Opponents of the reforms at state-owned Santee Cooper pushed by Gov. Mark Sanford clearly would like to curtail his power to remove from office those who resist needed change, as he has this year. The governor rightly is concerned that proposed legislation in the Senate and House will be used as a means to tie his hands on board reform. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell insists that isn't the intent. No question, however, it would diminish the governor's latitude over Santee Cooper, first exercised by his predecessor, Jim Hodges. Nothing should be done that would prevent a reform-minded governor from curtailing the terms of board members who resist change.

It was Gov. Hodges who first removed members both of Santee Cooper and the State Ports Authority before their six-year terms had expired. The length of those terms has generally meant that new governors had to wait a few years before making appointments that better suited them, either politically or philosophically. Gov. Hodges won a lawsuit brought by a Santee Cooper board member on the basis that there was nothing in state law to prevent a governor from replacing board members at will.

Sen. McConnell tells us he disagreed with the Hodges precedent but couldn't at that time get the votes in the Senate for legislation that would prevent a governor from removing board members at will. In Gov. Sanford's case, the Santee Cooper changes have been related to his efforts to halt millions of dollars of questionable charitable contributions that previously had been challenged by the Legislative Audit Council and to get a larger contribution from the agency to the state treasury. One of the governor's targets has been the sale of excess land being held by the state agency.

Advocates of the status quo, including a number of legislators, deny that Santee Cooper has any real obligation to the state, even though a provision in the law that created the public water and power utility says otherwise. They also have tried to rally public opinion against the governor by spreading the word that he really wants to sell Santee Cooper, never mind the fact that only the Legislature could make that decision.

Sen. McConnell says he personally agrees with the governor's reforms. His goal, he says, is to try to ensure that Santee Cooper runs more like a business. To that end he advocates setting qualifications for members and a screening process similar to one that reviews judicial candidates. He insists that a provision allowing a governor to remove a board member for cause would allow those who resist reforms to be ousted.

Members should be removed, Sen. McConnell said, if they are "doling out the assets with golden parachutes" or making questionable charitable donations with funds that should go to benefit all South Carolinians. According to the senator, those kinds of activities would constitute removal for cause.

Mr. Sanford, however, is understandably wary that the Santee Cooper bill would wind up being a big step backward from the long-needed restructuring that would put more power and accountability in the governor's office. In view of the continued resistance to that concept in the Statehouse, the minimal power the governor now has to institute reforms should be carefully protected.