S.C. Policy Council Files Ethics Complaint Against Harrell with Attorney General

Rick Brundrett with this story at TheNerve.org:

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson’s acceptance today of an ethics complaint against state House Speaker Bobby Harrell highlights conflict-of-interest weaknesses in state law dealing with the House Ethics Committee.

Ashley Landess, president of the South Carolina Policy Council, the parent organization of The Nerve, this afternoon filed a formal complaint against Harrell, R-Charleston, with the attorney general, whose office said the matter would be forwarded to the State Law Enforcement Division.

In a letter this afternoon to SLED Chief Mark Keel, John McIntosh, chief deputy attorney general, said Landess has “brought to our attention today that there may be inherent conflicts of interest by potential witnesses with respect to any initial inquiry by the House Ethics Committee,” and that Landess referred the matter to the Attorney General’s Office for “handling as a criminal matter.”

“Consistent with our usual long-standing policy, we are requesting that SLED assign an agent to conduct this inquiry,” McIntosh wrote.

The complaint asks that Wilson’s office investigate whether Harrell:

Used his office for his financial benefit or that of his family business;
Used campaign funds for personal purposes;
Failed to maintain required records documenting his campaign expenditures;
Adequately itemized campaign reimbursements as required by state law; and
Violated state law by appointing his brother to a state judicial screening panel.

Read more at the link above.

CLICK HERE to see the letter submitted to the Attorney General.

February 14, 2013  Tags: , , ,   Posted in: Uncategorized

2 Responses

  1. Magda Aguila - February 15, 2013

    Do we have a copy of the actual Complaint?

  2. Gene E Nowak - February 15, 2013

    Will this investigation produce results or just serve as a buffer.

    Now we have two investigations doing simultaneous which will assure that both will fail to reach a conclusion.

    Each of the investigations will claim the other is/was the only one that could convict under the law/rules. Each will, in turn, claim the other investigating body withheld evidence, so they were unable to reach a conclusion.

    Result he will continue to do business as usual and we will be billed for the costs and all investigating entities will boastfully claim “we tried, but . . . .”.

Leave a Reply