Elizabeth Mabry, executive director of the S.C. Department of Transportation, acknowledges the importance of a performance review of the agency in a letter to the editor on this page today. Legislators should accommodate Mrs. Mabry and the DOT by recommending the Legislative Audit Council accept the job.

The state highway commission has voted to pay for an independent review of the department, conducted by a consultant, in response to criticisms directed at the agency by commission chairman Tee Hooper. Mr. Hooper, an appointee of Gov. Mark Sanford, has been sharply critical of some aspects of Mrs. Mabry's administration and has sought her resignation.

Mrs. Mabry has denied Mr. Hooper's allegations of mismanagement, and the commission gave her a vote of confidence as it endorsed a paid review of the agency to address Mr. Hooper's charges. Assuming legislators approve the idea of an Audit Council review, the job can be done at no cost to the DOT.

Further, the LAC possesses a knowledge of DOT operations from previous audits as well as a high degree of institutional credibility that a paid consultant simply wouldn't have.

In her letter, Mrs. Mabry defends the agency's work, particularly its efforts to use scarce highway dollars to their best effect. While she acknowledges that a review may find some reasons to be critical, she insists that it will vindicate the department and her administration.

Unless done by a credible agency, such as the LAC, a review of agency operations won't make Mr. Hooper's criticisms go away. Legislators should recognize that fact and proceed with a request for an audit by the agency that serves as the Legislature's investigative arm.

Mrs. Mabry promises to respond to any shortcomings found in a review but insists that a review will show the department to be "one of the nation's leaders." That would certainly bolster the agency's case for additional funding, needed especially to help improve the condition of the state's secondary roads.

On the other hand, failure to undertake a meaningful review will hurt efforts for an increase in the gas tax, one of the lowest in the nation. Mr. Hooper, for example, has said he will not support increased funding for the department until his criticisms are answered.

While Mr. Hooper backed the commission's proposal for an independent review, he told us that he believes an LAC audit would better serve the commission and the department. Mrs. Mabry apparently is willing to support that idea as well.

Before the LAC can undertake a review, a request from five legislators, or individually from the speaker of the house or the senate president pro tempore is required. Legislative leaders should make that request posthaste. The continued attention focused on the agency and its administration should encourage an audit of Mr. Hooper's specific criticisms and, more generally, of the agency's operation.