When will next shoe drop for Sanford?

While Gov. Mark Sanford no longer has to fear impeachment, he still faces a long list of alleged ethics violations, with a state Ethics Commission hearing most likely in mid-spring. Still undecided, however, is the much grimmer prospect that the governor might also have to defend himself against criminal charges.

The latter is up to Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is facing what many contend is a no-win decision. The mere fact that he might have to bring unprecedented charges against the state's chief executive and a fellow Republican is enough to make the situation sticky. But couple that with McMaster's candidacy for governor in the June GOP primary and you're certain to hear charges of political motivation, regardless of what he decides.

In fact, a panelist questioned McMaster on the timing of the Sanford decision during a recent televised debate of GOP primary contenders. Contending he won't let politics either slow or accelerate his decision-making, McMaster continues to decline to provide a timetable. He says ethical considerations prevent a prosecutor from saying anything that reflects either the strength or weakness of a case.

He will say that most of his staff is involved in reviewing the investigatory files provided by the state Ethics Commission and in following established prosecution standards. According to McMaster, that involves a deep analysis of the facts and elements of potential violations, along with a determination of whether there is a need for more amplification or further investigation. The Ethics Commission staff investigation was forwarded to McMaster in mid-November.

Ethics Commission attorney Cathy Hazelwood talks frankly of her surprise that McMaster didn't ask a retired solicitor to decide whether Sanford should be prosecuted to avoid the inevitable political perceptions. But McMaster says, in effect, that being put in a darned-if-you-do and darned-if-you-don't situation goes with the territory.

He notes that similar questions have arisen in numerous cases he's handled, particularly when he was U.S. attorney in the early 1980s. He recalls instances when he had to make decisions on the prosecution of childhood friends and college classmates. "You do the job you were elected or appointed to do."

While McMaster is mum on when Sanford will get the word on whether he will face criminal prosecution, the timetable on the Ethics Commission hearing where the governor will face 37 alleged violations is a little more definitive.

According to Hazelwood, the Commission is likely to decide at its next regular meeting in mid-March when to set that hearing. She notes that the Sanford investigation, which started last fall, has taken most of the staff's time, putting other cases on hold. In recent months, she said, the staff has been playing catch up, including trying to get the hearing docket back on schedule. One pending case dates to 2008.

The best guess is that Sanford hearing, which is expected to take several days, will be scheduled for sometime in April before a three-member panel of commissioners drawn at random. The panel's decision can be appealed to the full commission. That likely would extend that process at least through May and near the time the terms of four of the nine commissioners expire. Hazelwood acknowledges that the pending departure this summer of a number of commissioners familiar with the case is cause for concern.

While Hazelwood believes the commission decision will come well before Sanford leaves office, he does have the option of going to the Court of Appeals if he is dissatisfied with the outcome.

While the Commission is limited to fines for ethical violations, a criminal prosecution, even on the kinds of misdemeanor charges Sanford could face, carries the possibility of a prison term. From a criminal standpoint, the critical issue is whether the governor knowingly and willfully violated ethics laws or statutes on public corruption.

Basically, the 37 alleged ethics violations involve the non-official use of state airplanes, business class tickets on overseas flights and questionable reimbursements from campaign funds.

There has been considerable discussion about the fact that Sanford is by no means the first governor to fly business class rather than coach on lengthy trips abroad or to use the state aircraft for non-official business.

Hazelwood agrees there is a need to take a long, hard look at overseas travel, the use of the state plane and what is and isn't legitimate campaign expense.

If, for example, there is sentiment against putting the governor in a coach seat on trade missions then the Legislature should clearly write that into state law. State law stipulates coach fare only unless there is an "exigent" or urgent circumstance, which has been subject to broad interpretation.

But don't look for the Legislature to resolve these issues while Sanford is still in office. His enemies aren't about to let anything pass that might signal empathy for his predicament.

Barbara S. Williams, editor emertius of The Post and Courier, may be reached at bwilliams@postandcourier.com.