Sanford embroiled in port scandal
In an overzealous attempt to wield autonomous control over the South Carolina Ports Authority, Gov. Mark Sanford may have taken a number of inappropriate actions to influence last year’s $26 million sale of former port facilities near Beaufort. The Associated Press is reporting that, during the bidding process, Sanford conferred with one developer and undermined another.
Sanford, a real estate developer himself, said he simply was bringing his professional relationships and expertise to his role as a watchdog for the state’s finances. He denied doing anything in an attempt to steer the sale to a specific developer or interfering in the bidding process.
But the governor’s actions in the run-up to the sale of land give his critics ammunition and could add weight to a lawsuit brought by Carroll Campbell III, an ousted member of the Ports Authority who accuses Sanford of abusing his power.
“Mr. Campbell is concerned about, and has to question, the actions by Gov. Sanford that were taken to potentially interfere with a transaction that was clearly in the best interest of South Carolina; actions that appear to have been taken for personal or political reasons,” reads the suit, filed last month.
At issue was the right to transform the port of Port Royal, South Carolina’s smallest state-owned port. Plans calls for a marina, shops, restaurants and residential villages on the port’s 50 acres, which include a mile of waterfront on the Beaufort River. [JIM DAVENPORT - AP]
The way this all unfolded is pretty long and boring, but you’re more than welcome to click the link to the article and read all 25 or so paragraphs. Try not to fall asleep.
So allow me to summarize. The Ports Authority put the property on the market and Sanford worked with the top bidder, although that eventually came up short. The port was again put on the market only this time the governor contacted members of the Ports Authority and attacked the lead bidder’s personal reputation. Then there’s something about a giant monster eating a ship and Sanford runs and hides in a corner but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the rest of the story. It totally comes out of nowhere.
If all of this proves true, it will not only play out in the appeal of ousted board member Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III, but Sanford will open himself to a lawsuit by the developers.
“This was an improper attempt to influence the commission,”
Governor Mark Sanford told to explain workers’ comp
Judge puts temporary halt to change
COLUMBIA –Gov. Mark Sanford must explain to a federal judge this month why he has told Workers’ Compensation commissioners how to do their jobs.
A federal lawsuit, filed Dec. 27, says Sanford’s orders make it hard for four injured workers to get a fair hearing before the commission. That violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution, their lawsuit says.
Sanford will seek to dismiss the federal case, said Joel Sawyer, a governor’s office spokesman. In the meantime, Sanford’s attorneys have sued the Workers’ Compensation Commission in the S.C. Supreme Court.
“We don’t believe there are federal issues in play here,” Sawyer said.
But during a Jan. 14 hearing, U.S. District Judge Ross Anderson said the case against Sanford and the commission raises “very serious federal constitutional issues.”
Anderson the next day extended a restraining order preventing the Workers’ Compensation Commission from obeying the governor’s orders on how to judge cases and whether to release certain case information. The federal restraining order is in place until Feb. 15.
Anderson also added Sanford as a defendant so the commissioners won’t be put in a position of having to defend Sanford’s actions.
The seven-member commission is appointed by the governor to hear disputes between employers and people who claim they were injured on the job. While appointed by the governor, the commission is a judicial board that is supposed to issue orders without outside influence. The governor can fire members for cause.
Companies that must buy insurance to cover the cost of work-related injuries have questioned why their premiums are rising. According to the federal lawsuit, Sanford has conspired with businesses that have a financial interest in workers’ compensation cases. Sanford has said he is working for a more efficient, cost-effective system.
Lawyers representing the injured workers say Sanford wants the commission to issue rulings he agrees with. If not, commissioners face the threat of being fired, they say.
Sawyer said the allegations are “absolutely false.”
But Kathryn Williams, a Greenville attorney for the injured workers, said in court last month that the governor was holding commissioners as “hostages.”
“This was an improper attempt to influence the commission,” Williams, said of Sanford’s 2007 orders to the commission. “I think this case is extremely important. This goes to the foundation of our whole system of justice for workers’ compensation claims.”
Commission chairman David Huffstetler and Richard Gergel, a lawyer representing the commission, declined comment.
At issue is a series of orders Sanford issued last fall.
On Sept. 20, Sanford ordered commissioners to strictly apply certain medical standards that could limit awards - and expenses for businesses. Business leaders said at the time they hoped the order would save companies $72 million a year.
During a news conference attended by representatives of major business groups, Sanford said his order focused on “the importance of making sure that the business conditions in this state are as competitive as the business conditions in the next state, or frankly, the next country,” according to a transcript of the news conference.
Despite his orders, the commission said in October it could not under state law go only by the legal standard Sanford advocated. The governor’s order would have had the commission rely primarily on medical standards in making awards, rather than looking at a broader range of factors, commissioners contend.
But commissioners say they also must consider how injuries affect different employees. An arm injury to a carpenter, for instance, would harm his career more than the same arm injury to a lawyer. So the carpenter might receive a greater award.
In December, Susan Monaco, an employee with a Dollar General retail store in Simpsonville, filed suit in federal court against the commission. The former Navy communications specialist hurt her arm on the job and is seeking compensation.
Her suit, since joined by three other workers, seeks to prevent the governor’s orders from being considered by the commission.
Anderson told the commission Jan. 15 to ignore the governor’s orders. The orders relate either to how the commission should consider cases or whether to release records so Sanford can keep tabs on the amount of money commissioners are giving out.
Sanford’s suit in the state Supreme Court asks the court to force the commission to release the information.
“We’ve asked the commission to follow the law and provide us with information to ensure the law is being complied with,” Sawyer said.
Anderson’s Jan. 15 order bars commissioners from releasing the records and following Sanford’s orders.
Monaco’s attorney told the judge Sanford’s actions constitute a potentially improper contact with commissioners.
Williams also suggested in court that Sanford’s recent contact with another judge supports her client’s position. Sanford telephoned a circuit judge late last year to discuss an annexation lawsuit near Beaufort. Sanford did not attempt to try to influence the final outcome in that case, his office has said.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/story/338070.html
Knotts charges Sanford with abuse of power
Thu, Jan. 10, 2008
Knotts charges Sanford with abuse of power
A state senator fired double-barreled charges of impropriety at Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday, saying the governor had inappropriately called a judge about a pending court case and unnecessarily dismissed a political appointee who disagreed with him.
Lexington County Sen. Jake Knotts surprised many when he said on the Senate floor that Sanford had fired state Ports Authority board member Carroll Campbell III — whose late father was governor from 1987-95 — and made a phone call to Circuit Judge James Lockemy about an annexation case in the Lowcountry.
Those are just the latest examples of how the governor has abused his power, Knotts said.
Sanford’s office acknowledged the Monday firing and the recent telephone call, but said Knotts had “misrepresented the facts.” Governor’s office spokesman Joel Sawyer said Sanford had done nothing improper.
“That’s not a surprise coming from somebody who has attacked the governor as many times as he has,” Sawyer said of Knotts’ charges. “It’s an unfortunate part of the political process.”
Knotts, a fellow Republican but one of Sanford’s harshest critics, asked the Senate to rein in the governor. “I want to ask you for the sake of the people of South Carolina to go in and protect our government from these type of atrocities,” Knotts said.
Sanford has been pushing to restructure government to give him more authority over state agencies. He can appoint members to many boards, such as the Ports Authority’s, but does not have direct control over the agencies.
Sanford allies in the Senate, including Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, said the governor needs more authority.
But Sen. John Hawkins, R-Spartanburg, said he also was concerned about Sanford’s conduct. The governor also recently issued a directive to the S.C. Workers’ Compensation Commission that drew sharp criticism from lawyers as interference in a court proceeding.
Knotts said he did not know what interest Sanford might have in the Lowcountry legal case, but state law bars attempts to influence a judge outside the courtroom. The case was brought by the Coastal Conservation League, in Yemassee.
Lockemy was not available Wednesday. Sanford’s office said the governor does not have an interest in the case and the call was made after it was resolved.
Jean Toal, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, said the judge had issued an oral ruling. Judges often issue such rulings before releasing a written order.
She said Sanford called Lockemy about the case, but the judge told the governor he could not speak about the matter.
Toal said Lockemy told her he offered to the attorneys involved to recuse himself from the case because of contact from Sanford, Toal said. Neither believed Lockemy should remove himself from the case, Toal said.
“I don’t consider the matter a matter raising any difficulties,” Toal said. But when asked if Sanford had acted properly, Toal said: “I’m not going to comment.”
In Campbell’s case, the governor shouldn’t have removed a state agency board member over a disagreement, said Knotts. Sanford’s office provided a 2000 legal opinion Wednesday showing the governor has the discretion to remove members.
Sanford says the fact that Campbell has a government consulting business gave the appearance of a conflict with his Ports Authority post, a charge Campbell hotly denied. But in a Jan. 3 letter to Campbell, Sanford chief of staff Tom Davis acknowledged that the firing resulted from a disagreement over the Ports Authority “business model.”
Sanford has been pushing for a greater role for private enterprise in the ports. But Campbell told The State newspaper that should not mean giving up management.
Campbell said he was hurt by Sanford’s actions, which he said included a phone call to his mother in an attempt to prompt his resignation. Gov. Carroll Campbell Jr. worked for Sanford’s election before he died, his son said.
“If I had to ask Mark Sanford a question, it would be, ‘Is there not an ounce of loyalty in your body?’” Campbell said. “I’d venture to say my father helped deliver Mark Sanford the governor’s office. I’m pretty offended by this.”
By SAMMY FRETWELL -
sfretwell@thestate.com
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/280327.html
So, if tomorrow morning you found out that the top bidder (and Mark Sanford’s friend) has given $750,000 to a Sanford controlled nonprofit…would you be surprised?
Mr. Sanford calls judges handling cases he is interested in, interferers with sales of large state assets, are very friendly with companies that now have large contracts with the state. Something, as they say, is fishy…and Mark Sanford is in the middle of it all.
Maybe Tumpy should write a check to Reform SC. $100,000 ought to get him his job back…
Campbell, Carroll III VS. State of South Carolina - Governor Mark Sanford
Lexington County
Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Filed Date: 01/14/2008
Campbell, Carroll III (Plaintiff)
VS.
State of South Carolina (Defendant)
Case Number: 2008CP3200222
Case Type: Common Pleas
Status: Appeal
Campbell, Carroll III Petition/Filing Fee Required Filing 01/14/2008
Campbell, Carroll III Appeal/Notice of Appeal Filing 01/14/2008
Campbell, Carroll III Motion/Motion Filing Fee Action 01/18/2008
http://www.lex-co.com/applications/scjdweb/publicindex/PICaseDetails.aspx?County=32+&Casenum=2008CP3200222&CourtType=G&CaseType=Civil&CourtAgency=32002&LastName=Campbell&FirstName=Carroll
State Ports Authority (SPA)
Ousted State Ports Authority board member Carroll A. Campbell III last week took the unusual step of appealing Gov. Mark Sanford’s executive order that removed him from the agency’s board.
In documents filed in Lexington County Court of Common Pleas, Campbell stated that he is not, nor has he ever been, a lobbyist, so there is no conflict of interest in his serving as an SPA director.
Sanford cited a potential conflict as his reason for issuing an executive order Jan. 7 removing Campbell from the maritime agency’s board.
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/21/week_review28146/
Governor Mark Sanford Executive Order
Executive Order 2008-03 1/07/2008
Order Removing State Ports Authority Member
http://www.scgovernor.com/NR/rdonlyres/065211D1-0958-45E9-AE24-02B0F1E96897/0/200803OrderRemovingStatePortsAuthorityMember.pdf
“The state Supreme Court has decided to take a case that will decide whether the governor can trump the Legislature’s overhaul of the worker’s compensation system. Sanford also has asked the justices to take a case challenging his authority to oust a board member from the State Ports Authority”.
“While Sanford has been accused of trying to overstep his authority, They even include examples that have earned Sanford criticism: a call late last year to a judge hearing an annexation case in Jasper County and recent word of Sanford’s involvement in the sale of port facilities in Port Royal”.
“His views and direct inquiry into matters - from the workers’ comp case all the way to this phone call to the judge and to the inquiry about the bidder on the port”….
“The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will take up a case brought by Carroll Campbell III, whom Sanford ousted from the Ports Authority in January. Campbell sued in Lexington County, alleging in part that he was tossed because he questioned Sanford’s involvement in selling Port Royal’s port. That sale also was the subject of phone calls Sanford made last year to the-then chairman of the Ports Authority and to the agency’s lawyer disparaging the reputation of a developer seeking to buy the property”.
“Shortly after Campbell filed his lawsuit, Sanford asked the Supreme Court to decide it”.
…”Johnny Felder, Campbell’s lawyer, said Sanford’s authority is the issue. “What’s clear to me is that our governor in several different issues has indicated a willingness to exceed the scope of his authority. It doesn’t appear that he feels limited in his actions by the parameters contained in the spirit and the letter of the law,” Felder said.
“In the worker’s compensation case, Sanford wants the court to affirm his authority over the state Worker’s Compensation Commission. Last year, Sanford ordered the commissioners who decide payments to injured workers to use standards he set, even though the Legislature had rejected them. As he pushed that, workers sued in federal court”.
“Sanford wants that case decided by the Supreme Court, not in federal court, Sawyer said…
“Sanford’s critics hope the justices check his reach”.
“He doesn’t write the laws; he enforces the laws. He doesn’t change the law,” said Belinda Ellison, president of Injured Workers Advocates, a group of worker’s compensation lawyers. “It’s an abuse of power.”
“What some may term abuse…certainly raised the eyebrows of the federal judge hearing the workers’ compensation case when he heard of the governor’s telephone call to a state judge hearing an annexation case.
“That’s hard for me to believe that a governor would assume he had the authority to call a presiding judge,” U.S. District Judge Ross Anderson said in a Jan. 14 hearing, according to The (Columbia) State newspaper. “I’m just in shock, disbelief that that could happen.”
“In the case, the state and the Coastal Conservation League were challenging the town of Yemassee’s annexation of coastal plantation land”.
…”It still is unusual.”
Coastal Conservation League appeals Judge Lockemy’s decision - Bindon Plantation - Yemassee, SC
RE: Beaufort County, SC - Binden/Bindon Plantation Annexation to Yemassee, SC
Groups plan to appeal Bindon decision
Environmental watchdog Coastal Conservation League and Yemassee resident Shemuel Nahum Ben Yisrael filed separate notices this week that they intend to appeal Circuit Court Judge James Lockemy’s decision to throw out their lawsuit against the town of Yemassee. The lawsuit sought to block Yemassee’s annexation of Bindon Plantation, a rural 1,317-acre property near the town.
Lockemy found in January that Yisrael lacked proper standing to contest the annexation. The Coastal Conservation League joined forces with Yisrael because the league lacked standing. Patrick Moore, south coast office director for the league, said Yisrael and the league filed separate notices of their intentions to appeal because their arguments against Lockemy’s decision will differ. Briefs describing those arguments must be filed within 30 days.
S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster sought to join the lawsuit in July, but Lockemy found that McMaster waited too long to challenge the town’s action. The Attorney General’s Office filed a motion to reconsider Lockemy’s decision in January, but no ruling has been delivered. If the motion to reconsider is denied, the Attorney General’s Office will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal.
http://www.beaufortgazette.com/developing_stories/story/193289.html