John Monk’s scoop about Harrell, Wilson, and secrecy

Corey Hutchins has written a piece in Columbia Journalism Review about John Monk’s investigative scoop last week, revealing that Speaker Bobby Harrell has sought a secret court hearing on his proposal to remove Attorney General Alan Wilson from Harrell’s ethics case:

The people’s court?

Will a lone South Carolina judge make a secret decision this week in a closed court? The State leads the push for transparency

CHARLESTON, SC — An investigation of one of the most powerful politicians in this state has turned into a key test of how open the courts here are, with media organizations arguing in print and—they hope—in the courtroom that key legal decisions shouldn’t be made behind closed doors. For more than a year, the state’s Republican House Speaker, Bobby Harrell, has been under investigation for possible misuse of campaign funds and abuse of his public office, though Harrell maintains he has done nothing wrong. In January, South Carolina’s Republican Attorney General, Alan Wilson, sent the case to a state grand jury. Wilson’s office would prosecute the case should it end up at trial, and the situation has been prickly for the two Republicans, with Harrell accusing Wilson of trying to damage him politically. The political intrigue blew up into an open-government concern a week ago, when John Monk of The State newspaper in Columbia, citing unnamed sources, reported that Harrell’s attorneys were secretly seeking a closed-door hearing before a state judge to argue that Wilson should be removed as the prosecutor. The substantive argument for disqualifying Wilson was unclear, Monk reported…

Which reminds me that I meant to say last week, when John’s story appeared, that it’s nice to see the paper allow him the time to do what he’s best at. Instead of routine crime stories, and other general assignment-type stuff.

I say that not to be critical of the newspaper. When your staff has shrunk to the size The State‘s has, due to financial pressures beyond editors’ control, you need every hand you’ve got on the routine stuff. And John pulls his weight on the bread-and-butter stories that must get covered each day.

Which makes it particularly great that he was able to find the time to get this story, which reveals an attempt at secret dealing that John said would be “unprecedented.”

Corey quoted press association attorney Jay Bender as saying:

What happens to our democratic society if newspapers go away? Who’s going to be out there asking these crucial questions and trying to push people in public positions to conduct public business in public view?

What happens, indeed?

6 thoughts on “John Monk’s scoop about Harrell, Wilson, and secrecy

  1. Doug Ross

    Why not let John Monk focus solely on the “exclusive” type stories? Aren’t those what are going to drive traffic to the website versus another recap of a council meeting? Let handle that boilerplate stuff and let great people do what they do best.

    There is a model for a news gathering organization that will work – but it has to be faster, more specialized, and more powerful than a daily hardcopy newspaper like The State. Front page editorials, more investigative journalism, ditch anything that is generic and available from a thousand other sources.

    The newspaper industry is just too set in its ways… adapt or die.

    1. Kathryn Fenner

      My friends actually are far more likely to read the recap of council meetings, having given up on state level politics….

      1. Lynn T

        I can appreciate the temptation to become frustrated with state politics, but I’m not really sure that county or city council is a major improvement. Yes, local governments have very visible and direct impacts on our lives, but state government has equal or greater impacts. In fact, in this state a lot of what we see at the local level is actually decided at the State House; the local governments are just dealing with the fallout.

        1. Kathryn Fenner

          I have considerably more influence in city matters. Columbia is marginalized on a state level by the crazy voters elsewhere.

          1. Mark Stewart

            Columbia voters seem to vote against their own best interests, protecting entrenched power over progressivism; just as voters in the rest of the state tend to do. Columbian’s just do it to themselves over other issues.

Comments are closed.