solicited.
And he said placing witnesses
under oath doesn’t necessarily convince him that he and his colleagues are
hearing the truth.
“To me, it doesn’t make that big a difference,
frankly,” he said. “I think folks, even under the oath can shade the truth or
obfuscate the truth.”