Governor Sanford and his attorney Butch Bowers Herbert Hayden, executive director for the S. C. Ethics Commission on September 14 was quoted by scbiznews.com as saying, "First of all, there's not going to be a preliminary report. That report will include any statement from the governor he wishes to make. We don't do a preliminary report for anybody."

Hayden was talking about Governor Sanford's shared fear the commission was about to release a preliminary report to the Legislature on 600 of the governor's plane trips. The report might disclose if Sanford violated ethics laws or possibly committed a criminal act or even if there could be cause for impeachment.

The preliminary report, Sanford said, should not be released but should be first delivered to a prosecutorial body, which in turn could give Sanford the opportunity to explain himself and his actions.

Three years ago in the spring of 2006, a campaign contributions search in the commission's files showed up numerous presumed violations of the state ethics laws by members of Columbia City Council and contractors with the city. To quote the law, in part, Section

8- 13- 1342: No person

who has been awarded a contract with the state, a county, a municipality, or a

political subdivision thereof,

other than contracts

awarded through competitive

bidding practices, may

make a contribution after

the awarding of the contract

or invest in a financial

venture in which a public

official has an interest if

that official was in a position

to act on the contractor's

award. No public official

or public employee may

solicit campaign contributions

or investments in

exchange for the prior

award of a contract or the

promise of a contract with

the state, a county, a munic-

ipality, or a political subdivision

thereof.

In the first week of April 2006, the mayoral election was held. Following the election, according to the S. C. Ethics Commission rules, a complaint on the campaign contributions to members of Columbia City Council was filed. To avoid unfair accusations, the commission does not allow complaints just before an election. In each case, the council member was identified as the recipient, the campaign contributor was identified as a company/ contractor (not an individual), the amount of the contribution was written to the penny, the date of the contribution was given, and the contract/work product was cited as the source of conflict.

The agreements cited with the city were all no- bid contracts, deals where the dollar amount was irrelevant in the decision to award the contract. The contract was awarded on the basis of qualifications, relationship with the city and prior work history, and the like. But campaign contributions must have been under consideration or the ethics laws would not prohibit such contributions while there are such contracts.

Prime example was the number of contributions by Stevens & Wilkenson, all within the legal maximum for the election cycle. S&W was the architecture and engineering firm awarded the contract for the city- funded, city- developed and city- operated convention center headquarters hotel, a full- service Hilton.

In 2003, both the city (in this case, City Manager Charles Austin) and S&W signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which carried S&W's architectural and engineering fees at a total of $2,238,000. The MOU awarded the contract to S&W after negotiations. There was no price competition with other A&E firms. The state chapter of the American Institute of Architects forbids price competition as the means of selection.

The deal died due to construction cost overruns in the design phase. City council decided to ask for proposals for alternatives from the private sector. Developer Windsor/Aughtry won the city's nod to develop the headquarters Hilton. In the end, the Hilton that stands today at the corner of Senate Street and Park Street, the exact same site as the city's proposed Hilton, costs less than $400,000 in A&E fees, total, quite an improvement over the previous team's $2,238,000 with S&W.

The ethics complaint was filed after the mayoral election in April 2006 in an attempt to explain how there might have been conflict between the timely campaign contributions from S&W to members of city council and the A&E fees total in the MOU.

There were other contributions from other contractors, all itemized and documented, but the S&W instance was the most pronounced.

In the second week of May 2006, only about a month after the complaint was filed, the S.C. Ethics Commission threw out the complaint at a preliminary point, called a loop hole or a technicality by interested parties, without any further exchange or any opportunity to augment the effort to get to the bottom of the conflicts.

In other words, if Sanford is afraid he won't be given the opportunity to explain himself, this is a frightening precedent.

The commission simply said the complaint failed to allege if the financial campaign support in each case was contributed by the contractor or solicited by the member of city council. Who initiated the transfer of campaign funds? How in the world is anyone supposed to know that? Was the campaign contribution a payback for a city contract or a payment for future influence?

If the determination between contribution or solicitation has to be made, let the S. C. Ethics Commission make it as part of its mission statement. The commission should investigate violations of campaign contribution law, not capriciously counter with a dismissal based on a technicality. The campaign funds changed hands in direct viiolation of Section 8- 13- 1342.

If Sanfard thinks the S.C. Ethics Commission could make a move in the interest of expediency, he might have a point.