S.C. lawmaker offers confused reason for bond vote
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Rep. Jeff Bradley, R-Hilton Head Island, whose House district is served by the Bluffton campus of the University of South Carolina-Beaufort, says he “recused” himself on a proposed $500 million bond issue when, in fact, he voted against it.
Asked about his vote, Bradley initially responded: “Let’s just say I recused myself.”
“I have to recuse myself from the bonds because I work for the Edwards Jones company,” Bradley said.
Asked to clarify, the lawmaker acknowledged he voted against the bond issue, which included $7 million for a classroom building for the Bluffton campus of the University of South Carolina Beaufort. The House defeated the measure 73-38.
His vote also is recorded in the House journal as matter of procedure.
“We are potential dealers of municipal bonds, so I didn’t want to vote for it, or I’m not allowed to vote for it because I didn’t want to create a conflict of interest,” Bradley said last week.
On Monday he elaborated to say his employer asked him not to vote on bond issues in his capacity as a state lawmaker.
“Edward Jones asked me not to vote on bond issues,” he said in a voicemail. “Before we went into the bond vote, I spoke to my counsel, and they said that voting in favor of the bond would appear to be a conflict of interest for Edward Jones. Voting against it wasn’t a conflict of interest.”
As for why he said he had recused himself last week when he had, in fact, voted on the issue, Bradley said Tuesday, “Maybe I used the wrong term when I was speaking to you.”
Voting against something isn’t a recusal, said Ashley Landess, president of the S.C. Policy Council, a government watchdog organization.
“An act of recusal should be to completely abstain from any activity, including any vote, in relation to potential conflict of interest,” she said.
John Crangle, executive director of Common Cause South Carolina, agreed.
“This behavior is highly unusual,” he said.
“If he has a conflict of interest, normally a person would do a recusal and not vote either way. Or if you think you have a conflict, consult the House Ethics Committee and ask for an advisory opinion.”
— Morris News Service