Threats shouldn?t be response to differences

April 4, 2005

Gov. Mark Sanford’s spokesman Will Folks spoke out of turn last week and ended up with a big old mouthful of foot.

Mr. Folks took exception to the Anderson Area Chamber of Commerce’s statement of opposition to Mr. Sanford’s tuition tax credit proposal, Put Parents in Charge. He questioned, in a telephone call to chamber president Lee Luff, why the chamber would take a public stance on the legislation.

In reality, had Mr. Folks been attentive to Anderson-area issues, he wouldn’t have been surprised that chamber leadership, expressing the views of its membership, has over the last few years taken an active role in several issues regarding the economy and quality of life in our region. This was a hallmark of the presidency of the now-retired John Garman and continues without abatement under the direction of Mr. Luff. And we see no conflict in such activity, as a chamber is an instrument of business and its membership has a vested interest in the region’s economy and anything that might affect it.

In our view — and apparently that of chamber membership — Put Parents in Charge will have a negative effect on our state’s economy.

Mr. Folks, after seeing the story in our newspaper, called Mr. Luff and, according to the chamber executive, gave an "implied threat" of retaliation that might have an adverse effect on area economic development efforts. Mr. Luff referred to the telephone call as a "heated exchange" in which Mr. Folks said he was "going to take the article to the Commerce Department."

In a later call, presumably after others were made aware of the gist of the conversation, Mr. Folks apologized and called the idea he was making threats that a disagreement with the governor would affect economic development "absolutely ridiculous."

Mr. Luff told our reporter he was "very satisfied" with the apology and essentially all is forgiven; he looks forward to "continuing policy discussions with Mr. Folks."

While Mr. Luff was properly gracious, we still have some concerns.

In a telephone call to our office Friday morning, Mr. Sanford said he wanted to make it clear Mr. Folks’ actions were not representative of his office. "People around me have the role to be an advocate as long as that is consistent with the administration’s policies," he said. "It goes without saying that I will frequently disagree with folks; but anybody who knows me on a personal level knows it’s not personal and I don’t retaliate."

And, he added, Mr. Folks has no power to do so.

We have on more than one occasion disagreed — and strongly — with some of the governor’s positions. And we’ve said more than once that he always takes that criticism in a professional, not personal manner, that he knows that is how it is presented.

That’s as it should be.

Yet the idea that the governor’s spokesman would even feel free to imply a threat because of a difference of opinion on legislation is troubling.

This isn’t the first bit of controversy to involve Mr. Folks. But it is a bit more serious than the question of what kind of car the spokesman is loaned by a car dealer with close ties to the administration.

We hope Mr. Sanford gives this latest gaffe a great deal of thought.

It implies a serious lack of judgment on Mr. Folks’ part, both on what is proper as a spokesman for the state’s top official and apparently how far his authority goes in that regard.

Copyright 2005, Anderson Independent Mail. All Rights Reserved.