High court to make call on ethics report

COLUMBIA -- The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Oct. 19 in a case over the release of an ethics report that the House could use as a foundation to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford.

The action marks the second time in four months that Supreme Court justices are wedged between Sanford and legislators.

Late Monday, Chief Justice Jean Toal signed an order that the high court agreed to take the case.

The court also granted House Speaker Bobby Harrell's request Monday to argue alongside the State Ethics Commission for the release of the report. Harrell, a Charleston Republican, is acting on behalf of the House.

Sanford's attorneys don't want the House to be given access to the report when it's finished later this month. They argue it won't include the governor's full defense and that its release will corrupt the process by exposing commissioners to outside pressures and discouraging witnesses from speaking freely.

The governor's outside counsel, Butch Bowers and Kevin Hall, Columbia law partners, have until noon today to file a response to an action submitted by the Ethics Commission on Monday. The order also sets deadlines later this month for additional responses by all three parties.

The commission asked the court to dismiss the case on several grounds. First, the commission says that Sanford's attorneys filed the wrong action in the wrong court and, second, that the time is not ripe for court intervention because the report is not completed.

Sanford's attorneys asked the court to intervene last week.

The report, which is expected to be completed in late October, is an investigation into allegations that Sanford misused state aircraft, failed to follow ethics rules that govern the use of private planes and violated state policies that require the cheapest accommodations possible on commercial flights.

The allegations, which also include questions about Sanford's campaign reimbursements, stem from his disappearance in June. On the day he returned to a media frenzy, the governor revealed that he had been visiting his lover in Argentina.

The Ethics Commission had planned to release the report later this month to the House, if it had initiated impeachment hearings. House leaders have said that the report will help them gauge what action to take against Sanford, including a public censure or no action at all.

The Senate is mostly silent on the issue because it would be called upon to serve as jury if the House were to impeach Sanford. The Legislature does not reconvene under normal circumstances until January, although Harrell could designate a committee to begin impeachment proceedings earlier.

Harrell said that the House wants transparency and openness in the process. He, along with House Republican and Democratic caucuses, have called on Sanford to resign.

"This issue is too important for us (to) allow it to be done in secret," Harrell said in a statement. "If the governor succeeds in breaking his promise to keep this process transparent, it will cause all of this to drag on and on. It is time to get this behind us and move on."

Sanford agreed to waive his confidentiality in the Ethics Commission proceedings, but the governor said in mid-September that the legislators need a full investigation so they can respond appropriately. To release only part of an investigation would give his political enemies fuel to go after an impeachment without all the facts, he said at that time.

The governor's attorneys contend that the report first must be given to the nine Ethics commissioners, who will determine if there is probable cause to move forward. If so, a panel of three is selected. It is then, Sanford's attorneys say, that the governor will for the first time have the ability to answer all the charges against him.

Sanford communications director Ben Fox stressed that the governor is in favor of transparency as well as a complete and impartial review.

See our special section on Governor Mark Sanford

"It simply flies in the face of fundamental fairness and due process to have one side's argument fully aired and made public, and the other side not allowed the same full and fair hearing and we believe short-circuiting the legal process for the sake of political payback is more than unwise, it's dangerous," Fox said in a statement.

Harrell said Sanford's court filing is a political delay tactic.

"The bottom line is, the governor said this would be an open process and now he's changed his mind," Harrell said. "You have to wonder what is the Ethics Commission uncovering that he doesn't want us to know about."

The governor and the Legislature have a long history of feuding. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Sanford was required to accept federal stimulus funds in a high-profile battle between the governor and legislators over whether the state would receive its $700 million designated by Congress in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.