Even though the S.C. Legislative Audit Council is expected to conduct a comprehensive study of the state Department of Transportation, several highway commissioners are still talking about paying a consultant for another review of the DOT. What can they be thinking?

Several key legislators, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, requested the LAC audit last week. They recognized it would have a higher level of credibility than a proposed DOT-funded review by a private consultant previously endorsed by the highway commission.

Each was sparked by criticism from commission chairman Tee Hooper, the governor's sole appointee, about the administration of DOT. Lawmakers who sought the LAC review apparently recognized that a DOT-paid study would be subject to criticisms of whitewash. Commissioners who want to proceed with their own study are encouraging that line of thought.

Commissioner Marion Carnell, a former legislator, complained that legislators should have "given us the courtesy to allow us to give the report first." In comments quoted by the Greenville News, Mr. Carnell decried "the cloud that was put on us yesterday," an apparent reference to the legislative request for an audit.

His remarks were echoed by Commissioner Bobby Jones: "Why can't we have a say-so? Why should we yield to them?"

Both commissioners, incidentally, have been criticized recently for having relatives on staff. Mr. Jones' daughter works for DOT. Commissioner Carnell reportedly sought an interview for his nephew, who now has a part-time job at the department.

To his credit, 1st District Commissioner Bob Harrell raised objections to a second DOT-financed study, saying it "would open up some pretty good criticism about wasting money." That is particularly true in view of the continual efforts of the agency to gain more revenue for road-related projects.

Legislators who have sought a comprehensive audit of the DOT are taking the responsible course in providing oversight to the agency. While the governor appoints the at-large chairman, the remaining commissioners are chosen by lawmakers from congressional districts. The Legislature also determines the state gas tax rate, which provides the primary source of funding for the agency.

The Audit Council has performed previous audits of the agency, and is familiar with many of the issues that will be reviewed. Although it serves as the investigative agency for the Legislature, the LAC operates under strict auditing standards that ensure its independence and credibility. Consequently, its findings should provide commissioners and legislators real insight about agency problems and improvements.

If commissioners continue to pursue a second study, they will only encourage speculation about their judgment as policy-makers for an agency that already has been the subject of severe criticism by their own chairman. They should let the chips fall where they may in the coming state audit, and be prepared to respond accordingly after its completion.