Opinion ID: 1421063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proof of misconduct

Text: Under S.C.Code Ann. § 1-3-10 (1986), a public officer has an affirmative duty to immediately furnish to the Governor, in such form as he may require, any information desired by him in relation to [the officer's] affairs or activities. [2] The circuit court affirmed Rose's removal on the ground he violated this statute and was therefore guilty of misconduct. Rose contends this Court should hold as a matter of law that he committed no misconduct because his failure to produce the requested documents was prompted by his uncertainty about the scope of Daniel's representation. Rose relies on his letter of June 28 by which he responded to Daniel's request as follows: .... I must state that the manner in which your questions are phrased and the nature of the information you seek raises some question about your role in this matter. In our recent contacts, you represented to me that you were not hired by the Governor's Office to investigate the Department of Public Safety, but had been hired to advise the Governor on legal (not political) matters.... However, the Governor's spokesperson has been quoted describing your role to the contrary without stating under what authority you are operating as an independent counsel. To ensure that our actions do not jeopardize any aspect of the ongoing investigations, I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me in writing with the authority under which you are operating when making these requests. I would also request that you provide me in writing with the parameters of your agreement for representation of the Governor and whether this representation extends to members of his staff or the Governor's Office as an entity.... Again, at this time I must refrain from answering your request since I cannot in good conscience respond without a complete understanding of your representational relationship and operating authority in this matter. As indicated in this letter, Rose knew Daniel was representing the Governor. [3] Regardless of whether Daniel was investigating the Governor's Office or DPS, Rose was obligated to furnish the requested documents. [4] The scope of Daniel's representation of the Governor is immaterial to Rose's duty to the Governor under § 1-3-10. Rose also contends his letter of June 28 indicates only that he intended to delay providing the documents and is not proof he refused the Governor's request. Section 1-3-10 imposes a duty to immediately furnish information requested by the Governor. This statute allows a public officer no discretion to delay compliance with the Governor's request. It is not for this Court to second-guess the wisdom of the legislature in imposing such a duty on public officers. A public officer's failure to comply with a statutory duty constitutes misfeasance in office. Richland County v. Owens, 92 S.C. 329, 75 S.E. 549 (1912). Misfeasance is a ground for removal under § 1-3-240(C). Accordingly, Rose's failure to immediately furnish the requested documents supports his removal. Rose's argument to this Court that he had an understanding with the FBI to protect important investigative documents is contradicted by his own testimony on appeal to the circuit court. Rose testified that FBI agent Dodge Frederick had told him that pending requests under the Freedom of Information Act did not have to be honored because of the exemption for documents collected in pursuit of an investigation. Rose admitted this conversation did not concern Daniel's request for documents and he had no impression he was under any duty imposed by the FBI regarding the documents Daniel was requesting. Further, Rose failed to provide even the publicly available grant procedure documents requested by Daniel which were not investigative documents. Finally, Rose suggests it is within this Court's power to effectively prevent the Governor's suppression of the allegations of grant fraud by his staff by holding Rose was guilty of no misconduct as a matter of law. Despite the reprehensibility of the alleged grant manipulations and forgeries, it is unavoidably Rose's conduct we must scrutinize. We cannot exonerate him by examining the merits of his claim regarding improprieties by other government officials.