I see that even after the last time I weighed in on this string, Chris W was still exercised about Cindi Scoppe saying in a column that Rich Eckstrom’s foolishness with the state van was actually illegal.

A sample of Chris W’s commentary:

You say something is illegal. The officials say it is not. You stand
behind your statements as if there were no burden of proof. You offer
no proof, just a claim.

Well, I made the mistake of asking Cindi if she’d mind sending me a note walking me through the basis of her opinion that Mr. Eckstrom appeared to have committed a misdemeanor, so I could post it for Chris W and anybody else who was curious. She said OK. I expected a paragraph. Cindi being Cindi, this is what I got:

Here’s the statute Mr. Eckstrom points to to argue that his use of the state van was legal:

SECTION 1-11-270. Division of Motor Vehicle Management; establishment of criteria for individual assignment of motor vehicles.

(A) The board shall establish criteria for individual assignment of motor vehicles based on the functional requirements of the job, which shall reduce the assignment to situations clearly beneficial to the State. Only the Governor, statewide elected officials, and agency heads are provided a state-owned vehicle based on their position.

(B) Law enforcement officers, as defined by the agency head, may be permanently assigned state-owned vehicles by their respective agency head. Agency heads may assign a state-owned vehicle to an employee when the vehicle carries or is equipped with special equipment needed to perform duties directly related to the employee’s job, and the employee is either in an emergency response capacity after normal working hours or for logistical reasons it is determined to be in the agency’s interest for the vehicle to remain with the employee. No other employee may be permanently assigned to a state-owned vehicle, unless the assignment is cost advantageous to the State under guidelines developed by the State Fleet Manager. Statewide elected officials, law enforcement officers, and those employees who have been assigned vehicles because they are in an emergency response capacity after normal working hours are exempt from reimbursing the State for commuting miles. Other employees operating a permanently assigned vehicle must reimburse the State for commuting between home and work.

(C) All persons, except the Governor and statewide elected officials, permanently assigned with automobiles shall log all trips on a log form approved by the board, specifying beginning and ending mileage and job function performed. However, trip logs must not be maintained for vehicles whose gross vehicle weight is greater than ten thousand pounds nor for vehicles assigned to full-time line law enforcement officers. Agency directors and commissioners permanently assigned state vehicles may utilize exceptions on a report denoting only official and commuting mileage in lieu of the aforementioned trip logs.

     Note that this law does NOT say vehicle use is unlimited. It merely says that 1) constitutional officers can have a vehicle permanently assigned to them without first meeting the test of demonstrating that the state saves money by assigning them a vehicle and 2) constitutional officers are allowed to COMMUTE to and from work without reimbursing the state for that expense.
    Additionally, as one prosecutor put it, the language allowing constitutional officers to use the vehicle for commuting IMPLIES that any other personal use is outlawed.
    Beyond that, though, two other laws, below, make it even clearer that personal use of state vehicles that is not specifically authorized is prohibited.

    Here’s the provision contained in this year’s budget (and in every year’s budget going back at least to 1993) that says state employees don’t get extra perks except for those specifically spelled out in the proviso; note that the proviso does NOT include unlimited use of a state vehicle as an excepted perk. (A budget proviso has the force of law.)  A 1993 attorney general’s ruling on the question of constitutional officers’ use of state vehicles cited this provision as an additional basis for saying that the use of the vehicles was restricted:

72.19. (GP: Allowance for Residences & Compensation Restrictions) That salaries paid to officers and employees of the State, including its several boards, commissions, and institutions shall be in full for all services rendered, and no perquisites of office or of employment shall be allowed in addition thereto, but such perquisites, commodities, services or other benefits shall be charged for at the prevailing local value and without the purpose or effect of increasing the compensation of said officer or employee. The charge for these items may be payroll deducted at the discretion of the Comptroller General or the chief financial officer at each agency maintaining its own payroll system. This shall not apply to the Governor’s Mansion, nor for department-owned housing used for recruitment and training of Mental Health Professionals, nor to guards at any of the state’s penal institutions and nurses and attendants at the Department of Mental Health, and the Department of Disabilities & Special Needs, and registered nurses providing clinical care at the MUSC Medical Center, nor to the Superintendent and staff of John de la Howe School, nor to the cottage parents and staff of Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School, nor to full-time or part-time staff who work after regular working hours in the SLED Communications Center or Maintenance Area, nor to adult staff at the Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics who are required to stay on campus by the institution because of job requirements or program participation. The presidents of those state institutions of higher learning authorized to provide on-campus residential facilities for students may be permitted to occupy residences on the grounds of such institutions without charge

Here’s the provision in the Ethics Act that applies here, followed by the definition in that same act of the operative term, "economic interest":

SECTION 8-13-700. Use of official position or office for financial gain; disclosure of potential conflict of interest.

(A) No public official, public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated. This prohibition does not extend to the incidental use of public materials, personnel, or equipment, subject to or available for a public official’s, public member’s, or public employee’s use which does not result in additional public expense.

SECTION 8-13-100. Definitions.
(11)(a) "Economic interest" means an interest distinct from that of the general public in a purchase, sale, lease, contract, option, or other transaction or arrangement involving property or services in which a public official, public member, or public employee may gain an economic benefit of fifty dollars or more.

Additionally, the state constitution has this provision on the private use of public funds, which the courts have held to be a prohibition on the private use of public funds or resources:

ARTICLE VI., SECTION 8. Suspension and prosecution of officers accused of crime.

Whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor that probable cause exists to charge any officer of the State or its political subdivisions who has the custody of public or trust funds with embezzlement or the appropriation of public or trust funds to private use, then the Governor shall direct his immediate prosecution by the proper officer, and upon indictment by a grand jury or, upon the waiver of such indictment if permitted by law, the Governor shall suspend such officer and appoint one in his stead, until he shall have been acquitted. In case of conviction, the position shall be declared vacant and the vacancy filled as may be provided by law.

Finally, I don’t have the cite for this, but I know that … either state law or the constitution or both says that all public employees have a fiduciary duty to avoid even the appearance of improper conduct, and to use public resources for private or personal purposes would certainly apply. As one prosecutor put it, "That’d be like using the wildlife boats to go out and take your family on a fishing expedition."

Cindi Ross Scoppe
Associate Editor
The State newspaper
(803) 771 8571

Anyway, that either satisfies you or not. She has her opinion; you have yours. Hers is based upon the above.