Yellow Light

Approach S.C. DOT reform with caution

S.C. lawmakers from Georgetown and Horry counties are right to view a gubernatorial takeover of the S.C. Department of Transportation with skepticism, even dread. Gov. Mark Sanford may have a point in saying the agency is inefficient and lacks accountability to the public. But the S.C. DOT's current governance structure, a commission appointed from each of the state's six congressional districts, at least ensures that the agency bureaucracy is aware of the road needs of every part of the state.

That governance structure, as influenced by local legislators and business leaders, explains why our two counties have gotten increased road-project attention from the S.C. DOT in recent years. Former Director Betty Mabry, who resigned last month after a legislative audit alleged mismanagement at the agency, treated our counties, Horry in particular, well after local legislators and District 1 S.C. DOT Commissioner Robert Harrell Sr. directed her attention to local road needs.

Our communities might not fare as well under a Cabinet agency headed by a director the governor appoints - especially a director with an engineering mentality. The S.C. DOT as currently formulated may be too political, by Sanford's lights. But politics is the process by which underserved counties such as ours get the attention of - and road money from - the powers-that-be in Columbia. In that application, politics is not a dirty word.

None of this is to suggest that local legislators should obstruct restructuring or reforming the S.C. DOT. The audit established beyond doubt that the agency doesn't handle money as well as it should. Its longtime tendency to regard road-contractor environmental violations as harmless nuisances is irritating.

Moreover, South Carolinians would almost certainly understand the agency's inner workings better if it reported the governor. It's virtually impossible for ordinary folks to understand how and why, under the current commission structure, the agency reaches road-building and maintenance decisions. This lack of clarity prompts many S.C. residents to conclude the agency is corrupt.

Our concern, quite frankly, is Sanford himself, who would oversee an S.C. DOT Cabinet-ized in 2007 for at least three years. In his quest to run S.C. government like a business - in and of itself a good thing - the governor sometimes carries rationalization too far. Would the S.C. DOT have given building Interstate 73 between Myrtle Beach and Marlboro County its top priority if he'd been in charge of the agency? There's good reason to wonder. The numbers, strictly speaking, don't justify that decision - though the state's longtime neglect of our communities' need for a high-speed interstate link certainly does.

Moreover, the governor overlooks the central problem plaguing the S.C. DOT - that highway maintenance, upgrading and construction dollars get scarcer by the year. Even if Sanford, once in control of the S.C. DOT, eliminated every instance of inefficiency, the agency still would have too little money to give the state the first-class highway system it deserves.

Sanford, fresh from a re-election victory in November, may show more willingness to compromise than he did in his first term. So perhaps there's a middle ground that would move the agency toward accountability and transparency while ensuring that communities outside the Charleston-Columbia-Greenville corridor get their fair share of road money. But if he insists on having the S.C. DOT his way, legislators would be better advised to remove the agency from this year's government restructuring discussions.