A Senate subcommittee report on Santee Cooper
released last week may well be bipartisan, as was noted in our account, but it
is by no means unbiased. The five-member subcommittee contained several of the
highest profile opponents of Gov. Mark Sanford's attempts to reform that agency.
In fact, they were major players in changing state law this past session to
substantially weaken the governor's control of the membership. Bottom line: They
don't want board members who agree with the governor on phasing out charitable
contributions or requiring Santee Cooper to make a greater contribution to the
state coffers.
That said, we don't like the fact that the subcommittee found numerous
violations of the state's Freedom of Information Law -- some of which are
denied. We do like the fact that after hearing of some of the board's FOI
lapses, the governor directed that state board members under his control be
given educational sessions in the state law.
While FOI violations are much discussed they aren't at the heart of the
subcommittee's findings that one of the sitting board members and one up for
reappointment aren't qualified. Lawmakers have turned a blind eye to too many
widely publicized FOI violations by state agencies to make that a credible
bottom line.
The subcommittee report, approved by four of the five members, does make some
highly charged allegations about the actions of one sitting member, Richard H.
Coen of Mount Pleasant, and he has returned the fire. The governor has yet to
comment on the specifics of the charges against Mr. Coen, although his office
says the report is just a rehash of the subcommittee hearings he previously
described as a kangaroo court.
It is the report's comments in finding acting chairman G. Dial DuBose of
Pickens "unqualified" that is the most telling. It should be noted that Sen.
Larry Martin of Pickens dissented with the majority finding on Mr. DuBose.
In a clear dig at the governor, the subcommittee states:
"We are concerned about the potential harm created by political or other
outside influence on board actions, particularly when directors take a position
based on ideology or personal reasons rather than judicious examination of the
issues. It appears, for example, that Mr. DuBose did not consider the best
interests of Santee Cooper when the issue of charitable contributions was
debated over a lengthy time period. Mr. DuBose formulated his decision that
Santee Cooper should not make charitable contributions based on ideological
reasons rather than a contemplative evaluation of Santee Cooper's long-term
policy and the individual requests for contributions."
We'd say Mr. DuBose deserves a medal for taking a courageous stand against
the continued dispensing of millions of dollars in "charitable contributions"
that have long been of questionable legality. Indeed they have been the subject
of lawsuits and a blistering Legislative Audit Council report. Some of the most
blatant abuses were ended some years ago, including political contributions to
lawmakers and contributions to private groups. Nevertheless, Santee Cooper
continued to dole out millions to various causes despite the fact that such
largess has nothing to do with its mission statement. It was a golf tournament
sponsorship that got the governor's attention. Due to the influence of his
appointees, the board has begun phasing out those contributions.
No matter how some senators try to spin it, the dollars being handed out are
public dollars because Santee Cooper is a public utility. That's what so many of
those who want to maintain the status quo can't seem to get. Santee Cooper isn't
a private corporation. Its board members have an obligation not only to Santee
Cooper but the citizenry as a whole. Certainly the Senate seems to understand
that dual responsibility of a similar agency, the State Ports Authority,
particularly when it comes to the location of a port facility.
Indeed, state law requires Santee Cooper to make a financial contribution to
the state treasury and the governor rightly is looking for ways to ensure Santee
Cooper is efficiently operated in order to increase that contribution. The sale
of Santee Cooper surplus land was part of that agenda. But it was his interest
in the privatization of Santee Cooper that raised legislative hackles,
particularly when his appointees engineered a study of that volatile subject.
In Sen. Martin's book that was the major mistake. To pursue converting Santee
Cooper into an investor-owed utility was "a big waste of time and effort and
contrary to established public policy," he tells us. Fair enough. But the
senator also concedes that it would have been a waste of time for the governor
or the board to have first asked the Legislature to sanction such a study.
Study aside, the privatization of Santee Cooper isn't in the books. The
governor knows that now more than ever before. But some senators want to do more
than put the governor in his place. They want to ensure that the governor's
ideological take on what's best for Santee Cooper and the state isn't reflected
on the board. If they continue to succeed, so much for any hope of even small
reforms.
