By Mike Fitts
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

COLUMBIA -- The House Judiciary Committee agreed with its subcommittee’s recommendation to censure Gov. Mark Sanford for his alleged wrongdoings. The measure now moves to the full House for a vote.

“Again, I must thank the Judiciary Committee for taking the time during this busy holiday season to fully investigate the allegations of serious crimes and serious misconduct made against the governor.  I applaud their efforts to address this regrettably necessary matter so that, when the General Assembly session arrives, lawmakers can focus on the issues South Carolinians care about the most,” said House Speaker Bobby Harrell.

“The censure resolution — a legislative decree condemning the governor’s actions — will now move to the House floor.  I expect the full House to quickly address this censure and move on to more pressing issues facing our state.”

If censure is passed, the Legislature would formally upbraid the governor for his behavior, including being out of touch for five days while visiting his Argentine girlfriend this summer. It would not affect his powers in office.

Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester, and lead sponsor of the impeachment measure, argued that the governor’s serious misconduct required the inquiry of an impeachment.

“Serious misconduct does not require a crime,” Delleney said.

In 2008, Sanford created a Commerce trip to Argentina as a pretext to visit his mistress, which was an abuse of power, Delleney asserted. He repaid about $3,000 after his affair was disclosed.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, lambasted the governor for his conduct and those who wanted to censure instead of impeach, calling the process “a kangaroo court” for trying to wrap up the debate quickly.

Rutherford, an attorney, said that he has defended employees who have committed much more minor offenses who would face trial and possibly jail. Sanford didn’t have the right “to duck his job for five days.”

Rutherford said that the committee was being played as “idiots” by the governor, a remark that later drew a rebuke from committee Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia.

A censure does nothing, Rutherford said: “Who cares?”

Rep. James E. Smith, D-Columbia, said that the governor’s conduct might be worth the time of impeachment if he were in his first term, but he’s already irrelevant now. The Legislature needs to concentrate on issues such as jobs, rather than an impeachment, he said.

“A vote for censure is not an endorsement of the governor’s conduct — it’s quite the contrary,” Smith said.

Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, said he has struggled with how to proceed. Many constituents have told him that they didn’t want an impeachment to drag out Sanford’s public troubles. But what standard is being set for everyone, Stavrinakis asked, if he is not impeached?

The whole process of investigating Sanford’s conduct has been taken too casually, he said. The governor himself has been revealed to have been “lazy” in office, at least until he got in trouble, Stavrinakis said.

“I’ve seen him working hard to save his butt,” he said.

Censure would follow the recommendation of the impeachment subcommittee, which believed that his absence from the state was a failure to do the duties of his office but did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Sanford’s staff had told the media that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail; in fact, he had shed his security detail and flown to Argentina to see his mistress.

The governor still faces possible sanctions from the State Ethics Commission or state prosecution for his actions, including his use of state travel. Last week, first lady Jenny Sanford filed for divorce.

Published Dec. 17, 2009