Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

O God, our Creator and Sustainer, in all the fields of human endeavor, in all the complicated conditions of civilization, in so many mad movements in which we find ourselves, help us to remember always that You are God. So undergird us in the assurance of Your never failing presence and of Your ever ready guidance. Keep us knowledgeable that You judge us each day not as much by the harvest we reap as by the seed we plant.

So make us to hear and to heed the words of the Psalmist: "He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His Name's sake." (Psalm 23:3)

Amen.

Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.

After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

TO:             The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM:     James H. Hodges, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE:     April 21, 1994

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges, Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. M.O. Alexander
/s/Rep. Donald W. Beatty
/s/Rep. C. Lenoir Sturkie

The Screening Process

Pursuant to Act No. 119 of 1975 and Act. No. 181 of 1993, this Committee has considered the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the positions of Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court; Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court; Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number 4; and Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number 2.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary and Judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to one of these positions, the Committee conducts a thorough investigation of the candidate. The Committee's investigation includes a review of the candidate's scholastic, employment, and financial history and, in particular, focuses on the candidate's adherence to a strong code of ethical behavior, be it to the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the attorneys practicing in South Carolina, the Code of Judicial Conduct regulating the activities of all judges in South Carolina, or the more generally accepted, but unwritten, rules of fairness and respect which should govern interaction between all of this state's citizens.

While Act 119 restricts this Committee to making findings of qualification or non-qualification, the Committee views its role to also include the obligation to consider candidates in the context of the position to which, if they are elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, this Committee has inquired as to the quality of justice delivered in the hearing and court rooms of South Carolina and has sought to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of judicial temperament, concern for an informed Bench and Administrative Law Judge, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition on ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. The Committee has also sought to impart its view that good temperament is an essential quality of a judge. Justice can surely prevail when a judge is courteous to litigants and lawyers alike. The Committee reiterates its displeasure with those candidates who strain the no pledging rule so as to come to the Committee with a "lock," albeit an informal one, on a judgeship. The Committee weighs heavily such activity in determining compliance with the screening and ethics legislation and, hence, the qualification of a candidate.

During this round of screening, the Committee found several instances where candidates requested others to contact members of the General Assembly on their behalf before this screening report was issued. The Committee reiterates its interpretation that Section 2-19-70 of the South Carolina Code, as amended in 1993, prohibits this activity. Before the screening report is issued, a candidate may request friends and colleagues to contact members of the General Assembly, but the candidate must caution the friends and colleagues to only do so after the Committee issues its report. In this round of screenings, the Committee is convinced the candidates did not knowingly violate the statute; however, in the future all candidates will be considered to have ample notice with violations weighing heavily against the candidate's qualifications.

The Committee's report includes the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee on March 29 and March 30, 1994. The Transcript does not include all exhibits offered by candidates or witnesses at the hearing because of the length of some exhibits. Exhibits which are not reproduced as a part of the Transcript may be viewed in the Office of the Judicial Screening Committee (Room 211 of the Gressette Building), since these exhibits were reviewed and considered by the Committee in making its findings.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF MARCH 29, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN:     Call the meeting to order. For the Committee Members, we're passing out the Bar results of the Bar Screening of the Supreme Court candidates. As a matter of information, we do not have the Family Court races, we don't have the Bar screening results for those, but I understand they've been promised sometime today; is that correct.
MS. MCNAMEE:     This afternoon.
THE CHAIRMAN:     This afternoon. We should receive those before we begin the screening process, so I'll pass those out to you. Please note on the report of the Judicial Qualifications Committee that they have made the changes that we discussed with the Bar members. Senator McConnell and I met with the representatives of the Bar and had what I thought was a very positive and fruitful discussion about the -- where we were in the screening process.

As a result of those discussions that we had, some changes have been in the process. One is the system of qualified, well qualified and unqualified and after considerable thought and discussion of the Bar Screening Committee, Judicial Qualifications Committee has decided to modify that and to go with the qualified and unqualified form that we use in our evaluation of candidates.

And if you'll look, they give more weight to discussing the various attributes or deficiencies of candidates in their general discussion of the candidates rather than trying to discern between whose well qualified and qualified or unqualified.

With that in mind, we're going to move to the first election that we have to screen and that is for Chief Justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court. We have one candidate, Ernest A. Finney, Jr. Justice Finney, if you'll come forward, please. Would you raise your right hand please, sir.
JUSTICE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you. Be seated, please.
JUSTICE FINNEY:     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Justice Finney, your last screening was February 27th, 1990 for the seat that you currently hold. Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
JUSTICE FINNEY:     I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is that correct?
JUSTICE FINNEY:     As far as I know, it is absolutely accurate.
THE CHAIRMAN:     You know of no changes that need to be made?
JUSTICE FINNEY:     No, I know of none.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is there any objection to making the Summary a part of the transcript of record of this hearing?
JUSTICE FINNEY:     I have no objection.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will be done at this time.

1.     Ernest A. Finney, Jr.
Home Address:                             Business Address:
24 Runnymede Boulevard             P. O. Drawer 1309
Sumter, SC 29150                     Sumter, SC 29151-1309

2.     He was born in Isle of Wright County, Virginia on March 23, 1931. He is presently 63 years old.

4.     He was married to Frances Davenport on August 20, 1955. He has three children:     Ernest A., III, age 37 (attorney at Law, Sumter, SC); Lynn C. (Nikky), age 36 (instructor, University of Kentucky); and Jerry Leo, age 29 (assistant solicitor, Lexington, SC).

5.     Military Service:     None

6.     He attended Claflin College, Orangeburg, SC, 1948-1952, Bachelor of Arts Degree; S. C. State University School of Law, Orangeburg, SC, 1952-1954, Juris Doctor Degree; National Judicial College, Reno, Nevada, 1977 Summer Study, Certificate; and New York University, New York, NY, 1985 Summer Study, Certificate.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
1988:         15 credit hours
1989:         25 credit hours
1990:         15 credit hours
1991:         15 credit hours
1992:         19 credit hours
1993:         44 credit hours
1994:         6.5 credit hours (to date)

Annually:     S. C. Bar Annual and Mid-Year Meetings; S. C. Annual Judicial Conference; S. C. Trial Lawyers Association Convention; S. C. Defense Attorneys Convention
1992, 1993:     The Roscoe Pound Foundation State Court Judges Forum
1993:     The National Bar Association Annual Meeting

9.     Taught or Lectured:
1993         National Bar Association Judicial Council 23rd Annual Congress-Lecture "Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines"
1990         S. C. Bar Meeting-Lecture "Criminal Practice in S. C. - Trial Evidence"
1989         Annual Judicial Conference-Lecture "Statutory Limitations in Sentencing"
1988         Public Defenders Annual Meeting; 1988 New Judges Seminar
1987         S. C. Bar Annual Meeting
1986         NBA Judicial Council Annual Meeting
1985         S. C. Trial Lawyers Association Convention

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1954-1960     General Practice, Conway, South Carolina
1960-1976     General Practice (Managing Partner), Sumter, South Carolina
1976-1985     South Carolina Circuit Court Judge
1985-date     Association Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     He cannot recall.

20.     Judicial Office:
1976-1985     South Carolina Circuit Court Judge; elected by General Assembly; Court of General Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction
1985-date     Associate Justice, S. C. Supreme Court; elected by General Assembly; Court of Final State Appellate Jurisdiction

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         Michael Stephen Moore v. Tammy E. Moore (Simmons), et al.
300 S.C. 75, 386 S.E.2d 456 (1989)
(b)         Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Phillip H. Loter, et al.
297 S.C. 382, 377 S.E.2d 296 (1989)
(c)         Dale Robert Yates v. James Aiken, Warden, et al. (Dissenting Opinion)
290 S.C. 231, 349 S.E.2d 84 (1986)
484 U.S. 211, 108 S.Ct. 534 (1988)
301 S.C. 214, 391 S.E.2d 530 (1989)
(d)         Marvin P. Caddell v. Lexington County School District No. 1, et al. (Dissenting Opinion)
296 S.C. 397, 373 S.E.2d 598 (1988)
(e)         State of South Carolina, ex rel. T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General v. The South Carolina Coastal Council, et al., etc., (Consolidated cases)
289 S.C. 445, 346 S.E.2d 716 (1986)

22.     Public Office:
Member, South Carolina House of Representatives, 1972-1976, elected
Member, South Carolina State Election Commission, 1968-1972, appointed
Member, United States Civil Rights Commission, appointed
Chairman, South Carolina Advisory Committee on Civil Rights, 1963, appointed

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
South Carolina Supreme Court; Associate Justice; February 20, 1980 and May 9, 1984
Sumter County Council; Democratic Primary; June, 1970
South Carolina House of Representatives, Democratic Primary, 1968
United States House of Representatives, Write-in Candidate, 1966

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
September, 1960 - June, 1965:     Part-time Instructor, Morris College, Sumter, South Carolina
September, 1954 - June, 1960:     Public School Teacher, Conway, South Carolina
During Law School:     Life Insurance Salesman, Soda Shop Manager, Construction Laborer
During College and High School:     Shoe Salesman and Farm Laborer

26.     Officer or Director:     Chairman, Board of Directors, Buena Vista Development Corporation (Developer of the subdivision in which his residence is located), 1968 to date

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
He knows of none. However, should such a conflict of interest arise, he would recuse himself from any case in which there may be a conflict of interest.

32.     Sued:

Personally:

McLeod v. Finney - Mail carrier slipped on front porch of his home and brought an action for personal injury. The suit was settled by his insurance carrier.

Earl Allen Parker, et al. v. Edna Witherspoon Myers, et al. - Action seeking to recover real estate. He was made a party defendant by virtue of holding a mortgage on the premises. The suit was dismissed as to him.

Professionally:

Walter Murphy Czura v. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, etc., Civil Action No. 3:85-3030-15 (as Associate Justice)
Marion Joey McClary v. Nancy J. Thornhill, etc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:86-1480-14J (as Circuit Judge)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. State of South Carolina, etc., et al., Federal District Court Case No. 3:89-2392-16 (as Associate Justice)

According to his records, the foregoing list represents cases filed against him individually and as a judicial officer. He has no independent recollection of any others. All matters have reached a final disposition as to his involvement.

37.     Violations of S. C. Code Section 8-13-700:     He has no knowledge of any formal charges or informal allegations of violations of S. C. Code Section 8-13-700.

38.     Use of Government Personnel, Equipment, Materials or an Office Building in an Election Campaign:     He has no knowledge of formal charges or informal allegations of violations of S. C. Code Section 8-13-765

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Sumter Bar Association; American Bar Association; National Bar Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Organizational Affiliations:     Goodfellows Club; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.; Alpha Iota Boule; Emmanuel United Methodist Church, Trustee Board, Restoration Committee; United Methodist Church General Council on Finance and Administration, Legal Responsibilities Committee; Claflin College Board of Trustees, Chairman; University of South Carolina Law School Minority Advisory Committee; Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, International (Honorary Member, Charles Pinckney Chapter); South Carolina Hugo Relief Fund Board of Directors; South Carolina Bar "Memory Holds the Door" Committee; South Carolina Sentencing Guidelines Commission; South Carolina Uniform Jury Charge Project, Chairman
Honors, Awards, Recognition:
1992         Portrait Honoree - South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Honoree - American Bar Association Showcase Program honoring minority justices
1991         Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, University of South Carolina Coastal Carolina College
1988         National Black College Alumni Hall of Fame
Who's Who in American Law
1987         Who's Who in American Politics
Charleston Medical Society Citizen of the Year Award
1986         Alpha Phi Alpha Award of Achievement
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher

Education Distinguished Alumni of the Year Award

Claflin College and South Carolina State University
Greater Sumter Chamber of Commerce Outstanding
Achievement Award
Shaw Air Force Base Black Heritage Award
National Bar Association Chairman's Award
Morris College Presidential Citation
1985         Who's Who Among Black Americans
University of South Carolina Black Law Students of America Citizenship Award
Sumter School District Number 2 Distinguished Citizen Award
Pee Dee Area Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America Distinguished Citizen Award
South Carolina State College Alumni Outstanding Achievement Award
1982         Palmetto Law Enforcement Association Service Award
1977         Clarendon County, South Carolina, Branch NAACP Man of the Year Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree, Claflin College
1976         South Carolina Conference of Branches NAACP Native Son Award
1974 Bedford-Stuyvesant, New York, Jaycee Service Award
South Carolina Human Rights Council Award

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         John M. Graham, Senior Vice President
Southern National Bank
P. O. Box 1178, Sumter, SC 29151-1178
775-9323
(b)         Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr.
P. O. Box 99, Chester, SC 29706
385-2164
(c)         Ramon Schwartz, Jr., Esquire
Schwartz, McLeod, DuRant & Burchstead
10 Law Range, Sumter, SC 29150
773-7844
(d)         H. Leon McDonald, Senior Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1678, Sumter, SC 29151-1678
775-1181
(e)         Joseph B. Bethea, Resident Bishop
The United Methodist Church
4908 Colonial Drive, Suite 108, Columbia, SC 29203
786-9486

2.     Positions on the Bench:
South Carolina Supreme Court - 1985 to date - Associate Justice
South Carolina Circuit Court - 1976 to 1985 - Resident Judge, Third Judicial Circuit

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
His extra-judicial community involvement is limited to membership in religious, civic, social and fraternal organizations. He has not used his judicial office to further these interests. He is Chairman of the Claflin College Board of Trustees and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Buena Vista Development Corporation, developer of the subdivision in which his home is located. He has made a conscious effort to avoid using his judicial office to further the interests of these two entities.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you.

We've checked the records of applicable law enforcement agencies, that being the Sumter County Sheriff's Department, Sumter City Police Department, SLED and FBI records, they are all negative. The Judgement Rolls of Sumter County are negative. The Federal Court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

There were 11 civil actions in which you were a defendant, five of these actions were civil rights actions brought against you and others. All have been dismissed, I'm sure you're happy to hear.
JUSTICE FINNEY:     Delighted.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Five of these actions were suits against the Election Commission. They included you as a defendant. One was an FHA mortgage foreclosure which was dismissed in 1975. Does that sound correct to your memory?
JUSTICE FINNEY:     That sounds accurate.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. We have had had one complaint or statement, I believe complaint that we have received and we have one witness who is present to testify in this matter.

At this time, I'm going to turn you over to Mr. Elliott for some questions.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
JUSTICE FINNEY - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Good morning, Justice Finney.
A.     Good morning, Mr. Elliott.
Q.     I tend to speak softly sometimes, so if you can't hear me, if you'd let me know or if you need any documents, we'd be glad to provide them for you.
A.     Thank you.
Q.     To begin with, just briefly tell us a little bit about your accomplishments on the Supreme Court and the type of leadership you hope to bring to the Court and to the Chief Justice position?
A.     One of the accomplishments on the Supreme Court has been that I feel that the Supreme Court of South Carolina has delivered justice in a fair and impartial manner, sometimes under difficult circumstances. The service has been a tremendous benefit to me individually. And it has been a rewarding experience in my professional life.

With regard to what I would -- I gather the last part of your question was what do I envision doing if I'm lucky enough to become Chief Justice, that depends on a number of things. It depends, number one, on the support that we are able to generate from the legislative branch of government. It depends upon the nuances and reflections of society as we find it at the time. It depends upon the interpretation by the US Supreme Court in areas of constitutional law which we would be mandated to abide by.

Now, if you have a specific area of inquiry, I'll attempt to answer it rather than in the broad brush.
Q.     Well, let's just talk about your leadership for a minute.
A.     All right.
Q.     As the leader of the judicial branch of government, do you have any particular --
A.     I feel that my experiences as a citizen of the State of South Carolina and my experiences on the Court would enable me to build a consensus and majority and even in those areas where we were not able to build a consensus or unanimity, at least to disagree in a reasonable and agreeable fashion. I don't think that agreement is necessarily mandated. I think that to do justice and to love mercy and to accomplish the goals which we are mandated by the Constitution to accomplish would be.

I keep an open mind. I would have open mind and open avenues with the legislature, with my colleagues on the bench and with any citizen that wanted to have input and involvement if I were successful in becoming Chief Justice.

Of course, I would fully recognize that the buck would stop with me, as I interpret Article 5, it mandates that the Chief Justice and/or the Supreme Court shall direct the policy guidelines of the judicial system. But I would hope to be able to build a foundation upon which we could improve and expand the appreciation of the services of judges and the judicial system.

One of the things that I see as being needed is a greater public awareness and appreciation of the integral and important part that the judicial system serves in our form of government. And all too often, it is either not appreciated or it is put in a secondary level and I think that we need to improve our own image and improve our public perception.
Q.     One of the things you touched on just then was consensus building. As the Chief Justice, do you consider that to be your responsibility or to some extent to try to achieve unanimity on the Court? What kind of standards do you see? And this is something that I intend to ask everybody, what is -- what sort of standard do you apply in determining whether you want to file a dissent or not, or even a concurring opinion?
A.     Well, I expect that as Chief Justice, it would be preferable to receive unanimity because that might give the opinion a greater acceptance in the public arena. By the same token, I do not believe that unanimity or a unanimous opinion is necessary to achieve a particular goal. No one, I don't believe, should compromise their personal integrity or their personal interpretation of the Constitution in order to achieve it. It is a matter of balancing.

As Chief Justice I would, of course, seek to get everybody to agree on an opinion, but I don't think that's most important. I think the most important is the preservation, formation of the Constitutional precepts.
Q.     So the other candidates here today will get some idea of what they're trying to get into, would you tell us a little bit about what your workweek is like as a justice of the Supreme Court?
A.     Well, it usually starts at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning when I get up and go out to try to get my thoughts together and drink some coffee and appreciate nature. I usually try to be in my office between 7:30 and 8:00 o'clock in the morning because you can achieve more before the phone starts ringing than you can the rest of the day, if you're lucky. Usually from 1:00 to 1:15, I'm at lunch and then I'll stay in the office until 5:30 or 6:00.

In the evening, I will do some reading or relax by looking at TV. On the weekends, I will -- I try to go to the office Sunday mornings prior to church and have my wife pick me up at a quarter to 11:00. I can get a lot of work done then. Saturdays, I usually try to do something around the house or go out and relax. So it's an -- I would suspect that it's anywhere from a nine, eight and a half to nine hour day and with most Saturdays not devoted to any extensive legal research. Then, of course, you do reading whenever you can and this kind of thing.
Q.     There are not a lot of hours left in that schedule?
A.     Not much.
Q.     Do you foresee being Chief Justice affecting your work schedule?
A.     I suspect it will. I would suspect that the Chief Justice has many administrative duties and responsibilities. He has public relations duties and responsibilities. He would have duties in conjunction with dealing with judges and personnel problems and this kind of thing. I would suspect that they will expand by two to three hours on an average.
Q.     In the area of judicial temperament, what rules would you lay down for the judicial candidates that are here today and tomorrow?
A.     Well, we have an independent judiciary which I appreciate, so I wouldn't think I would lay down any rules, but I would hopefully give them some guidance and I would ask that they treat everybody that comes before them in a manner that they would like to be treated if they were standing where a defendant or a plaintiff or whoever it was, that the lawyers are entitled to deference and -- but they are also required to be prepared and articulate their positions and move on.

So I don't think I would have -- they would tell me like I used to say, I guess that I was elected -- they were elected by the same process that I was elected and they are entitled to -- and I wouldn't lay down rules, but I would try to by precept be an example, instruct and guide them.
Q.     I didn't mean to mislead you by using the word rule, but --
A.     Well, I --
Q.     But --
A.     You know how it is, words have a tendency to get out of whack.
Q.     Sure. What about the judicial temperament of the Chief Justice, is that different from just ordinary or standard judicial temperament?
A.     Other than the fact that he is probably required to put in more mileage and more time and to carry his full load as a member of the Court and do the administrative details, I would think that there wouldn't be any difference. It may be necessary in our system that the Chief Justice have an opportunity and the kind of personality which could explain to the legislative body the needs and concerns of the judicial branch and give them some guidance and direction in trying to meet what our concerns are.
Q.     What -- how do you determine who will sit with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as an acting justice or judge?
A.     Well, I gather that it is a decision that is made by the Chief Justice at the present time. As I understand it, they give consideration to the location of the judge, what his schedule is, his availability and try to do it in a manner that is most economically and judicially feasible.
Q.     So basically just logistical considerations?
A.     (Witness nods head up and down).
Q.     In the area of ex parte communications, this is different at the appellate level than it is at the trial level, but what is your view on that?
A.     I prohibit ex parte communication. I think they're detrimental to the administration of justice. I think that they give the appearance of impropriety even if there is no impropriety. Everybody understands the ground rules and I don't have any problem with it.
Q.     Do judges occasionally come up to you and say you have my case down there in Columbia and I'd like to discuss with you what I meant by this or what my reasoning and thinking was?
A.     Not, but once.
Q.     What happened in that case?
A.     Oh, no, I mean nobody would do it, but one time.
Q.     Oh, I understand.
A.     You know, I think judicial impartiality is important to the preservation of our system. And I think that anything which compromises that impartiality or the appearance of impartiality is detrimental.
Q.     What's your rule about gifts and social hospitality?
A.     I don't accept gifts. Social hospitality, I accept with my friends of long-standing, but never anything of any value. And if a friend invites me to dinner, I make sure that I invite them to dinner with their family and I pick up the tab. I try to carry my fair share of the load.
Q.     You have two children who are attorneys. What are your ethical considerations if any of their cases work their way to the Supreme Court?
A.     Well, I would not participate obviously. I would not participate in the conference. I would not discuss it with my colleagues on the Court and I would treat them just like I did anybody else. I think it's interesting to note that one is primarily a criminal defense lawyer, the other is a prosecutor and so we have some interesting discussions around the fireplace and on the weekends when we get together. They get into -- they're treated like anybody else.
Q.     But I understood you would not participate?
A.     Absolutely not. Would I not only not participate, would not discuss it with my colleagues, would not allow them to have any involvement in it whatsoever. Now, I might discuss it with them afterwards. That's one of the pleasures of being a father.
Q.     A number of the candidates we have for the judgeships today and tomorrow have been involved in the political arena and you have in the past, it's sort of a distant past for you. But what's the rule for them for engaging in political activity once they're elected as a judge?
A.     Well, would you repeat it? Perhaps I --
Q.     Well --
A.     What is the rule for judges?
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     The rule is that judges do not participate in political activity.
Q.     On your Personal Data Questionnaire, you listed one of your affiliations as being the United Methodist Church, General Council on Finance and Administration, Legal Responsibilities Committee. Could you tell me what that is, what it does and what you do for that committee?
A.     That is a committee which -- the national committee which meets once a year to discuss legal problems in conjunction with the United Methodist Church throughout the United States. I'm one of five members of that committee.

We get reports annually on church problems, First Amendment problems with regard to the church, ministers who have brought actions against the church and this kind of thing.

It is more or less a jurisdictional committee which supervises and recommends and advises the Council of Bishops and the Council of Finance of the Methodist Church as to where we stand. I do not give, write opinions nor do I give advice other than in a consultative capacity.
Q.     You are a member of a number of organizations, civic and charitable types of organizations. How would you express the rule with regard to that for judges in their participation in extrajudicial activities?
A.     Well, the list that you have before you is too all encompassing because membership as I interpreted it when I filled that out implies that I go this way, for the last 16 years -- no, 18 years now, I have not been active in very many organizations. I have limited my activities because of the work load as a judge.

I am active on the Board of Trustees of Claflin College. I am active in my church to the extent that I can be and I am active with the Bar Association. But with regard to social and civic organizations, I don't think there are any others that I'm active in at this time.
Q.     Do you in a sense limit your participation out of any sense of concern about actions involving any of those associations or organizations coming before you?
A.     That is a prime consideration that you cannot afford to be involved in political or civic organizations which generate litigation or which might be involved in litigation or which might tend to put you in a position where you would have to disqualify yourself. And, of course, when you reach my stage, the primary consideration is there's just not but so many hours in a day and I have a full cup.
Q.     You certainly do. What's your philosophy about writing opinions? What do you consider the purpose of opinions to be? Who is the audience and what's a well composed order look like?
A.     Well, it depends upon the nature of the controversy, but I think that the primary purpose of opinions or orders would be to outline to the extent possible the rights and responsibilities of several parties, to point to the parties the constitutional or legislative bases upon which you base your decision, and to give them guidance with regard to how you arrived where you are.

Additionally, they should be illuminating to the general practitioner and to those out there in the field, so that they will avoid the problems which resulted in the litigation getting to the Supreme Court in the first place.
Q.     Justice Finney, you wrote an opinion, South Carolina Cable Television Association versus the Public Service Commission in August of 1993. It involved Southern Bell and ATT as parties. And your Personal Data Questionnaire shows that you own some BellSouth and ATT stock. Did you own the stock at that time and if you did, did you consider recusal?
A.     I owned the stock at that time. The amount of stock is infinitesimal. I think it's probably $5,000. The standard procedure is that I notify the attorneys in writing prior to the argument. You know, somehow it slips up and I didn't, then, of course, on the record prior to our argument, I afford them an ample opportunity for recusal as we normally do.

If you have any financial interest in it, you would do that. I thought you were going to ask me some technical question about that. I didn't --
Q.     Before I forget about it, our records show that you've not expended any money on this particular campaign.
A.     None that would --
Q.     Is that accurate?
A.     -- qualify. As I understand the rules, I don't have to say that I traveled over here.
Q.     That's correct. Yes, sir. That's correct.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Mr. Chairman, that's all the question I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q.     We hear constantly how serious crime is in our community up home and I had an audience with someone last night from Chicago and this person told me some things that really frightened me. We've heard spoken from the big office in Washington about three strikes and you're out. I think it should be -- they meant three strikes and you're in.

Now, would you care to comment? I'm trying to grasp this now and you have a vast experience in this area that I don't have. Would you care to comment on that suggestion, proposal, three strikes and you're there?
A.     Well, Representative Alexander, you have asked me a question which borders on my transgressing into your legislative duties.
Q.     Well, I wouldn't want you to do that.
A.     But, you know, I've been a public official long enough to fully understand that I'm required sometimes to skirt very close to the water. Now, let me say that conceptually that is, I don't think, unconstitutional. You get down to the question of whether the State of South Carolina is prepared to meet the responsibilities and burdens and the financial obligations which it would entail and whether or not there has been a study or the figures are available to talk about the impact.

I do note with considerable interest that we in this state have the reputation of having more people incarcerated than any other civilized society in the world or up in the top three and yet we have not found the ideal solution to the problem with which all of us are obviously very concerned.

So other than conceptually, I would not want to make a comment, but I do think it is a matter which should be approached with considerable concern and not be a reaction to the crisis with which we find ourselves at the present time.
Q.     Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions? Justice Finney, I have one question, you -- if history holds true, you'll have some decade or so as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Are there any things as the chief administrative officer of the Court that you specifically would like to accomplish during your tenure?
A.     For me to speak to that right now, Mr. Chairman, would be taking two steps over two of very dear friends. I do have some things that I believe conceptually I would like to do to improve the quality. I think that it is important and, indeed, I believe it is imperative that somehow we change the image of the court system and lawyers and all of us involved and I'd like to find a way that the citizenry could fully understand and appreciate the difficult task with which we are confronted in our judicial system.

I believe that there is perhaps -- I have some ideas with regard to Court Administration and how it might be revamped or changed. No major recommendations in either areas because frankly as I indicated it would be transgressing right now. But I assure you and I assure this committee and the people here that if I get an opportunity to serve as the Chief Justice for this state, I'll keep an open door.

I will fight for a viable, strong, independent judiciary, but a judiciary system which will be fair, effective and efficient in the delivery of justice for all of our citizens. I will appear before the appropriate committees of the legislature, would make requests in accordance with what I perceive to be the mandate of our Constitutional law.

Other than that, I don't have anything.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you. Questions? Further questions from the Members? If not, Justice Finney, there is one complaining witness and we will allow you to sit down and you will have a chance to respond to the witness.
A.     All right, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. C.F. Kelly, if you'd come forward please, sir. Would you raise your right hand, please.
C.F. KELLY, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Kelly, I note in your letter that you have written to Ms. McNamee, one of our staff counsel, that your complaint is against Justice Finney and also against Judge Anderson, both of whom we're screening today for different seats on the Supreme Court.

What we'll do at this time is Mr. Elliott will question you regarding your complaints that you have lodged in the letter and we won't recall you when Judge Anderson comes up because it sounds as though the gist of your complaint is the same.

What we'll do is ask you to testify completely at this time. And we will incorporate your testimony into Judge Anderson's screening when he comes forward.
MR. KELLY:     This is fine. Before we start, could I make just a couple of corrections to the letter to Ms. McNamee.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir. I believe you have the letter, Mr. Elliott?
MR. ELLIOTT:     I have it, yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir, you can.
MR. KELLY:     As you stated in my complaint, I was speaking specifically about the Associate Justice Finney as well as Judge Anderson. I need to make this one clarification. In the case of Judge Anderson, it's my understanding that I -- an understanding I didn't have at the time of my preparation for the letter that he did agree to the ex parte hearing and the specific thing that I was not with the proper understanding at the time was that he opposed the personal enhancement expenditure.

Now, if I'm wrong on that, I would like for someone to clear me up. So in this -- if that is the truth, I'm not condemning or complaining about Judge Anderson's -- I'm only complaining against him approving the expense, if that's clear.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let's do this, to move things along, why don't you just try to briefly give us a synopsis of your complaint and then if Mr. Elliott has any questions, he will ask you, and Judge Anderson and Justice Finney will both have a chance to respond and perhaps they'll clarify what your concerns are in there.

But why don't you give us a synopsis of your complaint, so that the Committee Members will --
MR. KELLY:     All right. There is one other thing. Down below the signature, a typographical error of voter right. Now, I'll live with voter right, but -- to me, that's dear, but my intent there was voter registration number.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
MR. KELLY:     And I'm proud of that and it's about the only thing that people like myself, the simple man on the street, has left. And I will protect that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Those changes will be noted on your letter and incorporated into the record.
MR. KELLY:     Thank you very much. I'm not displeased with the word "right," but it was not what I intended.

Mr. Chairman, I'm C.F. Kelly. I've past the three score ten. I live at 209 Maple Road in Lexington County. I've been living there since 1950. I have two lovely daughters. I have a hard working son-in-law. And I have a wonderful grandson, nine year old next -- in May.

I am deeply concerned as a man on the street taxpayer as to where this state, this country and my county, I don't happen to live in the city, but that concern is there for all of these things of ever, ever, ever, ever increasing government expense.

I'm not here today so much as to hamper either of these judges' right to their pursuit of liberty, that's not my purpose. I hope they make ten billion, billion, if you'll excuse the simplicity.

My purpose here today is to try whatever amount that I can to slow this trend of ever increasing costs and real flippant and frivolous attitudes to the answers of our society. Now, I'm going to refer to the Patterson case and if there's others, I don't -- I'm a layperson and I don't profess to know or be an expert on what this court case was in detail.

However, I am deeply concerned about taking monies from me, selfish as you may want to call it and other taxpayers in my category, in my economic category and spending it for this type thing, if my understanding is correct of the Patterson case.

Now, let me just say what I think is correct, what I believe from newspaper reports, radio reports, TV and what have you and a few conversations with people that heard it. I happened to be in attendance one night at my county council. A County Council member and the County Council manager made the statement that they had finally been granted permission to attend Judge Anderson's case
-- Judge Anderson's hearing on the Patterson's case.

They further commented they had no idea how it would come out as far as pay or not pay, and I'm talking primarily the personal enhancement rumor and that's all I can call it, that's all I know. But they were at least trying to oppose it and this pleased me. This pleased me very much. And in the same breath, he says, "However, we aren't to talk about it." This don't please me.

When you're doing the taxpayers' business, Mr. Chairman, there should be no secret. It's not your money, it's not the government's money in this case, it's not the judiciary's money in this case. It's the taxpayers' money and you should not try to keep this ex parte, et cetera. Which reminds me, I need one more correction. If I understood Justice Finney correct, he said he was against ex parte hearings and I need that corrected before I can respond to that. Could you correct --
THE CHAIRMAN:     I'm sorry.
MR. KELLY:     I understood him to say --
THE CHAIRMAN:     I was reading your --
MR. KELLY:     -- he was opposed to ex parte hearings as -- which was a big contention in this case that I'm talking about and complaining about.
THE CHAIRMAN:     He did say that. He said he's against ex parte communication in court cases.
MR. KELLY:     Now, there is, and I've got the headlines and the news articles. There's an article in the paper that he along with the other justices unanimously approved the hearing that I'm talking about with the Patterson case. Now, this is no big thing to me. But it does point this out, that we need to do what we say.

And in my opinion I really don't appreciate saying I'm against ex parte hearings and in my case, in my county, he condoned it at the Supreme Court level of having it and approving of the expenditures. I don't have anything else to add to that unless you want further on my feelings.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT:     It might be helpful if we just for a moment, to bring everybody up to speed, hand out this -- the Patterson case, if anybody wants that and just mention that what we're talking about is an indigent defendant in a death penalty case and the hearing that's held to determine what services are reasonably necessary for that defendant's defense and for the court to authorize those expenses, so we're talking about that hearing.

And the statute provides for an ex parte proceeding and the Supreme Court reversed Judge Anderson holding that the County unit of government did not have standing to participate in that hearing and that the hearing would actually be open unless -- well, it would be closed, if the trial court determines there is a substantial probability of prejudice to the defendant which would result from publicity and there's not any reasonable alternatives to closure which would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
MR. KELLY:     Now, it's my understanding that Judge Finney voted unanimously -- if I'm wrong, I need to know that because -- but the article says Justice Toal wrote the decision, the unanimous decision, and I have a copy of the article if you need it.
MR. ELLIOTT:     That's correct. Justice Toal wrote the opinion and all the justices concurred in that, including Justice Finney.
MR. KELLY:     I would be delighted to accept Justice Finney's statement.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Pass copies out to the Members.
MR. KELLY:     I hope I'm wrong. I don't hope he's wrong.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let me just say for a minute, Mr. Kelly, that some of this may involve interpretation of State statute, so Justice Finney, of course, will have a chance to respond, but some of your complaint might be directed to the legislature and the way that we drafted the statute.
MR. KELLY:     I understand that, but this is the only opportunity as a taxpayer and as a citizen that I have to voice my views against this, someone involved in a situation. I'm not here to slap wrists or say don't give somebody a promotion. That's not my purpose.

It is my purpose to point out that as a man on the street, I'm sick of this sort of stuff. You know, you say one thing, you say one thing and if the people that support -- if the people that supports government and the judiciary, in particular in this case, cannot understand what this article implies there, then somebody needs to do it over and that's all I'm saying.

Now, as far as my fifteen cents, I don't appreciate it. I really don't appreciate it. Now, let me get into the reason I don't appreciate it. Mr. Patterson may be entitled to everything in the book. It's not a personal thing. It's hard for me to understand that if you give somebody 119, -- and this is rumor, let me clear that, $119 pair of shoes, a 300-plus dollar suit of clothes, a tie and this sort of thing, it's hard for me to understand that's going to get the judge or the jury any more truth. It will not get any more truth.

And an example of how enhancement doesn't get you the truth, I'd like to pass that along for everybody to look and I don't have any personal thing here. But one person has had everything government can give, especially in the field of education and then another thing, he evidently has had nothing, but it maybe his own fault. I don't see any difference in the outcome at that stage of life of the two people.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY:     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I'm going to ask you to limit yourself to the matter, we're here to determine the qualifications of Justice Finney and Judge Anderson and the article you passed up relates to the former president of USC, Mr. Holderman, and I respect your opinions, but would ask you to try to limit yourself to the matter before the Committee today, which is the qualification of these two gentlemen.

I understand the gist of your complaint as to their finding in the Lexington County case regarding the expenditures for a certain indigent defendant in a criminal proceeding. And we have in front of us the Supreme Court opinion that Mr. Elliott has passed up which Judge Anderson was the trial judge and the opinion was authored by Justice Toal and apparently Justice Finney concurred with that opinion.
MR. KELLY:     I didn't mention any names, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for --
THE CHAIRMAN:     I understand that, but, you know --
MR. KELLY:     -- that correction.
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- I'm trying to focus the Committee on this issue.
MR. KELLY:     I'm trying to show you the taxpayers' concern on monies being spent that come from them. Let me further state that I'm in the lower to low economic level of this state, and I'm talking about 19,000 down to 14,000 depending on who you include. If you separate the institutionalized, then it's closer to 14,000. Now, I ask you again, it's a little -- I state again, it's a little silly to go around and do that expecting a juror, a jury box to get more proof from that type of person.

Now, I had much rather as a citizen when he passed me in the hall say why not try the Ten Commandments and I mean the Ten Commandments, I don't mean the Ten Suggestions. This will do more for that person than any court or any legislature or anybody else will.

Now, let me go one step further and I'm not getting on --
THE CHAIRMAN:     I'm going to ask you, if you will, to wrap it up because we've got other people to testify and I want to focus you again now on the nature of your complaint against these judges. I understand you're getting into your philosophy about how a judge rules, but try to limit yourself to the nature of your complaint and if you could wrap it up in a minute.
MR. KELLY:     Thank you. My feeling is the jury, juries, the jurors will not be improved as far as that person's character, honesty and integrity by any amount of expenditure. And that's generally what I object to. I thank you for the opportunity and I hope that some of this is took in -- in effect.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott?
MR. KELLY - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     If you don't mind, just a couple of questions if you don't mind and keeping your answers fairly short, if you can, and I don't mean to cut you off, but just so we can move along. Does your -- do you object to the expenditure of any money on a criminal defendant?
A.     It's my understanding there is a statute that covers certain budgetary for indigent defendants. It's -- this has been approved. I don't approve of anything beyond that. I really -- if you want my personal belief, I don't believe in doing this type of thing that I just elaborated on.
Q.     So your objection is to the level of expenditures, how much is being spent?
A.     I would object to buying that man a pair of shoes at $119, if that was the only case in town. Let's --
Q.     I mean, but a $5 --
A.     But I object to both.
Q.     -- pair of shoes, you wouldn't object, but if it's $119 pair of shoes, you would object?
A.     Yes. Yes, I would object to the $5 pair. I don't think that enhances truth.
Q.     All right. If Justice Finney felt compelled as he saw his job to rule the way he did that he didn't have -- that that's the law as it was set down by the General Assembly, would you have a complaint against him?
A.     I would not, but he shouldn't say he's against ex parte hearings, because he approved an ex parte hearing.
Q.     Well, if --
A.     From my understanding.
Q.     Well, if he didn't have any discretion about the ex parte hearing, that particular hearing, then you wouldn't have any objection against him?
A.     He didn't have to unanimously. He could have said I step aside, they shouldn't have had the ex parte hearing. That's all I'm saying. If I'm -- you know, if that's -- if that's too much out of legalese, I'm sorry.
Q.     That's all I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, Mr. Elliott. Questions? Mr. Beatty?
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:     Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:
Q.     Mr. Kelly, just to make certain the record is clear and that we are focused upon the correct issues and the issues at hand, are you alleging any ethical violation against Justice Finney?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Are you alleging any legal violation against Justice Finney?
A.     The knowledge I have, I am not, sir.
Q.     Thank you.
A.     And I tried to make this clear that I'm not trying to hamper anybody's normal pursuit of liberty. I was real pleased with several of his statements here. And the only thing this morning that I was not pleased with was the conflict in my mind between me understanding he approved it in this case, the ex parte hearing, and his statement that he was totally against them.
Q.     Are you aware that the law allows it in that particular instance?
A.     I understand that does in some cases.
Q.     Yes.
A.     But I'm confused as to the expanded part of the budget.
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     I don't think it should be. If the law says $22, I think that's it.
Q.     Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. McConnell.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q.     Mr. Kelly, then if the law says that it's supposed to be ex parte and the judge is supposed to uphold the law, then you don't have a problem with it?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     All right.
A.     If that's an approved legislative, representative government by the people, I have no problem whatsoever.
Q.     But if that law says ex parte because the General Assembly passed it, then you've got a problem with the General Assembly?
A.     I do. I'd like to take that one step further. If that says that because of some Chief Justices, and let me use Ms. Toal, if I may, she wrote this thing, because she read the Constitution to say that it included that, I would have a problem with that.
Q.     Well, I'm looking here at the opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to turn on the question of, first of all, that the law says ex parte, and that's something that the General Assembly probably needs to revisit, to look at.
A.     If that's true, I've served the purpose that I had when I come here when I made the complaint.
Q.     Now, and in the case of Judge Finney, though, you're not complaining about -- you made reference to a sport coat or something of that nature, but with Judge Finney, there is no question here about a $300 sport coat or a fine men's clothing store or anything like that. This boil downs basically to this question in this case about an ex parte hearing and the right of the public to know or the right of the paying entity, the county, to have some input on what's reasonable?
A.     Let me make sure I understand what I think as opposed to your question. I understood there was some $500 at Judge Anderson's level for clothes. Now, I'm not condemning him in any way at all other than the fact that his so-called unanimous vote upheld what was presented by the defendant at the -- at Judge Anderson's level. I have no qualms with it, with his personal thing or anything.

I didn't know there was any involvement of stealing a coat, you know. I thought it says, well, we need $500 to dress this person up, so he can be presentable to the jury. And if that's the case, I would be against that.
Q.     I understand. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Before you leave, Mr. Kelly, let me just point out what I think is a pertinent part of the case. The -- they are interpreting a statute which provides for an ex parte proceeding and that was a legislative statute which was enacted which I would note was changed to some degree in 1993. And the Court in this case that you're referring to, the Court was interpreting the old statute that existed at that time.

I don't know if we changed the ex parte language, but we did change to some degree the -- how the fees are approved in 1993. But they were interpreting a statute, which specifically said ex parte proceedings.

And what we'll do is pass -- we're going to ask Justice Finney to come back to respond to your testimony, but also I would like to pass to you a copy of the opinion because I note that you had a copy of the news summary, but perhaps didn't have access to the opinion. If I could pass to you a copy just so you can have it with --
MR. KELLY:     Keep in mind, I'm going by the news media.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I understand that.
MR. KELLY:     I stated that in the beginning.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I understand that. I just thought I would --
MR. KELLY:     I'm a man on the street. You know, rumors, although you don't know they're rumors may have as much effect as truths.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We certainly --
MR. KELLY:     That's the point I'm trying to make.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We accept that and we thank you for your presence today and your testimony. If you would take your seat again. We're going to ask Justice Finney to come forward.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Mr. Chairman, I just might mention to you that at Justice Finney's level, he didn't have the question before him of what the money was to be spent on or how much. It was only who would participate in the hearing and how that hearing would be conducted.
MR. KELLY:     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, Mr. Kelly, very much. Justice Finney, you're still under oath.
JUSTICE FINNEY:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I would ask you if you could briefly respond to the allegations that are raised in Mr. Kelly's letter and the comments he made just a moment ago.
JUSTICE FINNEY:     Well, other than to say that I think the point made by Mr. Elliott with respect that when the matter got to us, we were talking about concepts and we were talking about the need for services as mandated by the statute and the Constitution of the State of South Carolina.

With regard to the individual items, this opinion and I have no independent recollection of what the factual scenario before us was at the time, we felt that the statute mandated that there be ex parte proceedings when there was a determination that they were necessary under the law.

Again, I think that Mr. Kelly's presentation indicates a need for the judicial branch and the legislative branch and the citizens and the -- for State to be more in communication. I do not apologize to anybody for my precepts with regard to conservative use of the money of the people of the State of South Carolina. But that there is in this instance a misconception.

When I made reference a moment ago to I prohibited ex parte communications, I think the lawyers and perhaps the Members of the Committee understood clearly that I was talking about an individual lawyer or an individual citizen and Mr. Kelly was talking to me as a judge about some matters which were pending before us. The concept as used in the Statute and as used in this case of ex parte, it is permitted because in order to preserve and protect the rights of the defendant, so that we don't get a reversal by some other court and have to redo it again. The statute proscribes it and what this case did was to follow what we interpreted the statute to mandate, but it was not inconsistent, I assure you, with my saying that I don't permit ex parte. In other words, I wouldn't let you or anybody else talk to me about litigation unless the legislature or the Constitution required it.

Now, I'll be happy to answer any other inquiries that any Members of the Committee have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Committee Members? If not, thank you, Justice Finney. And let me just say for you and any of the other candidates, one of the opportunities that we afforded candidates in the prior races was to reduce to writing a statement regarding their candidacy and put it into the record in this proceeding if they wish to do so.

Some candidates chose to exercise that right, some did not. But I wanted to offer that to all the candidates, yourself included today, if you'd like us to do that, you can pass forward a statement in the next day or so, we'll incorporate it into the transcript.
JUSTICE FINNEY:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based upon the work load of this committee, I would respectfully decline the opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions that any member may have in writing if it's necessary Otherwise, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Before we move into the next election which is Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, let me just say that candidates from time to time ask us when we're going to make a decision in these cases. In fact, they ask us frequently when we're going to make decisions regarding screening. Let me tell you a little about what our time table is.

It will -- generally takes about two weeks or so to get a transcript back and then it takes the committee a week to a week and a half or so to formulate opinions on the races that we're considering and to pass around draft copies of our findings, so we're probably looking at sometime in, I would guess, mid April before we actually reach findings and we actually have a report that we issue on the hearings that we had today.

So for time's sake, we're probably looking at mid April or so. The election is scheduled for May 4th right now, so we're going to try to move as quickly as we can to try to render an opinion, but we're looking at a couple of weeks for the transcript and probably a week or so, maybe a week and a half at the most beyond that time and in the Committee's deliberation over the transcript and its final report.

Now, the first candidate in the Associate Justice for the Supreme Court is Ralph King Anderson, Jr. Judge Anderson, if you would raise your right hand.
RALPH KING ANDERSON, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge Anderson, your last screening was October 16, 1990 and that was a screening for the seat on the Circuit bench, which you currently hold. Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
JUDGE ANDERSON:     Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is it correct?
JUDGE ANDERSON:     Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Are there any clarifications or changes that need to be made?
JUDGE ANDERSON:     None.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is there any objection at this time to making that Summary a part of the record of this proceeding?
JUDGE ANDERSON:     No.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. With that being the case, it is so ordered.

1.     Ralph King Anderson, Jr.
Home Address:                         Business Address:
2997 Pamplico Highway         P. O. Box 1562
Florence, SC 29505                 Florence, SC 29503

2.     He was born in Florence County, South Carolina on November 13, 1936. He is presently 57 years old.

4.     He was married to Loretta Lynch on August 31, 1957. He has two children:     Ralph King, III (Assistant Attorney General - South Carolina), and Debra Arlene Anderson Vause (part-time music teacher and church pianist).

5.     Military Service:     None

6.     He attended Clemson College; September, 1954 - August, 1956; received 90 credits; transferred directly from Clemson College to the University of South Carolina Law School, under an arrangement existing at that time. He attended the University of South Carolina Law School; September, 1956 - June, 1959; received LLB Degree (this degree changed to Juris Doctor on September 3, 1970).

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He attended the Judicial College in Reno, Nevada for one week and has attended numerous legal/judicial seminars conducted at the University of South Carolina Law School and in other locations.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
10/30/86; Bench Bar Conference on Criminal Trial Advocacy; Batson v. Kentucky; 86-38
10/20/88; Eminent Domain (JCLE); Judicial Perspective (Panel Discussion); 88-40
11/4/88; Bench/Bar Conference on Criminal Law; Jury Instructions; 88-43
1/20/89; 4th Annual Criminal Law Update 1988 in Review (JCLE); A View From the Bench; 89-03
9/7/90; Legal Ethics & Lawyer Malpractice; Common Pleas Perspective; 90-32
10/19/90; Criminal Practice in South Carolina; Jury Instructions; 90-38
10/26/90; Civil Trial Advocacy Bench/Bar Conference; 90-39
6/8/91; 1991 Annual Meeting (Young Lawyer's Division); Judicial Ethics
9/27/91; Criminal Practice in South Carolina; Jury Instructions; 91-35
1/17/92; 7th Annual Criminal Law Update; Observations from the Trial Bench; 92-02
6/19/92; 1992 Annual Meeting (Young Lawyer's Division); Update on Ethics and Trial Practice
9/18/92; Criminal Practice in South Carolina; Jury Instructions; 92-36
10/23/92; Auto Insurance Update '92; Trial of an Auto Case; 92-42
12/11/92; Attorney's Fees; Circuit Court Practice; 92-50
1/28/93; 1993 Mid-Year Meeting (Trial & Appellate Advocacy); Circumstantial Evidence
Bridge the Gap (1984-present); Nuts & Bolts of Circuit Court Practice; Two Presentations Every Year
10/8/93; South Carolina Circuit Court Bench/Bar 1993 Update; Riding the Wave of Demonstrative Evidence:     Admissibility of Computer-Generated Animations on Videotape
12/17/93; Is Your Law Office Safe? Frivolous Proceedings Act and Rule 11
2/1/94; South Carolina Probate Judges Annual Seminar; South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; Efficacy and Use in Probate Court
3/5/94; North Carolina/South Carolina Court Reporters Convention; Charlotte, North Carolina; Duties and Responsibilities of Court Reporters in Circuit Court

10.     Published Books and Articles:
A publication entitled "Nuts and Bolts" has been authored by him. In addition, he has written numerous materials for use at Judicial/Legal Seminars.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
(a)         practiced law in Columbia with Mr. R. K. Wise from July 17, 1959 until December 1, 1959
(b)         opened practice in Florence, South Carolina in December, 1959 running through 1960
(c)         early part of 1960 to December of 1960 - practiced law in Marion, South Carolina under a share arrangement with Waddell Byrd
(d)         In December, 1961, became employed with the firm of Yarborough, Parrott and Anderson and remained until September of 1979
(e)         sworn in as Circuit Judge in September of 1979, serving continuously until present date

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     He has been on the bench for 14 1/2 years. He does not know his last rating in this publication.

20.     Judicial Office:
Elected as Circuit Court Judge, beginning service on September 14, 1979, serving continuously until present. The Circuit Court jurisdiction is unlimited except by statutory and constitutional parameters.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         State v. Jonathan Dale Simmons, ___ S.C. ___, 427 S.E.2d 175 (1993). This is a death penalty case. Numerous issues were involved in this trial relating to the death penalty law and criminal law in general. The Defendant received the death penalty. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this death penalty trial. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of parole eligibility. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 18, 1994.
(b)         State v. Thomas Lee Davis, ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 133 (1992). This is a death penalty case. Numerous issues were involved in this trial relating to death penalty law and criminal law in general. The Defendant received the death penalty. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed this death penalty trial. In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court approved in haec verba his charges on:     (1) What is a dangerous, or deadly, object? (2) Miranda Rights; and (3) Physical Torture. In addition, major issues were involved in regard to "Competency to Waive Rights and to Stand Trial." This was the first case tried in South Carolina using Section 17-21-85. The murder occurred in the County of Greenwood. The jury was drawn in the County of Florence and transported to Greenwood County for trial pursuant to Section 17-21-85.
(c)         Joey M. Oliver, as Guardian ad Litem for Bradford Michael Oliver v. South Carolina Highways and Public Transportation, ___ S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 128 (1992). This case involved litigation issues under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The gist and gravamen of the case relates to unusual evidentiary issues and application of caps on verdicts awarded against governmental entities.
(d)         State v. James Russell Cain, 377 S.E.2d 556 (S.C. 1988). This is a death penalty case. Numerous issues were involved in this trial relating to the death penalty law. The Defendant received the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed this death penalty trial. Certiorari has been denied by the United States Supreme Court.
(e)         Alvin Davis, Jr. v. The State of South Carolina, (Docket Number 85-CP-40-1771). This case was tried in Richland County and involved the unique scenario wherein Davis had been convicted of serious crimes, including armed robbery. By an administrative snafu, Davis was released from jail through an error without serving his jail time. Davis was arrested approximately ten years after his original conviction. His Order disposes of numerous due process and constitutional issues. The Order was reported by the National Law Journal in detail, including interviews of legal scholars on the subject. After filing Notice of Intent to Appeal, the State dismissed its appeal from the Order.

22.     Public Office:
Elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from Florence County in November, 1972, serving continuously to August, 1979.

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
He was defeated as a candidate for the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1970 by less than 200 votes. He was defeated as a candidate for the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1962 by an overwhelming vote.

32.     Sued:
(1)         6:CV-85-2730, Robert L. Wilson v. City of Greenville, Mayor William Workman, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. . . .:     This was a civil rights action that related to a local sign ordinance; the Summons and Complaint were filed on October 10, 1985; then United States District Court Judge Wilkins dismissed the action on October 24, 1985; the records maintained at the District Court indicate that the defendants were never served.
(2)         3:CV-86-1444, Jasper Buchanan v. Richard Riley, Travis Medlock, William Leeke, Woodrow Lewis, Donald Zelenka, Ralph King Anderson, Jr. . . . :     Pro Se action brought by an inmate of the State Corrections Department; United States Magistrate Gambrell recommended dismissal, concluding that the action was frivolous, on June 3, 1986; United States District Court Judge Blatt entered judgment for all defendants on July 16, 1986; according to the docket sheet at the District Court, the defendants were never served.
(3)         3:CV-80-1640, Annie M. Timmons v. [all members of the South Carolina House of Representatives and the South Carolina Senate]:     United States Magistrate Gambrell advised the plaintiff that a voluntary dismissal would be directed because the defendants were never served or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff would have to serve the defendants properly; this letter was dated July 27, 1982; then United States District Court Judge Wilkins issued an Order dated October 13, 1982, staying the case for six months in order to allow the plaintiff to petition to reopen it or it would be dismissed; this is the last entry in the file; the records at the District Court indicate that the defendants were never served.
(4)         3:CV-82-401, Jasper Buchanan v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr.; Sidney Tyson; and Donald J. Zelenka:     This is a pro se habeas corpus action brought by an inmate within the custody of the Department of Corrections; United States Magistrate Gambrell recommended dismissal March 1, 1982; then United States District Court Judge Hemphill dismissed the case on April 5, 1982; the District Court records indicate the defendants were never served.
(5)         CV:89-1533, Donald J. Strable v. Clyde N. Davis, Jr., Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Chief Justice, The Honorable George T. Gregory, Honorable Julius B. Ness, former Chief Justice, Honorable Cameron B. Littlejohn, former Chief Justice, Honorable Elijah Curran Burnett, Circuit Judge, Honorable James Edward Moore, Circuit Judge, Honorable Tommy L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Judge, Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Judge, Honorable Frank P. McGowan, Jr., Circuit Judge:     This was a Pro Se action against numerous judges. The case was summarily dismissed by Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) resulting in a per curiam dismissal on February 1, 1990.
(6)         CV:4:91-3572(H), Jerry Lee Bruce v. Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Ferrell Cothran, Sharon N. Odom, Ray E. Chandler, Harold Detwilder and R. Wright Turbeville:     This was a Pro Se action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It was summarily dismissed by Judge Charles W. Gambrell on November 26, 1991. This case was never served on the defendant, Anderson.
(7)         CV:8:92-283-17K, Phillip R. Pyett v. Judge Ralph Anderson, Dudley Saleeby, Jr. and John DeBerry:     This is a Pro Se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The case was summarily dismissed by Judge Joe F. Anderson, Jr. on October 22, 1992.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
11/24/93         Ink Cartridge                 $20.00
11/29/93         Postage Stamps             $98.60
11/29/93         Personal stationery         $34.00
(estimate - letter written to members of the General Assembly)

TOTAL:     $152.60

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Inn of Court

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
None

46.     He was the recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and Scholarship Fund - 1993

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Ashpy P. Lowrimore, Senior Vice President and City Executive
Southern National
P. O. Box 6676, Florence, SC 29502
664-1010
(b)         William T. Monroe, Pastor
Florence Baptist Temple
2308 South Irby Street, Florence, SC 29505-3427
662-0453
(c)         Alma M. Jenkins
Court Coordinator/Administrative Assistant (for Horry County)
P. O. Box 677, Conway, SC 29526
248-1353
(d)         Honorable Mary P. Brown
Clerk of Court (for Berkeley County)
P. O. Box 219, Moncks Corner, SC 29461-0219
761-6900
(e)         Honorable Barbara A. Scott
Clerk of Court (for Richland County)
P. O. Box 1781, Columbia, SC 29202
748-4684

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Circuit Judge at Large, Seat No. One, serving continuously since September 14, 1979

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He has limited his community involvement so as not to conflict in any way with the performance of his duties. Generally, he involves himself in church and Bar activities.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you.

We checked the records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, being the Florence County Sheriff's Department, the Florence City Police Department, SLED and FBI and all those records are negative. The Judgment Rolls of Florence County are negative.

I would note that the Federal court records show no judgments or criminal actions against you, but there were eight civil actions in which you were a defendant, including six civil rights actions brought against you and others which have been dismissed, one mortgage foreclosure in which you and others were defendants and default was entered against the other defendants in that case. And there was one writ of habeas corpus filed and Summary Judgement was granted. Does that -- is that correct in your memory?
JUDGE ANDERSON:     That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We do have one complaint or statement that we've received and that was the statement of Mr. Kelly and what I'm going to ask, Mr. Kelly is not going to come forward and testify again, but perhaps during the course of your discussion, you can elaborate on the facts that's he outlined and try to respond to those. And the one witness we have is present to testify against you today was Mr. Kelly who has already testified. At this time, I'm going to turn you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning.
JUDGE ANDERSON:     All right.
JUDGE ANDERSON - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Judge Anderson, since it's fresh on our minds now about Mr. Kelly's complaint, why don't we go ahead and give you an opportunity to respond to that, if you care to.
A.     Members of the Committee, I have one major qualm, I would ask you to consider this. I have this case on remand and I have a hearing scheduled in this case next week in regard to issues. Thus, I would ask you not to ask me any questions that would infringe upon the ethics of the office.

Now, let me say with clarity and with no equivocation, my order was issued in regard to those two cases. The orders that I issued in regard to the two cases set out my position concerning the right of the County of Lexington to be heard before I would issue orders of expenditure of Lexington County funds. The State Supreme Court reversed that part of the order saying that Lexington County had no standing.

When I consider this case further on remand, I shall diligently and conscientiously follow the exact language of that opinion. And I tell you now I will do that without any deviation including, if necessary, expenditure of county funds to give this man a clear -- a fair trial.

Now, folks, I've been given so many cases in this state, a number of which are death penalty cases. I am not going to make a person face the death penalty without some decent, proper clothing. I am not going to make a death penalty defendant come forward in prison clothing nor in prison shoes. Fundamental fairness is involved in those trials and as a matter of conscious, if I don't make it on the State Supreme Court, I just want to make -- there are some matters of conscious that apply to my trials, and I am not going to make any defendant in a criminal trial especially, especially in a death penalty trial face the court or the jury in prison garb. I shall not do that. I do not think that meets the test of due process under the Constitution.

Now, what I'm going to attempt to do and what I have attempted to do is juxtapose that to the money available. I do not want to waste taxpayers' funds. I have spent an inordinate amount of time in recent years trying to evaluate the requests that have been posited to me concerning the expenditure of funds for expert witnesses, a plethora of expert witnesses that I have considered. But I believe under the oath as a Circuit Judge that I have a duty and responsibility to give due process.

That due process is panoramic. It involves the State and the victims, but it involves the defendant. The trials of these death penalty cases is not only governed and controlled by state law, the United States Supreme Court decisions govern and control these cases.

I ask you Members of the Committee to simply be cognizant of the fact that when these trials are conducted, they are scrutinized and reviewed not only by the State entities, but by the federal entities and the trial must meet the highest mandate in regard to due process.

I will answer anything specifically except I respectfully say to you again that I have a hearing scheduled in this matter next week on remand. I have tried to make it crystal clear that I will order the expenditure of the necessary funds to give due process. And if that is a negativistic factor, the oath of the office requires it, and I shall take the consequences.
Q.     I appreciate your ethical considerations about talking about it, but could I just ask you about the process for a moment?
A.     Yes, you may. Yes.
Q.     At this stage, are you actually concerned with the amount that's being spent on the defendant's defense for the actual -- just the provision of the services?
A.     In regard to the hearing that I will hold, amounts will be involved, services will be involved and the identification of expert witnesses and personnel will be involved.
MR. ELLIOTT: Do you want to see if anybody else had a question about that?
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. McConnell?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q.     Judge, so I can make sure I understand, your decision that went up to the Court, you ruled that the County could be heard on the matter; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And that would have given you the availability at that time of hearing from all sides, available money, the necessity and everything and the Court came back and said that the ex parte law said that the County had no standing; is that essentially correct?
A.     That's the gist and gravamen of the decision.
Q.     So frankly you were somewhat overturned on the question of hearing from the County, would that be a fair statement?
A.     The most chilling word in my life is reversed and you will see that in the front of the Opinion, reversed.
Q.     All right. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I think Senator McConnell's point is that your
-- the position you took in the case was more consistent with what the complaining witness, Mr. Kelly, or was somewhat consistent with the position Mr. Kelly took; is that correct?
A.     I think it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay. Thank you. Mr. Elliott.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Judge Anderson, among the materials you submitted to this committee was an indication that your 1993 taxes are unpaid. Could you explain that? Is there --
A.     No.
Q.     -- any --
A.     I just had not filed the --
Q.     The return?
A.     I was talking about the 1993, but all my taxes have been paid. Yes.
Q.     On your Personal Data Questionnaire you mention that you're a member of the South Carolina Inn Court, and you spell that I-n-n?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Could you tell us what that is?
A.     That's an honor society at the law school established by then Chief Judge Sanders who invited a number of Circuit judges in the state, law professors and lawyers, trial lawyers to become a member of the Inn of Court. It's a national organization. It has its etiology in England in regard to people involved in the system coming to talk about the scholarship activities in regard to the law, concerns in the law, developments and trends in the law. It is a meeting of individuals by invitation.

You are invited to become a member and I was invited to become a member by that organization and have participated in general discussions. They normally meet at the law school. They normally have a general discussion about a topic that is identified and it is in most instances intellectually stimulating.
Q.     Is there any special criteria for admission other than Justice -- Judge Sanders' invitation?
A.     Well, he is not the only one that invites you. I think it's a committee that invites you and I do not know what standard they use. They just gave me the invitation and I accepted.
Q.     All right. A little while ago you talked about how you get a large number of cases that are complicated cases and it seems to me that's true, and you've certainly listed some in your Personal Data Questionnaire. Do you enjoy the complicated case? How do you approach the complicated case?
A.     It has been said to me publicly and privately that I am somewhat unusual in that I would rather try a complicated legal issue rather than what might be termed a standard trial, and I do not denigrate any litigation by the use of that word, but, yes, I do like the challenge of the high line issue case, both in the civil and criminal venues.
Q.     Do you consider yourself successful as a judge in trying those cases?
A.     The highest honor given to me in recent years has been the vote that I received unanimously by members of the bar in two scenarios, one in regard to judicial rating concerning various factors that was released some several months ago and, two, a rating that I got released this morning. I pride myself in giving everything that I have to the task and only say that I will continue to do that. That's what I've tried to do.
Q.     You have a son who is an attorney and he practices law with the Attorney General's office. What do you do if you ever have one of his cases come before you?
A.     I do not have the Attorney General's Office appear before me. I insulate myself from my son and the Office of the Attorney General.
Q.     You have been engaged in politics in the past.
A.     A long time ago.
Q.     It's been a long time ago.
A.     15 years.
Q.     What's your opinion about what a judge is able to do in the area of politics?
A.     I do not believe a judge should engage in any political activities.
Q.     Talking again about complicated cases, you did note that legal scholars in a national publication commented on your Alvin Davis, Jr. case.
A.     Yes.
Q.     Did the legal scholars give you a favorable review?
A.     The article was in The National Law Journal which is a prestigious law journal. The case emanated from the Richland County venue. It involved an individual who had been sentenced for a major crime, but then the jail personnel let him walk out. And he stayed gone for approximately eight years, if I recall, became a model citizen and did everything that was necessary to be rehabilitated. And when he came before me, they had locked him back up and I turned him loose.

I ruled that as a matter of due process the State could not let an individual loose, turn that individual back into society and do nothing. And by the way, he lived in the venue almost the entire time only a few blocks from the Richland County Judicial Center, so I was somewhat appalled by the lack of law enforcement to do anything, and then I tried to make them responsible for their actions.
Q.     Did you get a favorable review?
A.     I think I did. I think nationally it was accepted as a case where unusual fact scenarios were presented in regard to individuals in like circumstance and there was some precedent around the country, very little directly on the point, and I tried to conclude the matter on due process issues. I think the review was favorable.
Q.     In a past screening in 1979, you discussed at some length the distinction between your beliefs in and opinions in political life and your positions or conduct as a judge. And in that screening, you're talking about the role as a Circuit Court judge and you basically said you didn't think a judge ought to interject himself into the policy making decisions of the state in regard to things like capital punishment and mandatory sentencing. Now, you're seeking the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Do you see that any differently?
A.     None whatsoever.
Q.     Also in that 1979 screening, you described yourself as a trial lawyer and you said you did not do very much
"office work practice," and it sounded like you really enjoyed the excitement of the courtroom and that's kind of what got your blood stirring. And now you're looking at a job where you're probably going to be sitting behind a desk a lot doing a great deal of research and have a little less interaction and excitement that you derived from the courtroom. Is that going to be an adjustment for you? Will you miss it? Will you be happy on the appellate court?
A.     Counsel, I think the adjustment was when I made the transition from trial lawyer to trial judge. Obviously, when I try a case, I'm not the lawyer. I let the lawyers try the case. My view is to let the lawyers present the issue and I have maintained a position of passivity in most instances in that regard, and so I do not see any change from the trial judge mode to the appellate judge.
Q.     You won't miss the interaction? I've heard appellate work described as being pretty lonely at times and it sounds like from what you're saying that's not going to be an adjustment for you?
A.     I love what I'm doing. I enjoy being a trial judge. I mean I enjoy getting up going to work early in the mornings. And I certainly understand the transition, but I do have some tendency to want to write. I know my writings thus far have been limited because my role is the trial judge and writing is then sent to the appellant entity.

I think the opportunity and privilege to write precedent is a tremendous opportunity and privilege. I do believe that the role in that regard would be different, but it is appealing to me to make that transition.
Q.     A couple of things you touched on just then. Let's talk about the work ethic for a minute. What is a typical week for you in court?
A.     Every morning at 7:30, I'm at the office everywhere, Charleston, Columbia, wherever I'm being assigned. Every morning, 7:30. I normally stay until about 7:00 in the afternoon. I have stayed later, to the consternation of counsel sometimes, but I suppose amelioration has set in. I try to be aware and cognizant of their load. I give a very full day to the job. Normally around ten hours.
Q.     Yes, sir. I didn't know 7:00 o'clock was in the afternoon, but it's good to hear that. Did you -- have you had any complaints about your work schedule, that it's too long or do you hold court for too long?
A.     Not in recent years. When I first went on the bench, I had probably exacerbated that work schedule to the point of a little too long and probably needed to truncate it somewhat which has occurred. I obviously recognize lawyers needed to get ready in the morning. Lawyers have the need to talk to witnesses, get their schedule ready and I've tried to tailor that.
Q.     And you mentioned, too, a few minutes ago about writing and liking to write. And your writings have received some notoriety in the press. In fact --
A.     I knew that was coming.
Q.     -- there was one newspaper where -- account where I read that you used some word, and I don't remember the word, nor would I know what it meant or be able to pronounce it probably, but where Solicitor Harpootlian challenged you in a courtroom to spell it and apparently you were able to do so and you moved on from there.

But you have received some notoriety in the press for using words that are probably not in common usage even among educated people, in particular, there was that article by James Kilpatrick. You're nodding your head. Apparently you're aware of it. How do you meet that criticism?
A.     Well, I don't think it's a criticism really and I say that honestly and candidly because the lawyers who know me, we have repartee about words. I consider myself an etymologist. I love words. I also always have enjoyed words. Folk like Harpootlian, he's a word person. He will give me a word and challenge in a moment. Obviously, I would like to respond and I do enjoy responding.

Recently, a lawyer said to me, "You know, you've been a little inhibited in regard to your words and vocabulary." I said, "I don't want another Kilpatrick Number 2 syndrome.". I note that Kilpatrick didn't complain about the syntax or the grammar or the usage of the word. And I know he is constantly saying other people don't know anything about words.

It happens to be in the order that I issued, the lawyer before me was an honor graduate from Harvard Law School. He knew all those words. Throughout that trial, we had had constant colloquy and soliloquy concerning words and maybe Kilpatrick didn't understand the word and had to look it up, but Ned Zeigler didn't have to look it up. He knew it. He just lost.
Q.     You might want to get with Ms. Boyd, our stenographer, after this is over and spell a few of those words for her. Do you have any experience as an acting justice or judge at the appellate level?
A.     Five times, I have served on the State Supreme Court. That's a wonderful experience. Fantastic. The air and atmosphere there is certainly different from down at the trial level, in the pits and in the trenches. I did not have the opportunity to write. I was invited one time by Bubba Ness and I mentioned something about a dissent and the last thing I saw in his face was the information that I needed not to file a dissent.
Q.     Judge Anderson, we took a look at the Court Administration's report on matters that judges had under advisement over 30 days and the period of time we looked at was 1992, 1993 and January of 1994 and you never had a case pending over 30 days. I assume you do that by keeping the kind of schedule that you were just talking about.

We talked about that more or less in terms of court, but the weeks you don't have court apparently you must spend a great deal of time in the office as well. Could you comment on that, please?
A.     I spend a lot of time after hours. When I say in the afternoon and early in the morning, we don't require lawyers to come in. My law clerk is back here. And they say to work as my law clerk you are a survivalist. But insofar as the orders -- well, first I think the judge ought to decide.

A judge, federal judge, took an oath of office yesterday and she used that general presentation, you need to decide. I don't think the litigants should be delayed. I don't think an epiphany is going to occur after you hold it for 60 or 90 days. I think you need to stay with it, get the order out. That's what I try to do.
Q.     Have you experienced any tension between meeting that 30 day mark and the quality of your orders?
A.     None whatsoever. Background work is important to me, counsel. I do not know if you know this or not about my staff and I, but we have 50 notebooks. In those 50 notebooks accumulated over the years, we accumulate topics, opinions every week. Not a single week is missed. Every week when the State Supreme Court issues its opinions, we take those, we review them, read them, study them and then we place them in locations in the books. We work on the books and I use those books as resource material. I use that as the basis and premise for every case.

When we begin the term, we've got the books available. When we begin a hearing if that issue involves unfair trade practices, the Unfair Fair Trade Practices notebook is there. The cases for the last 10 years sequentially, chronologically identified in the book, and some charges that I've used over the years. I'm a charge person and I use those charges. The use of that background material enhances the consideration of the case in my judgment.
Q.     As an appellate court judge, what do you think the practice should be about reading briefs, law clerk's memorandum, transcripts and otherwise knowing about those cases that aren't preassigned to you and what would be your practice?
A.     Every brief will be read. Every paper will be read. That's my practice now when I try a case. I began a trial yesterday in Florence. It will last three weeks. They have identification of witnesses that exceed 100. That material, that information is available. I have reviewed that. I know that theories will be five in number for the Plaintiffs. I know what the theories are. I've already identified the notebooks involved in those theories. I read the material. I think the lawyer ought to be shown the courtesy that the judge will read every single document presented and I do that.
Q.     And that would be your practice even with cases that are not preassigned to you?
A.     It would continue.
Q.     I guess that's how 7:00 o'clock gets to be in the afternoon. You're known for being strict in the courtroom. What's your philosophy about how you run the courtroom?
A.     I think the jurors and the judge should listen. First and foremost, I think the judge should listen. I mean the judge should listen to the witness testifying, so he'll be able to rule on matters of evidence and be able to have a feel for that case and I think jurors should listen.

If you open every door in the courtroom continuously, the first thing when the door opens in the back door of the court facility in Florence, the jurors look. I have a tendency almost to look myself and so I do maintain some decorum. I think first that's a place where significant matters are being considered, that case is important to that litigant. I want to give it my best talent and capability. I want the jurors to do that very same thing. And I emphasize that to those participants.
Q.     And you touched on judicial temperament some in that response, but describe for us what you consider to be good judicial temperament.
A.     I think the judge should be willing to listen to the lawyers, listen to the witnesses, hear them out. Listen to those litigants and then rule. Now, the problem in regard to some folk when they review this process is that they do not understand that this is not a popularity contest position. You must rule. After you hear the parties and the litigants, you must issue an order. That order does not make everyone happy. Someone loses. I think the bottom line is to give everyone a fair hearing and then rule.
Q.     What do you do -- assume you take a left or right turn in terms of judicial temperament and an attorney feels he has some reason to complain -- first of all, has that happened in the 13 or 14 years you've been on the bench?
A.     I am so proud of what these lawyers have said in this report that they just handed this committee and I will treasure it whether I ever serve on the State Supreme Court a single day again. Members of the Bar interviewed indicated that they had received a fair trial any time they appeared before me. That is wonderful for me personally.
Q.     I have known some legislator's who apparently served with you when you were in the House.
A.     A very shy, reticent person.
Q.     That's exactly what they said. They tend to talk about sort of as a -- affectionately as a renegade. You tended to sometime be on the minority side of a particular
issue, but you were particularly skillful at using rules to advance your position or to halt the majority in trying to pass its position.
A.     I'm guilty.
Q.     Guilty. That's a fair characterization?
A.     I did do that during seven years occasionally. I used the rules every time I could. If I had a strong position, I used the rules. Occasionally, I would try to delay matters if I thought they were major concerns to the litigants. I remember one time engaging in what I then called educational debate concerning the interest rates. And it was being substantial increased.
Q.     Well, as a member of an appellant court of five members, teamwork and consensus building will be important. Should the Committee expect Ralph King Anderson from the House days or some other Ralph King Anderson, you know, and I guess I'm asking you, too, how strongly do you have to feel to dissent from an opinion and to -- what would you do to advance your view of a case?
A.     I would try to do it internally. I do not plan to dissent with any degree of regularity. That's not the role of the individual justice, unless it is a matter of conscious, counsel. If it's a matter of conscious, I shall dissent. I promise you, I will do that if it's a matter of major precedent and I have very strong feelings. I will consider a dissent if it is something that needs to be written about contra to the majority opinion, but I'm not interested in writing a lot of dissents. That's not the notoriety that I would want to achieve. I would hope that any opinion that I wrote would be concurred in by the others and that I would be able to concur with some degree of regularity.
Q.     In the area of gifts and social hospitality, what are your rules about that and how do you define gift and social hospitality?
A.     I do not have much interplay with lawyers. Socially, it is none unless it is a person of some long-standing that I would occasionally see. My rule is not to have any kind of contact on a regular basis. I just do not do it. I have refrained from doing that.
Q.     What are your rules on ex parte communication?
A.     I think I have the most strict rule in the state. I don't allow it period. My secretary knows that. My law clerk knows that. We don't allow that.
Q.     If you had a matter before you in which you had a minimus financial interest, what would your position be on hearing that case?
A.     I will not rule on any case where I have any kind of financial interest including stock or whatever. That's just been my basic rule. It's a bright line test that I enforce and it keeps me from having any difficulty in regard to any perceived prejudice.
Q.     In the area of pledges, have you sought the pledge of any legislator prior to screening?
A.     I have not, but I went on the floor of the House two times during the Budget debate. I shall not do that again. I do not want to make anyone happy -- or unhappy. I want to make them happy, so I shall maintain a very strict position in the middle of the two chambers with some degree of equanimity and some degree of parity. I will not go in any chamber, recessed or in session.
Q.     Have you sought any conditional pledges?
A.     I have not. And I note with some degree of concern that the press says that some people are here. I apparently am behind. Major behind.
Q.     Have you asked anyone to solicit or seek pledges on your behalf?
A.     I have not.
Q.     And has any Member of the General Assembly assured you that they could get you some votes or had a certain number of votes that --
A.     They have not.
Q.     That's all the questions I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Alexander.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q.     I notice you were at Clemson from '52 to '56.
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     What was your major there?
A.     It was a general major because I was trying to get enough credits to go to the law school. I was trying to finish three years in two years and a summer school and I did it with no extra credit to spare, so it's mostly history and government.
Q.     Is this the place you learned your mastery of grammar?
A.     I had a great teacher in --
Q.     Who was it?
A.     -- regard to a speech course.
Q.     John Lane?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Okay.
A.     And he made us start the -- I was from the Pee Dee obviously, and I said oil, and he said, no, the word is oil. And he began to make me flex and to give the word a syllable response and he put me on a tape and I sounded horrible to myself and he kind of took me under the wing I suppose because I was so bad at that time in regard to pronunciation and articulation.
Q.     He was quite an outstanding person.
A.     Yes. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     At this time, the Record will reflect that Mr. Alexander spent eight years at Clemson and didn't -- that's why he asked that question. Any other questions? Mr. Russell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q.     Judge, you're familiar with the fact we had another Anderson previously here for screening not too long ago and I just wanted to point out there was -- I don't see it on these questionnaires, but on those questionnaires, there was a question as to whether or not you had ever been scolded by a judicial entity, reprimand, and it caused him great problems. He didn't know whether to list them or leave them out, but he did mention that he had been scolded by the Court before?
A.     He has.
Q.     Before he had been an attorney, though?
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions from the Members? If not, thank you, Judge Anderson.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Next is Judge Baggett. Raise your right hand, please.
JULIUS H. BAGGETT, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge Baggett, your last screening was March 10th, 1988 for the Eleventh Circuit seat.
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is that correct?
JUDGE BAGGETT:     It is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any changes, clarifications that need to be made?
JUDGE BAGGETT:     No.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is there any objection to making the Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will there be ordered at this time.

1.     Julius H. Baggett
Home Address:                         Business Address:
403 Main Street                         Lexington County Courthouse
P. O. Box 738                         P. O. Box 885
Leesville, SC 29070                 Lexington, SC 29071

2.     He was born in Florence, South Carolina on February 14, 1925. He is presently 69 years old.

4.     He was married to Evelyn Ruth Heacox on March 15, 1944. He has four children:     Stephen D., age 43 (attorney with firm of McDonald, Burns, Bradford, Patrick & Dean - Greenwood, SC); David Jay, M.D., age 41 (medical doctor, family practice specialist, Dorchester Family Practice - Summerville, SC); Judy Kay Baggett Meggs, age 39 (teacher, Laurens School District - Laurens, SC); and Amy Susan Baggett Spillers, age 28 (former probation officer - Leesville, SC).

5.     Military Service:     U.S. Navy; June, 1943 - December, 1945; Signalman 2d Class (Petty Officer); Serial No. 829-24-23; Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended Furman University; September, 1942 - June, 1943; January, 1945 - July, 1947; B. A. Degree awarded in 1948 after completion of first year of law school. He also attended the University of South Carolina School of Law; September 17, 1947; LLB (reissued as J.D., September 3, 1970).

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He attended the course sponsored by National Judicial College in San Francisco on Judicial Efficiency Improvement. He attended all JCLE seminars when travel funds were available.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
Yes - at JCLE Seminars on several occasions; at the S. C. Trial Lawyers Association on capital punishment; and at the S. C. Defense Association on opening statements. He spoke to new law clerks at the Annual Conference on two occasions.

10.     Published Books and Articles:
Article entitled, "May It Please the Court," published in "The Bar Tab" (A Periodic Report to Members of the Young Lawyers Division), Vol. 11, No. 1, Fall, 1993.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
January, 1950 - December, 1957:     Trial attorney; U. S. Department of Agriculture; Office of General Counsel; Atlanta, Georgia
January, 1958 - July, 1966:     Partner; Buzhardt & Baggett; Attorneys at Law; McCormick, South Carolina
July, 1966 - October, 1976:     Individual practice; McCormick, South Carolina; following death of partner
October, 1976 - present; Resident Circuit Judge; Eleventh Judicial Circuit

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     AV

20.     Judicial Office:
South Carolina Circuit Courts, elected without opposition July 22, 1976, assumed office October 2, 1976; reelected without opposition in 1982 and 1988.
The Circuit Court of South Carolina is the highest level of trial court in South Carolina with unlimited jurisdiction in both criminal and civil cases.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         South Carolina Insurance Company v. Estrada, 277 S.C. 343, 287 S.E.2d 475 (1982).
(b)         Multi-Cinema v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 292 S.C. 411, 357 S.E.2d 6 (1987).
(c)         Sales International Limited v. Black River Farms, Inc., et al., 270 S.C. 391, 242 S.E.2d 432 (1978).
(d)         Dewey Bowen, et al. v. Tony Ellis, et al., 81-CP-32-2186 (No Appeal).
(e)         James C. Anders, Solicitor of the Fifth Judicial Circuit v. Albert Jones and Edward H. McElveen, et al., d/b/a DeSoto Hotel, 80-CP-40-3039 (No Appeal).

22.     Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, 1967-1968, 1970-1974, elected in General Elections

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
Candidate for House of Representatives, Democratic Primary, 1968
Candidate for House of Representatives, Democratic Primary, 1974

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None, except part-time work while attending school and college, as well as military service during World War II

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
12/1/93             Postage                     $116.00
12/14/93             Supplies                     $ 50.00
1/5/94                 Telephone                 $ 81.65
1/18/94             Photographs             $144.90
Booklets                     $250.00 (estimated)

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; American Bar Association; South Carolina Association of Circuit Judges (Treasurer, Vice Chairman and Chairman [President]); Lexington County Bar Association; Tri-County (Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda) Bar Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Mine Lodge No. 117, A.F.M. (Masonic Order); Masonic Chapter Council and Commandery; Hejaz Shrine Temple

46.     As of June 30, 1994, he will have completed 17 years and 9 months of service as a Circuit Judge. He is the second-most senior Circuit Judge of the 40 judges (Judge Rodney Peeples being the most senior). He has worked diligently and has introduced innovations in the Circuit Court system, especially the use of computer generated research. The present members of the Supreme Court, with the exception of Justice Toal, are all former colleagues of his in the General Assembly and on the Circuit Court. Working with them and Justice Toal would be a pleasant and intellectually stimulating experience which would be of benefit to the Judiciary.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Raymond S. Caughman, Chairman and CEO
The Lexington State Bank
P. O. Box 8, Lexington, SC 29071-0008
359-5111
(b)         Larry W. Propes, Deputy Director
South Carolina Court Administration
P. O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250
734-1800
(c)         Honorable Jeff D. Griffith, Jr.
P. O. Box 387, Saluda, SC 29138
445-2671
(d)         Honorable Hubert E. Long
431 N. Lee Street, Batesburg, SC 29006
532-4605
(e)         Patrick J. Frawley, Esquire
President, Lexington County Bar Association
P. O. Box 489, Lexington, SC 29071
359-2512

2.     Positions on the Bench:
South Carolina Circuit Court; Eleventh Judicial Circuit; Resident Judge; October 2, 1976 to present; term expires June 30, 1994

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no records of reprimands.

We've checked with the records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, that being the Lexington County Sheriff's Office, the Leesville City Police Department and SLED and FBI, and all those records are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Lexington County are negative. The Federal Court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

There apparently was one civil rights action brought against you and others, which was dismissed in 1986. No complaints or statements were received against you. No witnesses are present to testify against you. At this time I'm going to turn you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning.
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Fine.
JUDGE BAGGETT - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good morning, Judge Baggett.
A.     Good morning.
Q.     If you can't hear me, please let me know and if there is anything you need, please let us know.
A.     Thank you.
Q.     Is there any statement or any comment that you would like to make to the Screening Committee before we begin?
A.     Yes, thank you, I was hoping you'd let me do that. I saw that they've allowed about five minutes and I won't probably take that much time.

Mark Twain once remarked that the report of his demise was greatly exaggerated. As -- in that regard, I would say that the report of my retirement is greatly exaggerated in the sense that I hear that quite often as I go around. I'm not retired.

I opted not to run for reelection as a Circuit judge for the Eleventh Circuit. I hope I'm not being an egotist to think that I could have been reelected. I don't know of any reason why I could not have. But because of the opportunity over there being two openings on the Supreme Court, it seems to me a ripe opportunity for me to offer for that service.

I'm a part of the class of what I prefer to call the Class of 1976 where there were nine new Circuit judges put on as a result of the 1972 Judicial Reform Act and three of my colleagues with whom I served in the General Assembly are now present members of the Supreme Court, Justice Harwell, Justice Finney and Justice Moore. I think that's one of the attractions for me to be on the Supreme Court, that they are such good friends of mine and such pleasant people and the intellect of Justice Toal added to all of that makes it a wonderful opportunity to be able to take part in that, part of the justice system.

Statutory limitations would limit my activity as a judge. I'm 69 years old, so I only have about two and a half more years statutorily to be able to serve on the courts. I thought it would be preferable and desirable from my standpoint to conclude my judicial service to the State by serving on the Supreme Court. And to do this, to make the announcement early, so this General Assembly will be able to fill my spot without any disruption on the Circuit Court. I do believe that we do not need any disruption because of the overwhelming wait for cases and I just felt that that was the best approach to take.
Q.     Thank you. You are the second most senior member of the Circuit Bench and I'd like to ask you what are the most significant changes that you've seen in the Circuit Court bench during your tenure there?
A.     Well, I think, first of all, the numbers have fluctuated. When we first came on, the nine of us in
'76, there had -- there was a tremendous backlog because of the fact that the County courts were being dissolved, so we accepted all of those cases and we had a tremendous backlog and so up until about 19 probably 85, 86, we began to whittle that down. And we began to be able to handle cases with more facility. So I think that's one of the major changes.

What we're seeing now is the build back -- building back up of the case loads and we have had, too, significant increases of litigation because of certain substantive changes in the law, primarily the abolition of immunities of all sorts, which have brought in a great amount of the litigation and the Unfair Trade Practices Act, a great many acts of the General Assembly and decisions of the Supreme Court have opened up more avenues for litigation. And so we're being faced and challenged constantly almost on a monthly basis to learn new laws and find out what these things mean. The Omnibus Crime Act, or the Reclassification of Crime Act, all these things, the contributory negligence, consideration of the comparative negligence which we had to learn all over again, so it's been a constancy in learning that we've had to undergo. I think there's been more movement in that area than probably at any other time that I can recall in the law.
Q.     While you've been on the bench, what's been your most challenging case and why?
A.     I think the Presbyterian Church litigation case. It was a nonjury case and we had some outstanding lawyers in there. It was of national concern because the issue presented as to how it was that dissidents could withdraw from the Presbyterian Church and if so, who owned the church property. And it was an interesting case and I just loved doing research on it and write an opinion which you have as a part of your material there.

The result was so striking when you look back at it, when 39 people could control the church property were out of a congregation of 700, which was a result of it. And when you think of that kind of result, you know it took some really digging to be able to justify that. And I was perfectly satisfied with the result and I'm happy to say that opinion was never appealed. It was the law in the case and I was told there was no basis for an appeal because I had covered all the holes in it and there was no need to it. I was really happy with that and proud of it.
Q.     What advice would you give to new lawyers just starting out?
A.     Well, new lawyers just starting, if you haven't learned already go to night school or trade school, learn how to use a computer. When you learn to use your computer, buy a lap top.
Q.     Everybody needs a lap top computer?
A.     Yes, indeed.
Q.     What is your opinion, Judge Baggett, about the proposed Rules of Evidence, the new Rules of Evidence, statutory Rules of Evidence?
A.     I haven't studied them. I couldn't tell you to save my life to be honest with you.
Q.     Do you think that they're necessary? The Court is discussing coming out with Rules of Evidence.
A.     I haven't studied them. I couldn't possibly tell you that.
Q.     Have you served as an acting appellate judge?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     And your experience there, how has it been?
A.     Well, it was real interesting. Rather awesome. I think I've sat on about four cases, the latest of which was a Thrift case which was a tremendous case. We met many times on that. And it was a wonderful experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think I'd really -- the Thrift case, in particular, convinced me that I would enjoy being on the Supreme Court.
Q.     What is your philosophy of the appropriate demeanor for the judge in a courtroom, in his courtroom?
A.     How you conduct your court?
Q.     Yes.
A.     You mean in the courtroom? I believe the -- a court is somewhat like a church. It's a shrine of sorts and I think unless you have the proper decorum and respect that people are not going to respect the law. I think that includes keeping the noise down, limiting access, requiring proper dress, proper manners of judges and the lawyers and having witnesses of that sort and I think that's important. I recently wrote a little article that was published in the Trial Lawyers Magazine concerning that subject and I enjoyed doing that because I may have been accused of being a little old fashion about some of the things that were put in, but I do think they're important, giving the proper respect to the court and to the law and so I think that's speaks about as well as I could say about that.
Q.     What qualities of the term judicial temperament are your strongest?
A.     I think courtesy is one of them and a sense of constancy and seeking to be fair, trying to find the right result to do justice and that's a very difficult thing to do in many cases. But my ambition, as I perceive the law to be, is to do justice to the case we have before us.

I mean justice is a very fleeting thing. It depends upon the mentality and the judgment of people. Justice, I submit, is almost a divine concept and what little wisdom we're given imparted to us to try to accomplish that, I think, is a very difficult thing to do, but I think open-mindedness and fairness and honesty in all that you're doing are the keys to that.
Q.     Are there aspects about being on the Circuit Court bench that you would miss if you became a new associate?
A.     Well, the contacts, the people, lawyers, the courthouse people. I've been in every county in the state. I've met some wonderful people. I've had some great experiences. I'd miss that, that contact. I really will.

But I will say this, though, the grind and the stress of the Circuit Court will not be missed by me. I want to say that pretty clearly. Every day you've got to go meet new challenges, every day you're going to have to sentence people and a week goes by, and you sentence a hundred people or so and you have to decide each case individually, it's a stressful job and I don't particularly -- I don't -- I'm not going to miss that aspect of it.

I'll miss the fellowship of it, but I think the less stressful job of an appellant court will be very nice.
Q.     Right now, Judge Baggett, how do you deal with that stress?
A.     I've had the good fortune of being able to cleanse my mind as I go home every day. I sort of flush it out, all those things that have been bothering me and I start over new, every day with a new mind, a new mind, unless it's something really deep. I don't let it bother me. I shed it all and take it off when I take my robe off and I go home and deal with that and my wife is very considerate of me. We've been married for 50 years and she knows me and we just get along fine and we just don't have any problem with that.
Q.     We have looked at the 30-day report and you don't show -- 30, 60 and 90-day report, you don't show any cases outstanding for the period --
A.     No.
Q.     -- that we were looking at. Also, could I ask you how you remain current? Could you describe your work habits?
A.     Well, I haven't had a lot of nonjury work lately. Most of my work has been in General Sessions criminal work and so as a result of that, you don't have any reason to have anything overhanging.

I believe that the best time to make your decision is when you've heard something. And if you hear it, you're never going to be in a better position to make a decision than you are right then, assuming you've got the proper law briefs and things that you're ready to do it and so I make my decisions.

Generally speaking, I will direct the attorneys -- the prevailing attorney to write the opinion, submit a copy to opposing counsel and then submit it to me for final approval in the ordinary case.
Q.     You did mention an article you wrote for the Trial Lawyers magazine. Have you participated in the presentation of other CLE's or the writing of other articles?
A.     I wrote a little article for South Carolina Circuit Judges Association, which was sort of private, but I wrote a little thing about the circus, a little just thing -- a thing about taking my granddaughter to the circus was published in the Florence paper, but I like to write. And I think I'm going to be doing more of that in the future. I've not written anything other than what you referred to.

I used to take part in JCLE's a good bit as a panelist and I've been to -- I spoke to the trial lawyers on some issues of capital murder cases and opening statements to the defense bar. That's about it.
Q.     What is your philosophy about ex parte communication, sir?
A.     Well, obviously, we all know now that's taboo, that you cannot do it. I mean we don't do that. I can recall one time as we were talking as I was listening here, I had a multiparty, multi million dollar environmental case that had been pending in Lexington County for about six years. It had been specially assigned. I tried to get rid of it.

I called a settlement conference and I used one of the devices that is used in arbitration and in mediation and I asked each side would they agree to let me speak to each side separately in an effort to try to resolve it. And they agreed and it was very helpful.

I would take the parties, the lawyers off to the side and talk about it and see how we could come to a conclusion on it, send him out, take the other side in, talk to them and then try to bring them together. I came awfully close to do doing it. And two years later, the same method was used and it was settled by someone else, multi million dollar settlement. That was an exception, though.
Q.     Your son is, as I understand, a lawyer in Greenwood?
A.     Yes. That's correct.
Q.     Does it ever occur that you need to recuse yourself in any of those cases?
A.     No. I never -- he practices in the Greenwood area. The only time that we have that is I may hold court in Saluda or McCormick and I never hear anything from him at all. When it comes to other cases from his firm, I tell the lawyers involved to ask the -- to tell your client that a member of this firm -- that the judge is a father of a member of the firm, that if they have any doubt about the problem whatsoever, I'll recuse myself, otherwise we go ahead and do it.

I do that because we are -- in my little county, we have such little court and we have got to dispose of the cases, but I let them know what the relationship is. My son never appeared before me, but the other members of the firm, I let them know in advance and then they make the decision what they want to do.
Q.     Do you see this changing in any way when you -- if you move up to the Supreme Court?
A.     No. No. Not at all, except I wouldn't hear anything out of his firm at all.
Q.     What is your policy about accepting food and meals, social hospitality from attorneys?
A.     Well, I just don't have any problem with that. I don't get any offers of it anymore. So there is no harm, no problem, just like perhaps you folks. It's not a problem. Not a problem.
Q.     You and I will go out for coffee later.
A.     Okay. Okay.
Q.     Judge Baggett, what are your ethical considerations about participation in extra -- I want to call it extracurricular. That's not the right word. Extrajudicial organizations, social organizations or -- community group?
A.     Counselor, I almost live in a monastery. I didn't realize it at first what it was like to be a judge, but I soon learned that whereas most of my friends were lawyers, I could no longer have them in that kind of relationship. I dropped out of all clubs except my Masonic order, where I'm now a life member of the Blue (phonetic) lodge. That's all I do, and my church.

Now, I don't have anything to do with anything else. Nothing. I don't belong to a country club. I don't play golf. I don't do any of those things.
Q.     Do you see yourself becoming more of a monastic lifestyle kind of person being on the Supreme Court? Would that make it an even more sequestered --
A.     I don't think so. I don't think so. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not without friends. And I have a large family, but I don't see that's any problem. It won't make any difference, which is not to say that I don't necessarily enjoy that.
Q.     Your report, Judge Baggett, shows you spent $312 on this candidacy. We don't show, though, that you have reported that to the House and the Senate Ethics Committees and would ask that you do that.
A.     I'm sorry. I thought this was all I was supposed to do.
Q.     So if you would just copy the --
A.     That's why I filled out that report.
Q.     If you could just copy that, that'd be --
A.     Oh.
Q.     Do you have a letter of recommendation, Judge Baggett, from the Lexington County Bar?
A.     Uh-huh.
Q.     Or from the president rather --
A.     The president, that's correct.
Q.     From the president. Could you explain that, how that came about? Did you ask him for that?
A.     I asked -- we needed five letters and I find it awkward
-- you know, ya'll said don't use lawyers that appear before you on a regular basis. And lawyers are the ones that I know better than anybody else, so I asked the president what he thought about it.

They first wanted to pass a resolution and I said don't do that. You've got to wait until the screening takes place and then you can consider it, after the report is made. But I said if you all want to do anything, poll your Executive Committee and if you want to make a recommendation as opposed to an endorsement, that'd be fine with me, but I needed some -- needed letters and so that's how that came about.
Q.     Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator?
A.     I have not.
Q.     How have you gone about introducing yourself and conducting --
A.     Okay.
Q.     -- this candidacy?
A.     I first wrote a letter just simply announcing the fact that I was going to be a candidate for the Supreme Court, intended to file prior to the opening of it. I have attended a few of the functions in the evening trying my best to get to know some members of the General Assembly. I've been out of it for 20 years, and so I don't know many of them.

And recently, I mailed out a resume which I had done at my expense to try to acquaint them with who I am.
Q.     Have you requested any friends or colleagues to contact any Member of the General Assembly?
A.     If -- yes, but to be careful not to ask for commitments or just simply if they want to recommend him to me, make comments about me, but they're specifically not to ask for any pledge or commitment.
Q.     That's all I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members? Thank you, Judge Baggett?
A.     Thank you.

ADDENDUM TO TESTIMONY OF JUDGE BAGGETT:

March 31, 1994
The Honorable James H. Hodges
Chairman
Judicial Screening Committee
211 Gressette Building
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee last Tuesday and am grateful for the courteous treatment given me.

A question was asked of me by counsel for the Committee as to what I thought of a proposal of the Supreme Court to provide official rules of evidence. I responded that I had not read them and therefore could not comment on the subject. I felt dumbfounded by not being able to answer what appeared to be an appropriate question.

I later had an opportunity to discuss this with Ms. McNamee, counsel for the Committee, and we both agreed that there was a misunderstanding of the question.

Upon further inquiry of Chief Justice-Elect Chandler, I find that the subject of adopting official rules of evidence has been and is a subject of long study and there have not been any publications of the proposed rules.

Obviously, this explains why I could not answer counsel's question. I certainly do not mean to criticize her at all.

If possible, please make this a part of the record.

Respectfully,
/s/Julius H. Baggett

THE CHAIRMAN:     We've got two candidates left in the Associate Justice race today. Judge Pleicones has a National Guard responsibility and will be with us tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. Let me just suggest, how does the Committee feel about taking a five or ten minute break and then trying to wrap the remaining two candidates up before noon? Is that okay?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Fine.
THE CHAIRMAN:     If we can take ten minutes, and start back about 11:25, we ought to have enough time to finish the two before 12:00.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Mr. Chairman, I'm going to probably have to leave a proxy during the Senate time because we have a matter coming up, a confirmation hearing on the Senate floor this morning that I intend to be involved in the debate.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is that -- what time is that, Senator?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     That would come on -- sometime after 12:00, but I believe the Senator here is going to be up here, so I just wanted to alert you, I've got to be on that Floor for that confirmation process.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let me just ask the Committee Members, in terms of scheduling, we have committee meetings this afternoon, but we have -- how many Family Court do we have scheduled today? Six candidates? What's the pleasure of the Committee? Do you want to come back -- do you want to start back right after 12:00 and try to plow through those or do you want to -- 2:00? Okay, I'm told they aren't scheduled to be here until 2:00 anyway, so that answers that question. Why don't we finish the Supreme Court race? I think we can finish those before 12:00, Senator McConnell, and then we'll just break until 2:00.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Okay.
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Mr. Chairman, may I be excused?
THE CHAIRMAN:     You may.
JUDGE BAGGETT:     Thank you so much.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you.

(A short break was taken)
THE CHAIRMAN:     The Committee will come to order our next candidate is Judge J. Ernest Kinard, Jr. Judge Kinard, if you'd raise your right hand please.
J. ERNEST KINARD, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge Kinard, your last screening was February 23, 1989. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
JUDGE KINARD:     I have reviewed it. It's correct except for a few typos, which if you can stand that, it's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Any objection to making the Summary a part of the record?
JUDGE KINARD:     No objection at all.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will be done at this point.

1.     J. Ernest Kinard, Jr.
Home Address:                     Business Address:
1900 Lyttleton Street             Room 310, Kershaw County Courthouse
Camden, SC 29020             1121 Broad Street
Camden, SC 29020

2.     He was born in Newberry, South Carolina on October 18, 1939. He is presently 54 years old.

4.     He was married to Kay Livingston Davis on July 21, 1963. He has three children:     Kay Marie, age 28 (teaches English at Camden High School); Audrey, age 26 (teaches English at Summerville High School); and John, age 23 (Assistant Manager of First Palmetto Savings Bank in Lancaster, SC).

5.     Military Service:     N/A

6.     He attended Clemson University, fall of 1957 until mid-year of 1960, then transferred to the University of South Carolina with plans to subsequently enter USC Law School. He graduated USC in 1961, with a Bachelor of Arts Degree. He entered law school in the fall of 1961. He graduated mid-term of 1964 with a LLB Degree (Wig & Robe while in law school).

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
4th Annual Criminal Law Review at USC; January 20, 1989; 5 hours JCLE credit
Current Issues in Civil Litigation at USC on April 15, 1989; 5 hours JCLE
National Judicial College at Reno, Nevada; July 9 - August 4, 1989; 126 JCLE hours credit
Items of Interest in Circuit Court at USC; October 26-27, 1989; 7.5 hours JCLE credit
Also attended CLE's at Mid-Year and Annual Meetings of S. C. Bar for 9 hours JCLE credit
Circuit Judges meeting; 6 hours JCLE credit
Circuit Judges Annual Conference; 1989; 7.5 hours JCLE credit
Criminal Law Update in Columbia; January 25-26, 1990 for 10 hours JCLE credit
Charleston Seminar in Charleston; 3/30/90 for 5 hours JCLE credit
In 1990, he also attended CLE's at Mid-Year meeting of the Bar in January, Trial Lawyers in August and Defense Lawyers in October for 10 hours JCLE credit
Circuit Judges Association; 6 hours JCLE credit
Circuit Judges Annual Conference; 7.5 hours JCLE credit
Criminal Law Update in Columbia; January 25, 1991; 5 hours JCLE credit
The Future & the Courts at Greenville, SC; April 4-5, 1991; 10 hours JCLE credit
Also attended CLE's at 1991 Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Bar held in Hilton Head; June 7-8, 1991. Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting at Hilton Head; August 15-17, 1991. Defense Attorneys Annual Meeting at The Cloisters in Sea Island, Georgia; November 8-10, 1991
Attended Circuit Court Judicial Conference; August 21-23, 1991; at the Marriott Hotel in Columbia
Criminal Law Update in Charleston; January 17, 1992; 5 hours JCLE credit
Employment & Labor Law in Asheville, North Carolina; June 20, 1992; 3 hours JCLE
Bench/Bar Update in Columbia; October 9, 1992; 6.25 hours JCLE credit
Environmental Law in Columbia; January 23, 1993; 1 hour JCLE credit
Law and Economics in Columbia; February 27, 1992; 1 hour JCLE credit
Courts, News Media & the Law in Columbia at USC; October 22, 1992; 1.25 hours JCLE credit
Attended on January 8, 1993; 3-224 - 42 USC Sec. 1983; the SC Torts Claims; 6 hours JCLE credit
Attended on January 30, 1993; 3-230; Mid-Year Meeting; 8th Annual Criminal Law Update & S. C. Bar for 6.5 hours JCLE credit
Attended on August 29, 1993; 3-1431; 1993 Annual Convention of SCTLA for 12 hours JCLE credit
Attended on September 19, 1993; 3-1548; Settlement Techniques, ABA; for 11.67 JCLE hours
Attended on September 22, 1992; 3-1547; Significant Developments in Search and Seizure, ABA; 13.33 hours JCLE credit
Attended on August 26, 1993; 3-1251; Judicial Conference, SCCA; 7.5 hours of JCLE credit
Attended February 27-March 5, 1993; Advanced Constitutional Criminal Procedure in Scottsdale, Arizona; 32.5 hours of JCLE credit
Attended February 4, 1994; Practical Aspects of Arbitration & Mediation at Inn of Court; .75 hour of JCLE credit
Attended May 25, 1993; Practical Aspects of Arbitration & Mediation at Inn of Court; 1 hour JCLE credit
November 4, 1993; Opening Arguments and Closing Arguments; 1 hour JCLE credit

9.     Taught or Lectured:
Presented Trial and Appellate Advocacy, 1989, CLE
Panelist on Bench Bar 1992 Update - October 9, 1992 JCLE
November, 1992 - presenter at CLE on Automotive Law Materials prepared by Honorable Ralph King Anderson
JCLE material presented jointly with Mike Tighe - Default Matters - 1991
Moderator and Program Coordinator at October, 1993 JCLE
Panelist at 1994 Criminal Law JCLE
Panelist at 1990 JCLE State Grand Jury Overview
Panelist at various S. C. Defense Lawyers Conferences
Presenter 1992 and 1993 meetings of Circuit Judges of jury charges

10.     Published Books and Articles:
Published Trial and Appellate Advocacy for 1989 CLE
Published Workplace Defamation and other Ancillary causes of action in employment claims
Published JCLE material jointly with Mike Tighe - Default Matters - 1991

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:

While in law school he clerked for the old McKay firm performing general duties as well as research and rendering trial preparation assistance and was permitted to sit with the late Gus Black, Eli Walker and the McKays, Doug, Jr. and Jay, during various trials. Upon gradation from law school in January of 1964, he moved to Camden and clerked for Henry Savage, Jr. and Ed Royall until admission to the Bar in April of 1964, when he became an associate.

Henry was a business attorney and tried with his assistance in mid-1964 his only Circuit Court case in his 24 years with the law firm. Mr. Savage successfully caused the reassessment of all Kershaw County realty, which Order for reassessment Judge Kinard assisted in drafting.

The firm was strictly a defense firm when he arrived. Ed Royall generally preferred to handle non-circuit matters; so since he appeared at ease with motions, pleadings and procedure within the court system, most of the litigation was turned over to him, although Ed obviously assisted him where their exposure was great or his experience needed. Domestic cases and equity matters were quickly added to his slot, along with City Court appearances and a few Worker's Compensation hearings. By 1965, when he was made a partner, they had picked up several new carriers as clients and also expanded their representation in commercial litigations, with the addition of several finance companies to their clientele. Several utilities and roads have crossed portions of Kershaw County during his practice years and he has participated in or handled many such cases. Over the years, he has appeared in Social Security Disability, Unemployment Security Commission and zoning type matters as well as appearing in Coroner's inquests.

In trials, his representation of Defendants in personal injury litigation exceeded that of Plaintiffs, but they had fair success representing Plaintiffs and the firm has had at least one settlement exceeding $100,000 per year, fortunately, for the last several years that he practiced with the firm.

As managing partner in charge of personnel and procedure from 1968 until his departure in May of 1988, delegating and assigning various cases and functions to firm members was his responsibility. They added Bob Sheheen in 1968, Bill Byars in 1972, Moultrie Burns in 1974, Doug Robinson in 1979, Dana Morris in 1983, and John Rabb in 1987, and he generally trained Bob, Bill, Doug, Dana and John in trial procedure and tried jury cases with each of them.

On the criminal side, in his early years the firm did not handle criminal matters, but he was immediately court appointed on many cases, which exposure led to his acquiring several fee producing criminal cases. Through the years he has been involved in the defense of virtually all crimes from hunting violations in Magistrate's Court through several murder trials in Circuit Court and trial defense of a bank president on an embezzlement charge in Federal Court. However, he did prefer civil practice, so he generally ceased handling criminal cases in 1975, as Bob Sheheen and Bill Byars of his former law firm handled those cases, and he would not generally participate unless some special circumstances required his input.

The firm handled numerous real estate matters over which he generally supervised the closing, including many commercial projects such as apartment projects, shopping centers, with many realtors and builders as clients, numerous contract and commission controversies he personally handled through litigation. Generally small estates were handled by other firm members, but he did handle a few large estates and prepared estate tax returns for the firm.

Over the years, routine foreclosure, collection suits and claim and delivery actions became his responsibility, which functions he handled as one of his secretaries was quite competent in setting these actions up and following through with minimum attorney input.

Prior to 1979, he filed a few bankruptcies for the firm and studied the changes. Since then bankruptcies with the new changes have mushroomed. While the bankruptcy practice only consumed about 10% of his total law practice, from September of 1987 through December 31, 1987, he filed 21 individual and corporate bankruptcies, consisting of Chapter 13's, Chapter 11's and 7's. From the first of 1988 until his departure in May of 1988, he filed about 5 more. He handled bankruptcies for individuals and corporations in all the surrounding counties, as there was apparently no attorney in the area outside of Columbia who would then handle them. He was fully competent to handle all styles from individual through business reorganizations, and he also represented creditors in bankruptcy matters.

As managing partner, he was cognizant of most of the pending cases, but he had moved toward a business and tax planning role as the firm's representative of local banks. His services at that time as personal attorney for a savings and loan and his representation of various business interests dictated that much of his time be thus spent at roster meetings. Interrogatories, pleadings and depositions required blocks of time he could more profitably spend on other matters. Therefore, as mentioned above, his limited criminal practice had ceased, and he had limited his Family Court practice to a minimum and would have eliminated it entirely if family problems were not interwoven with business relationships. The savings and loan that he represented, First Federal, converted to stock ownership. He prepared proxy statements and obtained their approval for the years 1986 and 1987, and in addition also prepared proxy statements and obtained its approval in 1987 for Palmetto State Savings and Loan. Palmetto State and First Federal merged after he became a judge.

He represented numerous realtors and builders and handled numerous warranty and contract disputes.

After his election to the bench and swearing-in on May 3, 1988, he has presided over numerous civil and criminal trials, heard agency appeals, and non-jury merit and motion matters.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     "AV" was last rating.

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Mary Whitaker v. Catawba Timber Company; Court of Common Pleas; Kershaw County, South Carolina (81-CP-28-159); decision May 3, 1982; Judge Walter J. Bristow, Jr.
The Plaintiffs in 1947 agreed to accept an increasing yearly rental for a 66-year term for about 260 acres and further executed an option to purchase for $15,000 any time after the 20th year increasing 5% per year from the 21st year through the 66th year of the lease term. Plaintiff filed suit seeking cancellation of the lease and option after he attempted to exercise the option to purchase for the company. Basically, the Plaintiff alleged inadequacy of consideration and that the option violated the rule against perpetuities. He paid the consideration into court and counterclaimed, seeking specific performance. After a trial without a jury before Judge Bristow, Judge Bristow executed an Order granting specific performance, and they immediately closed the purchase. A group of cases do hold such a clause violative of the rule and that issue was novel to South Carolina; however, his research had found the majority rule to hold favorable in similar circumstances, including a then recent Georgia decision involving a landowner, a paper company and a 60-year lease. Catawba Timber is a subsidiary of Bowater and many thousands of acres were under option under similar leases. House counsel for Bowater advised him that based on his research, they ascertained that their options in several states would possibly be held to violate the perpetuities rule in those states. They accordingly exercised all their options to purchase rather than risk litigating the issue again which, of course, is why he, as sole counsel, found the case to be significant.
(b)         Foxwood, a Limited Partnership v. Town of Kershaw; 80-CP-20-10; Court of Common Pleas; Lancaster County; decision Judge George Coleman; July 14, 1980.
The Town of Kershaw refused to permit an apartment project to connect to its water and sewer facilities after earlier granting permission. The suit was for a writ of mandamus and also sought injunctive relief alleging basically that the city was estopped, that water hook ups were ministerial functions and could not be arbitrarily withheld, and that quasi-zoning by granting or withholding water taps denied equal protection. Judge Coleman ordered the Town to furnish the services. The Town filed Notice to Appeal, which was eventually dismissed in early 1981. Incidentally, their clients then sought issuance of permits and the Town refused, resulting in their filing suit seeking damages and a contempt order against each council person. Prior to hearing on the contempt matter, the Town agreed to cooperate, and they filed an Order of Dismissal in June of 1982, with the apartment project finally commenced in late 1982, and is now completed. He feels this case to be significant in that it again shows that if you persevere, elected officials will be compelled to perform their legal duty and will acknowledge that they also are under the law.
(c)         The State v. McKinley Thomas; Murder Indictment; Trial in Richland County, South Carolina
Criminal case about 20 years ago when Theodore Byrd and associates marched 2 Kershaw County deputies off I-20 near Elgin, killed Officer Potter and severely injured a fellow officer. The case was tried by Solicitor John Foard before Judge Grimball just before the Solicitor's defeat by Jim Anders. The trial was widely publicized and took a week to try. He spent at least one month working on that unpopular court appointed defense, including many trips to Columbia, and never received any compensation, as the defense fund was exhausted when the claim was filed, as he recalls. The trial was complex, many attorneys were involved, including the Richland County defense group. He served as Chief Counsel for this defendant and examined every witness and argued to the jury. They successfully overcame the old "hand of one is hand of all" argument in the face of the previous knowledge brought out in the trial that Byrd had killed another officer the previous night with the defendant and others in attendance and also that all defendants were holding guns on the officers when Byrd started shooting. The jury found the defendants, except Byrd who had pleaded guilty, not guilty of murder and other related charges, finding guilt only of larceny of the officers' pistols, as he recalls. Overcoming the Solicitor's vigorous presentation and the legal issues presented made the case appear significant to him. His jury arguments, since he felt the defendant should be found guilty, against the hand of one theory was his most trying moment in his career. While he did not falter during the argument, he honestly never felt that a not guilty verdict was within the realm of possibility. He took no pride in that verdict when received, but did learn to rethink some of his previous conceptions of how juries arrived at verdicts and feels that his trial skills were helped by participation in that apparent hopeless decision.
(d)         Helen Best, et al. v. L. L. DeBruhl, Court of Common Pleas, Kershaw County, South Carolina.
He was chief counsel in this case, ably assisted by the late Judge Clator Arrants and Senator Donald Holland, decided over 20 years ago, which involved suit by the Plaintiff against the then Sheriff of Kershaw County alleging false imprisonment and violation of various civil rights statutes growing out of the Sheriff's arrest of three middle-age ladies from the Bethune area on alleged drug possession. A reliable informant advised the Sheriff that the ladies who were under surveillance had certain drugs in their possession and where they were to be. The Sheriff picked up the ladies and brought them to the jail and asked if his wife could search them (this was before they had any female officers in the County) to which they consented, provided they could first use the bathroom, which consent was then given (their Sheriff was then younger and not as experienced). Obviously, the subsequent search uncovered no controlled substances. The case was difficult to defend as some procedures were not properly followed and the Sheriff refused to identify his informant or permit us to present other drug related evidence damaging to the Plaintiffs, earlier obtained by his force. The case was tried before Judge Wade Weatherford and resulted in a verdict for the Defendant. The case seems significant in that it was widely publicized, and the favorable verdict tended to discourage frivolous suits locally against elected officials. In fairness, they would have been pressed to have won the case had suit been filed in Federal Court due to the minor procedure violations mentioned above. Plaintiffs' attorneys permitted them to paint a damaging portrait of their clients by innuendo, which would probably not have been permitted in Federal Court.
(e)         Hovis v. Wright, Fourth Circuit; January 10, 1985; 84-1128.
This was a bankruptcy matter where he filed a school teacher in bankruptcy and claimed as exempt from bankrupt proceedings, the State's retirement contributions of his teacher/debtor, which amount at that time exceeded $8,000. Judge Davis, on motion of the Trustee and hearing, ruled that the Trustee could reach the State retirement fund. He appealed, and Judge Perry for the District Court held that the Trustee could not reach the funds. A subsequent appeal was taken to the Fourth Circuit, where it was held that the funds could not be reached. This case was very important since not only his individual teacher, but all State employees were affected by the outcome. He doesn't know the exact number, but about 40 State employees' retirement benefits were riding on the outcome of this decision at the time of the final adjudication. He did not actually appear before the Fourth Circuit as he asked the Attorney General to intervene since the State's interest appeared great, and they graciously furnished counsel. He did file a brief, but did not appear before the Fourth Circuit.

20.     Judicial Office:
Elected to Circuit Court, served from May 3, 1988 continuously. Resident Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         Centaur, Inc. v. Richland County, South Carolina; Richland County Court of Common Pleas; 87-CP-40-5320; November 3, 1988.
(b)         South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. W. Richard McClellion and D. C. Bryson; Newberry County Court of Common Pleas; 91-CP-36-234; July 30, 1992.
(c)         State v. Russell Eugene Blankenship; Richland County Court of Common Pleas; 90-1277; January 3, 1991.
(d)         Felecia Nadine Belton v. The South Carolina State Housing Authority and the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Division of Human Resource Management; Richland County Court of Common Pleas; 88-CP-40-4732; March, 1991.
(e)         The Murray Properties Partnership of Dallas v. L. P. Cox Company and L. P. Cox Company v. Plantation Oaks Investors, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Murray Properties Investors XXIII, Inc., and Crozier Dallas Associates, Ltd., as general partners, The Murray Properties Partnership of Dallas and Interfirst Bank Dallas, N.A., Charleston County Court of Common Pleas; 86-CP-10-2288 and 86-CP-10-3765; February 3, 1989.

22.     Public Office:
He was President of the Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce in 1983; elected by the members as President of the Camden Country Club, 2 years from 1981-1982 and 1982-1983; elected as Vice-Chairman of the Wateree Community Actions from 1969 to 1972 by the membership, appointed to the Board by the Kershaw County Council, elected Vice-Chairman by the members; appointed by City Council to serve on the Board of Kershaw County Commission on Drug Abuse from 1970 until 1975.

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
He did announce and ran against Judge Owens Cobb for the seat he now holds in 1983, but withdrew prior to the election.
25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He was raised on a farm and performed farm chores daily, from milking cows to feeding 40,000 plus chickens and planting and harvesting timber and crops.
He held various summer jobs while in high school and attending college with Cherokee & Sloan Construction Companies and worked briefly at the Piano Factory in Central, South Carolina, while attending Clemson, but had only engaged in the practice of law since graduation until his election to the bench.

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Recusal would be in order where stock ownership or former clients are involved. He plans to blind trust the majority of his stock holdings if elected.

37.     Violations of S. C. Code Section 08-13-700:     He has no knowledge of any violations.

38.     Violations of S. C. Code Section 8-13-765:     He has no knowledge of violations.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
He purchased personal stationery and envelopes totaling $68.39 that he has paid, and he employed his CPA firm to type correspondence and mail Notice of Intent to File with legislators. He has not been billed by them to date for typing or postage.

40.     Contributions Made to Members of the General Assembly:
No contributions have been made.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; Kershaw County Bar Association, Secretary 1965, President 1967; American Judicature Society; sustaining member of South Carolina Bar Foundation; John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court; National Judicial College Assembly; South Carolina Association of Circuit Judges; Chairman, South Carolina Civil Jury Charge Committee

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce (former President); Camden Country Club (former President); Camden Sertoma Club (former President, now life member); He was a member of Kershaw Lodge #29 but withdrew in good standing several years ago; dance club (resigned last year - unable to attend dances); Snipe Club; also a contributing member to various charities, e.g., S. C. State Museum, Fine Arts Commission, Riverbanks Zoo, etc.

46.     He has held court in 26 counties and has always moved dockets without, he feels, unduly pressuring attorneys or litigants. He was head of the first Bar sponsored Settlement Week, which success has assisted the Bar in moving toward ADR in many actions. He was the first Presiding Judge over the State Grand Jury - having qualified three of the State Grand Juries, and served as Presiding Judge of State Grand Jury for 2 years, alternate for 18 months and is currently alternate. Two years of service as Chief Criminal Administrative Judge and over 19 months as Civil Administrative Judge in the Fifth Judicial Circuit has prepared him for virtually any matter. Presiding in a high media area has opened his service to full public scrutiny.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         R. Donald Terrell
NationsBank
1025 Broad Street, Camden, SC 29020
425-7268
(b)         Larry H. Parrott, M.D., Pathologist
Kershaw County Memorial Hospital
P. O. Box 7003, Camden, SC 29020-7003
432-4311
(c)         Terry M. Hancock, Esquire
Sheheen, Hancock & Godwin
P. O. Drawer 428, Camden, SC 29020
432-1424
(d)         Robert A. Carswell, CPA
Carswell, Cantey, Burch & Associates
P. O. Box 862, Camden, SC 29020
432-1436
(e)         H. Davis Green, Jr.
H. Davis Green, Jr. Appraisals
1109 Broad Street, Camden, SC 29020
432-6226

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Resident Circuit Court Judge; Fifth Judicial Circuit; May 3, 1988 - June 30, 1995

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
(1)         Member of St. Timothy's Lutheran Church, usher, lector, tabulator - various committees, but will not offer as councilman although his wife currently serves as councilperson
(2)         Camden Sertoma Club. He resigned as Chairman of Camden Charity Horse Show Sec. upon being elected to Bench and became a life member, which removes him from club responsibilities and permits attendance at an occasional meeting.
(3)         Camden Chamber of Commerce - contributing member only. He does occasionally attend breakfast meetings.
(4)         He was a Master Mason, but withdrew in good standing after several defendants attempted to use their membership to obtain a sentencing advantage.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no records of reprimands.

Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Kershaw County Sheriff's Office, Camden City Police, SLED and FBI are all negative. The Judgement Rolls of Kershaw County are negative. Federal Court Records are negative.

There are no complaints or statements which have been received against you. No witnesses are present to testify against you.

Before I turn you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, I'd offer you the chance, if you so desire, to either make an oral statement or if you wish reduce the statement to be produced in the transcript.
JUDGE KINARD:     Okay, I will forgo that option right now due to the hour.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Ms. McNamee.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Thank you.
JUDGE KINARD - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Judge Kinard, you have been on the Circuit Bench for five years now. Are there any changes that you have noticed in what's come before you, what the duties of the job are, what the work load is in that tenure?
A.     Well, the work load is ever increasing, of course, as you know. I've been a judge actually about six years come next month. Unfortunately, I've been Chief Administrative judge in Richland for almost four years, two years in criminal and two years civil. I'm in my twentieth month of being the Civil Administrative judge here. The criminal numbers, of course, are staggering.

The Court Administration did finally give me a fax machine and that turned out to be a blight on our life rather than an asset because the faxes just come in all day long, especially on Friday all the way to 5:00 o'clock about why an attorney can't be ready on Monday. That's the biggest thing, sheer volume. Sheer volume is amazing.
Q.     Do you like the more difficult, complicated case?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Why?
A.     Sure. Actually, I'd take the more complicated case, but then I try to resolve it and I've been relatively successful in resolving complicated cases. I implemented the assignment of complex cases statewide in this county, which was the first county, but I had earlier done that, assigned the complex cases to one particular judge just to avoid the same attorneys coming before seven different judges on Discovery problems because if one judge has it, actually, the attorneys don't come back with discovery difficulties in front of that same judge.

So initially, actually, I just took most of the complex cases until later in '91 when a few other judges were added and they added the nine, then I was able to parcel out the cases. The Supreme Court passed an order saying that, you know, you could assign complex cases to individuals, regional wide as well as circuit wide.
Q.     I understand that you headed up the Settlement Week for Richland County one year and what was your experience with that? Will it be done again?
A.     Well, not in my county. This was the first Settlement Week project in the state. Richland is generally designated as the pilot project and we had great success with it. The problem I had with it, of course, is I am the Chief Administrative Judge and I'm asking the attorney to participate in Settlement Week without pay. Of course, every attorney that I called or wrote the letter to said, "Sure, Judge, I'll be happy to assist," and they did. They did a good job.

The Bar then moved to Charleston where Judge Howard has implemented an ongoing situation down there. Back in Richland, we now have Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee which is very active, and since I'm Civil Administrative Judge again, I'm actually over that.

We are -- we have about 45 mediators who are attorneys with their hourly rate. And we hand select the types of cases -- actually been filed six months, and the letter went out last week asking the attorneys if they would participate. We have the -- they can pick their mediator and if they agree to mediate, it's taken off the trial dockets and so forth.

Now, it's, of course, entirely voluntarily except, you know, I'm chief judge. When I ask them to do it, they will try if they can to do it. So that's basically it.
Q.     What kind of cases are you picking for this experiment --
A.     All right. If -- it's picked by category. I had to get a Bar committee to do that and I was very careful to alert the attorneys that the Bar members were not looking at their file. In other words, construction litigations, actions against State agencies, products liability cases, not who ran the red light cases where liability is a question in, those cases are going to be tried.

But homeowners' contractor dispute and those things, really should be mediated. If you can get the people sitting down and looking at each other, they can generally be resolved.
Q.     You were the managing partner for your firm for many years and I wondered if you had any advice for new lawyers starting out and also with your experience on the bench?
A.     Well, it's a little different. I was a generalist, I guess you could say. I started and the law kept evolving and I kept growing with the law. Now, I think you have to specialize more and more. I mean I did things that I wouldn't contemplate having an attorney do like handle stock issues and interstate commerce. My goodness, you can get sued for millions of dollars if you make a mistake on that. Merged savings and loans.

You know, I didn't know you needed expertise, so I think you just have to specialize to do a good job, at least in the metropolitan areas. Now, of you're in a small town, what walks in the door, you have to take, but you need to seek other advice if it's beyond your field of expertise.

Get involved in the community, that's what I would tell a young lawyer. Read the law and get involved.
Q.     Do you have an opinion about the proposed Rules of Evidence, the necessity for them?
A.     Well, I have read the proposed Rules. The only -- there are two areas of some concern. We have the little handbook of the comparison of Federal Rules of Evidence to the State, I keep that on the bench, have it highlighted and so forth and just use that to anticipate.

I normally rule along with the Federal Rules of Evidence anyway except like for impeachment purposes, they have an ironclad rule of ten years on prior crimes in the Federal system, we don't have one in the State, but I try to adhere to that and -- another area of some concern, of course, are the Dole (phonetic) issues -- well, those are the only two real problems. I think there'd be no real changes --
Q.     What is your reason for wanting to be on the Supreme Court?
A.     All right. I really always wanted to be there and this is an opportunity, but basically we all have gifts. I think I have a fair gift of sight. So far it's been sight of awareness of what's happening around me, some insight and a limited degree of foresight. I'm sure my strongest aspect of sight is hindsight. I've never been able to practice. On the appellate bench, I believe I'll have an opportunity to review mistakes of others.
Q.     What are your thoughts about writing dissents?
A.     Well, that's a conscious matter as others justices have said. I do feel, though, I'm not directly answering the question. I would write a dissent if there was a matter of conscious involved.

I actually have a problem with concurring opinion. Our Court does not do that too much. The US Supreme Court, as you know, when it comes down they decided whatever and you have two main opinions, three concurring opinions and four dissents, now, what's the law of the case?

I think the small court of five, if we can agree on the result, we can certainly agree on the terminology even if it takes a little longer to lobby for that position it seems to me.

So dissent, yes, I would do that as a matter of conscience. Concurring opinions, I'd really have to be shocked to write a concurring one. I'm not saying I won't now. I've learned not to box myself in.
Q.     What do you feel are the components of a good judicial temperament, Judge Kinard?
A.     I've read all the screening reports for the last two years, or I've skimmed them anyway, what the judges have said. I think it's a little different on the appellate level than on the trial. At the trial level, of course, you have to be courteous not only to the attorneys, but specifically to the jurors and the litigants because you're the one with the robe and you're the one that they look to. They actually react to your gesture, your mannerism and your tone of voice and all that and you have to be very careful on that.

At the appellate level, you have timed arguments and so forth. You have attorneys who are hardened to the process and I would still be polite and courtesy and patient and listen, but I don't have to go the second mile on it that I do when I have a jury going on, I think. You know, just characteristics that you put on your questionnaire about rate a judge by A, B, C, D, E, F and G, I would just pull that out and read that and say yes, a judge needs to excel in all those areas.
Q.     How do you deal with the stresses of being a Circuit Court judge? And perhaps, you might want to start by telling us about your workday, or your workweek?
A.     Well, I get there about 8:00, I leave before 6:00. I eat lunch maybe once every two weeks. That's basically it. I am a speed reader which helps a lot especially in this circuit. I just whip through it before you get there, I don't have things under advisement. I decide. You have to in this circuit.

You know, in a smaller circuit, you could take some time and I would look forward to being an associate justice to have time because we make mistakes that you wouldn't make given time to study. But we have to read and decide because if you don't, you get deluged. Attorneys come in, in nonjury terms that are pushing trays of depositions. They've got briefs this thick. You listen to that. Another one comes in right behind it.

I mean, you can't ruminate over those for months. We just have to go to the bottom line and decide. You've got better than, what, 75 percent chance. I should say probably 90 percent chance in most cases of ruling right anyway if you practiced law. Unless it's a novel issue, then if it's a novel issue, you have a 50 percent chance. You just go with the feeling on that after you've read the case.
Q.     How do you utilize your law clerk?
A.     Well, unfortunately, I do not utilize my law clerk for research because my law clerk stays on the phone dealing with the Richland Bar all the time and protecting me to the extent that she can from ex parte communication. And the hall is lined with attorneys trying to get in every time I step off the bench, that's just the way it is.

Occasionally, I will ask my law clerk to read briefs that have been filed by the attorneys and ask for her input into it, but I don't require her to do much research beyond that, but then I practiced law, you know, for 24 years.
Q.     We also did look at your 30-day report and you were totally current also.
A.     That's what I just said.
Q.     All right. I think you have talked about your philosophy about ex parte communication. You --
A.     No, I haven't really talked about it.
Q.     Oh, would you, please?
A.     Again, I've read all the screening reports and it's just not that easy to say. If I was an associate justice, the answer is never and you can say that absolutely and truthfully. As pure as the driven snow, you can do that. I'm Chief Administrative Judge here, I cannot avoid them. I just deal with them and I will explain.

Last year, I was Criminal Administrative Judge. My solicitor is running for something else. That's neither here nor there. Because of that to an extent, he delegated docket control. We no longer have the roll calls, and, you know, just tying up people in Richland County. What happens is I send out memos to the Bar asking the status of those cases. These cases are to be called this week or next week and so forth, please reply to me and to the Solicitor. The Solicitor, of course, comes and ex partes you all the time. They do that to me. They do that to every other judge. It's whether you view that as being ex parte or not, I mean they say we've got to call this case. That's ex parte, isn't it? I mean the other side is not present. It's an old murder case and it's a mean murder case. Well, I mean, you know, that doesn't prejudice me, but the solicitors do that statewide. Public defenders are limited in that they come in from time to time.

Now, I'm taking too long with this, I know, but if I'm going to be in a circuit for a while I call in each of the solicitors, and normally there are lots of them, individually and talk to them about these other small things. Now, that's not ex parte on a case that's before me, but I just need to know, for instance, if you get along with him and which public defender do you as a prosecutor dislike because you know I need to know that because if it's a little like before they changed the law for shoplifting, fourth offense, some little lady has taken a pair of shoelaces, the solicitor stands there and wants five years when normally they want time served, I know that there is something besides that case involved. And I need to know that and I have to ex parte to find that out.

I have never breached a confidence on that and I have never told this person that he said that about him and so forth, but I need to know that to run my dockets. I need to know personal problems that they have back and forth.

On the civil side, I do status conferences all the time. We have In Chambers Week. I do them at least 30 to 35 a day, sometimes more than that, but let's just say 30 a day. The attorneys can't always get there. The law clerk is present. If the attorneys come in, I try to settle the case. I need to move the case if I can. Sometimes one attorney will show. There are other attorneys in the office all the time while that's going on. If I can reach the other attorney to ask him if it's okay if I can talk to the other side, if I can't, depending on that, all I want to know is not about the case, what type of case is it, how long will it take to try it and are there any Discovery problems. That's all I want to know. The whole Bar here has no problem with that.

I've never heard a complaint about that. I'm not saying that an attorney will not try to get an edge by saying, "This is a pretty good case, Judge," but I tune that out to the extent that I can.

I mentioned I do not eat lunch. The phone rings and I answer the phone. It may be I won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes or something. If an attorney is on there trying to talk about a case, I cut him off. And I try to do conference calls. You just can't do it here. I can do that in Lancaster. I could never have an ex parte communication in Lancaster right now. There will come a time, of course, when that will also -- as the numbers increase up there. Or Fairfield, I would never -- I could just say I would never have an ex parte communication. I say no.

My answer is no, I never have ex parte communication, with the qualification I have to hear -- I don't talk about the cases other than to gather information.
Q.     It's very complicated being in an urban --
A.     It's --
Q.     What is your standard for recusal, judge?
A.     Well, as you know, I have a lot of stock.
Q.     Yes.
A.     And if I have even one share of the company, I'll do it. In addition, I recuse anytime anybody has any problems or mentions it, I recuse a good bit. I also practiced for 24 years. I've recused all over the state. I've represented corporations. You know, let's say Westvaco is being sued or something or a bank is being sued, I put that on the record. Many times the attorneys will go, no problem. But the litigants, you know, if they frown at all about it, I mean, it's out of here, somebody else can try it without you doing it.

In Camden, it's a major problem. I did a special nonjury term Friday two weeks ago with Criminal Court, finished on Thursday because the solicitor couldn't be -- I called in about forty cases and probably recused on ten of them because I used to represent the people. Or I had stock or I knew something about it, that kind of thing. Other judges have the same problem.

One share of stock, you're out of there. Any financial interest, you're out of the case. That's the bright line that I follow. If I represented one of the litigants at any time, I put that on the record. I may or may not recuse. It just depends.
Q.     Could you explain your statement on the PDQ that you plan to put your stock holdings in a blind trust if you're elected to the Supreme Court? Why is that different?
A.     Well, I didn't say all. I said the majority of them if you read it.
Q.     The majority.
A.     Because I don't want to have to recuse. I have so much stock that it's -- just shares of stock that I just don't want to have to recuse all the time. And not only on the main companies, but the subsidiaries and you can get in trouble not knowing that this corporation is XYZ is a subsidiary of AB and C. You just don't know that.

You sit on the case, then you come back for screening and you ask me the question, then you write the majority opinions sustaining this whatever, you own the stock in. So if you don't have it, you avoid that problem.
Q.     What is your policy about accepting meals or anything of value?
A.     Well, I gave up --
Q.     Yes, you don't eat lunch.
A.     -- eating meals. They don't do that anymore. I mean social hospitality around here, the year that -- who was it? Freeman or somebody. They didn't even have a Christmas party in Richland County. Now, they've started back again. We go to that and other judges are invited and I go to the Bar conventions type activities, but that's about it.

I am in a Supper Club with an attorney in Camden, but his wife went to Winthrop with my wife who is sitting there. We got married the same day and the same time and we've been in the Supper Club 30 years, what am I supposed to do? I put that on the record if he's in front of me, but he rarely --
Q.     Could you explain to the Committee how you've gone about seeking this office?
A.     To a limited extent, I mean you all got pretty tight rules, there's not much you can do. That's all. I took some time off. I'm taking more time off. If I come over here -- if I'm in Circuit at lunch, if it works out, it doesn't always work out. I'm trying cases and moving the docket first. I have to break at an appropriate time to get here.

I've been here twice, ya'll are gone for some reason every time I get here, so -- beyond that, I wrote the letter with resumes and I've tried to go by the office, but you can't do that if you're only here at lunch time, but I've been to cocktail parties and all that. I've done all that I can do to present myself as pleasantly as I could without being intrusive to the legislators.
Q.     Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator at this point?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Are you aware of any solicitations being done on your behalf?
A.     No, I am not.
Q.     Judge Kinard, we show on the campaign expenditures $323 that was reported to us and $168 reported to both the Senate and the House Ethics Committee. Is that something that needs to be updated?
A.     Yeah, we do that quarterly is what it said and I just filed an update on that Friday, but I think I have ten days into April to do the other. Because I'm looking for another bill from the CPA firm, but they're still copying and I haven't received it yet.
Q.     That's it.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q.     I'll have to ask him about his early days at Clemson. Did you and John Lane's paths ever cross?
A.     Clemson was, of course, during my very formative years and I had a good time there and I still have a good time there whenever I get back up there a couple times a year. That's right.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let me -- using your analogy about sight, let me test your peripheral vision. Looking around you at the Circuit Court bench and the -- you mentioned the headaches of Richland County. What are some things that you -- as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in looking at the entire judicial system, what are the things, some of the things you think we need to do to try to improve the system?
A.     Well, you've got to go to alternative dispute resolution. You just have to do that. Justice Harwell was set to implement that on a pilot project in four regions of the state. There is -- around now. We had it all set up and he had his heart attack, that just kind of fell a part. You've got to get the judiciary in the technological age.

We're starting that way. We just have to do that. It's good to be scholarly and knowledgeable, but the law is mushrooming. It's impossible. I heard Judge Baggett mention that he needed a lap top. Now, not pushing his candidacy or anything, just for purposes of illustration, I do not have a lap top although when I was a managing partner of the law firm, I kept state of the art -- every time something came out, I had it. Judge Baggett indicated he took a conference call, the attorneys were talking about defense of economic necessity and so his clerk punched in economic necessity and Judge Baggett reads to them, he said, you know, North Carolina case decided three weeks ago held that you had to establish four propositions. I don't know whether it's four propositions or not. He said the attorneys were totally amazed.

Well, you can do that, you know, if you have access to that. You don't have to be the greatest scholar in the world and retain all that. You can just pull it up on your screen and you're trained legally, all judges are trained legally, you can read the elements of one, two, three and four of various causes of action. But without that -- there are like nine elements of Fraud. All of you attorneys can probably list those. You might have to strain, but it'd be much easier to punch a button, Fraud, nine elements right there, and then you can just discuss it. The same thing with jury charges. All -- they just need to -- a little simplified.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions? Thank you, Judge Kinard.
A.     Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN:     The last candidate in this race, we have John H. Waller, Jr.
JOHN H. WALLER, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge Waller, your last screening was November 18, 1993 and that was for the seat that you currently hold and I think you were elected to in the last few months. Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
JUDGE WALLER:     Yes. It's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is it correct?
JUDGE WALLER:     It's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is there any objection to making it a part of the transcript of record?
JUDGE WALLER:     None whatsoever.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That will be done at this time.

1.     John H. Waller, Jr.
Home Address:                         Business Address:
202 Meadowview Lane             P. O. Box 1059
Mullins, SC 29574                 Marion, SC 29571

2.     He was born in Marion County, South Carolina on October 31, 1937. He is presently 56 years old.

4.     He was divorced in 1979. He was the moving party, and the ground was separation (South Carolina Family Court in Marion County, South Carolina).

He was married to Debra Meares on May 9, 1981. He has four children:     John Henry, III, age 25 (employee at 2001); Melissa McLaurin, age 22 (student); Ryan Meares, age 10; and Rand Ellis, age 4.

5.     Military Service:     December, 1959 - June 1960; Active Duty; Army (Armor); Discharged as a Captain; 05308230; Discharged, Honorable

6.     He attended Wofford College, 1955-1959, Psychology BA; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1960-1963, LLB (Juris Doctor).

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Judicial College Reno (Spring, 1985); attended mandatory JCLE's as required and JCLE's that have not been required

9.     Taught or Lectured:     About two years ago he was on the panel at the Solicitor's Convention, "What is Expected of a Judges' Clerk"; various Judge Association meetings; South Carolina Bar mid-winter meeting; instructor for new Circuit Judges; and presently preparing to instruct newly elected Circuit Judges. This "school" is handled by the Circuit Court Advisory Committee, which he chairs.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He went immediately into private practice as a sole practitioner in 1963. He practiced alone until 1976. Thereafter, he took in an associate and practiced until 1980, when he was elected to the Circuit Bench. His practice consisted of all types of work (criminal, civil, domestic and property) with over 60% of it being in criminal and civil trial work.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     He is not listed, as far as he knows. He has never tried to have himself listed. He never thought he would need it while he was practicing and never had the occasion where it was needed or desired. Presently, he is frequently requested to give his opinion as to how attorneys should be rated.

19.     Five (5) Criminal Appeals:

None.

20.     Judicial Office:
Elected to the Circuit Bench in 1980 until the present

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         The State v. Ronald Mackey Amerson, et al., South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 23827
(b)         Carolina Production Credit Association v. Colonel R. Rogers, et al.
(c)         Nathan Swinton, et al. v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 495, 283 SC 11
(d)         Mohasco Corporation, et al. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 357 S.E.2d 249, 289 SC 130
(e)         Spanish Wells Property Owners Assoc., Inc. v. Board of Adjustment of the Town of Hilton Head Island, S.C., 367 S.E.2d 160, 295 SC 67

22.     Public Office:     South Carolina House of Representatives, 1967-1976; South Carolina Senate, 1977-1980 - elected to these offices

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:     He ran for South Carolina Supreme Court in 1991, and withdrew after screening and before the election.

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:     Not as an occupation, but he owns rental property and farming interest

26.     Officer/director or management of business enterprise:     He is an officer in a close corporation owned by him and one other person involving a farming operation. The business is Brownway Farms, Inc. in Horry County.

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
He knows of none, but if any existed, he would disqualify himself from hearing it.

29.     Arrested or Charged:     He was charged $50 for a game violation in approximately 1971.
EXPLANATION:     In approximately 1971, as a member of the House of Representatives, he was invited by former political opponents to attend a dove shoot. In an effort to mend fences, he decided to attend. They went to the location just before lunch but were not allowed to go beyond the locked gate so that no one could say they shot before the proper time. During this time two game wardens came in to check the field. It was okayed. Thereafter, they went on the property, took their stands and started shooting. Shortly thereafter, another game warden and a federal game warden came in and charged everyone in the field. They all were astonished in light of the field having been checked by game wardens as they watched. He paid a $50 fine since it was cheaper than fighting it in Court.

32.     Sued:     He has only been sued as a member of the Marion Legislative Delegation while serving in that capacity, and he believes in one or more cases as a Judge which were all dismissed.

36.     Lodging, Transportation, Entertainment, Food, Meals, Beverages, Money or Any Other Thing of Value From a Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal
He was invited and attended a reception given by the S. C. Bankers Association. He understands this should be reported as a value between $22 and $23. The date was January 11, 1994.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Preparation and distribution of my intention at a cost of $35.40

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Marion County Bar; American Bar Association (formerly)

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
He has given up all organizations except Mason, Shriners and Wildlife Action. He is also a member of the Summit Club.

46.     He has been a Circuit Judge for over ten years and feels that every circuit he has been in can attest to his judicial temperament, handling of the court, working with the jury and any other area. He is the Chairman of the Circuit Court Advisory Committee which considers and advises the Supreme Court on matters requested by the Supreme Court or as a conduit from the Circuit Bench and/or the Bar Association to the Supreme Court. This Committee has also been used to instruct new judges as they prepare to begin their work on the bench. He is also presently Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission which accepts, acts upon and recommends action to the Supreme Court, if any is required, concerning any alleged violation of Judicial ethics against any Judge from and including City Recorders to the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Before becoming Chairman of this Commission, he was a member and before that was a hearing officer for the Commission.

48.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         W. Frank Jones, Chairman and President
Davis National Bank
P. O. Drawer 843, Mullins, SC 29574-0843
464-9567
(b)         Haigh Porter
Office of the City Manager
Drawer AA, City-County Complex
Florence, SC 29501-3456
665-3151
(c)         Marvin I. Lawson, Clerk of Court
Darlington County
P. O. Box 498, Darlington, SC 29532
398-4330
(d)         Larry W. Propes, Deputy Director
South Carolina Court Administration
P. O. Box 50447, Columbia, SC 29250
734-1800
(e)         Gedney M. Howe, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 1034, Charleston, SC 29402
722-8048

2.     Positions on the Bench:
He has been the Resident Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit since elected on March 18, 1980 and qualified on June 6, 1980.

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He is a member of a local golf club. He has never used his judicial office to further this interest.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands.

Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies that being Marion County Sheriff's Office, Marion City Police Department, SLED and FBI, all are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Marion County are negative. The Federal Court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

There were four civil actions brought. One was a habeas corpus which was dismissed in '85. The remaining suits were alleged civil rights violations which were all dismissed in 1992.

We have no complaints or statements which we received against you. No witnesses present to testify against you.

Prior to turning you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, I'll offer you the same opportunity and that is either orally or in writing to deliver a statement to be made a part of this transcript of record.
JUDGE WALLER:     I really don't have any statement that I want to deliver. I do as an aside want to say that since that last hearing, I have been screened five times from November the 18th, I think, or November the 11th until today. I have been through this screening a good bit.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
JUDGE WALLER:     Yes, sir, Mr. Elliott.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you.
JUDGE WALLER - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Judge Waller, sometimes you think about the trial lawyers --
A.     Would you mind if I close that door?
Q.     Certainly not.
A.     I could hardly hear you. I had it coming from both sides.
Q.     Sometimes you think of trial lawyers as being those folks that really don't like to write at least on a consistent basis and then you think of those that are at the appellate court level sometimes as being those who don't like going to the courtroom. Where do you fit along that spectrum?
A.     Probably into both of them. I've enjoyed every part of everything that I've done involving the law. Enjoyed practicing the law a lot. I enjoyed when I was a Member of the House and the Senate, I enjoyed making the law. I've enjoyed being on the Circuit Bench and I think I would enjoy being on the Supreme Court.

I don't think that you -- just because a person enjoys writing that that would make them a bad circuit judge and just because a person enjoys the activity of the courtroom would prohibit them from being able to write on the Supreme Court.

And I think that all of that brings into my -- my position now trying to get on the Supreme Court, I think all of the experience that I have had would benefit me in the writing that I would be required to do on the Supreme Court. Did I answer your question?
Q.     Yes.
A.     All right.
Q.     What is it about the Supreme Court that appeals to you?
A.     You know, I had a feeling that I was going to be asked that question and I started thinking about it. I think that every person regardless of who they are, when they chose a profession that they want to be good in their profession and they aspire -- if they have any ambition at all, they aspire to be good at it. They aspire to take that step that's just above where they are and when they get there, if they have any ambition, to take the step that's just above there and so just as a matter of progression being a lawyer, thereafter a judge, now the next step is to the appellate court and I think basically that that's -- well, that's one of the reasons that I want to be there.

But I also feel like that I'm basically an average person who can feel for the average people who can interpret laws not real strict and not real liberal, but the way that the average person would look at that particular law.

And I think that I could bring that feeling, that concept into writings that would be written by me on the Supreme Court if I get there. And I think that that concept also would be very beneficial when the judges get together before the case is assigned to someone to write when you're discussing the case as to what you're going to do, to bring in that particular aspect of each individual case and discuss it. It's a real unique opportunity for an individual, whoever that individual might be, to be able to sit with the other four people and espouse your feelings about a particular matter and know that there is a possibility that these feelings can be accepted by the other members of the Court and that that will lay down the precedent for the people of the State of South Carolina and perhaps in other states, too. And it's an awesome concept and I would just enjoy doing that kind of thing.
Q.     Well, as you say your decisions start to have exponential effect when you get on the appellate level. Will that have any -- make any difference to you about how you approach it than it does at the Circuit Court level?
A.     I don't quite understand your question.
Q.     Well, at the Circuit Court level, your decision will basically effect the litigants before you. When you get to the appellate court level, that decision will have a far -- much father reaching impact. Is that going to make a difference to you and do you think you'll approach the job any differently because of that?
A.     No, I think it would have to make a difference. I mean any time you're getting ready to make a decision, you're not making the decision -- in my belief, when the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court for the State of South Carolina hands down a decision, that decision is not supposed to, in my belief, last three months and six months. This is supposed to be something that's supposed to guide the lawyers and the judges until something comes along that is dramatic enough to change it and, of course, you have to -- I think you have to have it in your mind whenever you start making these decisions, I'm deciding something that's going to have a long lasting effect and I've got to be very careful and not think about next week or next month, but how it's going to effect people on down the road next year or five years from now perhaps. That's just my belief.
Q.     Do you have any experience sitting with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals?
A.     Only on one occasion. And as it happened, it was -- I found it interesting today when someone was sitting in this chair. Oh, it was Justice Finney. When he said that he took into things geographical areas, people who were available. The one time that I sat, I was assigned into Richland County and they called me up and said we need for you to come over here and sit.

I have had Justice Harwell to tell me on occasions two, three, four years ago, said if you want to sit on the Supreme Court, I'll be glad to let you sit there any time that you want to, but I've got to tell you this, I don't think you want to do it while you're a Circuit Judge and I said why is that. He said well, not only do you have to continue doing your work, but you also have to do the work as far as writing that opinion and meeting, too, and said, you know, your work is more than you can say grace over anyway. But, you know, I've never been asked, but one time and that one time, I came in and sat.
Q.     In the area of legal writing and contributing to CLE's, could you just tell the committee a little bit about your experience in that area.
A.     Legal writing.
Q.     Yes, sir, or contributions to CLE's or JCLE's, and I know you deal with the new judges.
A.     Yes. Oh, I see where you're -- I have on occasions starting years ago been a participant in CLE's. I can't recall what it was about. I know one time I was a participant in a panel discussion where there were a number of judges there. I have spoken and been one of the guest speakers to the Solicitor at their convention one time. I've spoken to the annual conference of the Bar, the annual meeting of the Bar.

I have taught -- been a member or one of the judges that teach the new judges who come on as much as we can about what to expect and how to be a judge. I'm in the process of doing that again. The -- I think it's the 24th, 5th and 6th of next month. One of the reasons is that this is handled by the Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee of which I chair. I don't --
Q.     Well, for the -- the program for new judges, is that mostly in the nature of an orientation program?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Or you're actually teaching legal principles and that sort of thing?
A.     No. That's more an orientation. You know, it's real hard for a person who is used to being over on that side of the bench to come and sit on this side of the bench with the black dress on and know how to handle it. You know, it's a little different. It's scary. And you need to know a little bit about how you are going to handle the procedure.

Now, when you're over on that side of the bench, the
-- as a lawyer, the judge is the one who handles the procedure and you just go along with what the judge says. The judge says, all right, next we're going to do so and so, and next we're going to do so and so. Well, then all of a sudden you find yourself in the position of being the one saying next, we're going to do so and so, so you don't really teach these judges what they're supposed to do. What you're doing is you're bringing it to their attention as to what you're supposed -- it's kind of like studying psychology.

You know, psychology, you already know everything they teach in psychology. Nobody has -- just never brought it to your attention, and it's kind of the same way.
Q.     You've talked a little bit about this, but what's your approach to writing orders. How do you think they should be composed?
A.     I think I understand your question, and I'm going to answer it the way I understand it. Whenever you -- whenever you're preparing to write an order, the first thing you have to do is you have to set out what the problem is in the -- at the first part of the order -- what is the question?
Q.     Well, you're getting it. That's exactly what I'm asking.
A.     I mean is that the way you want me to answer?
Q.     Well, that, and, you know, we've had previously some discussion with Judge Anderson about some criticism that he received in the newspaper about writing at too high a level, that maybe it wasn't comprehensible?
A.     No. Well -- I have always condemned myself for never having been a tremendous reader. I probably have read more since I went to law school and married a librarian than any time in my life. And I condemn myself for not having done that, but at the same time, any order that is prepared that can't be understood by the average person, in my opinion, is not a real good order. It's got to be understood. If it can't be understood, it can't be followed. And if that was your question, then that's the way I feel.

I think anything that you write has got to be understood. You know, when you write an order, you're writing it for a purpose. You're writing it to give some guidance. Well, let's say on the Circuit Court level, if I prepare an order on the Circuit Court level and I have Representative Beatty as one of the attorneys in front of me and I rule against him, then he wants to be able to take that order and read it and understand easily why I ruled against him. And if he disagrees with my reasoning, then he doesn't have any problem in how he's going to appeal my ruling. But if I cause him some problems with a convoluted order or writing it in such a way that the average person can't understand, he's going to have some problems. Anybody would have some problem.

Now, you take that away from the Circuit Bench and you put it on the Supreme Court, when you write an order on the Supreme Court, you're writing it for the purpose of giving guidance to judges and lawyers thereafter, so it needs to be something that is written in such a way that it can be understood. And, certainly, in my opinion, perhaps it's because of my deficit, in my opinion, it has to be written in good, plain, clear common language where everybody can understand it.
Q.     What's your philosophy about writing dissents and concurring opinions?
A.     I heard you ask that question to Judge Kinard. I don't think that anybody should take the position of writing a dissenting opinion or a concurring opinion just so that they can espouse their beliefs on that particular subject. There is an effort always I think on the Supreme Court for it to appear that the Court is unanimous in what they do.

But at the same time, I think about the Allen charge that we give to the jury whenever a jury is hung and I tell them at that time that, you know, it's your duty to go in and try to reach a decision, but don't invade your beliefs; don't just do it, just to do it. And don't agree with somebody just because they're the majority and you're standing out here in the minority. Stand up for what you believe.

Now, if I were on the Supreme Court and it appeared at the discussion after hearing the case that I found myself in a minority position then, of course, I'm going to try to convince the other four that I'm right and that they're wrong and if they -- and then, of course, they're going to turn around and try to convince me that they're right and I'm wrong. And I think sometimes I probably will go along with them, perhaps sometimes they might go along with me and if it is of such a nature that I feel like a dissent should be written, then, of course, I would write it.

But I don't -- I've never considered that a problem whenever I read an opinion that has a dissenting opinion in it. The majority opinion always is the law. It's always the one that's going to rule. It's nice in some instances to know that some judge sitting on the Supreme Court perhaps agreed with me, although we were defeated because the four were right and this is what we've got to abide by. But it's nice to know that somebody else was thinking the same way I was when I read a dissenting opinion. But I wouldn't do it just to do it. I don't think that that's right, or a concurring opinion. I don't think that's right.
Q.     In looking over the reports about the matters that you have pending 30 days or more, you were always current --
A.     Always current.
Q.     -- during the period of time we looked at.
A.     And I have to attribute that to a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives whenever I was elected to the judgeship. He walked up to me, it was Bobby Kneece, and he walked up to me and he said, "Now that you're a judge, I ask one of thing of you." And I said,"What?" And he said,"Rule." And I said, "What?" He said, "Rule." And I said, "What do you mean by that?" He said, "When you have matters before you and you get through with it, rule." He said, "Even if you rule against a lawyer, at least they know where they have to -- what they have to do. They might have to appeal you or whatever, and the one that wins, at least they know they won. But rule." And I've always tried to do that.

Rather than to hold something back, let the lawyers wonder about how I'm going to rule, I try to rule as quickly as I can and that's what is reflected on the report. I don't usually have anything under advisement.
Q.     Okay.
A.     I think in all the years that I've been a judge, I perhaps have taken, perhaps three things under advisement and they were extremely complicated.
Q.     What kind of workweek do you anticipate going on to the Supreme Court, if you're elected and how far are you willing to go to meet the work load?
A.     What kind of workweek do I anticipate?
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     Normal workweek. I have asked a number of the justices with reference to how you work and, of course, you put in a full workweek, but you have a little bit more leeway in
-- on the Supreme Court than you do on the Circuit.

On the Circuit, you have to be there in mornings. You've got a jury that you've got to consider, you've got staff you have to consider and you have to stop at a reasonable time for the same reasons, you've got your jury and staff that you have to consider.

When you're on the Supreme Court, you've got you and your law clerk and you've got your job that you've got to do. If you want to take off two hours from 2:00 to 4:00 and come back in from 8:00 to 10:00, then you can do that. You got a little bit more leeway, but you put in your hours. Did I answer that question?
Q.     Yes, sir. What's your impression about which is a tougher workweek, Circuit Court or the Supreme Court? And I don't mean to put you on the spot.
A.     I don't think -- no, I would think -- I think Circuit Court would probably be a tougher workweek and the reason is because you have so many other things that you have to consider. You have so many other people that you have to consider. You have to make sure that you are -- am I talking you out of -- you have to make sure that other people are not imposed upon whereas if you are over there and the job is yours, you can do it at night, you can do it in the evening, you can do it all day long and at night. You can do it any time you want to, as long as you get your work done. Then you don't have the pressure of doing the work on the appellate court that you would on the Circuit Court. There is fewer people to consider, fewer things to consider.
Q.     But what I was interested in, is that the -- when Judge Baggett said that he thought it was real stressful being on the Circuit Court, I take it that's what he probably meant was just the pressure of --
A.     Probably.
Q.     -- having to do everything within a fixed period of time?
A.     Probably.
Q.     If you're elected to the Supreme Court, what will be your approach to preparing yourself for cases that are not preassigned to you? Do you read the transcripts? Do you read the memorandums?
A.     I don't see how you could prepare yourself without reading the information. If you don't read all the information that the lawyers feel is important, then you would be going into the hearing, going into the discussion not prepared. So I think you would have to. I don't see any alternative.
Q.     Regarding ex parte communications, I found it real interesting to hear what Judge Kinard said. Is your experience the same in your circuit? I mean it sounds like the Fifth Circuit is an unusual place?
A.     You mean having to deal with ex parte communication?
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     I answered this same question the last time ya'll interviewed me. I certainly hope that everything is exactly the same. Ex parte communication, first off, you have to make a decision as what you're talking about as ex parte communication. Does that mean talking to a lawyer or does that mean talking to a lawyer about a case? Or does that mean talking to a lawyer about something that could potentially be considered talking to a lawyer about a case?

Now as far as talking to lawyers, I talk to lawyers. I deal with lawyers. I see them all the time. When it comes to talking to lawyers about a case, no, I don't. If somebody comes in and they're talking with me and we're talking about what they've done or where they're going on vacation or something and then they say,
"Judge, I want to talk with you about a certain case." I said, "Wait a minute. Whoa, I've got to have the other side to do that."

It is so much in the mind of Circuit Court judges that we have started being perhaps overly cautious. I get a phone call now and I generally don't answer my phone. Either my secretary will answer it or my law clerk will answer it and they will tell me that there is a lawyer on the phone. And I generally have my law clerk ask them what is it about. And if they tell me it's something about a case, he'll tell me that. And I'll say, "Well, get in touch with the other side and have them call me with a conference call."

There's a cute little experience I had about that. He did just that and I got the conference call back and picked up the phone and they didn't know I was on the phone. And one of them said, "What does he want with us?" He said, "I don't know what he wants with us. All I know is we're supposed to give him a conference call." And then I came in and told them, I said, "I understood ya'll wanted to talk about the case," which in fact, they did and I had both lawyers there where I could talk with them.

You have to be very careful. You know, you have to watch that you don't do anything -- well, I can't think of the word. Here I go with my deficiency as far as words is concerned.

I know what it means, though, where you can't do anything wrong and you can't do anything that appears to be wrong. Appearance of impropriety. Any time there is something that might appear that somebody could take wrong, you better cover yourself and that's what I try to do.
Q.     What is the correct standard to use for recusal?
A.     There are a number. Of course, if you have an interest in it in any way, you recuse yourself. I had some bank stock that has a case in Marion County right now and I immediately recused myself of that one. Although, it was
-- it really wasn't against the bank that I have stock in, but the bank that I have stock in was considering a merger with the bank that was involved in the case.

So I brought that to the attention of the lawyers and told them that I felt that I should recuse myself in that case because it just wouldn't look right with the bank that I have stock in talking about a merger with another one, so I recused myself from that one.

There are some instances where you can get opinions from the Judicial Standards Advisory Committee which I have done in a particular case. Realizing that I'm from a small county and that I hold court in my county frequently and one of the most active lawyers in that county is my former law partner and my brother-in-law and I wrote for an advisory opinion on that and got it back and I have it.

And they tell me that what I'm supposed to do, which is what I do each time that if a matter, civil or criminal, comes before me that he is involved in, what I have to do on his is in open court, I have to make everybody aware of the fact that he is my brother-in-law and he is my former law partner .

Then I ask the other side and I try to do it in such a way that they can easily say, "Judge, I'd like for you to recuse yourself," without feeling like they've offended me as a judge. If they want me to disqualify myself, I'm more than happy to do that, although I truly believe that if they said they didn't want me to, I would probably be more in their favor than I would in his just because I wouldn't want anybody to say that I was.

But I have recused myself in a number of cases on the civil side and a number I have not because they said, no, judge, no problem, you can do it.

In the criminal side of the court, the Solicitor is quick to say doesn't bother us at all, you go right ahead and do it, so I generally always do it.
Q.     What parts of your temperament and demeanor that you take to the trial bench do you think are going to be the most important for you to have on the appellate bench?
A.     What parts of my temperament?
Q.     Yes, sir. Are going to be more important at the appellate level than the trial level?
A.     Well, you know, from what I understand about the appellate courts, you really don't have a whole lot of contact with people. Temperament, perhaps, wouldn't be as important, always important, but wouldn't be as important on the appellate court as it is on the trial court.

However, when you are dealing with lawyers who are arguing a case before the Supreme Court, you must always remember that you've got to be nice to these people. You know, I've got this little thing that -- I don't know if I heard this somewhere, or if somebody said this somewhere or if I made it up, so I can't really take credit for it, but I feel like that a judge regardless of where that judge is, is an ambassador for the judicial system. And the way that judge acts in court toward litigants, attorneys, jurors, staff, whatever, that you're sending a message out about the judicial system. And if they feel comfortable with the way you act there, they get a good taste in their mouth about the judicial system. And if you do something that offends someone, they get a bad taste in their mouth about the judicial system and in either event they're going to get out and talk about it.

And I had someone right here in this State House the other day tell me about a judge who is now retired, that fellow still -- whenever something was written in the paper about one of the five screenings that I had and they said something about the -- that my temperament was pretty good on the bench and, really, they said better than that, but I won't brag too much on it. But he pulled me off to the side and he said, "I enjoyed reading what they said about you in that area," and then started telling me about this other experience that he had and he said, "You know, I never will forget that experience. It's always been a bad experience for me."

And then he came right back and told me about a sitting judge now -- by the way, Mr. Chairman, you'll be interested in knowing he was talking about Judge Rushing at this time. He said, "My wife had an experience with Judge Rushing and said it was a very pleasant experience." He said, "She didn't understand at all what I was talking about whenever I was telling her about my experience because it was so different." So you see there is a perfect example of a man and his wife who have had two different types of experience with a judge's temperament that have sent a message out to the community. And I think that regardless of where you are, if you're a judge, you've got to always remember and that's one of the things, the very last thing that I got on some guidelines that I had prepared for the new judges remember you're an ambassador for the judicial system.
Q.     You're a hunter, and that's shown up in previous screenings and I'm not going to ask you about that, but in that area of gifts and social hospitality, in the area of gifts and social hospitality, how do you treat an offer of a hunting trip from an attorney?
A.     Well, you know, there's an opinion on that, too. The opinion basically says that hunting in the South is an accepted pastime and that there is nothing wrong even if it's a lawyer who invites you to go on a hunting trip, that it's perfectly all right for you to accept that.

I have accepted in years past, I have -- not recently. I have accepted invitations to hunt with lawyers. Most of the time if I hunt with a lawyer, it's my brother-in-law. And since being on the Circuit Bench, I haven't had a whole lot of time to do much hunting. I can't do that at night, you know. It's against the law.
Q.     Would you treat a business lunch like you would a hunting trip?
A.     I don't understand.
Q.     Well, do you consider that a gift or social hospitality?
A.     Oh, sure, that's a gift and that has -- that I don't know if it's been spoken to by any type of advisory opinion, but if I went out with a lawyer, I pay my part. And the first off, I wouldn't go out with a lawyer that was involved in any kind of case. It would have to be something like maybe I saw a lawyer down at the beach and he said, "Come on, let's have lunch together," and we walked in a place and had lunch together. I'm holding court in Richland County at the time for a six-month period, but I saw him down at the beach, the Horry County lawyer, and we had lunch. Well, when the bill comes, I'm going to pay my part. As a matter of fact, I might not only pay my part, I might pay that lawyer's part, too. If he or she insists on paying mine, I'd say, "You know you can't do that. Now, I'll pay yours." And sometimes they let me.
Q.     Judge, three of your cases have been brought to the attention of the Committee. They are State versus Bellamy, State versus Plemmons and State versus Davis. They were all cases in which you were reversed and the reason they were brought to the Committee's attention was there were some errors that were made more than once in those particular cases?
A.     I don't really recall the specifics about those cases, but I think State versus Plemmons was one of the ones that I was reversed because I followed the law that was existing at the time. And then the law was changed by the United States Supreme Court. And then I was reversed at this point. And if I'm not mistaken, which I might be, but I don't think I am, that law has now by the United States been reversed and it's back this way. And really what I did the first time is the law now.

But in between those two times, it changed and I was reversed.
Q.     So while you were holding the trial -- while there might be opinions that appear and they reversed you, you may have been holding the trial on a later case at the same time, the first ruling came down?
A.     No, no, no, no. There was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. I'm holding the trial. The question comes up, I rule the way the United States Supreme Court says you're supposed to and the South Carolina Supreme Court. A year or two years later, the United States Supreme Court reversed themselves.

After they reversed themselves, this matter then is brought before the South Carolina Supreme Court to be heard. The South Carolina Supreme Court relies on the latest ruling from the United States Supreme Court and, of course, reversed me.

Since then I think within the last six or eight months, I forget the time, but since then, the United States Supreme Court has reversed themselves again and gone back to their original position. So what I did in this original case, if I were to do it today, if I'm not mistaken, and, of course, I say I don't have these cases in front of me, but if I were to do it today, I'd have to do the same thing I did originally in order to comply with the law of the nation, of the United States Supreme Court.

That's one bad thing about a Circuit Judge. You follow the law that exists right then. And it changes and after a case is over and then whenever you're reversed, you're reversed on the change and you'd have to have a crystal ball to know what that change was going to be. Another thing -- what was it? Before I get to Lemmy Arthur, I want to tell you about that one. And I can't remember what I had in my mind. But you asked me about the Lemmy Arthur case, too, I believe, didn't you.
Q.     No, sir, it was not one of them?
A.     Oh. Oh.
Q.     But I mean if you want to comment on that, that's fine.
A.     No. That's -- that was -- no, that's okay. I thought it was one of them. Plemmons, and what were the other?
Q.     Well, the most recent one is State versus Davis, State versus Plemmons and then State versus Bellamy. State versus --
A.     State versus Bellamy was the one that I was reversed on, if I recall, by saying that a weapon was considered a deadly instrument. Is that right?
Q.     Well, I guess the one, the common thread that goes through the three cases, and I guess it's unfair to characterize the State versus Bellamy case as being a reversal. It was indeed on other cases, but that's the one where the Court basically made kind of a laundry list of things that the Court and the Bar should do in death penalty cases. There are about seven or eight items.
A.     Yes. One of the things that was in State versus Bellamy that reversed me was that thing about considering a gun a deadly weapon, that they -- that the jury had a right to consider a gun a deadly weapon. I actually was following word for word Chief Justice's Ness' charge whenever I did that, so -- and we all were. You know, all the judges were. But -- and then we were given direction and that Court said don't do that anymore. Maybe in that case, don't do that anymore, so we had to reword and I think perhaps it gave us some direction in that case as to how we should do it. I'm not sure.
Q.     Well, the common thread that runs through those, is that the concept that you have to convey to the jury in a death penalty case that they're not relieved of their responsibility as a jury, that, in fact, the judge is going to follow the jury's recommendation?
A.     That the judge will follow the jury's recommendation, yes. And as I understand it, I could be wrong now, but I understand that that's what you're supposed to do and --
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     And the reason I say that is because if you don't do that then you are relieving some responsibility off the jurors in making a tremendous decision that they have to make. You've really got me at a disadvantage not having those cases in front of me. I really --
Q.     And that probably -- yes, sir. That probably is unfair. And maybe we can provide those to you and give you an opportunity to respond to that. But the -- I guess the reason it was brought to our attention and since it was, I had to ask you about it, was that notion of conveying to the jury the fact that you're going to follow their recommendations and the fact that that mistake was made three different times or -- excuse me, two times.
A.     That first time like I told you was what they said you had to do. You're not to consider what it means. That was what the Supreme Court said that you were supposed to do. You're not to consider what it means. You just -- you know, you make the decision. Put the responsibility on the jury to make the decision and that's what the Supreme Court said we were supposed to do. Then they came back and changed it and said if asked, you were supposed to tell them what those things meant.

Well, there was another case where I was asked and I told them what they meant. And they said, no, you're wrong there, too. I have been reversed, I think, with those three times on that same question that keeps changing on me. And I can't help that.
Q.     Judge --
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     And this isn't a parole eligibility question or another one -- but, I'm sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I was going to say for simplicity's sake, why don't we do this? Why don't you look at the cases and if you feel like your comments need further illumination, then forward in writing to the Screening further explaining. It may not need any further illumination, but if you feel that way after looking at them, why don't we leave it at that?
A.     What I'm going to have to do is I'm going to have to go in and research and find out when these cases were changed by the United States Supreme Court, when the cases -- when my cases were originally heard whenever, what was the existing law in the nation at the time, what the existing law in the nation was at the time the Supreme Court heard the appeal. Then I have to come back and find out what the existing law is now. I think I'll rely on what I have said.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Well, we'll offer you the chance if you want to do any further work on it and provide further response, you can do that.
A.     Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN:     But we'll just leave it at that for now.
Q.     Have you sought the pledge of a legislator directly or indirectly?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Or even a conditional pledge?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Have you authorized anyone else to contact any legislator on your behalf?
A.     Contact?
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     I have had people ask me if it would be proper for them to get in touch with some of their friends who are legislators and I said, yes, it's proper. As I understand, it is proper for you to get in touch with these legislators, but be very careful not to ask them for any commitment because you cannot do that. And be very careful to tell them that you might come back to talk with them after screening was over, but do not ask for any kind of commitment, so I have had people to contact Members of the Legislature, I'm sure, but that's the way I instructed them.
Q.     Do you know of any solicitation or pledges on your behalf?
A.     No. I understand some -- like Judge Anderson said today, I understand from reading in the newspaper that I am the front runner in the first race. And I have had newspaper reporters call me and ask me how do you consider yourself the front runner or something to that regard. I said I don't know. I said the only thing I've done and the only thing I can tell you is I feel comfortable and the reason I feel comfortable is in meeting and being with legislators, the vibes that I receive from these persons are good and I just feel comfortable with it.
Q.     That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge, before I ask if there are any questions, let me just for all the candidates clarify, the Screening Committee has issued an opinion on indirect solicitation of pledges and I would invite all the candidates to take a look it.

There has been some confusion about what an indirect solicitation of a pledge is and the Screening Committee has taken a pretty strict or has a pretty strict interpretation of that and I'd invite every candidate the opportunity to read that.
A.     Mr. Chairman, I actually followed what was sent to me, I believe, in the packet.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I think Mr. Couick's opinion, if that's what you're referring to, is -- that's --
A.     Well --
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- specifically what I'm referring to and would just for everyone remind them to take a look at that when they're gauging whether or not their contact, their contacts are appropriate. That's the guideline the committee has established.
A.     Might I ask a question?
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, sir.
A.     I know what the intent of solicitation is, that we are not to seek any type of commitments until such time as we receive from the committee your action on these hearings. But is that what it says? Does it say after screening.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I think -- my recollection of the opinion is, and counsel can correct if I'm wrong, but is that it says that any attempt, any encouragement for someone to contact a legislator prior to screening is deemed an indirect solicitation.
A.     Well, see, that's what -- I'm not going to do it until after the report comes out, but the -- I was somewhat confused in that it said after screening. Well, what we're doing today is screening, you know, and -- but I don't have the report.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Well, let me just -- and I'll -- we do not treat these as violations because we think the Rule -- because we think there is some confusion about the Rule and we've got a period of time that we think we need some education of the candidates and the Members, but the opinion says the committee believes it would not be improper for a candidate before screening to request that friends, colleagues or Members of the General Assembly contact Members after the committee issues its report. So it makes it clear that the contact should be made after the screening committee.
A.     After the report.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, but I just -- I say that to remind everyone of the Committee's opinion and really to invite everyone's attention to that for purposes of --
A.     I really think that we're all operating under the impression that we're not supposed to do anything until we receive your letter.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members? If not, thank you, Judge Waller. I appreciate it.
A.     Thank you. Are ya'll stopping now?
THE CHAIRMAN:     We are receding until 2:00 o'clock.

(A lunch break was taken)
THE CHAIRMAN:     The Candidates for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4. Our first candidate is Steven D. Dennis. Mr. Dennis, if you come forward please. Stand and raise your right hand.
STEVEN D. DENNIS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MR. DENNIS:     I have, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is it in order?
MR. DENNIS:     I believe it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any objection to us making the Summary a part of the transcript of your sworn testimony?
MR. DENNIS:     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That will be done at this time.

1.     Steven D. Dennis
Home Address:                         Business Address:
513 Hampton Trace Lane         P. O. Box 11487
Columbia, SC 29209             1777 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211 (29201)

2.     He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on November 30, 1948. He is presently 45 years old.

4.     He was divorced in 1993; wife was moving party; one-year separation. He has two children:     Matthew C., age 14, and Patrick G., age 17.

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     He attended the U. S. Coast Guard Academy, June, 1967 - October, 1967, transferred; Erskine College, October, 1967 - May, 1969, transferred; the University of South Carolina, June, 1969 - May, 1971, B.S. in Mathematics; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September, 1972 - May, 1975, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In addition to obtaining far in excess of normal hours of legal CLE required by the Bar, he has had the distinct pleasure of attending Judicial Continuing Education; including two courses at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, including a course on advanced evidence and another course on forensic, scientific and medical evidence. In addition, he has attended a judicial conference at Harvard Law School on a judge's philosophy of law and judging. He attends the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention on a regular basis and attends the Continuing Education there, as well as attending other Continuing Education courses.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
Business Law - Columbia Junior College, 1975-1979
U.S.C. Law School, 1977, Prosecution Clinic
U.S.C. College of Criminal Justice, 1990-1991, Criminal Procedure

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1975-1978         Assistant Solicitor for Fifth Judicial Circuit - prosecuted in General Sessions Court and juveniles in Family Court
1978-1990         Associate, then partner with Holler, Gregory and McKellar, which became Holler, Dennis and Olive
1990-present     Sole practitioner, Law Offices of Steven D. Dennis. In private practice, he has tried cases in all courts of this state and handled appeals in the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     He is not rated at this time since no request has been made. Part-time judges are not rated.
14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - about 4 per year
State - about 75 per year
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 33 1/3%
Criminal - 33 1/3%
Domestic - 33 1/3%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 80%
Non-Jury - 20%
Most often he appears as sole counsel and occasionally as chief counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Danny Lail. Mr. Lail was charged with two murders and two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill in General Sessions Court. Initially, as Mr. Lail's attorney, he had to fend off the threat of the death penalty, which with the help of computer research (there was no Westlaw or Lexis at that time), he was able to do so. The trial drew great media attention for five days, and eventually Mr. Lail was convicted. He had finished his first murder case (there would be more later) and felt that he had given his client excellent representation while dealing with a host of outside distractions (the media, death threats, etc.).
(b)         Jesse Myers. He represented Mr. Myers in Richland County Family Court in 1979, in a custody action. He has no proof, but he believes Mr. Myers was one of the first men to get custody of a one-year-old daughter in a battle against the mother (his wife), where there was no wrongdoing on behalf of the mother. The Court was convinced that Mr. Myers was simply the better parent. This case meant a lot to him personally, since he honestly believed in his client's position, although it was an unpopular one at that time. His daughter has grown into a fine young lady, and he has stayed in touch with Jesse and his family over the years.
(c)         Cathy Clinkscales. The Family Court appointed him to this case, and for almost three years they fought Richland County D.S.S. and the Foster Care Review Board for custody and control of his client's minor daughter. They eventually prevailed, and the daughter is a grown woman now and doing fine. Although he has not seen Ms. Clinkscales in ten years, a neighbor recently called to tell him that Ms. Clinkscales had died of a heart attack and that she had never forgotten all that he had done for her as court-appointed counsel. She deserved no less than his best.
(d)         Gay Lee Thomas. What is more important than one's child? Again, custody was the issue in this Family Court case that pitted a rich, powerful adversary against his client, who was from the "wrong side of the tracks," but imbued with all of the best human qualities necessary to rear a child. He is proud of his work in this case and has stayed in touch with the family.
(e)         Michael Moore. He represented this man for armed robbery. The State had two nice elderly ladies as eye witnesses. Armed robbery carries a mandatory minimum of seven years in jail. He was convinced his client was innocent (he had no prior record and was honorably discharged after four years in the U. S. Navy and had a wife, a young son and a job). With the help of experts in the field of eye witness identification (a new field at the time), they prevailed, and Mr. Moore has lived a normal life since then. A great injustice, not to mention the human loss, had been averted.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Yoko Frank (93-UP-076). Custody was the issue in this appeal. He did not represent Ms. Frank at trial but did file her appeal. Although they did not prevail in this appeal, he feels that this was an important case and that the brief filed in the case was well written.
(b)         Mary La Pan (92-MO-202). The other party appealed the Court's Order, and eventually Ms. La Pan prevailed in this case. The main issue was the interpretation of several fairly technical Rules of Civil Procedure. He knows from discussing the matter with the Judge after the decision had been rendered that he was happy that the case had come out like it did since it gave him some additional discretion in the future to make sure that no injustices were done.
(c)         Charles Davie. Although this was not strictly a domestic appeal, it dealt with equitable issues similar to those found in a domestic case. Basically, there was a land dispute concerning about $500,000 in land, which one brother claimed had been held in trust for him by the other brother. This is very similar to the resulting trust often created in domestic situations. The case went to the South Carolina Court of Appeals twice before ultimately being resolved. The facts were extremely complex.
(d)         Garner v. Garner. In this 1989 unpublished opinion, he represented a father who had voluntarily made payments for medical treatments of his 18-year-old daughter who was still living with the mother. His position was that the daughter was unemancipated since he was still paying child support and that the mother should be responsible for a portion of the medical bills since they were necessary for the daughter's health. The matter was ultimately decided by the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
(e)         U. S. v. Egbert Richardson (939 F.2d 135, 4th Circuit 1991). This appeal established two important principles under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and it has been often cited. First, it established outer limits of reasonable foreseeability in a conspiracy case. Second, it established what a dependent is "reasonably capable of" in a conspiracy. Both issues are on the cutting edge of sentencing guidelines.

20.     Judicial Office:
Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from May, 1990 to present. This is a Summary Court with criminal jurisdiction up to $500 or 30 days. They also hold Preliminary Hearings for all crimes and bail proceedings for all crimes except those carrying a life sentence.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
Since the Municipal Court is a Summary Court, they don't issue such Orders or Opinions.

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He taught High School at Airport High School during the 1971-1972 school year.
32.     Sued:     Divorce Proceeding

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; U. S. Trial Lawyers; American Judicature Society; South Carolina Magistrate's Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Meadowfield Elementary School Educational Trust

46.     He sincerely believes that he has the appropriate mix of intellectual, personal and professional experiences and qualifications to perform the duties of Family Court Judge in a manner that does justice to the litigants, upholds the written word of law, and perhaps more importantly, resolves the real human issues troubling the citizens of our great state. He believes being correct is important, but not alone sufficient, to the administration of the judicial system. Ultimately, they serve people, our fellow human beings. They should be made to feel that even if the final decision did not go their way, that they were dealt with fairly, patiently and with respect. This will solve more problems than all the laws on the books put together.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Craig A. Driggers, Assistant Vice President
First Union National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 728, Columbia, SC 29202
251-4400
Don Oberhausen, Senior Vice President
Director of Operations and Data Processing
Republic National Bank
P. O. Box 52, Columbia, SC 29202
748-7000
(b)         Susan Z. Hitt, Esquire
Office of the Federal Public Defender
Room 146, 1835 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201
765-5147
(c)         Richard Layman
Bruccoli Clark Layman, Inc.
2006 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29201-2157
771-4642
(d)         James C. Harrison, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 50006, Columbia, SC 29250
779-2211
(e)         Don Oberhausen
136 Pebble Brook Road, West Columbia, SC 29169
356-0428

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia
May, 1990 through present

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands.

The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriff's, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, all those turned up negative. The Judgement Rolls of Richland County showed two cases in which you were a defendant representing an estate. It appears that in both cases Summary Judgment was granted to the Plaintiff as to liability issues. The records show you as a defendant in a domestic proceeding as well. The Federal Court records are negative. Does all that sound correct?
MR. DENNIS:     Yes, sir, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right we have no complaints or statements that we've received against you. No witnesses are present to testify against you. Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, we give all candidates the choice to do one of two things, one either make a brief oral statement to be put into the transcript or if you should so desire to reduce a statement to writing that we would incorporate the record. You have that opportunity now, if you so choose.
MR. DENNIS:     I would waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Ms. McNamee.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Thank you.
MR. DENNIS - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Mr. Dennis, our records do not show any campaign expenditures on your part; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     Okay, I just want to make sure of that. And when you do make you some expenditures, if you will supplement --
A.     I will. Thank you.
Q.     -- that. Thank you. Mr. Dennis, you are a part time municipal judge?
A.     I am, yes.
Q.     And a lawyer --
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     -- as I understand it. And I'd just like to explore with you for a minute those two roles. In your practice, you must be a vigorous advocate for your client. On the other hand in the municipal court, you are an objective listener and arbiter of the facts. Can you describe for me any kind of conflict or any problem you have in these two roles, dealing with these two roles?
A.     Actually, I must say that I think the opportunity to sit as a municipal judge has probably made me a lot better lawyer and I hope the years I've spent as a lawyer have made me a better judge.

I think the two are actually complimentary and not in conflict. In my practice, I will frankly tell you that I'm sort of like yard dog that doesn't bark and doesn't growl at anybody unless I'm in the corner and made to do so.

I think I best represent my clients often when I resolve disputes, when matters are negotiated and not when they are always in such conflict. That's sort of the attitude I take. Now, if you push me in a corner and make me, then I will do that, but my general approach to practicing law is that most everyone is better off if you just resolve things without having to go to that all or nothing situation. And frankly the truth often lies somewhere in the middle on these things anyhow. And I think that has played into my role as a judge.

I've tried a lot of cases. I think I've won my share, but I don't set out every case trying to prove the other side is a son of a gun and I'm the most brilliant guy in the world and I'm going to take you behind the woodpile and whip you. I start off with the attitude of what is a fair, decent, good resolution and then try to work towards that. Perhaps even creating one sometimes. So I don't see any conflict there.
Q.     What is your judicial temperament? What -- could you describe for me what you think are the qualities that make up a good judge and then also describe for us what your strongest qualities are and perhaps where your weak points are?
A.     Well, thank you. I could probably talk all day on what I think makes a good judge. I'll try not to talk all day. I actually had prepared a speech to give here and I tried it out on my oldest son this weekend and he said, "Dad, are you going to sit there and brag on yourself all day in front of all those people?" And so I decided not to give the speech.

I think a judge has got to have lots of qualities, and I think a Family Court judge especially because they sit both as fact finder and the determiner of the law. Given those two facts along with the fact that what they do is going to effect the lives of the people in front of him probably more than any civil court in this state ever will. That's simply dividing up money. People recover from money damages. People recover from breach of contract.

When people are being dealt with in terms of their children and custody and contempt, jailing children, whether those children are to be tried as adults or juveniles, those sorts of matters, they are lifelong decisions for many people. And in many cases the most important thing that ever happens to them, happens in the Family Court, so I think that a judge in Family Court has to have a lot of talent and ability.

I think first of all you have to be able to analyze the problems and the issues, so that you know what it is you're supposed to be putting your efforts into. I would say that I think analysis is one of my strong points. I was -- this probably doesn't have anything to do with being a lawyer, but I was highly ranked in South Carolina in chess at one time when I was younger. I was a National Merit Scholar. I've been on the debate team. I majored in mathematics and minored in physics. I spent a good bit of my life analyzing things and I think I'm good at that. But I also think you have to be able to communicate with the people.

Once you've analyzed it, then you can't do an egg (phonetic) out of that. You've got to be practical about it. Even if you make the right decision, when those people walk out of that courtroom believing that they haven't been dealt with fairly, even if they have been, you've failed. You've both got to be right and communicate with them why you think you're right and a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down and if you deal with those people as individuals, and I think I'm good at that, and let them know that their case has been seriously considered from all aspects, and even if you disagree with them, I think they will accept that a lot better. And, frankly, in Family Court and in my court, in Municipal Court, I have criminal domestic violence charges all the time down there, if I send those people back out there having given one side a bad taste in their mouth or the other, that problem is not resolved. It's going to be back in my court or maybe even in a higher court. I'm got to deal with the legal problem and the people. And I think I can do that.

I think I've had some good experience on the City Court and I think that is a positive. I'm sure I've got some negatives and you probably ought to ask some of the people that appear in front of me what they are. I try my best and I do make mistakes, but I give it my best effort every time.
Q.     Could you please describe your typical workday or workweek? How much time do you spend in municipal court, for instance, and then the rest of that?
A.     Well, that has actually developed into being almost a half-time job. I figured I spend 2.2 days a week in Municipal Court. I'm not there eight hours typically, but I'm typically there about six or seven hours on those workdays and then some weekends and holidays also. We set bonds 365 days a year down there. In fact, I'll be there Easter Sunday setting bond.

So I typically get up and go to my office early in the morning, 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock on the days where I have to be in court, work for a while, then go to court, come back and eat lunch sitting at the desk on days when I have court. Go back to court in the afternoon if it's required that day and then come back and work awhile in the evening.

On days when I don't have court, I sleep a little later and get in a little later and go on home. But it gets a little hectic sometime, but, you know, just got to do it. I've worked a lot longer hours for a lot less pay in my life, so it's not all that difficult, frankly.
Q.     Your PDQ states that your practice is evenly divided into thirds, civil, criminal and domestic. Is that accurate?
A.     That's a rough estimate.
Q.     Uh-huh.
A.     Rough estimate.
Q.     The reason I ask you if it's accurate is you say also that 80 percent of your practice is jury and 20 percent is nonjury. Is that also accurate?
A.     Well, I think I misstated that. I think 80 percent would be what I call trials and I included domestic work in the trials and 20 percent would be appellate work or administrative work or other matters that aren't actually trials.
Q.     Okay.
A.     But as the result of some other source or procedure, so I apologize. I think I was in error then.
Q.     Have you ever handled an adoption in your private practice?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Have you ever represented a man in a paternity hearing?
A.     Many times.
Q.     Have you ever been involved in a termination of parental rights?
A.     I certainly have. Both defending and helping to prosecute on both sides of that.
Q.     Have you ever represented a juvenile in Family Court?
A.     I have both. I have prosecuted them. I taught the prosecution clinic through the law school as an adjunct professor one semester and I've defended dozens of juveniles, yes.
Q.     Have you ever been a guardian ad litem?
A.     I have on many cases.
Q.     And I imagine then that you have also handled contested divorces, contested --
A.     Yes. Yes, I certainly.
Q.     -- custody hearings?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Of all of these matters which we -- which are in Family Court, is there one that has been your specialty more than any others?
A.     I would say no.
Q.     What goals -- if you were to be elected Family Court judge, what goals would you set for yourself?
A.     I spent a got bit of time thinking about the legal system in general and Family Court judge in particular and what they ought to be doing, and I'm going to go back to something I mentioned earlier. I think we're there to resolve disputes. And that's my goal is when the people leave the courtroom, if their dispute has been dealt with accurately, fairly and that they realize it's been dealt with fairly.

I don't think you're doing your job if you send the problem back out into the home or into the community to fester. Anybody can put a Band Aide and send somebody on back out the door, that's not doing the job. Likewise I don't think you're doing your job if you foster an appeal in every case and just pass the buck along to some other court. The trial judge in any system is the person who has the best chance to resolve the problems of the people before them and that's my goal is to send the people out of that room both resolved and feeling that they have been resolved.
Q.     How would you deal with truancy issues, for instance, if you get 25 young people in your courtroom lining the walls and they're all in there because they have not been going to school?
A.     I think you've got to determine whose fault it is they're not going to school. In most instances, it's my belief the parents can do a lot more to solve those problems than the court can, and sometimes you need to get the parents' attention.

I do deal with people who are juveniles in traffic cases in my court. And most of the time, I deem it to be the younger person's fault and not their parents' fault that they were speeding or running a red light and I try not to give them a fine because I figure the parents will pay it and that's not appropriate.

But you've got to analyze the problem and figure out whose problem it is, whether it's the juveniles or the parents. If it's the parents, you need to do something to get the parents' attention. If it's not, I really believe that you need to make that juvenile feel the power of the court even on the first visit. I feel if they walk out of there believing that nothing is going to happen and there are no consequences, no adverse consequences to their actions, they'll keep trying the system until there are adverse consequences. So you might as well let them have the adverse consequences the first time. They don't have to be severe.
Q.     What would they be?
A.     But it's got to get their attention. Oh, I don't know. It might depend on the individual, their age and how many times they've missed school and what they told me, their attitude, whether they have parental support or not when they came into court. I think it would have to be individualized.
Q.     How will you go about making your decision in a case?
A.     This is the hardest thing in the world for a lawyer to do, but you've got to just be quiet and listen when you're trying a case. You really do.

Trial lawyers like myself have a tremendous urge to jump in there and run the thing. Being quiet is one of the most difficult things, but the first thing you've got to do in each trial is be quiet and to listen, pay attention to what's going on. And I don't know whether you've ever tried to concentrate for six straight hours, six or eight straight hours on things, it's difficult to do and it takes a lot of work. But I think that's the first way to approach the problem.

You've got to know the facts and what's going on before you can go any further, then you've got to know the law. If you don't know the appropriate rules to apply to those facts, you're going to come out with a poor decision. I have not memorized the law. I often take breaks and take a two-minute break on the bench and go get a law book, pull down a law book and read and refamiliarize myself with a statute or a case or something of that nature, but I think you'd better take your time and make sure you understand it before you go forward.

And then you have to consider not only the legal aspects of the decision, but I think you have to understand and appreciate the practical aspects of the decision that you're about to render also.
Q.     Will you -- I guess this is really more of a procedural question, but are you going to be writing your own orders or are you going to be asking for proposed orders and modifying them? I'm just curious. What have you thought about --
A.     I'll be honest, I have for years not been an advocate of lawyers writing orders for judges. On the other hand, Family Court judges in this state are overwhelmed with work. It's a practical fact. They can't keep up and unless and until they have law clerks to assist them, I don't see any judge having the time to write his or her own orders, so I think you probably need to ask for proposed orders and make modifications, just as a practical matter. I prefer not to, but I think that's what you're going to have to do.
Q.     What -- I think you touched on this, but let me ask you, have you participated in the development of CLE's or been in them or done any legal writing yourself --
A.     No.
Q.     -- that's been published?
A.     I haven't. Again, I've taught the one class at the law school. I taught at the College of Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina Graduate School over there. I'm a guest lecturer at SLED in some classes out there. I've taught at the junior college level. I even taught public high school one year, but I've not been involved in producing any CLE's.
Q.     Were all of these experiences in criminal law, criminal, procedure?
A.     Most of them have been because that's where I started. I started as a prosecutor in the Fifth Judicial Circuit and that's where I sort of cut my teeth.
Q.     Have you ever been found in contempt or sanctioned by any court that you've appeared before?
A.     No, ma'am.
Q.     Whether this is a discovery matter or privilege, filing?
A.     No, ma'am.
Q.     What are your -- what is your philosophy about ex parte communication?
A.     Well, it's pretty clear. I think there is a big bright line. You just can't do it. You just can't allow it to happen. You just --
Q.     What does it mean to you, the term ex parte communication?
A.     It just means in any case that either is before you or might be before you, you've got to have all relevant parties present during any communications whatsoever. Everyone has a right to a full airing, full exposure to what's going on.
Q.     Is this difficult to attain in Municipal Court?
A.     Actually, it's not. Although, I will tell you that I am personal friends with almost every lawyer that appears in front of me down there. If you practiced law in Columbia for 20 years, you can't help, but be friends with the other trial lawyers in the city.

We meet on the street or we even met in the hallway, say hello and, you know, talk about sports perhaps, but they all know what the rules are and I know what the rules are and, you know, we don't test the rules.
Q.     Who do you go to lunch with?
A.     Actually, believe it or not, I go by myself most days or eat at my desk. I'm kind of busy and I really don't have time for long involved lunches.
Q.     Are you involved in any political organizations?
A.     I am not.
Q.     Do you contribute any money to political campaigns or candidates?
A.     No. In the past, there have been some individual people that I thought a lot of and tried to help out, but no organized group.
Q.     What is your standard for recusal?
A.     Well --
Q.     Is that -- does that come up in front of you?
A.     Yes, it does, as a matter of fact. I've been fortunate enough to go to some judicial conferences at the National Judicial College and one of the conferences I attended addressed this, and again the rule is pretty easy, they basically just say if you would be ashamed or upset at having it broadcast on TV or put on the front page of the newspaper or somebody to tell your mother about it, then you shouldn't do it. And that's sort of the rule of recusal.

If it's something you would be ashamed for the whole world to know about or feel uncomfortable with, you just shouldn't do it. You've got a high duty of honor to yourself, not only to yourself, but to the Bar and the Bench not to bring them into any disrepute whatsoever.
Q.     Would you -- if you're elected Family Court judge, would you hear a case if Mr. Olive or Mr. Holler is one of the counsel in it?
A.     No, I wouldn't. And, in fact, I don't allow them to appear in front of me in the City Court.
Q.     Uh-huh.
A.     We faced that problem. When I withdrew from the firm, I decided they simply could not appear in front of me and they don't.
Q.     Have you -- the reason I ask this next question is I'm not sure it's clear in the PDQ, but have you derived any income from your being a municipal judge?
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     I don't think you have listed that. There is a --
A.     I don't want to blame anybody. I called Barbara and talked to her about this particular issue at the time and my understanding of the conversation was that it was not State funds and, therefore, it didn't have to be put down, it was City funds. I may have misunderstood it.
Q.     Well, maybe we can discuss that. I think local public agencies --
A.     Well, I apologize. That was my understanding and I inquired and perhaps I misunderstood.
Q.     What is your philosophy, Mr. Dennis, about gifts and social hospitality? Do you have a place down at the beach that --
A.     No. I guess I'm a pretty boring fellow. I basically just work and mind my own business, so I play a little golf from time to time, but it's just not been a problem.

There was a law firm here in town that if I told you their name, you would be familiar with them and we had a situation where we referred cases back and forth and I apparently referred them more than they did to me and every year they would send me a nice little Christmas gift and when I got to be municipal judge, they called up and said, "Judge, we'd really love to send you something, but it'd look bad," so we don't even do that any more.
Q.     Have you -- how have you been introducing yourself to Members of the General Assembly?
A.     I'm just saying, "I'm Steve Dennis."
Q.     Have you been appearing here? I mean, do you come up here much?
A.     I've been here some, but not a lot.
Q.     Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator?
A.     No, ma'am.
Q.     Have you asked anyone to write any letters on your behalf?
A.     Other than those to this committee and to the Bar committee, no others.
Q.     Senator McConnell --
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     That's all the questions?
MS. MCNAMEE:     Yes.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     All right. Any Members of the Committee have any questions?
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Yes.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q.     Would you go into a little more detail about the writing of orders? Did you -- tell me how you answered that. I didn't pick up on it that you would have someone else write the others, is that what you said?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     And would you review -- go into the details what you would do with them after someone else wrote the order?
A.     Thank you, sir. It is standard practice in the Family Courts of this State and some other courts, for either the winning lawyer, or in some cases, both lawyers, to submit proposed orders to the judge. I don't think that's a good practice.

I think the judge probably ought to have staff to let him or her prepare their own orders, but there is just not time or money available right now to do that. So given that fact, you've just got to make the best you can in the situation, so I think I would have other lawyers prepare proposed orders.

In fact, I will tell you right now if you review my file, you will find an order in there that's signed, but totally improper. The two lawyers involved put inaccurate things in there and the judge signed it. And then a supplemental order correcting those mistakes was later filed. So it does happen, so you need to be very, very careful reviewing them. But I tell you, I'm sympathetic with the Family Court judges because they work very hard, their time is short. I know many of them take work home at night and over the weekend and review and that's what you've got to do, you've got to put in whatever time it takes to properly review those orders and make modifications.
Q.     But you would review them after?
A.     Well, certainly. Yes, sir.
Q.     Okay.
A.     Yes, sir. I sign a certain number of orders in my court now and I always take time to read them. My signature is going to be on there.
Q.     All right.
A.     I think it's important.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Any other questions? Ms. McNamee has --
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     I just had one more and I guess I would like to ask you, Mr. Dennis, to be a -- to look into your crystal ball and the problem of juvenile offenders in crime is such a growing one in South Carolina, I wanted to ask you and everyone else that I ask questions of, if you have any ideas that you'd like to share with the Committee on what can be done with this area here in South Carolina? You're talking to legislators here, so what can be done and what can you as a Family Court judge do and what should be done perhaps legislatively?
A.     Gosh, I wish I knew. I wish my crystal ball was better than other folks, but it's not. It's about the same. It's a little cloudy on this issue and the problems with it.

During the course of going to the judicial conferences, this comes up frequently. I've talked with judges all over the country about this problem. I'm a parent. Most of us are and most of us are concerned about young people and the environment they're living in and the waste of lives of the people who end up doing all the juvenile crime, and the victims.

I have looked into the eyes of juveniles when I was prosecuting and even now as a City judge, that at the age of 14 or 15, I was convinced weren't going to be turned around. By that age, they were already set in the path they were going to take. If you firmly believe that, I think you've just got to go ahead and protect the public from those people. You've just got to go ahead and as harsh as it is, you've got to make sure that they don't perpetrate those crimes on innocent victims over and over again or at least the least frequently as you can make it possible given what you got to work.

But I've also seen juveniles that I was convinced simply because of their environment or their home life or their particular situation could be saved. You don't have a lot of resources available to help those children frankly. I could tell you some anecdotal stories.

I had a young man that I thought was worth saving in a matter presented and they let him in the Pretrial Intervention Program. Six months went by and Pretrial had never yet gotten in touch with him about coming in and being interviewed. In the meantime, he went out and got in more trouble, so he got kicked out of pretrial.

Now, maybe you'd say that young man ought to have called pretrial himself, but he did all the routine things he was supposed to do to get into that program, so then they got him involved in probation. Probation ordered him to get him some alcohol and drug treatment.

Again, six months went by and no one ever contacted him about getting him involved. He got in more trouble and they sent him out for an evaluation. While he was in the structured environment, he performed marvelously. The teachers loved him. He was well behaved. He was no trouble. The time he got out, he started getting in trouble again. He has a disruptive home life, single parent who works all day, two jobs. Nothing wrong with the parent, but they're just not there. An alcoholic abusive father. The kid could have been saved with some type of program, and I don't know, I'm not an expert in any children, but there is nothing to do with that child except to send him back home where he runs the streets or put him in John G. Richards. There is nothing in between right now.

The Probation System just does not deal with it. Pretrial doesn't even deal with it. There needs to be some middle ground somewhere where someone really is taking some time and effort for people like that.
Q.     You echo some of the frustrations we've heard from Family Court Judges.
A.     I'm sure.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Any other questions?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q.     Let me ask you one, you may have gone over and I apologize for not being here sooner, but on the question of ex parte and lawyers preparing orders for you, will it be your policy or will it not be your policy to require that prior to the submission of that order that that order be shared with opposing counsel?
A.     It should always be shared with opposing counsel. It's not only right, but it's a very practical thing to do, too.
Q.     What if the lawyers aren't able to agree upon the proposed order?
A.     Well, that happens more and more frequently these days. It takes longer to solve the order than to have the hearings sometimes. I think you've just got to get together with the two lawyers, have a little conference, make sure everyone is present, and go back over the situation.

If they still can't agree, then you just have to follow some real formal procedures and get that thing worked out. But I think you ought to follow the informal procedure first.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Any other questions? None. Thank you, sir.
A.     Thank you very much.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Our next candidate is Barbara M. Heape. Would raise your right hand, please, ma'am.
BARBARA M. HEAPE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     This is your first screening I see?
MS. HEAPE:     That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you. We're delighted to have you here with us today in this cool and comfortable capitol building. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. HEAPE:     I have and I hope the Committee doesn't mind, I brought some notes. I think a trial lawyer feels not fully clothed without notes even if you don't look at them, but I'd like to have them with me.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Is the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary is it accurate --
MS. HEAPE:     Yes.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Or does it need any changes to it?
MS. HEAPE:     It is accurate.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Then you'd have no objection to us making that Summary a part of your record of your sworn testimony?
MS. HEAPE:     I do not.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     It will be done at this point.

1.     Barbara M. Heape
Home Address:                     Business Address:
4715 Oakhill Road                 P. O. Box 11549
Columbia, SC 29206         Columbia, SC 29211

2.     She was born in Greenville, South Carolina on May 14, 1958. She is presently 35 years old.

4.     She is single.

5.     Military Service:     N/A

6.     She attended Clemson University, August, 1976 - December, 1978, transferred to the University of Georgia, January, 1979 - August, 1980, B.A.; and Mercer University Law School, August, 1980 - June, 1983, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has completed over 12 hours of continued legal education a year for the last 5 years. She completed 6 hours of LEPR education from 1990-1992. She attended the Domestic Practice Seminar titled "Hot Tips From the Experts Rides Again" in May of 1992 in order to remain current on domestic issues.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
She speaks at the Criminal Justice Academy on a regular basis. She speaks at schools on a regular basis. She taught a Child Abuse Seminar at Excelsior Elementary School in Union, South Carolina in March of 1990. She taught a subject titled "What is the APA and How Has it Changed?" at a CLE sponsored by the S. C. Attorney General's Office in November of 1991. She prepared the materials and was scheduled to speak at the Attorney General's Law Enforcement Leadership Conference in 1992, but was unable to teach. She taught a subject titled "Rules of Professional Conduct Unique to the Government Lawyer" at a CLE sponsored by the Attorney General's Office in October of 1993. She is a member of the Attorney General's Task Force on Crime. They travel throughout the state teaching teachers and school administrators on the topic of crime and violence in schools.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
She was in private practice with the firm of Funderburk and Derrick from 1983-1985. She had a general practice with a heavy concentration in domestic and personal injury law. She was in private practice with James L. Mann from 1985-1989. She had a general practice with a heavy concentration in domestic, personal injury and worker's compensation law. She accepted a position as an Assistant Attorney General in March of 1989. From 1989 through September of 1993, her job duties included acting as sole or lead counsel in the preparation and prosecution of criminal cases and attorney grievance matters and representing various state agencies in a variety of matters from day-to-day legal advice to complex litigation. In September of 1993, she was promoted to the State Grand Jury Division where she is responsible for the general prosecution caseload.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     She has been rated a BV for the 1994 Martindale-Hubbell.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -             10-20
State -                 100+
Other -             25 Administrative Trials including Attorney Grievance prosecutions, Engineering Board prosecutions and hearings before regulatory agencies

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 75%
Domestic - 5%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 90%
Non-Jury - 10%
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         As an Assistant Attorney General, she handled the criminal investigation of the Patriot's Point Marina and Hotel Development Project which resulted in the indictment and prosecution of one of the developers and a public official.
(b)         State v. Addison. This case was a criminal prosecution for the crimes of Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree and Grand Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. The Defendant was convicted on all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment and consecutive sentences of 30 years, 10 years and 10 years.
(c)         As the attorney for the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, she has been involved in several cases in various courts defending the new breath-alcohol testing device known as the BAC DataMaster. As a result of this litigation, the courts have accepted that the BAC DataMaster does perform a chemical test as required by state law and is scientifically reliable.
(d)         While in private practice, she handled numerous routine domestic cases involving divorce, child custody, property division, alimony, etc., but the most unusual one was the case of Cox v. Cox which involved a dispute between the parties regarding a foreign Divorce Decree and accompanying Property Settlement and Support Agreement. The issues of divorce, custody, support, alimony, occupation of the residence, debts, insurance, real property, personal property, and medical bills were originally resolved by an Order from the Dominican Republic. Her client had relied on the Order and had remarried. There were also several children of the parties affected by the divorce. They prevailed on all issues except alimony due to her client's remarriage.
(e)         While in private practice, she handled numerous cases in which the wife was granted a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty. In 1987, she represented a husband in the case of Fontenot v. Fontenot who had suffered two years of physical abuse from his wife. Due to the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence, they were successful in obtaining a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty for Mr. Fontenot.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         She has not handled any domestic appeals but has handled a significant amount of civil and criminal appeals.
(b)         She also represented the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in the appeal of a procurement matter regarding the new computer network at the Forensic Laboratory. She represented the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division before the State's Chief Procurement Officer and the Procurement Review Panel. The appeal was resolved by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division's contract being upheld.

22.     Public Office:
She has been employed by the South Carolina Attorney General's Office since March of 1989, as an Assistant Attorney General.

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
She served as a Justice on the Moot Court Board in law school. She has served as a judge for the National Bicentennial Competition directed by the Center for Civil Education and cosponsored by the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. She has also served as a judge for the South Carolina Bar's Mock Trial Competition. She has served as a Judicial Hearing Officer for the Employee Grievance Committee of the State of South Carolina.

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None other than part-time jobs during high school, college and law school

32.     Sued:
In 1984, she leased a condominium with a friend for a year. The friend married and moved out before the lease expired. The landlord sued the friend and named her as a party. The lawsuit was settled by her friend agreeing to honor most of the remaining terms of the lease.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
She purchased personalized note cards for $24.00 and has incurred telephone charges in the amount of $2.18.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; Richland County Bar Association; American Judicature Society. She is a member of several subcommittees of the South Carolina Bar.

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Chairman of Board of Directors for the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1989-1990; Board Member for the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1988-1993; Volunteer of the Month for the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1991; President-Elect of Richland County Legal Auxiliary, 1993-1994; Board Member, Richland County Legal Auxiliary, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993; active member, Junior League of Columbia; active member and choir member, Trenholm Road United Methodist Church

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Lois M. Snipes, Vice President, Middleburg Branch
First Citizens Bank
P. O. Box 29, Columbia, SC 29202
733-2070
(b)         William A. Coates, Esquire
Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, P.A.
P. O. Box 10045, Greenville, SC 29603
242-6360
(c)         Reverend Regi Thackston
Trenholm Road United Methodist Church
3401 Trenholm Road, Columbia, SC 29204
254-6695
(d)         Honorable T. Travis Medlock
Attorney General
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
734-3655
(e)         Donald L. Fowler
Fowler Communications, Inc.
P. O. Box 50627, Columbia, SC 29250
799-7550

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agency:     The Richland County Sheriff's Office, a negative; the Columbia City Police Department is negative; SLED and FBI records are negative.

The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative. The Federal Court records are negative. No complaints or statements have been received to date and no witnesses are present to testify. All right, if you would please answer any questions Ms. McNamee has got for you.
MS. HEAPE:     Be happy to.
MS. HEAPE - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good afternoon.
A.     Good afternoon.
Q.     We are probably going to go over a lot of the same things we talked about with Mr. Dennis? Don't feel like you're being cheated or anything. Think about Mr. Williams.
A.     That's a good point.
Q.     What is your philosophy of the appropriate demeanor for a judge in a courtroom?
A.     I think a Family Court judge has to be compassionate, open-minded, have a clear understanding of the law, be tactful, be firm, humility, I think is a good characteristic, intelligence and a general understanding of what the litigants are going through because most of the time the people in your courtroom are having the very worst day of their lives that they will ever have and I think it's very important to understand that and make the process as painless as possible for them to go through. But I think you also have to be firm with them.

I remember when I was practicing family law and I noticed a lot of people would use their children against each other in a divorce situation. I think the Family Court judge has to be very firm about that and explain that that's not going to be tolerated because that's too important. So I think firmness and all those are good characteristics. Justice tempered with fairness.
Q.     I've heard that before. What quality is your strongest?
A.     I think understanding, I guess, is the best way to put it because I'm decisive, but I'm also compassionate. I think as a prosecutor, I have kind of a tough reputation, but then again I -- when I need to be tough, I can be tough, but when I need to understand what people are going through and be compassionate about it, I can do that as well.

I'm mature with children, but for some reason children almost treat me like a peer. Children don't seem to have a hard time talking with me and I think that will be an asset to me in Family Court. And I've also represented so many people in Family Court, I know what they are going through. I've been there with them and know the battles and the battleground, so I think that will help me.
Q.     What is your experience with children?
A.     Well, I worked with the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect for seven years. I was the chairman of their Board of Directors for two years. And this was for abuse and neglected children. I don't have any children of my own. I think that makes me even more in tune to other people's children and the problems that other children are going through because I do have such an interest in children.

When I was working with the Council, I felt like I was accomplishing a certain amount to help children, but I wasn't getting in there getting my hands dirty enough and that's one of the reasons that I've always wanted to be a Family Court judge. My issue is children and I think they're just being thrown to the wolves and I think divorce and separation and all of those things are very harmful to them and also I think that the juvenile system is a place where a Family Court judge can make a huge difference in a juvenile's life.
Q.     When -- well, I did ask this before, is there a weakness that you have in this whole litany of characteristics of a judge? Is there a --
A.     I think my weakness is I can't let go of things sometimes, like even in the job that I have now, it's hard for me to shake things a lot, like during the day. I think it would be hard for me to sit in a litigated case involving children and the different issues that arise, the hard issues that arise, I think it's going to be hard for me to shake that. But you have to get in there and be objective the next day and listen to what everybody has to say and hear everybody's side and all that, but I think it would be hard for me to go in and out of the Family Court role into my regular role as a person.
Q.     What are your methods of dealing with stress now and what do you foresee you'll be like in a stressful role like judge?
A.     I work out. I work out, I do a Step class three times a week and I can tell when I haven't gone because people at the office start telling me about it and so then I'll make arrangements to go again. I do that.

I have a lot of hobbies. I like to water-ski and play tennis, that type of thing, spending time with my friends. Children help relieve stress for me. I can be around a child for a little while and for some reason the stress tends to kind of leave.
Q.     Could you briefly describe your work schedule and your work habit --
A.     Right now I'm heading up the General Prosecution Section for the Attorney General's office and I just accepted that position the first of September, so to be quite honest with you, my work schedule is insane right now because of the transition involved.

My day is usually consists of talking back and forth with defense lawyers about cases and preparing cases for trial. And I handle most of the citizen complaints that come into the Attorney General's Office and on the telephone any calls that come in. Mainly, I'm just supervising the General Prosecution case load and making sure that it's moving and working with the judges who sometimes have questions about their cases moving and that -- and pretty much a description of my job.
Q.     Would you say that your role in the Attorney General's office as an advocate for the State that that will easily translate into being a Family Court judge? Can you make any kind of comparison between the two roles, the advocate role versus the judicial role?
A.     I think so because one of the reasons I wanted to go to work for the Attorney General is to get a little insight into the other side. Because I was a defense lawyer basically for six years in Family Court and workers' comp. and personal injury cases and that type thing, and as an advocate for, you know, my clients, and I wanted to get to the other side and actually get into the prosecution and more of a tough -- toughness minded role and I think that will help be a more balanced person when I get on the bench as opposed to someone who has only done defense work in their career or only been a prosecutor in their career. I think if a person has had a little bit of everything, all the bites of the apple, it makes them more well rounded.
Q.     Do you have to negotiate with attorneys very often? You say you're on the phone a lot. Is it -- do they ask you for continuance -- I mean not continuances, but do they ask you to postpone things or how does that work with you?
A.     They do. Most of the conversations I have with defense lawyers is they're trying to get you to drop the case or reduce the case or whatever and it's really kind of awkward because the Attorney General is a real strong law enforcement person and he doesn't believe in plea bargaining, so whereas a defense lawyer is used to being able to go to the solicitor and have a plea bargain. It's hard for them to understand that we don't normally do that.

So you have to try to balance out the hostility that you get there with the fairness that you're trying to give them. In the trial and we -- you know, we try to be -- we have an open file policy in our office, which means basically whatever we have, the defense lawyers get, which is also different, I think, from the Solicitor's Office because they follow the Rules of Discovery.

But we try to do that in order to say, you know, we're going to have the fairest trial we can, you're going to have everything that we have and we'll just go in there and let the jury decide, so a lot of my day is spent trying to get defense lawyers to understand where we're coming from and maybe relieve a little bit of the hostilities.
Q.     When you were in private practice I think you stated on your PDQ that your -- you did -- five percent of your practice was domestic; is that correct?
A.     No. That's since I've been at the Attorney General's Office.
Q.     Are you still doing domestic work?
A.     Well, just guardian ad litem work and that type thing.
Q.     Well, what were the percentages when you were in private practice?
A.     I would say half, probably.
Q.     Half of your work was domestic?
A.     Half of my work was Family Court. I did a variety of contested issues, contested divorces, child custody, child support, adoptions, termination of parental rights pretty much across the board.
Q.     Would you say you've had experience in all of those facets?
A.     All areas of domestic law. And I also did a good bit of personal injury and workers' comp. work and I did a little bit of criminal. My law partner had a massive heart attack at 46 when we practiced together and he did solely criminal and so I had to learn in a hurry how to handle criminal cases. So I guess I did, for that year, I probably did about 30 percent criminal, but most of my practice has been domestic and general practice.
Q.     What have you done to apprise yourself of the current status of domestic law?
A.     Well, I attended a CLE on domestic law to try to keep myself up to date. I meet regularly with the different people that I have a lot of respect for that are in the field, friends of mine at DSS and DYS and some of the other fields that keep up with this. And I have a really good friend who is the Executive Director for the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect and I meet with him on a regular basis. I try to keep up with it that way.

And of course, my research skills are really good, so I don't think it would be a problem for me to update myself from four and a half years ago when I quit domestic practice to what has happened and how the marital property might be redefined now or, you know, what other issues have arisen since I left.
Q.     You described part of your work for the Attorney General as being on the Task Force for Crime and that you have traveled around the state to educate teachers and administrators on the topic of crime --
A.     That's correct.
Q.     -- and violence in the schools. Could you explain that a bit further? What have you -- what has been involved in that?
A.     The Attorney General has a three-person panel and what we do is we go wherever we're asked and we have a question-answer session. First, the Attorney General addresses the teachers and administrators and superintendents or whoever might be in attendance to try to help them understand what they do and do not have to put up with as far as violence in their schools and how to help the problem of violence in their schools.

Usually, he will tell them about 12 or 13 questions and answers to them that are usually kind of shocking to them. For instance, if you threaten a teacher, that's a crime that can be punishable by five years in prison. A lot of people don't know that, things like that.

And then afterwards the teachers and administrators are allowed to ask the panel any questions about -- we don't give legal advice, but we try to explain to them that you don't have to be in fear of your students in the school. You don't have to sit back and be threatened by a student. You don't have to put up with a child sitting in your classroom spinning the barrel of a revolver, that type of thing.

You would not believe what we have found that some of the teachers in this state are putting up with and scared to death to do anything about it. It's a shame.
Q.     What is the status of the law on searching lockers?
A.     Searching lockers, it is completely legal for school officials.
Q.     On a random basis?
A.     Constitutional and fully legal.
Q.     How will you go about making your decision in a case and writing down -- what kind of procedures will you use for writing an order?
A.     Well, I have a little bit of a different thought about that. I -- first of all, it's like I tell the jurors in my cases, you don't make a decision until you've heard everything, until you've heard all the evidence, you've heard from all the witnesses and you've judged their credibility and you've observed the demeanor of people and all of those things, they should do to assess a witness' credibility.

So I will try as hard as I can to keep my mind open. Like I said, I think openness is a very good characteristic for a judge. Keep my mind open until I've heard everything and then when I have heard everything, I would like to make a decision. You know, if it's uncontested, people come in and have a settlement agreement or whatever, I don't see a problem with having the moving party draft the order and send it to the other attorney before submitting it to me for my signature.

But in a contested matter, I would write my own orders because I would like to make the decision in a hurry as fast as possible and go ahead and draft the order and then send it to them for any factual irregularities, not any arguments one way or the other, but just what was or is factually not correct in the order. I see several reasons for that. One, I think -- I don't think it was ever envisioned that parties write orders. I think the judges have always been envisioned as writing the orders.

I do think it would be a lot of work, but I think that way you get in your order what your -- you want your order to be, what you are ordering as opposed to getting an order back after, say, a month and having to look at it and try to remember after you've heard 29 cases between the first case and your 30th case and try to remember what you actually did order. It has to be impossible.

You know, you can pull the transcript and look at it, but I would like to be able to make the decision within the day. And it might be that once you get there, it can't be done that way, but that's what I would like to do is be able to make the decision that day, write some notes out and sketch out the order and go ahead and write the order and submit it to both attorneys because that way there is no question.
Q.     Have you ever been disciplined by a court that you've appeared before?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     What is your philosophy about ex parte communication?
A.     They're not allowed.
Q.     What does it mean to you?
A.     Ex parte communications are when one lawyer might come up to you in a social situation, this is the way I envision it, and bring up a case that might have been before him and try to talk about it there and that's not acceptable.

And if the lawyer does not understand, then I'll make sure that he does after our conversation because I think that is one of the worst possible things that could happen to the justice system.
Q.     And your philosophy about gifts and social activity?
A.     I would not accept any gift. I know sometimes you can hurt people's feelings and if they want to give you like a little candle or little cup or whatever as a thank you for a speech or whatever, I just think it's easier just as black and white. I'm a black and white person. I think it's a clear cut thing.

As far as ethics are concerned, I'm a black and white person. It's just easier not to accept them. I'm friendly with just about all the lawyers that I can think of that I have worked with and tried cases with and socialize with, but I don't think social affairs should ever turn towards what happened in a courtroom. I just don't think that's appropriate.
Q.     You had mentioned before that you have been on the Council for Child Abuse and Neglect. What are your plans with regard to this if you are elected to Family Court judge?
A.     Well, now, I no longer serve on that Board of Directors. I resigned from the board about a year ago in anticipation.
Q.     Are there other organizations that you feel that you must disassociate yourself from if you become a judge?
A.     I'm president elect at the Richland County Legal Auxiliary and I -- if I were to be elected, I think I would have to resign from that as well. I just don't want there to be any questions about anything.
Q.     Is there anything else? You're active in your church?
A.     No, I can't resign from that.
Q.     No, I didn't mean that. You said in your PDQ that you would be requesting some friends and relatives to contact members of the General Assembly. Would you elaborate on that, please?
A.     Numerous people have approached me about ways that they can help me. Somehow the word gets out when people are running and I have told them that I really appreciate their offer, but that I didn't feel comfortable with their contacting anybody on my behalf until after the judicial screening. And especially after the names are run in the newspaper, you know, I had some calls about that and I just -- even though I have not asked them and they have offered, I still think it's more clear cut for them not to make any calls until after judicial screening.
Q.     So, have you sought directly or indirectly any votes?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Or any pledges, rather, of a legislator. What have you done to seek -- to introduce yourself and to seek this office?
A.     I come over between, let's see, 11:30 and quarter after 12:00 on Tuesdays and quarter to 10:00 to quarter after 10:00 on Wednesdays and Thursdays and try to introduce myself and to say good morning to members.

At this point, I would just like for the Members of the General Assembly just to know who I am and then after judicial screening, I would like the opportunity to talk with them further about my qualifications, aspirations and my candidacy in general.
Q.     How do you separate your position as a State employee from this campaign?
A.     I take annual leave every time I leave. That's just something that I feel really strongly about. If I'm not doing my job, I'm being paid by the citizens of this State and if I'm not actively employed at my job for 30 minutes a day, then I'm not going count that as my lunch hour. I'm not going to count that as work late. I'm going to take that as annual leave. I just think that's the way to do it.
Q.     What do you think about the move towards mediation in Family Court?
A.     I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful because a lot of times if you can just get people together in a room and try to get over some of the hostility that they're feeling towards each other and get them to try to work together, I think that helps a lot and it's probably healthier in the long run when the divorce is over or whatever because any time you have a contested -- a full fledged hearing in domestic court, it's not good for anybody. It's just scarring, I think is what it is.

I think it's a bad thing, so I think mediation is wonderful and I'd like to see us lean towards that in the Family Court.
Q.     And I asked Mr. Dennis and I will ask the other people, too, what do you think we can do about our problems of growing juvenile crime in this state?
A.     I think -- first of all, I have a real problem sending truancy juveniles to R and E. I think that's a bad practice and I don't think that's going to scare them out of not going to school, it's just going to help them learn other crimes or learn ways to be a criminal.

I think as members of the General Assembly, I guess you guys are the ones that would have the power to change that somehow, to provide for another system for truant, victimless crimes to be received and evaluated. I think the Marine Institute is a wonderful idea and I would wish that we had 150 of them. I know it takes funding to do that, but I've seen it work miracles.

I was at a luncheon one day sitting at a table full of six juveniles and they were all had an attitude and slouched in their chairs and they had their hats on and all and their parents were there and they didn't have any interaction with their parents which is not unusual and then the instructors or the people that work at the Marine Institute would come in and they would just light up like a Christmas tree. But they didn't want to and they didn't want you to see them doing it, but they just lit up. And they're, you know, moving around in their chairs and everything and you can tell there is a connection, a real strong connection.

So I think it's so important even if you have that one person that you can get a connection with a child, it might completely change that child's life, like coaches, football coaches or baseball coaches. You might have parents that one might be an alcoholic and one might never be home, if you can have that one person in your life to maybe change the direction you're going.

And as a Family Court judge that's such a good opportunity to try to make a difference in a juvenile's life because you might be the reason he goes one way or the other. I would like to have the reputation quite frankly as being very, very tough on juveniles, like a one shot, you're out for juveniles. And I agree with Steve Dennis that you need to look behind the juvenile to see what the problem is, go to the home and find out what's going on there. It might be that there needs to be a home study in the home to see. The child might be being abused. The child might not have enough to eat. There might be a variety of things that are happening to cause them to do this. And then you can go through the channels to correct those problems.

The child might have psychological problems and need counseling, but I think as a whole, you have to be very, very strict on the juveniles that you need to be strict with, but I have a real problem with the victimless -- the juveniles that have committed victimless crimes being treated just like the others.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Senator McConnell, I don't have anything more.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you. Any Members of the Committee have any questions? Thank you, ma'am, we appreciate you coming today. Our next candidate is Francenia Heizer. Ms. Heizer, how are you doing?
MS. HEIZER:     I'm doing fine, Senator. It's good to see ya'll this afternoon.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Sorry about the uncomfortable atmospheric conditions we have in this building. It's bad, I'll tell you. If you'd raise your right hand for us.
FRANCENIA B. HEIZER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     And you're in the race for judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number 4, correct?
MS. HEIZER:     That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     This is your first screening?
MS. HEIZER:     That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     And have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. HEIZER:     Yes, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Is it correct or does it need any clarification?
MS. HEIZER:     We made one small correction and I think that's been done and we've had one amendment, yes, sir. It's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Staff informs me they have made that correction. And with that, would you have any objection then to us making this Summary a part of your record of your sworn testimony as if you'd said it all here today?
MS. HEIZER:     No, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you. At this point, it will be done in the transcript.

1.     Francenia B. (Frannie) Heizer
Home Address:                     Business Address:
3427 Blossom Street             P. O. Box 11390
Columbia, SC 29205         Columbia, SC 29211

2.     She was born in Columbia, South Carolina on September 14, 1954. She is presently 39 years old.

4.     She is single.

5.     Military Service:     N/A

6.     She attended classes part time at the University of South Carolina for college credit while a senior in high school, 1971-1972; the University of South Carolina as a Carolina Scholar, graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Art's degree in History, 1972-1976; the University of Warwick, Coventry, England (Exchange Program; no degree earned), fall of 1974; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, graduated with a Juris Doctor degree, 1976-1979.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; Child Victim in Court; Charleston, SC; 2/27/89
South Carolina Association of Counties; S. C. Municipal and County Attorneys Institute; Columbia, SC, 12/15/89
University of South Carolina College of Social Work; Representing the Child's Interest in Abuse & Neglect Proceedings; Columbia, SC; 4/24/90
South Carolina Association of Counties; S. C. Municipal and County Attorneys Institute; Columbia, SC; 11/30/90
South Carolina Bar; Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility; Columbia, SC; 12/31/90
National Association of Bond Lawyers; Fundamentals of Bond Law; New Orleans, Louisiana; 4/3/91 - 4/5/91
McNair Law Firm; Ethics Seminar; Columbia, SC; 12/14/91
McNair Law Firm; Solid Waste Management in S. C.; Columbia, SC; 9/22/91
South Carolina Bar; Legal Ethics and Real Life; Columbia, SC; 11/6/92
South Carolina Bar; Family Court Bench/Fall 1992 Update; Columbia, SC; 11/13/92
Richland County Bar Association; Ethics; Columbia, SC; 11/23/92
National Association of Bond Lawyers; 1993 Bond Attorneys Workshop; Chicago, Illinois; 9/22/93 - 9/24/93
South Carolina Municipal Association; S. C. Municipal and County Attorneys Institute; Columbia, SC; 12/17/93
USC Law School; Serving the Best Interest of Children; Columbia, SC; 11/4/93 - 11/5/93

9.     Taught or Lectured:

She made representations at the following CLE courses:
Co-Presenter in day-long seminar entitled "Representing the Child's Interest in Abuse & Neglect Proceedings," sponsored by the University of South Carolina College of Social Work on April 24, 1990;

"South Carolina Municipal and County Attorneys Institute," sponsored by The South Carolina Association of Counties on December 15, 1989; and "Family Law in South Carolina," sponsored by the Legal Education Institute, Inc. on June 24, 1988

She has taught Certified Apartment Managers Training Courses I and II for the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia at least once during each of the last five years.

She has also made presentations on the South Carolina Residential Landlord/Tenant Act on behalf of the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia.

She regularly makes presentations and teaches during training sessions conducted for Richland County volunteer guardians ad litem.

During the last three years, she has annually served as lecturer in the University of South Carolina course, "Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Child Abuse and Neglect," attended by graduate students from social work, education, criminal justice, nursing and law.

10.     Published Books and Articles:
None other than materials associated with continuing legal education
12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1989-Present         McNair & Sanford, P.A., formerly McNair Law Firm, P.A., Of Counsel. Practice now includes combination of local government work including municipal finance, domestic and family law. Primary emphasis has been on government law and municipal finance.
1986-1989             Part-time attorney for Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project.
1987-1989             Partner in law firm, Cooper, Coffas, Heizer, Studemeyer & Megna, P.A. Practice included primarily domestic and family law with a significant portion of the practice devoted to work as guardian ad litem for children in contested custody matters and as attorney for the Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project. Some general practice including landlord/tenant work, representing the Apartment Association of Greater Columbia and certain of its members.
1979-1986             Partner in law firm, Coble & Heizer.
General law practice including domestic, personal injury, real estate, landlord/tenant, and collection work; practice also included work for governmental entities including Catawba Indian Study Commission and Richland County.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     BV

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -         None
State -             Average once a week in Family Court (prior to 1989, almost daily appearances in Family Court)
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 30%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - None
Non-Jury - 100% - Family Court
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         State v. Sullivan, 282 S.E.2d 838 (S.C. 1981). She prepared a consolidated Brief for the Appellants in this criminal appeal. This case involved complex questions regarding rules of evidence, burdens of proof of conspiracy, and other issues related to a long criminal trial with several defendants. Her research indicates that this case is frequently cited for its definitions of conspiracy and other statements of law contained in the published opinion.
(b)         Whetstone v. Whetstone, 346 S.E.2d 532 (S.C. 1986). She was the primary attorney in the underlying adoption from which this case arose. This case is significant because it illustrates the limitations on a grandparent's right to intervene in an adoption when both parents have agreed to the adoption. It also illustrates the importance of procedural matters and time frames in adoption actions.
(c)         Holcombe v. Kennison, 388 S.E.2d 807 (S.C. 1990). She represented the volunteer guardian ad litem for the minor child who was the subject of this action. This case received substantial publicity and involved allegations of kidnapping, brainwashing, creation of false identities, fleeing the jurisdiction of the court, and other techniques and devices designed to prevent our state courts from making a decision regarding custody of the minor child. This involved important legal issues regarding the emancipation of minors, common law marriages, parental rights, and rights of non-parent custodians. The case also illustrates the manner in which the family court system can be manipulated so as to prevent a full and complete hearing on all available facts.
(d)         Connelly v. Connelly. This was a contested custody action involving complex features of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. It has been significant in her practice because it was an opportunity to become extremely familiar with both the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.
(e)         Department of Social Services v. Henry, 374 S.E.2d 298 (S.C. 1988). She represented the volunteer guardian ad litem in this matter. This case is significant because the volunteer guardian ad litem was able to prevail upon The Department of Social Services to bring a termination of parental rights action at the time the Department would have ordinarily brought a simple removal action. On appeal, the case stands for the important proposition that voluntary acts on the part of a parent when result in the absence of a parent can be considered so as to justify the termination of parental rights.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Sears v. Sears; Court of Appeals for South Carolina; September 19, 1985.
(b)         South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Edgar and Eunice Gerald; Supreme Court of South Carolina; July 20, 1987; 358 S.E.2d 712 (S.C. 1987).
(c)         Spartanburg County Department of Social Services v. Powell; Court of Appeals of South Carolina; December 4, 1989.
(d)         Beti Owens Holcombe v. David Foster Kennison, et al.; Supreme Court of South Carolina; February 5, 1990; 388 S.E.2d 807 (S.C. 1990).

22.     Public Office:
Columbia City Council Member; 1986-1994; elected
Mayor Pro Tempore for the City of Columbia; 1992-1993; elected by City Council

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
Hearing officer for The Department of Health and Environmental Control from 1985-1989. Heard and decided contested appeals and other matters regarding certificates of need, permits, etc., within DHEC's supervision. This employment was approved by the Attorney General as required by law.

26.     Officer or Director:     She is one-third partner in the ownership of rental property located at 3405, 3407 and 3409 Heyward Street. Together the partners make all business decision. Partnership has been in existence since 1983. Said property is located in Columbia, South Carolina.

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
She does not foresee such conflicts; however, if any existed, she would recuse herself from any matters involving her law firm, partners in property ownership, or the individuals with whom she is currently associated with in the practice of law.

32.     Sued:
She has been sued on numerous occasions in her capacity as a member of the Columbia City Council. She was also named in a lawsuit which has been filed against a former law firm of which she was a partner; however, she has no personal involvement in said suit.

35.     Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
1981 - Apartment Association of Columbia
1984 - Spa Lady of South Carolina, Inc.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
2/24/94; Mid-Town Kwik Kopy, Inc.; Stationery; $186.59
2/24/94; McNair & Stanford, P. A., P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211; reimbursement of postage; $49.30
2/24/94; Francenia B. Heizer; reimbursement for office supplies; $10.23

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association - Family Law and Urban, State and Local Government Law Section; South Carolina Bar Association - Family Law and Government Law Section; Richland County Bar Association; National Association of Bond Lawyers; South Carolina Women Lawyers Association; Women in Municipal Government

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:

Organization Affiliations:
1984-1990     Member, YWCA Board of Directors
1986-1990     Member, Rape Crisis Network Board of Directors
1988-1994     Member, Columbia Development Corporation
1989-1994     Member, Eau Claire Development Corporation
1992-1994     Member, Consolidated Government Charter Commission
Member, Rotary Club of Columbia
1993-1994     Planned Parenthood of Central South Carolina Board of Directors
Member, City Year Board of Directors
Member, South Columbia Development Corporation Board of Directors
Member, Advisory Council for the Institute for Families in Society
1994             Member, League of Women Voters

Honors and Awards:
1972                         Richland County Education Association Human Relations Award
1976                         Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award for Service to the University of South Carolina
Recognized as an Outstanding Senior, U.S.C.
Who's Who in American College and University Students
1976-1979                 Am Jur Award (Highest Grade in Class) - Constitutional Law, Trusts and Estates and Damages - U.S.C. Law School
1981                         Recognized as an Outstanding Young Woman in America
1988                         March of Dimes 1988 Ten Women of Achievement
1989                         Humane S.P.C.A. Legislator of the Year
1992                         Certificate of Appreciation from The Woman's Club of Columbia
1994                         Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project Outstanding Service Award

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Tony Grant, Senior Vice President and Commercial Regional Executive
NationsBank
P. O. Box 727, Columbia, SC 29222
733-9661
(b)         Honorable Bob Coble, Mayor
City of Columbia
P. O. Box 147, Columbia, SC 29217
733-8221
(c)         O. Wayne Corley, Esquire
McNair & Sanford, P.A.
P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211
799-9800
(d)         Vince Ford, Vice Chairman
Board of School Commissioners
Richland County School District One
1616 Richland Street, Columbia, SC 29201
733-6061
(e)         Ann C. Kleckley, Director
Richland County Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project
1701 Main Street, Room 320, Columbia, SC 29201
748-5025

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies:     Richland County Sheriff's Office, a negative; the Columbia City Police Department is a negative; SLED and FBI records are negative.

The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative. Federal Court records showed no judgements or criminal actions against you. There were three civil actions in which you were named as a defendant in your capacity as a member of the Columbia City Council. You may not even have known you got sued.
MS. HEIZER:     I know about some of those. I was in one for two weeks this summer. Yes, sir, that's my understanding that that would be correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     And no complaints or statements have been received and no witnesses are present to testify. With that, I'm going to turn you over to Mr. Elliott who I think has got a few questions for you.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MS. HEIZER - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Ms. Heizer, sort of record keeping matters to begin with. Our records show that our, the committee's records, show that you reported some expenditures, but there has not been a report to the Senate or House Ethics committee and it may be a matter of timing, but if you would look at that --
A.     Oh, okay.
Q.     -- because it is required that those filings be made there as well.
A.     I didn't realize that. I'll make sure that that gets done today. And there have been expenditures since we filed and I can update that and get that today as well.
Q.     If you would please. Let's first just kind of get on the record what your experience is in Family Court and first start by talking about, if you would, the contested matters you've handled in Family Court. And if you could kind of give some -- well, what percentage of your practice in Family Court has been contested matters and what has been your experience in the Family Court?
A.     All right, sir. I've been practicing law for 15 years and during those 15 years, there have been different phases in my career. And if we start now and work backward, I would say that the majority of my practice now is not in Family Court. I mean approximately, say, 30 percent, 25 to 30 percent of my work would be Family Court matters now. And of those, a good number of them would be uncontested.

I think of the time I now spend in Family Court, a fair amount of it still continues to be pro bono matters or matters related to abuse and neglect cases which can be contested at different levels, so that you can have an agreement very quickly in a case. Sometimes it takes a little longer for an agreement to be reached and sometimes you have to try the case.

I have just spent parts of two days within the last, I guess, six weeks in Family Court completing the trial of a contested matter that related to a DSS case. And prior to 1989, my practice was primarily a Family Court practice. I was in Family Court almost every day dealing with both contested and uncontested matters. A good bit of the experience I had prior to 1989 related to cases in which DSS was a party in terms of child abuse and neglect case or cases in which I was a guardian ad litem for a child in a contested custody matter.

But prior to '89, I handled a full range of Family Court cases, everything from contested divorces, contested custody matters, cases about college expenses, cases under the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act, the whole range of cases. And so I think I've touched base on just about every aspect of Family Court work that one can do in this state.
Q.     Just for consistency sake, have you handled a TPR?
A.     Yes, I have, both private TPR where -- and TPR, termination of parental rights cases where DSS was a party. I have been actively involved in both.
Q.     And paternity?
A.     Paternity cases, child support cases. Yes, sir.
Q.     And you said contested divorce? I mean -- in some of the areas where you have a little -- it's a little less clear cut, you've mentioned some of those like child custody, but what about equitable division of property, have you been involved with that at all or military or government retirement plans?
A.     I've worked on cases recently involving equitable distribution. I haven't -- and I think one of my cases in the last five years related to military retirement. I have litigated that, that issue, on more than one occasion during my 15 years back in the days before the law was nearly as clear as it is now, in fact, when we were still in the process of trying to identify whether military retirement, for example, was subject to division, so, yes, I have handled those matters.
Q.     Over the last five years, what percentage of your CLE's have been related to Family Court?
A.     About 50 percent, I would say. I have divided my continuing legal education into the two areas in which I primarily practice, government law and municipal and finance on the one hand and family court law on the other.

Since 1989, I have -- in 1989 I think or 1990, I taught a CLE related to Family Court, related to representing the interest of the child in Family Court proceedings. I am scheduled to make a presentation at another CLE this summer at the Bar Association meeting on Family Law. And so I would say I go -- divide my CLE into two areas where I practice.
Q.     It sounds like a lot of your representation has involved children, particularly child abuse and neglect cases. Do you envision any difficulty shifting from that type of work to a situation where you have to be an objective, neutral decision maker? For example, in a DSS case or something like -- of that nature, would you tend to err on the side of the child or do you think you could be fairly objective about that, particularly when it's not a real clear cut set of facts?
A.     I don't have any doubt that I can be fair and objective. I think that I also might be guilty of erring on the side of the child depending on the circumstances. I mean that one of the reasons Family Court exists is to help and protect children, so I think that would be a very important role for a Family Court judge.

But in terms of thinking that one always has to advocate the position of the child or that a child is always correct because the child has said something or alleged to have said something, I don't think I would fall into that at all.

I think that the purpose of Family Court is to provide an environment in which accurate information can be supplied to a decision maker and I would want to be that decision maker.
Q.     We talked about your experience a little bit, but I'm not sure I got a feel for whether you've handled any juvenile cases?
A.     I have probably not. Since 1989, I have not been -- I don't think I've been in Family Court on a -- representing a juvenile. And prior to that, yes, I have in DYS cases representing young people.
Q.     Do you have any suggestions or recommendations that you would like to offer to the General Assembly about what to do about our rising tide of juvenile crime?
A.     I've thought a lot about that question in general because of some of the public work I do and I see so many public resources handling or responding to the problems and juvenile violence, in particular, after the fact, after the violence has occurred, but we are paying for the loss of life, we are paying for the hospital bills, the families that are effectively destroyed and never put back together and I'm not sure there is a legislative solution to tell you the truth.

I think that there might be some things that could be done in terms of providing incentive so that there is earlier intervention. If we could be creative and design programs where people in the community, not just a single parent, but the community as a whole embraced the concept that we are all responsible for our young people, so that the resources we do have with schools, for example, with churches, with recreation departments and all of our political subdivisions, if more resources were available to encourage one on one contact, to encourage contact between a good role model as an adult and a child that may just need somebody to be positive and somebody to look up to.

I mean I think that might be something that the legislature could help with, but in terms of legislating people being better parents in terms of teenagers not having kids that they can't raise, I'm not sure what the legislature can do about that.
Q.     Do you think you can address any of that as a Family Court judge?
A.     Well, I think that's the venue in which the Family Court works and I think that decisions that would be made in the Family Court can have an impact on a case by case basis. And that's one of the reasons I want to be a Family Court judge, to try to take a situation that is presented, that the fact as they are developed in the Family Court, and make a decision that would be productive of a better life for either the adults or the children that are before me. And that's the ultimate challenge and that's what I would like to have a chance to do.
Q.     Your PDQ, or Personal Data Questionnaire, excuse me, indicates that you've been a hearing officer in some administrative hearings for DHEC?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     That's obviously different than being a Family Court judge, but what about that experience, if any, would be of benefit to you as a Family Court judge?
A.     Well, I think any time a person has an opportunity to listen, to evaluate information, to evaluate credibility if there are disputes over facts and ultimately to make a decision and to have that decision reduced to writing, I think that's good experience and would be productive and helpful to anybody wanting to be a judge. And I enjoyed that work and I am glad I was able to do it.
Q.     You've been a member of the Columbia City Council, I think, now for about eight years?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And maybe this is a foolish question in a sense, but do you find it difficult or do you think you'll find it difficult to give up political life?
A.     That was a major decision that I had to think through in deciding to run for this office. And I think that I'm at a point in my life where I would like to try a different forum of public service. I think that a lot of the time I spent in the political realm, it's not so much political in terms of partisanship because our City Council here in Columbia is nonpartisan and we work as a team and it's a different environment than some other political environments.

I've analyzed my time and what I see myself doing is things with the community and what I would call public service or civic service and I would like to be able to try a different version of that, so the political aspect of it, the truly political aspect of it, yes, I'm ready to be able to be apolitical.
Q.     Then it wouldn't be difficult to implement the Canons of Judicial Conduct about -- as a judge not engaging in political activity?
A.     That is correct. I would --
Q.     What would be your standard of recusal? Do you wait for a motion from an attorney or in some situations do you do that yourself?
A.     I think there are some situations where a judge would recuse on his or her own motion. I think there are -- you know, there are clear rules that define what are conflicts and some conflicts can be waived and some cannot. I think that it's important that people that are before a judge believe that a fair decision is going to be made and if there is some indication or some reason that the litigants or the attorneys would believe that the judge wasn't going to be fair, if I wasn't going to be fair, I would recuse myself.

Now, at the same time we all know that Family Court schedules are overbooked and you can't -- you know, you don't want to waste court time. I would not want to be in a position of recusing or excusing myself just in an instance of where it wasn't clearly indicated, but I wouldn't hesitate. I wouldn't stay in a case that I shouldn't be in.
Q.     What are cases you think you would not hear? What would be your standard? When would you determine you would recuse yourself?
A.     Well, any cases that involve people that I'm in business with or family members within a particular degree. I have a brother who practices law, for example, and it would not be appropriate for me to hear a case when my brother was the attorney or a litigant.

I'm associated with a large law firm and I think that there would be some things we'd have to work through in terms of whether any of the attorneys that I now practice with should ever appear before me.

I think that if a matter was uncontested or if the relationship had -- was disclosed and everybody waived, that that might be something that we could do, but I mean I would not want to -- I would not be in a position of making decisions based on attorneys being before me that I was in business with or are people that I knew closely as personal friends.
Q.     One thing I did want to ask you about as you mentioned that you are in business apparently with some attorneys, I wasn't clear about that from the PDQ, but you own some property. Are your partners in that venture with attorneys, lawyers?
A.     No, sir. I'm a one-third owner of some apartments on Heyward Street and neither of those partners -- there are three of us and we are -- the other two partners are not attorneys. I own a piece of property at Lake Murray with a gentleman in Columbia, Charles Cooper, who is an attorney and so that is not really a business venture, but that's something that to the extent that I have an economic interest with him, it probably wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be appropriate for me to have him in front of me.
Q.     Your PDQ also shows that you're very active in the community. What do you understand your ethical responsibilities to be with regard to your community activities, as a judge?
A.     I think most of the activities in which I participate now, the things where I'm a member of the board, I would not continue to be part of if I became a Family Court judge. I think that -- I reviewed the Canons this morning.

In terms of the -- it's possible for a judge to participate in activities that help advance the state of the law and I think that the Institute for Families in Society at the University of the South Carolina, for example, would probably be an activity in which I could continue to participate because it's something that clearly relates to the issues of law and would not involve advocacy of a particular position and I would not be lending my position to something in an inappropriate way.

In terms of the other nonprofits of which I'm a member or on the board, I think that it would probably not be appropriate for a judge to be a director of a development corporation for the City of Columbia or the Rape Crisis or one of those, so I would withdraw from those activities.
Q.     You used the term director. Do you consider it only inappropriate if you're a director of one of those organizations?
A.     No, sir, I think to be a member and the -- most of the ones I'm familiar -- I'm aware of, what I'm thinking about, where membership on the board is membership in the organization.
Q.     All right.
A.     But I think you -- I could be a member of the YWCA, for example. I don't think that the Canons prevent me from being a member of the YWCA and going to classes there or attending an exercise class. I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate for me to be a member of the board of directors, particularly with so much of the emphasis on those boards being either legal advice or fund-raising, and that would be two things that a judge should be very careful about in terms of providing outside the courtroom.
Q.     Thank you. What kind of work schedule do you maintain now? Do you work weekends? Do you work Friday afternoons and what about the rest of the week?
A.     Well, I work all week. I work Friday afternoons, and it's certainly not uncommon to work over a weekend. The work I do now frequently involves travel, attendance at meetings of political subdivisions that occur in the evening, so it's not uncommon for me to have a day that starts at 7:00 a.m. and doesn't end until midnight until we return from a meeting. So I mean long hours and substantial amounts of work are not anything that are alien to me and would foresee being able to be a very active, hard working person if I was allowed to become a judge.
Q.     Have you given any thought to how you would organize your day if you're on the bench?
A.     I would like to -- the answer is yes, I have. And I have given thought to how I would try to organize the day and I would try to be as available as possible. I think that there are some aspects of Family Court that get bogged down that if -- I know some of our judges here in Richland County, for example, try to be available to hear uncontested matters, to deal with matters that might be contested, but need to be dealt with quickly so that a discovery issue could be -- could go forward, things like that. So I would try to be as available as possible, so that the use of the court system would be maximized.
Q.     How would you approach demeanor on the bench? Who would be your role model?
A.     I've been -- I think that the Family Court judges that I have seen throughout the state and the ones here in Richland County from -- some of the -- Judge Byars, Judge Burnside, Judge Campbell, Judge Mobley. I've participated in trials before Judge Cureton, who is now on the Appeals Court. I mean I have seen a number of judges -- and Judge Carol Connor, Judge Judy Bridges.

I've seen a number of judges that I think do an excellent job of maintaining a balance between being in control of the courtroom because the sanctity of the courtroom has to be protected. The business that goes on the Family Court is always important and I think that the atmosphere needs to be created where people are paying attention and they're very attentive to what is happening. But at the same time, a degree of humanness, of a sense of humor, being willing to have the tension reduced when it's appropriate are things that I would try to do in my courtroom if I was the judge.
Q.     In terms of the Canons that will apply to you as a judge, how would you personally define gift and how would you define social hospitality which is acceptable and gift which is not acceptable for a judge to take?
A.     A gift would be anything of value that was offered and I think it wouldn't be appropriate to accept a gift from an attorney that's going to practice in front of you or from a litigant where it was foreseeable that the person would be in front of you.

The same thing with social hospitality, and I think it's pretty easy to say that, well, I will not go to the beach house with Family Court lawyers. I mean that's pretty easy. I'm not going to do that. A judge shouldn't do that under any circumstances.

If I have a friend of mine who is not an attorney, a person and I accept hospitality and then that person later is a litigant, then you don't hear the case is how you deal with that. So I don't think that you become totally isolated, but I do think that particularly with respect to attorneys and with people who are foreseeable to be litigants, I think that you just stay away from situations where your impartiality can be questioned.
Q.     But then again it sounds like you've said anything of value, that takes in most everything?
A.     Yes, sir. Anything of value, I mean the -- I mean anything, I can't imagine what one -- I mean if -- I can't imagine what a gift would be that I would accept from any attorney that would be likely to practice in front of me.
Q.     How do you plan to implement the Canon against ex parte communications?
A.     The first way would be to not allow an attorney to -- or a person who was a litigant to raise an issue with respect to the case and discuss the case in any way. And I think that the way that's implemented in a broader sense is that you -- and -- you may -- I would make it clear from the very beginning that it would not be possible for me to ever discuss a case that was in front of me or going to be in front of me, so that people wouldn't be tempted to do that. There would not be any effort on the part of someone to do that. And if they did, I would ask them to stop because that's not appropriate.
Q.     And we've had some different opinions about handling writing orders as a Family Court judge. What would be your intent about how to handle that?
A.     If a matter was such that a decision -- I could make a decision immediately or within a very short period of time. The ideal thing would be to bring the attorneys back and to recite, I think sort of dictate, what the order would be and ask one of the parties to create a document based on what I had put on the record. I think you then protect the record in terms of the judicial decision, in both findings of fact and a conclusions of law. And you have a mechanism for the paperwork to actually be done, so I would use a combination of those.

And if for some reason that system wasn't -- wouldn't work or wasn't available, I would have attorneys submit -- prepare an order and submit it to the other side before it was submitted to the Court. If there was a problem with that, then we would have a hearing to have the judge make the decision because that's ultimately what the judge is supposed to do.
Q.     For those orders that you would have composed by attorneys, where is your level of comfort about signing somebody else's order? What kind of work would you invest in looking behind what's drafted by another attorney?
A.     I think that the judge -- I would read the document, I would compare the document with notes that I had taken. And if there were discrepancies, I would have them corrected before I signed it.

And in terms of correcting discrepancies, again, you can't have an ex parte communication, so that would have to be communicated either in writing to both of the attorneys or through a conference call or something like that.
Q.     Have you sought the pledge of a legislator prior to this screening --
A.     No.
Q.     -- directly or indirectly?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you asked or otherwise authorized any person to seek a pledge or a commitment for you?
A.     No.
Q.     Do you know of any solicitation for pledges on your behalf?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you ever been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court.
A.     No.
Q.     That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you, sir. Any Members of the Committee have any questions? It doesn't appear anybody has any questions then. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you coming.
A.     Thank you.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Each of you, you're free to go as we finish with you, so if you need to get on to do something else, we don't want to hold you, especially in the delightful environment of this room.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     This is the Senate side, isn't it?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Yes, sir. We're as austere with the budget as we are with the air conditioning. We'll take -- I think the court reporter needs to take a quick break, and so why don't we take a five-minute recess.

(A short break was taken)
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let's get started. Our next candidate is Leslie Kirkland Riddle. Ms. Riddle, if you'd come forward, please.
MS. RIDDLE:     Here.
THE CHAIRMAN:     If you'd stand and raise your right hand.
LESLIE KIRKLAND RIDDLE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MS. RIDDLE:     I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is it correct?
MS. RIDDLE:     It's correct except for I have purchased stamps to mail out my letter of intent and some envelopes and stationery.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We'll ask you to -- we have that information about the cost to amend your PDQ to reflect the amount you spent on that, if you can give us that information.
MS. RIDDLE:     Okie doke.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any objection to our making this Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MS. RIDDLE:     No objection.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We'll do that at this time.

1.     Leslie Kirkland Riddle
Home Address:                         Business Address:
10 Timber Knoll Drive             P. O. Box 8012
Irmo, SC 29063                     Columbia, SC 29202
2.     She was born in Columbia, South Carolina on December 30, 1958. She is presently 35 years old.

4.     She was married to Charles Dayton Riddle, III on November 1, 1986. She has three children:     Charles Dayton, IV, age 6; Coleman Kirkland, age 4; and Davis Cannon, age 2.

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     She attended the University of South Carolina, Math course in summer school in 1978 and English while still in high school; Clemson University, 1977 to 1981, B.A. in Secondary Education; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1981 to 1984, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has attended Continuing Legal Education seminars each year. Most of the seminars were related to domestic issues.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle, Attorneys at Law, 1988 - present

Partner in law firm primarily involved in the representation of parties in divorce actions (including issues of equitable division of property, alimony, child custody, child support and visitation), representation of parties in custody litigation, representation of parties in adoption proceedings, representation of defendants in child abuse and neglect matters, representation of juvenile criminal defendants in Family Court, and representation of children in child custody cases as their attorney/guardian ad litem. Other areas handled included the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury, worker's compensation, and criminal defense.

Special Assistant Solicitor, Fifth Judicial Circuit, 1993

Prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases for the State and the Department of Social Services including the preparation and trial of abuse and neglect cases against parents and other individuals accused of physical, emotional, educational and sexual abuse or neglect of children.

Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Project of Richland County, 1988-1990

Representation of abused and neglected children and their guardians in Family Court to ensure that the best interests of the children were protected; and further, that all actions taken by the Department of Social Services and other child protective agencies conformed to the law.

Kirkland, Aaron and Alley, 1986-1988

Associate in law firm with primary emphasis in divorce, child custody, child support, visitation and related matters. Other areas handled included the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury and criminal defense.

Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office, 1982-1986

Family Court Solicitor, 1985-1986:     Assistant Solicitor assigned exclusively to Family Court, handling all matters relating to the prosecution of juvenile criminal defendants and the prosecution of individuals accused of physical, emotional and sexual abuse or neglect of children. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, decisions regarding the transfer of jurisdiction to General Sessions Court on serious, violent or repeat offenders, trial of motions to transfer jurisdiction, trial of motions to detain juvenile defendants pending trial on serious, repeat and violent offenders, writing briefs and arguing appeals to the Court of General Sessions and the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Assistant Solicitor, 1984-1985:     Prosecution of adult criminal defendants in Richland and Kershaw Counties in General Sessions and Magistrate's Courts for various criminal offenses. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, interviewing witnesses, drafting and arguing legal motions, formulating plea agreements, preparation of indictments and advising local law enforcement agencies regarding legal issues, charging decisions, and collection of evidence.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     She is listed but has not been rated individually by Martindale-Hubbell. Her law firm is rated AV.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - very infrequently
State - daily
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 90%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - less than 5%
Non-Jury - more than 95%
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Shuler v. Shuler. This was a contested divorce case in which she represented one of the parties. The most significant issues in this case were purely economic. This couple had amassed in excess of $75,000 in personal debt on 45 different credit cards and loan accounts. In addition, the marital residence was titled in the husband's father's name, though both husband and wife had contributed to the equity in it. The contested issues involved the setting of alimony, the distribution of the marital debt, the distribution of equity in the home, and the inter-relation between these economic factors on each other.
(b)         Coker v. Coker. This was a contested child custody case involving two children, ages eight and five. She was the children's Guardian ad Litem, representing the children's best interests. One parent had engaged in several adulterous affairs without the children knowing. The other parent upon learning of the affairs, told the children of the illicit relationships. The most significant issue involved which of these actions were most detrimental to the children and the impact of these actions on each parent's fitness in the custody determination.
(c)         In Re Dawkins. This was a Department of Social Services case involving allegations of physical and sexual abuse on a hearing impaired teenage girl. The alleged perpetrator was the child's mother. She represented the Guardian ad Litem and ultimately the child's best interests. The teenage girl was so attached to her mother as a result of her handicap that she wanted to live with her mother despite the abuse. This resulted in considerable reluctance on the child's part to assist the State in proving the abuse. The entire case had to be tried through the use of an interpreter.
(d)         Berger v. Miller. Child custody is reviewable at any time based on the child's best interests. In this case, she represented the mother of a child attempting to show a material and substantial change in circumstances which would warrant a change in the previously ordered custody provisions. The factors involved including the child's poor performance in school, the father exposing the child to his adulterous affairs, verbal abuse by the father and allegedly questionable religious affiliations of the mother.
(e)         State v. Napoleon Goodson IV. This case involved the murder of a young man by a 16-year-old juvenile. She was the assistant solicitor assigned to the case. A motion was heard by the Family Court requesting that the case be waived to the court of General Sessions and the juvenile be tried as an adult. This motion was denied. Pursuant to the applicable law, an appeal was brought in the Circuit Court. The juvenile filed a writ of supersedes in the Supreme Court asserting that the state's appeal should be dismissed. The writ was denied. The appeal was then heard in the Circuit Court and the court asserted jurisdiction. The juvenile was tried as an adult and ultimately convicted of voluntary manslaughter. This is significant because violent crime among juveniles is increasing at an alarming rate and the transferring of jurisdiction to the court of General Sessions will occur more often in the future.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
While she has never handled an appeal from a divorce, custody or child support case, she has handled an appeal from a juvenile criminal case in Family Court. State v. Napoleon Goodson IV, Court of General Sessions, Date of Decision:     March 4, 1986

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):

Kirkland, Dodson, Rush & Riddle
She would recuse herself in any case involving former clients. In addition, she would recuse herself from hearing any cases involving members of her law firm until judicial ethics would permit.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. Luke's Lutheran Church

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Mary Varnadore, Regional Manager
S. C. Telco Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 3287, Cayce-West Columbia, SC 29171
256-3132
(b)         Samuel F. Crews, III, Esquire
Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 7788, Columbia, SC 29202
771-4400
(c)         Honorable Barbara A. Scott
Clerk of Court, Richland County
P. O. Box 1781, Columbia, SC 29202
748-4684
(d)         Cyril B. Rush, Jr., Esquire
Kirkland, Dodson, Rush & Riddle
P. O. Box 8012, Columbia, SC 29202
252-0370
(e)         George E. Lewis, Esquire
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A.
P. O. Box 1473, Columbia, SC 29202
254-2200

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The Record of the applicable law enforcement agencies, the Richland County Sheriff's Office, Columbia and Irmo City Police, SLED and FBI are all negative. The Judgment Rolls of Richland County are negative. The Federal Court records are negative. We have no complaints or statements which we've received. No witnesses are present to testify against you.

Prior to turning your testimony over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, you do have the opportunity to make an oral statement or if you want, a written statement for us to put in the record.
MS. RIDDLE:     Waive.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MS. RIDDLE - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Let's do the same thing if we could as we did with Ms. Heizer and sort of establish your experience with Family Court.
A.     Okay.
Q.     And those kind of matters.
A.     Initially whenever I graduated from law school ten years ago, I started working in the Solicitor's office, for the Solicitor's Office. At that time, I did approximately a year and a half as a juvenile prosecutor. My job at that point was to prosecute all children accused of criminal acts in Richland County. At that time I also did some of the abuse and neglect prosecution.

And then I believe in 1986, I went to practice law in private practice at Kirkland -- it was Kirkland, Aaron and Alley at that time. During my time of practicing law there, I did domestic work, custody fights, abuse and neglect defense of the parent. I represented juveniles in criminal cases in Family Court. I did termination of -- terminations of parental rights, adoptions, child support, defending paternity actions. Every aspect of Family Court that you basically could do.

Then my -- that practice dissolved and I began practicing law as a partner in the law firm of Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle. During my time of practicing law there, I have done some contract work for the Department of Social Services as their attorney for abuse and neglect. I did that this past summer which included -- at that point, it was at the time whenever DSS was leaving the Solicitor's Office as a responsible prosecutor until it turned over to DSS.

During that time, I prosecuted abuse and neglects. And I believe in 19 -- the latter part of 1988 to the early part of 1990, I represented the guardian ad litem project for abuse and neglected children representing children in abuse and neglect.

During the time that -- in addition, while I've been practicing with Kirkland, Dodson, Rush and Riddle, I represented litigants in divorce matters, custody fights, all of the things that you can do in Family Court and, in addition, I have represented on numerous occasions children in custody fights. So I have -- my practice of law has been in Family Court almost exclusively since I've been out of law school.
Q.     Almost exclusively. Could you put a percentage on that, please?
A.     95.
Q.     I think it's, what, a ten-year record?
A.     95.
Q.     That you've been out --
A.     I have done some criminal representation in General Sessions. It's not been my favorite area, but I have done some of it. Luckily, my twin brother does all that now.
Q.     What about marital property, what experience have you had?
A.     I have litigated the division of marital property. I've litigated the aspect of how debts are related to the division of marital property. I have litigated the division of marital property when the title holders of that property were not the individuals in the lawsuits. In other words, you may be named third parties as individuals or parties in the action.

I mean I have litigated debt obligations that would just blow you away, $165,000 worth of credit cards. I mean you spend a day going through credit cards debt.
Q.     You'd be surprised. That doesn't blow me away.
A.     I think that's a lot of the reason for breakups of marriages, but that's that.
Q.     You've prosecuted juveniles and we've asked this of other candidates, having done so, you may be in a -- have a special point of view --
A.     I think --
Q.     -- about that? What can be done about the rising tide of juvenile crime?
A.     Well, I have -- initially whenever I began being a juvenile prosecutor, I noticed the increase in the guns and then taking it to school and taking weapons and stuff like that. I was involved in some shooting -- well, I wasn't literally involved in the shooting, but I was involved in the prosecution of the juveniles that did do the shooting at schools.

You know, when you evaluate it and you look at what happens, what you see a lot of times is that the children's support and the positive peer pressure and everything isn't there when they go home. I used to say whenever I was prosecuting that you had like four or five different categories where you saw children coming into Family Court. You know, they didn't know their father, they'd never met their father or their mother, they didn't have a real good relationship with her, she was a single parent, she was working all the time, she was not taking appropriate care of them. You see them a lot of times. You see some adoptive children in that situation.

There's all kinds of things out there and that's one of the biggest reasons I want to be a Family Court judge is because there are things you can do to help kids that if you've got experience and you've seen what's there, you can really apply it and have an effect on what happens to this kid.

I'm talking about like there is the Beaufort Marine Program which I know ya'll have probably heard a lot about. There's all kind of ideas like Judge Byars wants to put in the possibility of a -- not a boot camp, but a school that they could get positive peer pressure as opposed to negative peer pressure which is all they see in the schools.

I mean all of those things can be applied if you know they are there and you want to do it. And that is all I've ever done and I mean I think I can do it. Somebody needs to jump in the fire and take responsibility instead of sitting back and just hoping things get better.
Q.     Do you see the Family Court as the first line of defense?
A.     Well, I think home is the first line. I mean, you know, I think the family and the extended family. I think a lot of people have gotten away with the importance of what extended family is. I think that's your first line of defense.

I think the school system is there to support the family, but it's not the ultimate responsibility. The ultimate responsibility falls in the home. And whenever the homes fail and when the school can't, you know, help, that's when the schools come in and the kids have to feel like when they come into that courtroom that somebody means business.

You know, they're not going to stand back and just say, "Well, I'm sorry, Johnny, you know, I'm going to let you go home this time and you don't have to worry about it." Somebody has got to be there and they've got to sit there and go look, "I mean business." I mean and that's what I -- you know, I think that's what a judge has to do. He has to listen to it and decide.
Q.     Just to flesh out your experience a little bit more. What percentage of the CLE's have you attended have been in the area of family law and have you done any writing --
A.     I have not done --
Q.     -- in terms of legal scholarship, in that area?
A.     I have not done any writing. As far as CLE's are concerned, probably 75 percent of my CLE's have been directly toward Family Court. That is the area that I practice in. I have -- I recently went to a PCR seminar because I got appointed on a PCR and I wanted to know what I was doing when I represented that person on the PCR. I have been to some estate PCR -- I mean, some estate CLE's and some Ethics CLE's that you have to go to. I've been to those.
Q.     What kind of work schedule do you maintain now?
A.     I'm sort of a workaholic. I get it honestly. I get up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning. I get my children ready. I get them off to school. I have a very wonderful husband who is very supportive and is always there for me and now I'm putting it on the record, it's probably going to come back to haunt me later on in -- if I ever got a divorce, but --
Q.     You do do too much Family Court work.
A.     I know. You know that. But anyway I get them off to school, well, day care, I guess is what you would call it, but it's my aunt. I get to work early in the mornings. I work hard every day. In fact, sometimes I don't eat lunch, sometimes I do.

My clients are very important to me. I spend all of my day either seeing clients or preparing orders, talking on the telephone. I usually work until six -- well, a quarter to 6:00 and then I go pick up my children and do what mama's should do.
Q.     Are you there on Friday afternoons?
A.     I don't know any other way, but to work on Friday afternoons, but I work sometimes Saturdays and sometimes Sundays.
Q.     What would your workday be like on the bench? When would it start and when would it end?
A.     Well, if my track record is an indication of what it would be, I would get there when I'm supposed to be first thing in the morning. I mean, I would get there anywhere from 8:30 to 9:00 o'clock in the morning which is when most judges get there. I mean, well, for the most part, and then I would hear my cases and I would work until I was through.

I mean I think one of the really, really important things and one of the things that the litigants need is somebody that will be there that won't say, "Oh, it's time for lunch. Let's break." It's important that they feel like their cases are being moved, that someone is listening to them, that they get it done and they get it over with. And I think sometimes that that's more important than -- I mean, there's a lot of other aspects that are important, but just whenever it's scheduled, you're there.
Q.     Who is going to be your role model for judicial temperament and what about their temperament is it that you like and think is worthy of being modeled?
A.     There is probably two or three judges who I -- that whenever they walk in that courtroom, you know that they are going to listen to everything that every litigant says and they will pay attention to them and they will be responsible for their decisions. Judge Burnside is one of them. Judge Byars is another one. I heard Frannie mention Judge Byars. I mean he is just caring, responsible. He's there.

And I recently tried a four day custody case with Judge Rucker and he treated the litigants, the attorneys and all the witnesses with respect and understanding and concern and I think that's real important that the judges understand that that's -- that goes without saying.
Q.     In the areas of gifts and social hospitality, what's going to be your rule?
A.     Well, I, too, looked over the Judicial Canons whenever I was -- before I came here and wanted to make sure that I understood them in case I was asked a question like that. You don't take any gifts. I know, for example, Judge Campbell got a turkey one time and he just gave it back. I think it went bad downstairs in the Family Court. But you just -- you don't take them. It's just a rule that you just don't accept gifts at all.
Q.     Is your standard the same as some of the other candidates, anything of value constitutes a gift?
A.     I wouldn't take it because I wouldn't want anybody to think that I wasn't being fair.
Q.     What practices have you employed as an attorney in the area of ex parte communication and what do you expect out of the Bar, if you become a judge?
A.     Well, my understanding of ex parte communications is you don't do it, period. If you are going to talk to a judge about a case, the other side should be there. That would be what I would do.
Q.     All right.
A.     I mean, I would not talk to them about the subject without the other lawyer being there.
Q.     All right. What would be your practice about writing orders and making decisions?
A.     Well, you know, it would be nice if we had the perfect situation where judges could write their own orders and they had time to do it, but anybody that practices law in Family Court understands the limitations of being able to draw your own order. I mean Family Court judges, sometimes they hear hundreds in one day, especially if you've got child support hearings, and now those are formal orders that are usually written out.

The way that I have seen it done and the way that I have done it with judges is that the judge generally makes the order from the bench, writes down what his order or her order is in the court file, so that when she does receive that order, she knows what the order is.

The order is prepared by either the plaintiff or the defendant's attorney depending on who is told to do it. It's presented to the other side and then it's sent on.

Now, if there was a controversy about what the order said or shouldn't say, I mean the response you have is you listen to the tape of the hearing. I mean that's the way you'd have to settle that dispute.
Q.     What level of comfort are you going to have to have to sign an order written by somebody else?
A.     I'm going to read it. I mean I think the most important thing is you've just got to sit down and you've got to read and make sure it says exactly what you ordered.
Q.     Well, to what extent do you read it? I mean do you read it and then check the cites? What do you do?
A.     If there are cases cited in there and I am not familiar with those cases, then I would refer to those cites and make sure that what that lawyer said that cite or what that order is saying, I'd make sure it said it. The other thing is I would refer back to my notes from the hearing and make sure that what was in the order is what I ordered and read it thoroughly. I mean in my cases most of it, I've never -- well, first of all, I would never send an order to a judge that wasn't what the judge ordered, but I have seen that most judges read their orders before they sign them.
Q.     From your Personal Data Questionnaire, it looks like you come from a family full of lawyers. Is that correct?
A.     We clone them.
Q.     You clone them. Do you understand what your ethical responsibilities are if you're elected a judge and should one of them come before you perhaps or have a case involving them before you?
A.     I don't hear cases that my father, my brother or my husband are involved in or any of their law partners. I understand that and I wouldn't.
Q.     Would you always recuse yourself in the case of not family members, but law partners?
A.     Well, you know, this is something I may not be able to directly respond to because I believe that there is a certain amount of time that can elapse after being a law partner with somebody. You know, ten years down the line from now, I very well may not have any problem at all with an ex-law partner.

Until the Judiciary tells me that it's okay, I'm not going to hear any of them. I assume that probably that my current law partners will probably always practice law with my brother, so, you know, I wouldn't.
Q.     Is your husband an attorney? I think I read that he was.
A.     Yes, he's a prosecutor.
Q.     And he practices in Lexington County, or is a prosecutor in Lexington County?
A.     He's a prosecutor, yes.
Q.     If you're a Family Court judge, there is going to be an occasional case where you sure would like to have the advice of somebody real close to you, that you can trust and value their opinion?
A.     Uh-huh.
Q.     I assume that might be your husband?
A.     Uh-huh.
Q.     How would you handle that?
A.     I believe if I'm not correct about this, that the Canons say that there is nothing that forbids a judge from asking someone that's got some -- a particular expertise, but that you have to get permission from the litigants before you do that. I doubt I would ask my husband for legal advice.
Q.     I won't pursue that. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator either directly or indirectly?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you asked anyone else or otherwise authorized anyone to seek a pledge for you?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Do you know of any solicitations for pledges that have been made on your behalf?
A.     Pledges. No.
Q.     What have you done on behalf of your candidacy so far?
A.     Well, I've introduced myself and sent them a resume and let them know about my experience and, you know, I've gone around and just basically told them about my experience, if they wanted to know about it and if they didn't, I'd say, "Well, it's nice meeting you and move on."
Q.     Have you been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court?
A.     No.
Q.     That's all the questions I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Are you aware of any solicitations that have been made on your behalf?
A.     I know that -- I was told that some people had called and I didn't ask them to do it and I told them not to do it.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other than that? Is that the extent of it?
A.     No, that's it.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
A.     Because I know that you're not supposed to do anything until after the screening results are back.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members? Thank you Ms. Riddle.
A.     Thank you very much. It was a pleasure.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. The next candidate is Donna S. Strom. Ms. Strom. If you'd raise your right hand, please.
DONNA S. STROM, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MS. STROM:     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is everything correct?
MS. STROM:     Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Do you have any objection to our making that a formal part of the record?
MS. STROM:     Absolutely not.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will be done at this time.

1.     Donna S. Strom
Home Address:                         Business Address:
830 Hampton Creek Way         3150 Harden Street Extension
Columbia, SC 29209             Columbia, SC 29202

2.     She was born in Plainfield, New Jersey on March 10, 1959. She is presently 35 years old.

4.     She was married to Joseph Preston Strom, Jr. on October 5, 1985. She has one child:     Margaret McKenna, age 5.

5.     Military Service:     She has not served in the military.

6.     She attended Salem College, August, 1977 - May, 1981, Bachelor of Arts Degree, cum laude in History, Political Science and Sociology; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August, 1981 -May, 1984, awarded Juris Doctor degree.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has attended the following South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education seminars over the past five years:
South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention:     1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
"Family Court - Bits and Pieces," July, 1989
"Family Law Fall 1991 Update," November, 1991
"Legal Ethics in Advertising," March, 1991
"Domestic Practice:     The Return of Hot Tips from the Experts," May, 1991
"Family Court Early '92 Bench/Bar Update:     Some Things to Think," March, 1992
"Domestic Practice:     Hot Tips from the Experts Rides Again," May, 1992
"Bench/Bar Update - Family Court Bench," November, 1992
"Domestic Practice:     Hot Tips from the Experts," May, 1993
"Serving the Best Interests of Children," November, 1993

She attended the following two-day seminar sponsored by the American Bar Association in Washington, DC (September, 1992):
"Symposium on the Review and Adjustment of Child Support"

She organized an in-house continuing legal education seminar in conjunction with the American Bar Association's Center for Children and the Law on the following topic:
"Interstate Child Support Remedies"

9.     Taught or Lectured:
South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminars:
"Domestic Practice:     The Return of Hot Tips from the Experts," May, 1991 (Lecture Topic - Interstate Child Support Remedies)
"Domestic Practice:     Hot Tips from the Experts Rides Again," May, 1992 (Lecture Topic - Child Support Enforcement Against Military Personnel)

United States Attorneys Conference on the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992:

Panel participant to discuss the Act which provides for the federal prosecution of child support obligors and to discuss the coordination of efforts between federal and state authorities

Guest Lecturer, Columbia Junior College for Paralegal Studies on various child support related topics

10.     Published Books and Articles:
Child Support Prosecutors' Bulletin; Vol. I, No. 7; July, 1991; "Retroactive Establishment of Support"

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Law Clerk to the Honorable J. Z. McKown, Resident Judge of the Seventh Circuit (retired), 1984-1985

State Attorney, South Carolina Department of Social Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement
Responsible for child support prosecution in various circuits including the Fifth Judicial Circuit. These circuits include Richland, Kershaw, Orangeburg and York Counties.

Chief State Attorney, South Carolina Department of Social Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement

Responsible for the management of a regional office with approximately 22 staff working in 8 counties and for child support prosecution in Newberry and Calhoun Counties, 1989-1991

Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Social Services' Office of Child Support Enforcement

Responsible for the supervision of attorney staff statewide, the creation of program policy to ensure compliance with State and Federal law, the development and monitoring of legislation, the drafting and execution of contracts between the Department and Clerks of Courts and law enforcement, the coordination of program activities with Court Administration and Family Court, and the prosecution of child support cases in support of the attorney staff, 1991-present

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     She has been a public sector attorney since her graduation from law school and has not sought a rating in Martindale-Hubbell.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - 0
Other - 100% in Family Court

From 1985 until 1991, she appeared in Family Courts statewide almost on a daily basis. Since becoming Chief Counsel in 1991, she appeared in court on an as-needed basis to provide training and assistance in complex and sensitive litigation.

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 0%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 100%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 0%
Non-Jury - 100%
Chief Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         SCDSS v. Douglas Thompson. This was a contested paternity and child support case in which the Defendant continued to deny paternity even though genetic testing indicated a high probability that the Defendant was the father of the child.
(b)         SCDSS v. Carlton Horning. This Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support (URESA) case involved the enforcement of provisions of a divorce decree which directed the Defendant to pay college support for his daughter's benefit. Defendant asserted that his purchasing an automobile for his child exonerated him from his obligations pursuant to the divorce decree. The court held that the car was gift to the child and that one party could not arbitrarily modify the terms of the divorce decree.
(c)         SCDSS v. William Barnes. This case involved an uninsured teenage child with severe physical disabilities resulting from a hit-and-run car accident. After exhausting every enforcement remedy available, the Court entered judgment against the Defendant who stood to inherit property from his elderly parents.
(d)         SCDSS v. David Hayes. This case made her appreciate the meaning of the words "Counselor at Law." The legal battle to compel the Defendant to support his children was an enduring, vigorous fight. However, the most rewarding aspect of this case was the relationship she developed with the minor daughter. The daughter confided in her that the Defendant, her father, had been abusing her for nearly a decade. The case was successfully prosecuted in criminal court. She has monitored the progress of this child into her adulthood and is pleased to say she has matured into a self-confident young wife.
(e)         SCDSS v. Robert A. Schwarzer. This case involved the interpretation of federal law regarding whether the SCDSS had standing to pursue child support as a plaintiff on behalf of a custodial parent. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of attorney fees in agency cases. These issues were significant because at the time of trial the issues were not well-settled state law.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
Not applicable

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None other than summer or part-time employment during high school, college and law school. These positions include a clerk in a pharmacy, an order department clerk for Mobay Chemical Corp., a bank teller for Rock Hill National Bank, and as a law clerk for various attorneys.

26.     Officer or Director:     She currently holds the position of secretary in a closely-held family corporation, Gaston Chemical Sales, Inc. This corporation sells chemicals to textile companies. Her tenure as secretary is indefinite.

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Her husband left the private practice of law in 1993, to become the United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina. He currently has a financial interest in several matters which are being handled by previous law partners, Dennis Bolt, Jon Popowski, Joe McCullough, Leigh Leventis and Debbie Chapman. She would recuse herself from any matters which are handled by these attorneys until these financial matters are concluded. She anticipated that these issues will be resolved by the end of 1994.

37.     Violation of S. C. Code Section 8-13-700:
She has no knowledge of any formal charges or informal allegations against her or any other candidate for violations of these provisions.

38.     Violation of S. C. Code Section 8-13-765:
She has no knowledge of any formal charges or informal allegations against her or any other candidate for violations of these provisions.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Preparation of resume:
Photography Fee (12/3/93)                 $78.75
Typesetting & Printing (12/9/93)         $47.25
Stationery & Envelopes (12/8/93)         $82.95
Typing (2/18/94)                                 $68.00
Postage (2/18/94)                                 $98.60

These expenses have been incurred by her and paid for with personal funds.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar, Family Law Section, Children's Committee; Richland County Bar; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; National Institute for Child Support Enforcement; Pro Bono Program

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of Trenholm Road United Methodist Church; volunteer for Children Unlimited, a private adoption organization; member of South Carolina Welfare Reform Task Force; member of Child Support Advisory Committee; chairperson, Child Support Guidelines Review Committee

46.     She has devoted her entire legal career to family law issues. She is very proud to be a public service attorney, and she has strived to acquire as much training and experience in all areas of domestic law as possible. She has worked on special projects with the Richland County Solicitor's Office involving issues related to juveniles and child abuse and neglect. In her capacity as Chief Counsel to the Child Support Enforcement Program, she is responsible for the coordination of activities between her agency and the Clerks of Court and law enforcement. She feels that the relationship that she has developed with these entities would be beneficial to her in the responsibilities of personnel in these areas.

She has also served as the agency coordinator for the American Bar Association's Pro Se pilot project in the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The purpose of this project was to provide "user friendly" access to the Family Court for litigants without attorneys.

More recently, she has had the privilege of working on the Welfare Reform Task Force, and she looks forward to making continued contributions to this effort.

Currently, she is working with the Bankruptcy Law Section of the South Carolina Bar to create a local rule facilitating the collection of past due child support in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings.

She would enthusiastically embrace the opportunity to serve the citizens of South Carolina as a Family Court Judge.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Kevin C. Fernald, Vice President/Area Manager
First Citizens Bank
P. O. Box 29, Columbia, SC 29202
733-2067
(b)         R. Randall Bridwell, Professor of Law
The University of South Carolina School of Law
Columbia, SC 29208
777-4155
(c)         Paul L. Reeves, Esquire
Lewis, Reeves and Stone
P. O. Box 11803, Columbia, SC 29211
256-1268
(d)         Robert L. Thompson, Jr.
Vice President, Public Affairs
Springs Industries, Inc.
Fort Mill, SC 29715
547-3736
(e)         Larry C. Smith, Esquire
Interim County Attorney, County of Richland
P. O. Box 192, Columbia, SC 29202
748-4853

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges against you of any kind. We've checked with the records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriffs's, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, all are negative.     The Judgement Rolls of Richland County showed one action in which you and, I believe, your husband were a plaintiff, were plaintiff's in a suit, it looks as though it regarded a construction of your home or a home. It looks as though it was settled; is that correct?
MS. STROM:     Yes, that's right.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any other actions that you're aware of?
MS. STROM:     Not that I'm aware of, no, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     The Federal Court Records are negative. No complaints or statements have been received against you. There is no one present to testify against you either. Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, you have the opportunity to make a short oral statement or we will take a written statement, if you so desire.
MS. STROM:     I'll waive that. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Ms. McNamee.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Thank you.
MS. STROM - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good afternoon.
A.     Good afternoon.
Q.     Ms. Strom, why don't we just get right into judicial temperament and just tell me what makes up the qualities of a good Family Court judge and are there any models that you have concerning that?
A.     Yes, there are some models. I think a judge must do the things that we teach our children to do, at least I'm trying to teach my child to do, and that's -- those are the basics, like courtesy, being polite and respectful. And I think it's very important that a judge not allow any disruption in the courtroom.

I think it's very important for a judge to allow litigants to have the opportunity to fully litigate the issues and the litigants must know that the judge has done that, must feel good about that. They must leave the courtroom feeling as though they've had their full bite of the apple, that they have been able to say what they needed to say and that the judge has listened.

I think it is very important for a judge to carefully and expeditiously hear cases and render a decision. I think a judge should not do anything to drive up the cost of litigation, for example, by being unavailable when the judge should be available. I think accessibility is a very important trait in a judge, whether that is lunch hour or after hours or early in the mornings. That's the way it should be, especially in Family Court.

As far as judges that perhaps exemplify some of these characteristics, I think Judge Jim Moore is one who is a well organized person and runs a courtroom in that manner when he was on the Circuit Bench. He was cool minded and even tempered and I think it's very important for a judge not to lose his or her temper on the bench.

Judge Henry McKeller happens to be a friend of mine, so I've sort of followed him somewhat. He came out of banking, out of the banking industry and I know how hard he has worked to bring himself up to speed. I think he's done that very well. He is a judge that is well prepared. And I think that is one of the most important aspects of a Family Court judge is to be well prepared and for the litigants to know that you've been prepared, that you prepared for their case.

Judge Mallard in Charleston, I consider him a people person and I think it is very important not only to have the intellect, the mind and the preparation in a case, but I think it's important to also be able to look behind the issues to the people, so that you are -- you use your head and your gut instinct especially in these critical issues facing the Family Court.

Judge Campbell, I've been in front of him many times, been chewed up by him many times and have learned an awful lot from him also. I admire his strong sense of ethics. We've talked -- I've heard the discussions all day in regard to the ex parte communication, he probably is the person I think of first when I think of someone who is very strict in not allowing ex parte communication. I learned that rule from him.
Q.     So you won't take the turkey either?
A.     I won't take it. Well -- and if you want me to jump into something -- into that issue also, that is -- as far as gifts and that sort of thing, I think it's improper for a judge to take any gratuity from an attorney or anyone who would be in the courtroom. That is something that is very much a part of my life now because my husband has been appointed to a political position. And we may be the only folks at a dinner table paying for our meal other than a host or hostess, but we do that, so that's very much already a part of my life.
Q.     Your experience as an attorney since you graduated has been totally, as I understand, with the Department of Social Services; is that correct?
A.     That's correct. My first year out of law school I worked for a circuit judge. So I traveled the state with him and was exposed to pretty much all areas of Common Pleas and General Sessions court and I enjoyed it very much, but it also -- I always thought I wanted to be in Family Court and that convinced me even more.

In fact, if he would go looking for me during a break or at the end of a break, he'd say, "Go find her in Family Court." That's usually where I'd be sitting, but, yes, I have been with the Department of Social Services which has been a tremendously rewarding experience for me.

I have been very proud of the fact that I've been a public servant and that's something I think a judge has to bear in mind, that that courtroom doesn't belong to the judge, that courtroom belongs to the people.

And as far as temperament is concerned, I think that's another important aspect of temperament is to know, is to bear in mind that you are the servant of the people. And I think that was -- I think that bit of humility is very important in a day-to-day renderings of a judge or goings on of a judge.

But as far as my experience with the Department of Social services, I have made a -- I made conscious decision to stay there because it afforded me so much exposure to so many areas of law. I have been the chief litigator for the Child Support Program. And I've spent countless hours in the courtroom and I loved the courtroom. I'm very comfortable there.

Also in prosecuting child support cases, it's -- I've had the fortune, the good fortune of dealing with the other ancillary issues which arise in Family Court as far as visitation and custody and the interpretation of divorce decrees and in deciding how much child support should be paid, of course, we must look at all of the issues and that sort of thing, what is available, what assets or what income is available. So I've had a very broad exposure to many aspects of Family Court. I am a pro bono attorney and, in fact, I'm handling a divorce case right now on behalf of a client.
Q.     You say you have exposure to these areas. Do you have experience in some of these areas, like adoption? I mean have you handled adoption cases?
A.     I have not handled an adoption, no. I have not done that.
Q.     Have you handled a termination of parental rights?
A.     In conjunction with other attorneys. I have not actually gone to court. I have helped other attorneys and general counsel because some of our cases have overlapped, so to speak.
Q.     Have you been a guardian ad litem?
A.     I have not been a guardian ad litem because I presume it's because of the potential conflict with the agency is there and --
Q.     Have you handled an equitable distribution matter or consulted on it?
A.     Yes, consulted on it.
Q.     Consulted on it.
A.     And have -- like I said, right now, I'm in the middle of handling one.
Q.     And what about a juvenile proceeding, have you been in court?
A.     As far as juveniles in the abuse and neglect, I have worked on special projects through the Solicitor here in Richland County in the area of juveniles and as well as abuse and neglect, so --
Q.     Has your time in the court diminished as your position at DSS has moved up?
A.     Yes. Somewhat it has and, like I say, I enjoy the courtroom very much and I've missed that. One thing about being a government lawyer, it seems that the more you excel and the higher you go and your efforts are recognized, you find yourself, or at least I found myself, in the position of making policy and management and really directing the runnings of a very tremendous program.

We're talking about ninety million dollars that was that collected last year and a lot of money being drawn down from the federal government, but I do manage the attorneys statewide and I do appear in court when I am needed and especially in the more complex -- some of our more complex cases.
Q.     To you, rather, what are the differences that you see between being the advocate and being the judge?
A.     Well, the judge is certainly not an advocate. A judge has to be impartial and look at both sides of a case and do what is in the best interest of the parties and especially the children. And I recognize that sometimes, or most often, I would think, that the truth is a little bit here and a little bit there and a judge has to be the one to make the decision as what the truth is or as close to it as possible.

There's -- the judge when -- when the two litigants and the two lawyers walk in the courtroom, the judge knows the least about the case, so there is a lot of reading into things the judge has to do. I think one of the most critical issues that our Family Court judges face now is in the area of juvenile crime. And, you know, a judge has a youth in front of him or her and a decision has to be made, is this juvenile a misguided youth who has not had the benefit of any upbringing or exposure to right and wrong and perhaps this child could be rehabilitated or could be worked with through mentoring, a mentoring program or otherwise and brought around? Or do we have a child who is just a criminal and is at an early age and when that decision is made or when that recognition is had by the judge, we've got to be aggressive with these kids. We've got -- the interest of the safety of our citizens outweighs the, perhaps, touchy, feely social services type of remedy, I think.
Q.     What is your philosophy about the Family Court judges role in either being proactive or sitting back and not being proactive?
A.     Well --
Q.     Discuss that, please.
A.     I'd be happy to and I can -- one of the -- one recent experience I have had and still am participating in it is the Welfare Task Force. It was a privilege for me to sit on that task force. And I can honestly say, however, that I think one link was missing and that was input from the judiciary. I don't think judges should be coming over here to the legislature to tell you legislators what to do, but I think a judge should remain available as a resource to let legislators or people in the community who care, who want to get some, you know, private program started, to act as a resource, to let folks know what they're seeing in the courtrooms. So to that extent, I think that's an important role that a judge should be willing to play and I would be willing to do that.
Q.     Would you discuss for a minute the boundaries of your workday and your workweek, what does it look like?
A.     Well, I am -- I didn't use to be. I've gotten in the habit since I became a mother of being an early riser and I try to get all the duties or responsibilities or things that I want to get done for my family done early in the morning and from there, it's full speed ahead. I hit the ground running.

I get to my office, you know, if I'm going to court, I'm sometimes there, you know, at 7:00, if I've got some things to get together and get on the road. But it's a day usually without lunch. I try to pack as much into every minute of my day as I can and again it's because I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm a public servant. The taxpayers are paying me to be there. And I'm going to pack as much into my day as I can. I move pretty quickly around my office because there is so much to do. And I work until I'm finished and the last thing I usually do in the afternoon is organize my day for the next day. I believe in being prepared.

That's -- you've asked earlier in the day about how folks deal with their stress and that's one way that I deal with stress, I make sure I'm prepared to eliminate the stress of a particular situation that I'm anticipating to the extent that I can.
Q.     How will you deal with writing orders in Family Court? You're going to be deluged with orders?
A.     Yes.
Q.     With cases?
A.     And it is -- it would be a ridiculous statement for me to say that I'm going to write every order in every case that I hear because I know better than that. I deal with volume. And I know better than that. However, I love to write.

I have always -- I think that is one thing about law school I enjoyed and undergraduate school as well as a history and political science and sociology major. I love to write and I do a lot of writing in my work now just because I am the person who does write the policy, who does write contracts that we have with the Clerks of Courts and the Sheriff's Departments and, et cetera, and, in addition, to the writing associated with a case, so I would look forward to writing some of my own orders when it's feasible.

As far as my directing other lawyers to write the orders, they will have some pretty strict direction. The order will be my order, even if I do not put the words together. Certainly, the order will be my order or else it will be rewritten and it will be rewritten by me.
Q.     Those areas of the Family Court jurisdiction and practice that perhaps you have been exposed to, but have not practiced as much in, how are you going to prepare yourself for that?
A.     I feel like I have been preparing for that. I have gone to virtually every CLE Family Law related for the last five or six years or really every CLE that has been available, I'm there. I read. I keep up. I have a brief bank in my office, and this maybe something that is hard to believe, but when an Advance Sheet comes out with the exception of the last two or three weeks, when those Advance Sheets come back -- Advance Sheets come out on Family Court cases, I extract them, I read them. They are briefed and they are put in a brief bank. And I have about five or six huge notebooks in my office and I do that for myself as well as for the other lawyers on the staff because I am their resource also.
Q.     Have you participated in the giving of any CLE?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Or writing any articles for Bar magazines or whatever?
A.     I've written an article for the -- for a national prosecution bulletin. I can't even remember the name of it, but I was asked to submit an article and I did. In the last three years and this year, I've been asked to -- I could not do it last year, but the last three years that they've had sort of a summary, hot tips type CLE, I've been asked to participate, which I have done. I enjoyed that.

I enjoyed that very much and I also do most of the public awareness, public speaking for my program as well as on behalf of the department, so when I'm asked to -- I taught many classes to paralegals and whatnot, they are evening classes that go from 6:00 to 9:00 in the evening. Any time, I'm asked to speak, I do because I very much enjoy it.
Q.     Just as an aside, is DSS going to be doing the Ten Most Wanted anymore?
A.     I'm almost finished. I'm working on the Tenth Most Wanted, so we're going to have another one coming out, yes.
Q.     You listed five significant litigated matters, and you described their significance, but you did not list five domestic appeals?
A.     I have not handled an appeal.
Q.     You do not handle appeals, okay.
A.     No.
Q.     Have you ever been disciplined by a court that you've appeared before?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     You own stock in several companies. Mrs. Strom, what will be your standard for recusal if it even comes up?
A.     Well, I can't imagine that it would come up, but if it did, I would err on the side of caution and recuse myself.
Q.     And you come from as you said a --
A.     Or at least disclose, excuse me. At least disclose. I don't think that in every case a judge has to recuse him or herself. I think it's important -- the critical issue there is disclosure and whether or not I know whether I can -- first of all, I -- the parties should have some input as to whether or not they are comfortable or uncomfortable with me hearing a case, so disclosure is the most important aspect of that.
Q.     Will that also be your standard concerning your husband's profession?
A.     Absolutely.
Q.     Let me ask in your experience, your legal career, what's been the most significant case you've dealt with?
A.     Most significant --
Q.     Case that you've handled.
A.     -- case?
Q.     Uh-huh.
A.     It was hard for me to really get those five cases together because when you have file rooms of two and three hundred thousand cases, I don't generally remember the names of cases, but I think one of the most significant ones I handled was a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act case in which the daughter had been abused, sexually abused by the father the defendant in the case, since she was three years old. At the time she was about 14 or 15 and I was the person to whom she confided this information.

So, in addition to prosecuting the child support aspect of that case for her benefit and benefit of her brother, I also followed her throughout the prosecution of her father in General Sessions court. And she recently married and has just done real well. I've followed her throughout.
Q.     In what ways have you sought this office? What have you been doing?
A.     I have sent letters with accompanying resumes. I have been here almost every day to meet the members of the General Assembly, to give them a glimpse of who I am and why I'm here. And I also want to say that I have done this on my own time. The first couple of weeks of the session, I took annual leave to be here, but it occurred to me that even when I'm on annual leave, I'm still being paid by the taxpayers and I therefore spoke with our commissioner, Doctor Griswald about allowing me to be on leave without pay for the period of time I'm up here in pursuit of this personal objective. And so that's --
Q.     Are you doing that several days a week? Are you doing that for a length -- like a full month or something like that right now?
A.     For the period of time I'm up here.
Q.     I see.
A.     I have reduced my working hours basically is what I've done.
THE CHAIRMAN:     So you've worked five hours a day and take three off or that kind of --
A.     Exactly. Exactly.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
A.     In fact, I keep up with it pretty strictly. Plus, you know, obviously, the work has to get done, so the work gets done whenever it needs to get done, but I am on leave without pay for the period of time that I'm up here with you all.
Q.     Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator?
A.     No, ma'am.
Q.     Has that happened at all without, to your knowledge, by somebody else?
A.     Not to my knowledge. I had many people ask what they could do to help me and I have been very meticulous in explaining to them what my understanding of the law is and, that is, that I cannot ask or would not ask them to do anything until after the screening report is released. I think there have been some letters written on my behalf, but they were not at my request.
Q.     What do you feel about the role of mediation?
A.     I think it's very important. I know that it's being done in other parts of the country. It's certainly being looked at here and done some here and I think it's very important. It's going to be a positive and contemporary way to handle the work load that the Family Court is facing right now.
Q.     And, finally, you did mention mentorships and other kinds of institutes for juveniles. Do you have any other suggestions about dealing with the problems of juvenile crime? The things that you as --
A.     I would --
Q.     -- a Family Court judge could do?
A.     Well, in fact, I have some -- I have gotten some information about this that I want to pass along to the people who need it, perhaps ya'll, I don't know.

There are some Federal grant monies available for a new program and I'm not real familiar with the details, so I'm -- and I apologize for that. But some Federal grant money is available to set up some boot camps which are a little -- have a little bit different flare and, again, I'm not real sure of the details, but they're doing it in Georgia.

Kids need discipline. Kids are -- a lot of them are not getting it at home and it's hard. You know, it's easy to be an irresponsible parent. It's very difficult and challenging to be a responsible parent. It takes time, work, effort, patience and a desire to be that way. And our kids, a lot of them aren't getting it. The government is going to have to step in. It's unfortunate, but I think it's true. And I think discipline is one of the basic characteristics that's missing now with our kids.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members? Mr. Sturkie.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE STURKIE:
Q.     This question has been asked and I just want to maybe go over it. One concern that I have, it's not a major concern, but I believe you have spent most of your legal career with the Department of Social services --
A.     That's right.
Q.     -- as the advocate -- not as an advocate, but as a judge should you be elected, do you feel that you would have any predisposition towards the position of DSS on a particular case because DSS does have quite a few cases before Family Court and I think many times, there are accusations DSS spends a lot of times in the news and I guess what I'm trying to get to, would you feel that your relationship to DSS would in any way effect the ability that you have to reach and look at all the facts rather than any kind of predisposition?
A.     On the contrary, and I will tell you why, because I'm on the inside of DSS, I know very well what DSS does well and I know very well what DSS does not do well. And if you asked any of my colleagues at DSS, they would tell you that I'm one of the more vocal employees and people who have been involved in management and policy making and on the inside tracks of some of the contemporary issues that the department faces, and they will tell you that I don't agree with everything that DSS does by a long shot.

And that's one of the things I'd like to do from the bench is to -- it's not so much to work with DSS, but to be able to, or to be willing to address change, to address a problem and be willing to make some creative changes with DSS. That's something that I very much want to do. And as far as you as private practitioners, I have a very keen appreciation for you as private practitioners, my husband until recently was in private practice and I know very well that DSS is involved in volume cases and expediency is very important. But when you're talking about the private Bar, I know the private Bar must make a living and that a judge must be willing to -- a judge has to understand that and must be willing to be a little bit accommodating to the private Bar versus the fast pace of the DSS type cases.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions? Thank you, Ms. Strom. Our last candidate is H. Bruce Williams. Please raise your right hand.
H. BRUCE WILLIAMS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MR. WILLIAMS:     Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is it correct?
MR. WILLIAMS:     Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any need for any clarifications, changes?
MR. WILLIAMS:     The only thing I will do later is update on the amount of money spent for telephone calls and I will up date that as that is determined --
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right.
MR. WILLIAMS:     -- the information that you need, I'll be glad to do that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Do you have any objection at this time to our making the Summary a part of the transcript of record of this proceeding?
MR. WILLIAMS:     No, I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will be done.

1.     H. Bruce Williams
Home Address:                         Business Address:
418 Shandon Street                 1701 Richland Street
Columbia, SC 29205             Columbia, SC 29201

2.     He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on March 13, 1956. He is presently 38 years old.

4.     He was married to Sharon Childers on November 17, 1984. He has two children:     Elizabeth Margaret, age 6, and Anne Carlisle, age 2.

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     He attended Wofford College, 1974-1978, B.A.; the University of South Carolina, summers of 1976 and 1977; Cumberland School of Law, Samford University, 1979-1980, transferred to the University of South Carolina; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1982, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended 12 or more hours of Continued Legal Education courses each year. The majority of these hours related to domestic law. Additionally, he has attended 12 hours each year for judicial continuing education credit.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1982-present             General practice of law with primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law
1991-present             Part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo, South Carolina

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     BV

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - Infrequently
State - Weekly, primarily in Family Court

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - estimated 35%
Criminal - estimated 5%
Domestic - estimated 60%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 5%
Non-Jury - 95%, primarily in Family Court
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Melvin v. Melvin. Long-term marriage involving issues of contested divorce and equitable distribution including military retirement.
(b)         Inman v. Inman. A custody case involving a mother who moved out of state. The mother retained custody, but she had to return to South Carolina.
(c)         Oswald v. Oswald. A contested domestic action involving child support, visitation, equitable distribution and attorney fees. The case is significant in that it involved most issues in private domestic actions.
(d)         Jackson v. Jackson. A domestic case tried for the mother, seeking custody and visitation, who had in prior years given up custody and visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for mother.
(e)         Bullard v. Ehrhardt. 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984)
This case established duty of store owner to invitees for the criminal actions of third parties in negligence actions.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Marvin E. Davis v. Bernice H. Davis.
(b)         Oyler v. Oyler. 358 S.E.2d 170, 293 S.C. 4 (S.C. App. 1987)
Participation in this appeal limited to responsibility for oral argument and assisting in writing brief.
(c)         Bullard v. Ehrhardt. 324 S.E.2d 61, 283 S.C. 557 (1984)
(d)         Frances June Rawl v. Roy Edwin Rawl, Sr. Participation limited to oral argument.

20.     Judicial Office:
Part-time Municipal Judge; Irmo, South Carolina; October, 1991 to present; appointed by Town Council; jurisdiction limited to magistrate level criminal and traffic offenses

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
Same as answer to Question #20

32.     Sued:     He was named as a defendant creditor in a foreclosure action because of a Family Court Order awarding him attorney fees to be paid by defendant debtor.

35.     Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
South Carolina Society of Ophthalmology, 1990
South Carolina Funeral Directors Association, 1990

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
January 1, 1994 to present:
Stamps                 $49.59
Stationery             $25.20
Telephone             $34.34

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association, 1982 to Present, Family Law Section Council (1994); South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, 1991 to present, Chairman of Family Law Section (1993-1994); Richland County Bar Association, 1982 to present (Family Law Committee Chairman, 1993; Family Law Committee, 1991-1993); Lexington County Bar Association, 1990-1993

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. Mary's Episcopal Church, Vestry (1990-1991); Columbia Kiwanis Club, President (1989-1990), Board of Directors (1987-1991), Key Club, Keywanette Advisor (1983 to present); Summit Club; Wildewood Country Club

46.     Individuals who appear in Family Court need to feel that those involved in the system will treat them fairly and with respect. Litigants may not always agree with decisions in the courtroom, but they should feel that both the Judge and lawyers care about their situation and that efforts have been made to render fair decisions.

He believes that his experiences in the community working with young people of all ages gives him a unique perspective. His experiences within his own family including raising two children, ages six and two, will help. Being a part-time Municipal Judge has given him additional valuable insight to the courtroom.

These experiences along with his 11 years of practice in all areas of Family Court as a lawyer and Guardian ad Litem adds to the knowledge necessary for the many complex, sensitive and personal issues in Family Court.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Thomas H. Richardson, Vice President
First Union
P. O. Box 728, Columbia, SC 29202
749-3900
(b)         John E. Montgomery, Dean
University of South Carolina School of Law
Columbia, SC 29208
777-6857
(c)         Dan B. Maultsby, Dean
Wofford College
Spartanburg, SC 29303-3663
597-4000
(d)         The Reverend Robert C. Wisnewski, Jr.
St. Mary's Episcopal Church
115 Tram Road, Columbia, SC 29210
798-2776
(e)         John O. McDougall, Esquire
Weinberg, Brown, McDougall & McMillan
P. O. Drawer 1289, Sumter, SC 29151-1289
775-1274

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Part-time Municipal Judge; Irmo, South Carolina; October, 1991 to present

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He is a member of St. Mary's Episcopal Church and the Columbia Kiwanis Club. He has not used his judicial office to further these interests.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you. We've checked with the records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriff, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, and all those are negative.

The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative. The Federal Court records are negative. We do have one complaint that we have received and one witness who is present to testify today.

Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, I'll give you the chance to make an oral statement or you may provide a written summary, if you'd like, to be included in the record.
MR. WILLIAMS:     I'll be glad to waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Ms. McNamee.
MR. WILLIAMS - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good afternoon, Mr. Williams.
A.     Good afternoon.
Q.     Mr. Williams, you are a -- or have been a Municipal Court judge for the town of Irmo; is that correct?
A.     That's right, for a little over two years now.
Q.     And you're also in private practice?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     How do you do juggle those two kind of roles?
A.     Well, just from scheduling purposes, let me explain to you that my role as town judge in Irmo, I hold court twice a month. We have night court on Wednesdays every week. Mickey Epting is the other town judge in Irmo. He takes -- he's responsible for two weeks of the month and I am responsible for the other two weeks. We alternate weekend as far as those responsibilities, signing arrest warrants, setting bonds and anything else that might come up with the Clerk and officials in Irmo.

Judge Epting's office is in the Irmo area, so primarily each week he's responsible for that unless he has some conflict and they might call me to come help him. So as far as scheduling, that's how I handle that part of -- that's how my day -- my weeks go in that area.

As far as how I handle it in my practice, I found having served as the judge of Irmo to have been very helpful in the sense, it's been a great learning experience. I think Mr. Dennis indicated earlier I think he felt sort of the same way.

When I first began as town judge in Irmo, I'm not sure I had quite the appreciation for judges of any level whether they were Municipal, Magistrate, Family Court, Circuit Court or any level as to their particular roles. But once I put on the robe in Municipal Court, I felt a great weight in the sense that I learned that the roles are quite different from that which you must follow as an attorney, as an advocate for someone.

As a judge, I've learned that you have to sit and listen and show your patience and try to make a good decision based on the information that's presented to you and it's a role where you have to be the person in the middle and appear and, in fact, act fairly on the information that you hear. So I handle it in the sense that during this period of my practice, if anything else, it's given me a greater appreciation of the judiciary and their roles. And it does not appear -- does not create any conflicts. I don't handle those matters in Irmo, so it doesn't create a conflict.
Q.     And what are your -- what do you think are the most important traits of good judicial temperament? Is there a model of a judge sitting on the Federal or the State bench that you emulate?
A.     Well, I'll answer the second question first. I've heard you ask that question and had the opportunity to sit and think about that and I've been very fortunate, I've seen so many good judges in Family Court, in particular, because that's been my primary area of practice over the last 12 years. And I guess if I wanted to try to credit my life, put different bits and pieces of judges together as far as things I found to be complimentary to them, from my days of practice beginning in 1982, I've always thought that Judge Rickborn, who retired in Lexington County, was a wonderful judge. Judge Burnside, Judge Byars, whose name you've heard before. I don't want to slight any of them by not mentioning them. Those are just some that I could pick out things about all the judges. And if I am successful in being elected and lucky enough in that sense, I would hope that I could put together my experience to -- or from my experience that I would hope to put together the proper traits and proper demeanor in the courtroom.

As far as the things that I think I've seen from them is that when you leave the courtroom -- and this answers the question to demeanor as well. When you leave the courtroom, the litigants need to feel as if the judge cared about the problem. They might not actually agree with his decision or her decision, but the feeling -- they need to feel the judge cared about their problem, that they were treated with proper respect in the business in the courtroom because they are there because they have a problem. And I think importantly they need to feel good about their lawyers. In Irmo, for example, I've always had the practice in the litigated matters when the person is represented to take the opportunity to compliment the lawyers who are involved in the case.

I think that serves a good purpose and when people leave the courtroom, they feel good about our judicial system, they feel good about the people who they're representing and I hope that I can continue to do that. And I think that would be a proper thing to do for someone appearing in Family Court needs to feel that way when they leave.
Q.     Well, since you have a mainly Family Court background and I guess that -- does that include all the things we've ticked off before, you have handled custody matters, contested custody matters, TPR, adoption, equitable distribution, juvenile matters and I'm probably leaving something out?
A.     The answer to all those would be yes and even the ones you may have left out. I think I've done everything there is to do in Family Court.
Q.     Well, with that experience, if you became a Family Court judge, are there any innovations in Family Court that you would like to institute? What things might you do differently?
A.     I guess as far as innovation, the only thing I -- I focus on this because I've always been actively involved with young people in high school days, working with young children in depressed areas and now I work with high school students at Columbia High in some volunteer work that I do. And I guess innovations I would want and could see would depend on what's -- what would be available to make some innovations.

As far as what's there, what I want to do is to show that a judge does have the time to sit and listen to every one who comes in that courtroom, so they don't feel like they've been hurried through the system. I would want, if it ever becomes available, for there to be ways either through government provided or through privately provided alternatives for young people who appear in that court.

I think you've talked a great deal today about the juvenile issues and there are some, the Marine Institute, which are alternatives for Family Court judges. I think also in Richland County, we have mentor programs and that's an alternative. And I think we're seeing that to institutionalize a young person for every infraction may not be the appropriate response. While a young person might be successful in an institutional environment, the problem is that we're going to have to put them back on the street and they may not be successful in the street. And I think the goal would be to attempt to develop and look at alternatives in the community, to make -- help them be successful in the community. Because if they're successful in the community, that's where they're going to stay.

So I think the innovations would be in looking at ways where the government may be able to offer, but also what private individuals could offer to the court on a voluntary basis, to offer those alternatives in the community, so I guess in that sense that would be some innovation, trying to look at as many other people to participate in our system on a volunteer basis, to assist the Family Court, and give these people some alternative versus institutionalization in certain kinds of cases.
Q.     Are you aware of juvenile arbitration programs; is that one thing --
A.     I know in Lexington, there is -- they've done that a great deal and to some extent the program they do in Richland County, the Mentor Program accomplishes the same goal. They will -- before the child ever gets to the Family Court, the Solicitor will make a decision as to what the alternative program might be, so whether it be arbitration where they deal with individuals or victims of crimes, I know that's been used in Lexington County. It's been very successful and certainly, I would be a proponent of that.

I've used it myself in representation of some of my own clients in Lexington County, so I would think that that would be another alternative certainly that the Court should consider.
Q.     And just to be complete, would you tell us about the hours of your usual workday and the way that you handle the myriad of jobs that you have to do, cases that you handle, et cetera?
A.     Well, I usually wake up around 5:30 in the morning or so. If I have work that needs to get done and sometimes I will start working early in the morning to get some things done before my family wakes up. My family usually wakes up a little later than that. And at that point, I try to assist my wife as best I can, and sometimes I do a good job and sometimes I don't, but I try to assist her in the children getting ready for school.

The reason I get up so early is I like to get some work done before they get up. My normal practice is that I take my oldest child who is six years old to school and it allows me to get to the office around 8:00 o'clock in the morning.

My workday usually continues until 6:00, at least 6:00 normally until 7:00 or so, mostly in time to get home to have dinner with the family. I would suspect that I have had -- that my practice would be to continue my workday and I don't know why I would change. I've been doing that since I've been in private practice. In the beginning, I worked many hours.

You also asked the question about Friday afternoons, I think that is also true of my practice that I have done that, so I don't think that that practice would change. I don't mind working and have done that my whole career.
Q.     What is your experience with giving back to the legal community in terms of bettering it? Do you -- by that, I mean, do you participate in the presentation of CLE's? Do you write articles for Bar magazines? Do you head any important sections of the Bar, that sort of thing?
A.     As far as writings and participation in CLE's, no, I haven't participated on that level. I am participating in the planning of a CLE for the Trial Lawyers Association's coming convention. I'm Chairman of the Family Law Section of the Trial Lawyers and have been active in it. I think that would answer your question.
Q.     Do you participate in other extrajudicial organizations that you might have to curtail your participation in if you became a Family Court judge?
A.     I think you notice on my questionnaire, the only other activity other than church is my involvement in my Kiwanis and my involvement there deals with -- primarily with my high school group of Columbia high.
Q.     Key Club?
A.     Key Club. And Keywanette which is two distinct clubs who have been very successful over at Columbia High and they've have been voted the best clubs -- service clubs in the last 20 years. I'm very proud of them and I've been involved for the last ten.

I would hope that I would not have to give up my involvement in community work with those young people. I just got back from a convention two weeks ago where I chaperoned 12 young men in Greenville with the teacher who is involved and I would hope that I would not have to give that up. I don't think that would create any conflict.
Q.     Have you ever been disciplined by a court that you've appeared before?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     If you were elected a Family Court judge, Mr. Williams, would you hear a case if Mr. Trotter, one of your former partners, is one of the counsel in it? At what point might you --
A.     Well, I think that was asked earlier of one of the other participants in this process. I don't think I would, and I don't know the answer. I've always found practicing law that if you don't know the answer, I'd go find the answer. And I don't know what would be an appropriate time period to wait and I think I have heard there may be some time period, but I would never want it to appear that there was some conflict of interest in a case, that I would appear too partisan to him or in any circumstance, so I guess the point where either I find out the answer that there is some specific time period or a point in time where that appears to be no longer a problem with any litigant and any other lawyer that would appear in a court, but not until such time as that occurs.
Q.     What is your philosophy and your attitude and what do you plan to do in the area of social entertainment and the area of gifts? You have a beach house, perhaps, some of your friends have beach houses, will you entertain them, will they entertain you, that kind of thing?
A.     Again, I wouldn't want to do anything that is going to make any litigant or lawyer feel that I couldn't be fair to their problems and present them to the court, so I would take steps not to do those things with that -- such an appearance, where there might be such an appearance. And the beach house is owned by my father-in-law, so I don't think that creates any conflict. He's kind enough to let us use it on occasion.
Q.     How have you been going about the job of introducing yourself to Members of the General Assembly?
A.     When Judge Campbell indicated that he was going to retire, I sent out a letter of interest to the entire legislature. Since the legislature has been in session, I've been here meeting legislators and making every effort to let them know who I am.

On many instances, I have been able to talk to legislators and express my interest, tell them who I am, but I understand that I could not seek a commitment and have not sought any commitments. It's been more of trying to let the legislature know who I am and, in particular, about my experience of Family Court.
Q.     Are you aware of any letters that have been sent out on your behalf by --
A.     I'm not aware of any.
Q.     And mediation, I just wanted to ask that question, what do you think about the use of mediation?
A.     I think mediation is good. We know the docket in Family Court is crowded. I think lawyers can be good mediators and lawyers should be encouraged to be good mediators in settling disputes. That should be their role as much as being an advocate in many cases. I think that the mediation process is still new to us and we're going to have to study -- and I would have to do more studies to determine exactly what I think it best should be used for.

There are two theories of thought. Some say that mediation should be at the very beginning of the case when it first comes to court, get it out of the court system and send it to the mediation. That could be very costly to the litigants. Not only do they now have lawyer's fees, they have mediation fees to pay for. I think the judge has to carefully weigh which cases they send to mediation, especially at that point in time. I've also seen judges use mediation near the end of the case where the parties have done a good job in resolving most of the issues and it maybe just one or two issues left and then use mediation at that point on a limited basis.

There is a certain limited cost involved. I think -- over the years of my practicing law, most people who go to Family Court are not wealthy people. And I think that needs to be a factor in what other alternatives we consider.

So if mediation is an alternative, I think we need to weigh those cost factors to them. In some cases, it would work and save them a lot of money in relation to lawyer's fees. In other cases, it could be a tremendous cost to them. And it needs to be evaluated thoroughly.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Committee Members? All right. Thank you, Mr. Williams. We do have someone who is hear to testify. I'll ask you to sit down and you'll have a chance to respond.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Ms. Burnette, if you'd come forward please. Would you raise your right hand.
MARTHA BURNETTE, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Ms. Burnette, we were reviewing, or I've reviewed your letter and also the documents you provided, I believe I have the court order and Ms. McNamee will ask some questions of you. I'll ask you is -- I don't think you were here in the morning session, but we asked the witnesses to try to confine themselves to the issues before us and that, in this instance, is Mr. Williams' involvement in the case that you were involved in. And I apologize if I try to redirect you, but if you get on a tangent that I think is inappropriate for that hearing, I may interrupt you to do that. Ms. McNamee.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Thank you.
MS. BURNETTE - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good afternoon, Ms. Burnette.
A.     Good afternoon.
Q.     Ms. Burnette, we just wanted to ask you what your complaint is about Mr. Williams. I understand that Mr. Williams was the court appointed guardian ad litem in your contested custody proceeding?
A.     Uh-huh.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Ms. Burnette, if you could respond orally. She takes down what you say.
A.     Yes. That's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you.
Q.     And the reason for your appearing here today is your dissatisfaction with his completion of that role; is that correct?
A.     Yes, and I guess what I perceived as his performance of that 0role, I can see that it has implications for his ability to function as a judge, so it's partly opinion in that respect.
Q.     Would you please tell us what happened with your -- with the -- in your custody case, Mr. Williams' participation in it that you were dissatisfied with?
A.     I think that there were probably three areas that I felt
-- let me preface this, and I don't want to get off the track, but let me just tell you, having never done this before, I didn't know what to expect from a guardian ad litem, so please read my comments as these were expectations that I would have, you know, maybe expected from a guardian ad litem in their role.

I don't know legally exactly what a guardian ad litem is supposed to do, but based on what I would have expected one to do in the process, I really had three areas in which I was concerned about Mr. Williams' participation.

The first was that I feel he was very indecisive. His -- when he was asked for his recommendation in court, he said, and this is in the court transcript, let me see if I can find it. He did address the judge. He said, "I think in the end you will see I'm not going to have an ultimate recommendation. I'm going to let the court make that ultimate decision which the court indicated in the beginning is probably what you were going to do anyway no matter what I said." So he did not have a clear-cut recommendation to the Court and I consider that to be quite indecisive and I was very surprised by that more than anything.
Q.     And your other two?
A.     The second area is that I felt in his questioning me and in his trying to address some of the issues that were being brought up in court, some of the ways that he worded things indicated to me that there was some presuppositions there that I could not go along with and that I think will make it hard for him to make unbiased decisions about things and I have written down some examples, if that will help you, you know, specific things that he said that -- that to -- that are what I read as indicating some bias. Is that okay for me to read those examples?
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes. Explain a little bit. There are some examples from the transcript that you're referring to?
A.     Yes, from the transcript.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And these -- having read your letter, have they
-- do they further illuminate on the points that you make in the letter about -- I knew there was several areas. You mentioned an instance with --
A.     There are more direct quotes. In the letter I kind of was just remembering things in general. And I did go back to the transcript and pull out some direct quotes, so that we have his actual words that he used.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
A.     And if you think that will be helpful, I will read some of these to you and, you know, how I feel that they're not necessarily appropriate. I did mention in the letter that I felt that he looked at my former husband's neighborhood with a very positive attitude and as a matter of fact, in the transcript he says when he's describing the neighborhood, "I think you might think of it, parts of it like St. Andrews here in Columbia. The house has been there for a long time. The neighborhood that you've heard about being close knit, I think that's all true. Everybody seems to know each other. It appears to be very positive in that sense."
THE CHAIRMAN:     Now, was this in Durham, North Carolina?
A.     Yes, this is Durham.
THE CHAIRMAN:     So he visited --
A.     He visited the neighborhood.
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- the home of your ex-husband in Durham, North Carolina? Okay.
A.     And that was his description of that neighborhood.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Was there any -- was the charge specified about whether he was required to visit that neighborhood or not, the charge of the Court?
A.     I don't think it was specified. I believe he was going up there to a basketball game or a football game or something and he -- since he was in the area, he went through the neighborhood.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
A.     And did interview some of the neighbors there. While I don't necessarily disagree with his comments about Durham, what I was concerned about is then he said turns around and follows with some comments about the neighborhood that I live in, here in Columbia, which is the Eau Claire-Hyatt Park neighborhood and he says, "The situation in Columbia is essentially what you've heard," and this was -- came from something that my husband said, my ex-husband. And he's talking about my apartment here. He said, "It's a small two-bedroom apartment with a living area and bath and it's like a dorm, a little bigger than a dorm room. Some of the parents that are living there kind of get together in the afternoon. The kids play on the playground. They do kind of look out for each other. Again, like the neighborhood in Durham on a much smaller scale. I think they all for whatever reason desire safety. They kind of stay close to that little area where the apartments are, but they have a little sense of community there, too."

Now, he's -- I assume that he is referring to the seminary students who are living in the Seminary apartment housing area within the context of the Hyatt Park-Eau Claire neighborhood. My concern is that just in that description, I mean, it almost makes us sound like we all huddle together for safety.

While I don't claim that Eau Claire is the most prestigious neighborhood in the world, there are a lot of nice people living there aside from those people in the seminary community. There are people who raise children, who grow up with decent values in that neighborhood. I don't believe Mr. Williams specifically said they don't, but there was a real sense of kind of closing in on ourselves as opposed to this, his description of Durham. It sounds like everybody is open and they -- and they're free of problems and that is not true.

I have lived in that neighborhood in Durham and they have problems just like anybody else, so just the way it was worded, I think comparatively, to me, I felt like there was a little bit of a negative judgment on my neighborhood where I live with the children now and I am doing the best I can to provide them with a safe and secure home and feel I have done that to a great extent.
Q.     Would you go into maybe another example?
A.     Sure.
Q.     And then go on.
A.     Okay. In questioning me about going into ministry and what my work schedule would be like on that, there were some questions that he directed to me when I was on the stand in the hearing. Most of this -- most of the questions that he directed to me were in a meeting that I had with him in his office. He indicated to me, and I cannot quote this directly because I didn't take notes of it, but my impression of that was that he indicated to me that he had talked to a friend of his who is serving as a pastor in a parish, he was concerned that I would have to work 70 to 80 hour weeks. Again, I think that's a presupposition.

I tried to explain to him that I feel that people who want to work that kind of work schedule can do that and I think you can also make choices not to. My choice has always been that if it -- it comes to my children or my job or whatever I'm doing, my children they take first precedence and I have missed classes and I have set aside things for the sake of my children.

His concentration on that both in my individual time with him and then questioning me about that in court, again I feel indicated some kind of presupposition that I would not be able to handle being a parent and being able to do ministry and have some sort of full-time employment and still function as a parent to the children. You know, again, part of what was hard for me is a lot of this was not said in so many words, but there is -- the questions lead you in that direction.
Q.     What was the third point, Ms. Burnette?
A.     There was a statement and his comments to the judge in the hearing about stability and he told the judge that for him the question is the stability from continuing to be with the parent, the mother, who they've been with for a while or the stability of going back to their place where they grew up, where they won't have to travel because Mom is going to have to travel with her job, it looks like or may have to in the coming years while she's establishing herself.

And so there was a -- that term stability was thrown in and I believe that that term itself related to whether the children would have to move or not in order for me to finish my academic requirements. And I have said that, yes, they would have to move. Now, the presupposition, again, I think is that the children would be in a stable environment if they did not have to move, if they lived in Durham with their father. Number one, in the court testimony, it was brought out that he had recently turned down an offer of a job in New Jersey, so there is kind of a presupposition that he's stable because he lives in Durham in a house and that I am unstable or I am providing an unstable kind of a life for the kids because we would be required to move.

There is also testimony in the -- in the court from the children's therapist in which she talked about stability of children is not necessarily geographical at that age, that there is something that she called an emotional home and that because the children had spent the bulk of their time with me, that they derive their stability from that. And I believe that Mr. Williams' comments tried to boil it down to they won't be in a stable home because they won't be in the same place all the time. And I just -- I felt that that comment was not quite fair.
Q.     What was the outcome of this case?
A.     I was given custody of the children, full custody. The visitation arrangements did not change substantially from what me and my former husband had more or less worked out on our own. There -- the financial outcome of it was such that I am appealing some of the financial aspects because I'm not sure that things were kind of worked out according to hard evidence. I was imputed an income of $25,000 and my attorney and I have no idea where that figure came from.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let me try to --
Q.     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- narrow it down to the issues --
A.     Go ahead.
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- that relate to Mr. Williams.
A.     Sure.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Let me try to summarize what you're -- what you're saying is that the Court found that Mr. Williams is -- gave basically a neutral recommendation regarding -- he made no recommendation which parent --
A.     He made no recommendation --
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- was appropriate, but the Court ultimately found that you were the appropriate parent for the housing of the children?
A.     Uh-huh.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And so in terms of the disposition of the case, it wasn't adverse to you, you're just concerned about the manner in which he handled his responsibilities?
A.     There is one point that I will make, and I don't have the ruling in front of me, but there was a point in -- I believe, it was in looking at his fees in which the judge in his ruling said something to the effect of because of the mother's inability to communicate and there was a lot of, I don't know what else to call it, but fluff in the courtroom about me not being able to communicate. And I don't know what hard evidence was ever presented about that.

But because of my inability to communicate that the court was very concerned and da-de-da-de-da and it went on and it -- and there's -- the way that it -- the sequencing of it makes it sound like that is some kind of rational for me having to be responsible for the full guardian ad litem fee even though I am clearly not in a financial position to be able to do that.

So I believe -- and part of that business of my inability to communicate, again, there were, I believe, implications in the way Mr. Williams questioned me that led the court to believe that I was indeed quote the problem. And I'm not sure that enough checking into that was done. If that was of concern to him in his role as guardian ad litem, why did he not address the issue with my therapist? I had given him written permission to discuss it with my therapist.

Why did he not address the issue with the marital counselor that my former husband and I had seen? If the issues of the marital problems were of concern to him in relation to the children, then I feel like there should have been some effort made to obtain some outside and objective information about what those problems were and I don't know that those were ever done, that that was ever done.

So again I feel like there was kind of a presupposition that my former husband said she doesn't communicate, that Mr. Williams said you're right, she doesn't communicate. I don't know where that came from and I think that that may have had some implication for the ruling which we are appealing that, so --
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you, Ms. Burnette. Any questions from the Committee Members?
A.     Can I ask ya'll a question?
THE CHAIRMAN:     You can ask it.
A.     I've heard you talking about mediation. Is there -- is that being considered in South Carolina as a possible way to have to avoid going into what I could call the jaws of hell which, no offense to any attorneys here, but I think the legal system in custody issues is -- I mean, it's terrible. I've never been through anything like this. And if there had been a way to mediate out of this, boy, would I have jumped on it.
THE CHAIRMAN:     There are pilot programs which I think are in place now or they're going to be in place.
MS. MCNAMEE:     There are some in Charleston.
THE CHAIRMAN:     In Charleston, yes. It's been an item that's been discussed four or five years in the legislature and that -- they're moving to more mediation not only in the domestic area, but in other areas of litigation?
A.     Is there anybody specifically that I could write to, to give my comments about how valuable I think that would be for --
THE CHAIRMAN:     I think the -- you probably would like -- would want to write the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just to reiterate your support for that concept and the president of the South Carolina Bar. I think they're involved to some degree.
Q.     Ms. Burnette, could we obtain from you a copy of the transcript and we'll make a copy of it and -- the transcript. I have the order, but I do not have the transcript.
A.     You want the whole transcript or just the pages --
Q.     And I'll make a copy of it and get it back to you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     I think the relevant parts, I think.
Q.     Okay, well --
A.     I can tell you the pages.
Q.     That's fine.
A.     I've got that written down. Yeah, if you could make it for me right now. If I let this out of my sight, my attorney will kill me because we've got take it to the appeal. But, yeah, I can write down the page numbers and make copies.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Williams if you would retake the witness chair, please. I remind you, you are still under oath. We simply ask that you -- you've heard the comments of Ms. Burnett, if you would for the Committee respond to those comments.
MR. WILLIAMS:     Yes. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to respond. And first of all, I'd indicate as to the Eau Claire area of Columbia, that's where I grew up and I think it's a fine area of Columbia. I lived there until I was 15 or 16 years old.

I would indicate that the questions related to you are all questions that relate to children's -- to the children and issues that relate to them, which I think were appropriate as a guardian ad litem. I would like to respond to some of the comments that she made in particular based upon the letter that she submitted last week.

I've provided to you a copy of the judge's order that was filed October 5th of last year. In this case, I served as guardian ad litem for Mike Fesler and Brenda Fesler. Mike was age -- is age nine now and Brenda is age six. I would ask the Committee to review page 11 of the order wherein the judge found that I was most helpful to the Court and authorities in bringing about a final resolution to this case. He stated that I participated vigorously during the trial and cross-examined court witnesses presented by both parties.

The court noted the amount of time spent and my fee and hourly rate charge. The court also noted my fee was reasonable and somewhat less than amounts customarily charged by lawyers in this area.

I would like to submit, and I've made copies, and I'll ask you -- if I can just hand these up to Ms. McNamee or whoever. I have made copies for the panel as well of several items. The first one that I am submitting to you is a letter from Ms. Burnette to me which is dated October the 7th of 1993. Additionally, I've submitted affidavits from three individuals who were involved in this case. In her letter which is on the top of the information I provided to you, she states, and I quote,
"I've become overly sensitive to even well meant criticism. I did not realize until I received your letter today that I transferred some of my anger over his," referring to her ex-husband, "his demeaning language and verbal abuse to you. I appreciate your letter of concern."

The next document I've provided for you is an affidavit from Tom Elliott, Jr., who was the attorney for Ms. Burnette. I ask you to note in his affidavit, he indicates that my services were representative of those performed by guardian ad litems in custody proceedings before the Court. He points out that it is not unusual for litigants to sometimes disagree with those who are involved in highly contested custody cases. He states the only issue on appeal regarding my services as guardian ad litem is that Ms. Burnette was ordered to pay my fee as guardian ad litem, not withstanding the fact that she obtained custody.

Additionally, I've submitted to you an affidavit of B.J. Cobb who was the attorney for Mr. Fesler. In reviewing Ms. Cobb's affidavit, I'd ask you to note that she indicates that I dedicated more time as a guardian ad litem in this case then many other guardian ad litems that she had observed in her experience as a Family lawyer. She notes that because of my experience, I was able to participate in the trial, cross-examine witnesses effectively and I could cut to the core of the testimony of the witnesses. She indicates that I could not have done more to represent the children's issues. Excuse me, the children's interest.

She further points out that her client was satisfied even though I did not recommend him for custody and he indicated to her I did my job in a professional manner.

The last affidavit I've submitted to you is the affidavit of Mr. Robert B. Fesler. Mr. Fesler is the father of the children in this case who indicates I did a professional job. He notes I took the time with my personal trip to Durham, North Carolina to visit their old residence and neighborhood, saving time and money for both parties. And he sees this as an indication of my dedication to do a good job. He found me to be conscientious in my services and noticed I was insightful in my questioning and recommendations to the court regarding both parties. The remaining portion of his affidavit is in regard to the views of Ms. Burnette.

In responding to the affidavit filed by Ms. Burnette, I would relate to the panel my recommendation was based upon two days of trial testimony as well as a thorough investigation. I would agree that I spent between two and three hours with the children. Brenda and Mike were wonderful children who had some unique needs.

Both children are adopted and they've had difficulty in school. My initial investigation found that both were having trouble in dealing with the idea of adoption as well as the traumatic experience of a separation of their parents. I specifically did not want them to feel that they were being made to make a choice between these parties.

I focused my investigation on others who could give me information about the parents through their observation and experience with the parties and the children. The time that I did spend with the children confirmed much of my investigation. This investigation included discussions with Amy Montanez, a licensed therapist and professional counselor. These discussions included a meeting in our church, we both attend the same church, a meeting outside our respective offices which are located next door to each other and as well as telephone conferences which resulted in two pages of notes about this domestic situation.

I spoke with the principal of St. Mary's -- excuse me, St. Peter's Catholic school, Sister Margaret, who shared information about Brenda and Mike as well as interaction with both parents.

I also spoke with Ms. Haglia (phonetic), Brenda's teacher, who was most informative. I had opportunity to review reports from the school regarding both children. I had the opportunity to speak with neighbors while I was in Durham. I was able to observe both parties with the children and to observe the interaction during this time.

I also talked with Doctor Vince Morgan, the treating psychologist for Ms. Burnette. I participated in two days of testimony of all witnesses presented by both the father and the mother. My observations and conclusions were drawn upon these experiences.

I submit my investigation was much more thorough than represented by Ms. Burnette's affidavit. This was a difficult custody case involving parents which have both negative and positive attributes regarding their ability to be custodial parent. I believe this is indicated by the finding in Judge Campbell's order.

I feel that I did a good job representing Brenda and Mike and my conduct indicates it was done in their best interest and in appropriate manner. That's my prepared response. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS - RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Mr. Williams, I just wanted to know why did you make the decision not to make a decision?
A.     The role of a guardian many times is -- the role of a guardian in some cases is just to make a recommendation. Other times, not. In this case, I didn't feel it was my job to make a recommendation and I didn't feel like I could at that point in time. I chose to point out observations of both parents and the children that I was concerned about that might help the judge in making his decision, solve some of those problems.

This was a very close case. The ultimate decision is that -- is left to the trial judge. In this case because of all that I mentioned to as far as my investigation, two days of testimony as I think is indicated in the order, it was a very close decision. And because of that, I did not make the ultimate recommendation for one parent or the other.

The other aspect of that is where I mentioned earlier, I didn't want anyone saying that I did it because it was so close to appear that it was done based upon some representation by Brenda or Michael in this case. I didn't think that was fair to the children. My job was to represent the children. I didn't represent Ms. Fesler. I didn't represent Mr. Fesler. I was there to look out for their interests and that's what I think I did by making the observations that I did based upon my investigation. I think I did that by not making a formal recommendation to either parent.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Committee Members?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q.     Yes, are you satisfied with the outcome?
A.     I'm satisfied with the outcome because I thought that both parents had positive things, Mr. Alexander, that it showed why they would be a good parent. It was pointed out during the trial, that there was testimony by Ms. Montanez that the mother was an emotional home. There were other things that were favorable to the father, so I think that in either case the judge could make a decision that I could be satisfied with as guardian.

As far as the consequences which is not before you today, I still think there is some difficulty between these parties as you indicated -- as I've indicated to you. You note the letter that I received was some months after the trial of this case. The attorneys for the parties had requested that I try to stay involved with them in an effort to solve some of the difficulties they were having relating to communicating about the children and I did that for a number of months, so I'm satisfied with the judge's order, but I'm still not certain that all the problems that these parties had have been resolved.
Q.     That's all.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Would it be normal for a guardian to go to Durham or to go to a -- if one of the parents lived in another community, if they lived in New York, would that have been the norm for you to travel to the community of that parent to observe the conditions under which the children would live?
A.     There is nothing unusual about that at all. I think in cases where you have parents in different states, I have seen on numerous instances, where a guardian will travel to the other state to look at the neighborhood, to talk to neighbors and do just what I did in this case.

In this case, because I was going to the area to watch a University of North Carolina football game, I volunteered to get up early on Saturday morning and go out to the neighborhood and talk to neighbors and to observe things firsthand which would save me a subsequent trip and many hours of cost to these parties. So to answer your question, there is nothing unusual about that. I've had guardians travel to other states because when the home environment may be a question, whether it's good or bad, I think that that is an issue the guardian needs to resolve and they indicated to me that they would like for me to do that and, in fact, I did that early in the case.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Would it -- and my question probably should have been a little more precise, would it be unusual for a guardian not to have gone and made a home visit? Is that something that some guardians don't do in those instances where you have a litigant that lives four- or five-hour drive away?
A.     It depends on the circumstances of the case. I wish I could be clearer. It depends on whether or not the question of the home and the environment is an issue that could be brought up in the case.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Okay.
A.     In this case, it had been indicated to me that it may be an issue, I was going to the area and went ahead and visited the home.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     One question, did you also talk to some of the neighbors and friends of Mrs. Fesler?
A.     When I visited --
Q.     Ms. Burnette.
A.     Ms. Burnette. When I visited with the children, I had the opportunity to speak and meet some of the neighbors. At the time I did that, the children, we went and had some ice cream one afternoon. Additionally, the neighbors, I spoke to on behalf of -- or in Durham were also Ms. Burnette's neighbors who had known her for a number of years, not just in the setting of the seminary here in Columbia. So to answer your question, yes, I did here as well as the neighbors I spoke with in Durham were also -- were both parties' neighbors for a number of years and had a chance to see them with both of these children.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions from the Committee Members? If not, thank you, Mr. Williams.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That concludes our hearing on the Fifth Judicial Circuit Family Court seat. We'll resume at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. We've got -- Judge Pleicones will be here to finish out the Supreme Court seat and then we'll follow up with the Family Court Seat on the, which circuit is that, Fourteenth. We have one withdrawal in that race, so we're down to five candidates. Only five.
(There being nothing further, the proceeding concluded at 5:30 p.m.)

THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. We have A quorum via proxy, so I think we're ready to start. First, we have one election
or one candidate left in the Supreme Court race, Judge Costa Pleicones. Judge Pleicones, would you step forward, please, and raise your right hand?
COSTA M. PLEICONES, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Judge, your last screening was December 11, 1990, for the seat on the Circuit Court bench that you currently hold. Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire?
JUDGE PLEICONES:     I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is it correct?
JUDGE PLEICONES:     It is, except there is one thing I'd like to correct. Item 44, there should be a -- in Organization
-- well, a typo to be corrected. Right at the very top, that should be Woman Lawyers Association.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Where is that? 44?
JUDGE PLEICONES:     44. My wife just told me to get that corrected before I get home.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We had a question about that. We thought it was one of these secret, secret societies you might be a member of. Any other changes that need to be made?
JUDGE PLEICONES:     That's it.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Is there any objection to our making the Summary a part of your record --
JUDGE PLEICONES:     None at all.
THE CHAIRMAN:     -- of your testimony? All right, that will be ordered at this point.

1.     Costa M. Pleicones
Home Address:                         Business Address:
525 Congaree Avenue             P. O. Box 192
Columbia, SC 29205             Columbia, SC 29202

2.     He was born in Greenville, South Carolina on February 29, 1944. He is presently 50 years old.

4.     He was married to Dona Singletary on August 14, 1965. He has two children:     Sara Venetia Pleicones Norrell, age 24 (homemaker), and Laura Suzanne, age 21 (senior at the University of Georgia).

5.     Military Service:     United States Army; November 25, 1968 - present. He is presently a Colonel in the Reserve. His serial number is the same as his Social Security Number. The only discharge he has ever received was from enlisted status to become an officer, and that discharge was Honorable.

6.     He attended Wofford College, 1961-1965 (actually completed all courses in December, 1964, and returned for commencement exercises in June, 1965), AB, English; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1965-1968, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
The courses varied widely, from civil to criminal and from substantive to procedural. He believes that he always exceeded requirements. Since becoming a judge, he has attended all MCLE except for October, 1993. He was excused from this course so that he could attend a National Judicial College (NJC) course called "Children in Court." This dealt with the child as victim/witness. He attended the NJC General Jurisdiction course in 1992.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
"Bridge the Gap" for a number of years, through to the present. He recently lectured at the State Bar meeting (1993) on ex parte communications. He taught legal segment for "Leadership Columbia" (1992). He frequently presides over Moot Court competitions as well as speaks at civil organization meetings, including National Verbatim Court Reporters Conference (1993).

10.     Published Books and Articles:
None since college, when he wrote for the literary magazine.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
September, 1965 - May, 1968         Student, University of South Carolina Law School
Law Clerk for Herbert, Dial and Windham (Columbia, South Carolina)
Law Clerk for Lawyers Abstract Company (Columbia, South Carolina)
June, 1968 - November, 1968         Preparation of course materials for proposed South Carolina Bar Review Course
November, 1968 - March, 1973     Active Duty, United States Army. Legal experience included Chief of Military Justice and Trial Counsel
March, 1973 - February, 1975         Assistant Public Defender for Richland County, South Carolina
Duties entailed preparation for and trial of indigent persons accused of criminal offenses. Cases ranged from murder charges through Magistrate and Municipal Court offenses.
February, 1975 - February, 1976     Private Practice and Independent Contractor with Richland County Public Defender Agency. Private Practice duties entailed preparation and trial of federal and state civil matters. Independent Contractor duties continued Public Defense duties.
February, 1976 - March, 1977         Chief Deputy Public Defender, Richland County, South Carolina
Duties included supervision of personnel, in addition to the preparation and trial of major criminal charges such as murder, armed robbery, etc.
March, 1977 - January, 1981         Private practitioner in general civil and criminal practice with the firm of Harrison and Pleicones, Columbia, South Carolina. Additionally served as Assistant County Attorney for Richland County (August, 1977 - December, 1978) and as County Attorney for Richland County (January, 1979 - January, 1981). Duties included representing Richland County in litigation matters, advising County Council and supervising staff of 12.
January, 1981 - June, 1991             Sole Practitioner (January, 1981
-     October, 1984)
Partner in Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones & Hawkins (formerly Lewis, Babcock, Gregory & Pleicones) of Columbia, South Carolina (October, 1984 - June, 1991). The firm grew in that time from 4 to 13 lawyers and engaged in major civil litigation (both plaintiff and defense litigation). Served as member of three-person executive committee of the firm. Other responsibilities included legislative monitoring and liaison work with the South Carolina General Assembly for two large trade associations. Additional duties as Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from September, 1982 through March, 1988.
July, 1991 - Present                         Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. Designated as Chief Administrative Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of General Sessions, effective January 6, 1992 through January 3, 1993. On seven occasions, served by order of the Chief Justice as an Acting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     His last rating was "AV," and had been at that level for a number of years.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 5 times per year on average
State - 85 times per year on average
Other - Administrative tribunal 10 times per year on average

1986-1991 (became a Judge in 1991) - includes motions, trials, conferences

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 70%
Criminal - 10%
Domestic - 20%

1986-1991

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 5%+
Non-Jury - 10%+

1986-1991 - He has included only matters in trial court that actually went to a fact finder for resolution.

Sole and/or Chief most often

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Southern Bell v. Steven W. Hamm, 306 SC 70, 409 S.E.2d 775 (1991); 60 USLW 2294, 126 P.U.R.4th 535, 9 ALR 5th 1131. He believes this case was the first in the United States to judicially approve "Caller ID" telephone service. Important constitutional questions were implicated, e.g., right to privacy. He argued the case in the trial court where it was won and co-authored the brief to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Actually, he was the principal author of the brief to the Supreme Court but did not argue the case there, as he was pending swearing-in to the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court affirmed.
(b)         Funderburk v. Funderburk, 281 SC 246, 315 S.E.2d 126 (Ct. App. 1984); on cert to South Carolina Supreme Court 286 SC 129, 332 S.E.2d 205 (1985). The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and the Court of Appeals in ruling that jurisdiction of a contractual agreement's voluntary nature was properly before the Family Court and not the Circuit Court. He did not handle the trial, where his client did not prevail, but did handle the appellate stage, with co-counsel. Their client prevailed, and the decision was helpful to the bench and bar in clarifying jurisdictional matters.
(c)         Barnwell v. Barber-Colman Co., 301 SC 534, 393 S.E.2d 162 (1989). The Supreme Court held that punitive damages are not recoverable in a cause of action based solely upon the theory of strict liability. This question was certified to the court by the United States District Court. He was involved only at the state court as the author and proponent of a brief filed on behalf of his client, a trade association of property and casualty writers.
(d)         Russo v. Sutton, ___ SC ___, 422 S.E.2d 750 (1992). In December of 1990, he tried this case in Common Pleas Court in Richland County and secured a large jury verdict for the plaintiff. The case is significant because on appeal the defendant's argument as to the non-viability of the cause of action (alienation of affections) was accepted by the Supreme Court, which prospectively did away with the cause of action. Happily, however, his client kept his verdict.
(e)         State v. Motes, 264 SC 317, 215 S.E.2d 190 (1975). He represented Mr. Motes at trial and on appeal. He was convicted of murder largely upon the testimony of his estranged wife, who was allowed to testify over their objection. The case is significant because in interpreting their statute on first impression, the Supreme Court (and of course the trial judge) ruled that the privilege belonged to the testifying spouse, not the one testified against.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Funderburk v. Funderburk, 281 SC 246, 315 S.E.2d 126, (Ct. App. 1984); quashed by South Carolina Supreme Court after grant of certiorari, 286 SC 129, 332 S.E.2d 205 (1985).
(b)         Hamm v. Southern Bell, 305 SC 1, 406 S.E.2d 157 (1991). NOTE:     This is not the case referred to in 17(a) above.
(c)         Peoples Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Myrtle Beach Retirement Group, Inc., et al., 300 SC 277, 387 S.E.2d 672 (1989).
(d)         Dale v. South Carolina Tax Commission, et al., 276 SC 110, 276 S.E.2d 293 (1981). He appeared on behalf of Richland County, another party to the suit.
(e)         Truett v. Georgeson, ___ SC ___, 258 S.E.2d 499 (1979).

He was the principal counsel in each case.

19.     Five (5) criminal appeals:
(a)         State v. Monroe, 262 SC 346, 204 S.E.2d 433 (1974).
(b)         State v. Thomas, 264 SC 159, 213 S.E.2d 452 (1975).
(c)         State v. Motes, 264 SC 317, 215 S.E.2d 190 (1975).
(d)         State v. Sweet, 270 SC 97, 240 S.E.2d 648 (1978).
(e)         State v. Watson, 81-MO-232, SC Supreme Ct. (1981); cert denied 454 US 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 301 (1982).

He was chief or sole counsel in each of these cases.

20.     Judicial Office:

(a)         July, 1991 - present. Circuit Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. Elected by the General Assembly of South Carolina. General civil and criminal jurisdiction.
(b)         September, 1982 - March, 1988. Municipal Judge (part-time), City of Columbia, South Carolina. Criminal jurisdiction only. Limit of 30 days or $200.
(c)         On seven occasions, the first being February 2, 1992, he has served as an Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         State v. Jackson was a spouse sexual battery criminal jury trial over which he presided this month. Given the notoriety of the trial and the depth of feeling over the so-called "marital rape" statute, he was determined to do everything possible to assure a fair and impartial jury to both sides. Although the process was tedious and time consuming, he individually questioned 32 potential jurors. This process revealed ingrained biases and attitudes which would, in his opinion, not ordinarily have been discovered. He believes a fair jury was obtained through this process. Since many of the questions posed were personal, the examination was conducted only in the presence of one lawyer for each side and the court reporter. He ordered these private sessions sealed, lest the admissions of having been abused intrude upon jurors' privacy. The jury obtained, at least according to the newspapers, originally was heavily in favor of acquittal, and only voted to convict after lengthy deliberations. He is convinced that the selection process resulted in a serious, deliberative jury, which was fair and impartial.
(b)         In Myers, et al. v. Patterson, et al., 92-CP-40-3479, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the transfer of $25,000,000 from the SHIM's account to the General Fund to pay for Hugo damage. He declined to enjoin the transfer because of a failure to show irreparable harm would flow and because of the unlikelihood of prevailing on the merits. The case was later heard in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which ruled for the defendants.
(c)         Brown, et al. v. The Continental Insurance Company, 91-CP-28-489. Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed his Order at Opinion #23899, July 12, 1993.
(d)         Ben Davis, et al. v. County of Greenville, et al., 90-CP-23-4809. In this case he ruled that certain taxes imposed by the county upon city residents were lawfully collected under the existing statutory and constitutional law of our state. The county has appealed, and the appeal was heard in the Supreme Court during the week of January 31, 1994. Whichever way the decision goes, it will be quite significant to local government.
(e)         City of Columbia v. William Stewart, 90-CP-40-2163.

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
Officer (Colonel), United States Army Reserve, 1973-present. Since August, 1993, he has served as Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer from the 2nd United States Army to the S. C. National Guard and militia in South Carolina. Prior to that he was Commander of the 12th Military Law Center. The commander of the 2nd Army and of the 120th ARCOM are or were his supervisors. All duties are military in nature.

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
1982 primary campaign for Richland County Council

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None, other than military service, since graduation from college

26.     Officer or Director:     He is a member of a partnership (QUINCUNX) which owns an office building at 1513 Hampton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Through 1993, he received payments from his former law firm for services performed on cases prior to his leaving. He has reported these payments. He still owns a share in the partnership which owns his former law firm's office building. The other partners are present or former members of the firm. Since he was unable to divest without serious economic consequences, he has recused and will continue to recuse himself from all cases involving these lawyers:     A. Camden Lewis, Keith M. Babcock, Daryl G. Hawkins, Mary G. Lewis, Cameron B. Littlejohn and Frederick M. Zeigler.

32.     Sued:
Only as a member of the firm. They obtained a judgment against an individual whose mortgage was subsequently foreclosed. As judgment creditors, they were thus necessary parties to the foreclosure. As he recalls, the case was dismissed before hearing.

35.     Lobbyist or Lobbyist Principal:
1984-1991. Alliance of American Insurers. A trade association of property and casualty writers. The association was based in Schaumburg, Illinois, but he was supervised by James Purcell, the regional manager in Atlanta.
1981-1990. South Carolina Association of Convenience Stores. A trade association of convenience store owners and suppliers. Supervised by Carol Davis, Columbia, South Carolina, Executive Director.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
11/23/93             Purchase of paper and printing of biographical summary;     $69.68
11/29/93             Postage for initial mailing to members of General Assembly; $49.30
12/2/93             Payment to typists for typing letter and addressing envelopes; $80.00
1/12/94-date     Postage for letters to members; $10.15

TOTAL:     $209.13

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar (at one time he was a member of the House of Delegates); Richland County Bar; S. C. Woman Lawyers Association; S. C. Circuit Judge's Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Charter Member (Master of the Bench), John Belton O'Niell Chapter, American Inns of Court; Board of Commissioners, Columbia Housing Authority; Board Member, Richland County DSS; Board Chairperson, Richland County Public Defender Agency; United Way Palmetto Society; Order of AHEPA; Wildewood County Club

46.     On seven occasions he has served as an Acting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

He is quite gratified by the ratings which he received from members of the bar in the recent anonymous survey. He has not attempted to compare these ratings to those of other judges. He will continue to strive to make these ratings even better.

He has experienced an enormously broad range of trial and appellate practice in the not too distant past. He understands how hard it is to be a lawyer in these hectic times and believes that he has an excellent handle on both the theoretical and the practical aspects of the law.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         James E. Smith, Senior Banking Executive
NationsBank
P. O. Box 727, Columbia, SC 29222
343-7650
(b)         Honorable Alex Sanders
President, College of Charleston
Charleston, SC 29424
953-5507
(c)         William N. Epps, Jr., Esquire
Epps, Krause, Nicholson & Stathakis
P. O. Box 2167, Anderson, SC 29622
224-2111
(d)         Luther J. Battiste, III, Esquire
Johnson, Toal & Battiste, P.A.
P. O. Box 1431, Columbia, SC 29202
252-9700
(e)         Cameron McGowan Currie, Esquire
3405 Devereaux Road, Columbia, SC 29205
256-8602

2.     Positions on the Bench:
July, 1991 - present                         Resident Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit
September, 1982 - March, 1988     Municipal Court Judge, City of Columbia
Beginning February, 1992                 On seven occasions he has served as an Acting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, most recently on February 3, 1994.

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
None. Not at all.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints or charges have been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands.

The applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriff's, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, are all negative. The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative. Federal Court showed no records or criminal actions involving you. There was one civil action in which you are a plaintiff. It was filed by you and others against the US Department of Treasury, and the case was closed by Consent Order in 1989. Does that sound correct?
JUDGE PLEICONES:     That's correct. That was a matter in which the IRS claimed a lien on our client's funds and we brought an action to ask the Court to determine who should be entitled to the funds.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We have no complaints or statements that have been received against you and no witnesses are present to testify against you. Prior to turning you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, we are offering all candidates the opportunity, if they wish, to either make an oral statement for the record or, if they wish, they can submit a written statement to be included in the Journal.
JUDGE PLEICONES:     Thank you. I have no -- I'm just happy to be here.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you.
JUDGE PLEICONES- EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Good morning.
A.     Good morning.
Q.     If I don't speak loudly enough, please let me know and I'll --
A.     Sure.
Q.     -- try to do better. You've been on the Circuit Court bench for about two and a half years now, and there are some who might have the perception that you need a little more seasoning before moving on to the highest appeals court in the State. How would you respond to the people who have those perceptions?
A.     Well, I'm a quick study. I frankly think I need no further seasoning. I have, and I'm happy to say, been asked on seven occasions to serve as an Acting Associate Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court, in not minor cases. A death penalty case among others, and I feel that I have the necessary experience to serve as an appellate judge.

I have an extensive career as a practitioner and, as you can see, I have an extensive amount of appellate experience as well.
Q.     Like some of the other candidates, you ran for public office before becoming a judge. Are you currently engaged in any kind of political activity?
A.     Other than this, no.
Q.     Other than this. Thank you. I also notice that you have an undergraduate degree in English, and I believe you wrote for your college literary magazine. So --
A.     I did.
Q.     -- I take it that you like to write?
A.     I do indeed.
Q.     But it also appeared you hadn't had much opportunity other than in the professional area for writing. I guess mostly that's writing, now writing orders; is that correct?
A.     (Witness nods in the affirmative).
Q.     What do you strive for in your orders? What constitutes a well composed order for you?
A.     One that's succinct, that's as brief as possible, that hits the points of law that were raised by the parties. And the Supreme Court has been returning cases to, or remanding them to a lower court where a judge has not fully ruled on matters that were before him or her, and so I take every point that's raised by the parties and cover each point and make sure that it's supported by an appropriate citation of the authority.

I typically, as with most judges, do not write my own orders, but what I will do and -- is to submit a jointly addressed letter to both parties. Sometimes these letters go on for three and four pages telling them exactly what I want contained in the order by the person who is to write it, and they're very detailed and I take the instructions and compare it to the written, final written product and quite frequently make changes.

Just make sure that everything is hit and everything is appropriately supported by a correct citation of authority. I do check them.
Q.     You do check the cite?
A.     I do.
Q.     If you're elected to the Supreme Court, what is going to be your test for when you feel you -- it's appropriate to write a dissent?
A.     When I disagree with the majority.
Q.     How --
A.     And I don't mean to be flippant.
Q.     Well, how strongly will your feelings have to be?
A.     Well, the law is not necessarily a black and white thing, and I can be persuaded that there -- to agree with perhaps a shade of gray, assuming that it is not a matter that is of momentous import. But if I feel that the majority is wrong in their application of the law, I would feel that it would be appropriate to dissent in any case.
Q.     What's your view of concurring opinions?
A.     Of --
Q.     Concurring opinions?
A.     Well, I think that concurring opinions can be useful. Obviously, they're beneficial to the Bar in determining what the point of view of the sitting justices are, and I think the word concurring opinion -- if I believe that the right result has been reached for the wrong reason, I would have no hesitation about writing a concurring opinion, concurring in the result, but not in the reasoning. And I think that they're appropriate and I think that they're beneficial to the Bar.
Q.     What about the position on the Supreme Court appeals to you and what do you think that you particularly would contribute?
A.     Well, without sounding immodest, I believe that I have the scholarship that's necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. I think it's an enormous responsibility and I think that I would bring -- I'm proud of my reputation and I think I bring a good reputation, and will bring a good reputation, to the Supreme Court.

I think that I have something to contribute in terms of my scholarship and I just think that -- I really don't know how to respond other than that.
Q.     What is it about the job that appeals to you?
A.     About the job that appeals to me, other than the visceral things, the prestige and the --
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     An opportunity for service. I think that everybody who's in here, in this room, that has held public office or who seeks judicial office or further political office has a desire for public service in his or her life. I share that.

I was a practitioner of the law for 23 years and was moderately successful at that both economically and professionally. I yearn for something other than going to my office at 6:00 a.m. and leaving my office at 8:00 p.m. I could do that. I think that I have a lot to contribute and I think that the desire for public service that I have and that I would like to continue in a role such as that. Public service.
Q.     All right.
A.     And an ability to contribute. I think that I would represent our State well.
Q.     If you're elected to the Supreme Court, what would be your practice about preparing for oral argument? Would you read -- particularly when the case is not preassigned to you, do you read the transcripts, the briefs, just a statement of the case? What do you do and what do you think the practice should be?
A.     I think that in every case, it would be perhaps overly ambitious to suggest that anybody is going to read every transcript, every page of every transcript of every case. But the cases are, in fact, briefed very well and summarized very well by the staff attorneys and by the law clerks that the justices have. And I know that, for instance, in the death penalty case that I was on, I read every page of each volume of each transcript, several thousand pages.

Depending upon the complexity of the case, I would tend to think that I would -- there would be cases in which I would read everything. In each case I would not do that, but in each case, certainly, the bench memorandum that had been prepared, obviously the briefs, you would have to read the briefs of the parties. I think you owe that to the parties.

I don't think that -- I do that now when people have oral arguments before me on nonjury matters. The worst thing in the world for a lawyer is to know that his presentation has not been previously read by the fact finder. And so I do have that practice now and I would continue that practice, although I can't represent to this Body that I would read every page of every transcript.
Q.     You sort of alluded to what your schedule might be like now and -- for court. What's a typical week for you?
A.     Typical week.
Q.     Work week.
A.     Hours-wise, I get up at 5:15, I go to the Y. I get -- and run. I get to my office about 7:30, quarter of 8:00, and I usually leave about the normal time that anybody leaves, 6:00 o'clock, 6:15. The -- and it goes through
-- I usually stay until 5:00 on Friday and -- even when there's nothing to do, because unfortunately I have this bad habit of answering the phone at 4:00 o'clock on Friday afternoon and it's somebody who needs a TRO.

That's what you get paid to do, so -- and I go in at least one day on each weekend, because I'm a little -- I take on a lot of things. And when you take on a lot of things you have a lot of things that are backlogged.
Q.     Well, that sort of leads me to the next question. One of the things that we did is, we've checked, I guess they call it the 30-day report or the report of matters that judges have pending over 30 days. And it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you did have some matters
-- and the period of time we checked was 1992, '93 and January of '94, and you did have some matters that carried over. If you -- and like I say, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but could you address that for us, please?
A.     Yes, I'd be glad to. When you have 60 cases scheduled for you in one day on nonjury, maybe you decide 58 of them and then you've got two of them that need more attention, and your undivided attention.

I can tell you that last year, for instance, I spent almost six weeks on one case - three weeks in the trial and about three weeks in the motions. That was an extremely complex products liability case. That case, for instance, is still going on because there are post-trial motions. The briefs, the transcripts, the motions in that case fill 72 of the notebooks that you have in front of you there, that size notebook.

I -- when it's something that's that complex, I tend to read it. I tend to be perhaps obsessive-compulsive about reading everything when somebody presents it, and I would think that my 30-day reports would not reflect more than about two or three such matters because --
Q.     No, sir, never more than two.
A.     Yes. And -- but I think that that probably will always be the case with me because if you've got something that's important, you may put it on the back burner for a while until you get an opportunity to have a lengthy period of time to address it. And it's -- you know, I just -- being thorough, I think.
Q.     I'm not sure exactly how you put it a little while ago, but you said something about work seems to find you or matters seem to follow you around --
A.     I take things on.
Q.     You take things on, that's --
A.     Yes. Lawyers come to you. You get paid by the State to be a Circuit Judge. That's what I get paid to do. I think that when I get paid by the State to be a Circuit Judge, if lawyers come to me, and this is not atypical of the Fifth Judicial Circuit Judge, and perhaps it's more common in the larger circuits, you'll have eight to ten minor settlements a week. Those are nothing things, they're no-brainers, in effect.

However, that begins your day, you start at 8:30, doing that because that's the time that the people get in the courthouse. People will seek you out because they know you will take on, for instance, a temporary restraining order at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon on Friday, or Saturday, you'll go in and do that.

I make myself available. When you make yourself available, people take advantage of your availability and thus, you tend to do as much work as these people have for you. So that's what it is, I just make myself available and people find me.
Q.     Do you tend to take on complicated matters or do you like to --
A.     I do.
Q.     -- handle the complicated matters?
A.     Yes, and in point of fact, I mean the products liability case, it was an interesting case. Sometimes you get tired -- even though they're important to the litigants, you get tired of hearing fender bender wreck cases, so -- important and complex products liability case.
Q.     You recently lectured at the 1993 State Bar meeting on ex parte communications. What guidance did you offer, what's your personal rule about ex parte communications and were there particular types of situations that you talked about that you felt deserved special attention that are -- don't so easily fall into the black letter law?
A.     Well, you know, there are certain permissible ex parte communications. Obviously, they have one built in to our statutory law on death penalty cases. And I can tell you this, on the death penalty cases, I personally have, my practice has been even on the ex parte communication to bring -- the initial one, whether it's an application for funds, as you know, the approval for the expert witnesses, I have -- my practice has been to bring the court reporter into my chambers with the attorney making the ex parte application, ordering that portion of the record sealed, in the event or against the advent that at some point in time an appellant court may wish to scrutinize it. So that's how I handle that particular type of ex parte communication. That's permissible.

I allow -- I get my secretary and law clerk, even though you cannot insulate yourself from ex parte communications by using staff, I generally require people to schedule matters through them for the simple reason that people are not as tempted to pour out their hearts and tell a law clerk or a secretary about their case as they are a judge, and it's usually preceded by something like, "I'm not trying to ex parte you or anything like that," which is, of course, you know, what they're trying to do and it may or may not be innocuous.

I try not to be offensive with people. I try to tell people, look, don't talk to me about the case. If somebody persists, and nobody has, I think that I would have to take the appropriate action, which would be to report it to the Board of Commissioners.

Now, what I do to avoid ex parte communications -- and I've been sensitive to this since the moment that I became a judge because I didn't like the practice of judges communicating with one lawyer relative to the preparation of an order. As I told you earlier, if I have a case that needs, that requires an order after some period of some advisement by me, I would jointly address a letter to the lawyers for each litigant telling which lawyer to -- I want to prepare the proposed order, putting in some detail what proposed findings and conclusions I want in the order and telling the parties that they could consult me by way of a joint telephone conference for clarification, but not for reargument of the case.

Recently our Supreme Court has approved minor refinements or tuning, tune-ups on orders that you've told one party to do. But I don't even do that. I just think it's better to send in the order, and I always put a caveat in the end, so that they don't tell their clients about it, that as always, I reserve the right to make any changes in the order, to include a change in the result. And if you tell them that you're going -- you reserve the right to make a change in the result, the prudent lawyer does not tell his or her client that we've won, we're just waiting for the order to come back.

I try to disarm people more with humor than anything else, than with being overbearing. If somebody comes in, I say, "Look, you know, don't ex parte me about the case." And if they were inclined to do that, they don't do it. If I see one lawyer walking in and I know that, for instance, he got here at 9:30 and the other lawyers, they were supposed to be here at a quarter of 10, to pre-try a case, I just say, you know, wait for the ---you know, so and so to come, and when he gets here, just let me know.

I don't like ex parte communications. I never did and I tend to be perhaps a little more scrupulous about them than maybe even I should be, to the point of being a fault.
Q.     It's been a while, but for several years you served in the Public Defender's office. When you hear criminal cases now, is there any tendency or any --
A.     Am I a soft-hearted, bleeding heart liberal?
Q.     Well, do you have any special sympathies for the criminal defense attorney?
A.     I have special sympathies for anybody who's charged with a criminal offense in our state or in any criminal system. The sympathies would extend the -- the extension to them of the Constitutional rights and the procedural rights which they should be afforded.

But in terms of being sympathetic on a personal level, occasionally there will be a case, whether it's a civil case or a criminal case, where you'll be sympathetic to a victim, to an accused person, a plaintiff or a defendant, and you can't divorce yourself from human feelings.

But, you know -- I can't imagine a time that I've let sympathy for a defendant play a -- and I -- probably, stating this truthfully, I need to say a part in the decision, but a significant part in the decision. Certainly, you feel sorry for some people, you know.
Q.     But it doesn't affect your objectivity?
A.     No, certainly not. I can't allow it to.
Q.     In the area of judicial temperament, what's your approach, how do you assure litigants are treated fairly and with respect?
A.     I think you've seen my judicial ratings and I think that
-- and I'm very proud of those. I think that I'm generally regarded as according dignity and respect for the lawyers, litigants, jurors. I frankly think that the most important attribute that any judge can have, above and beyond -- you have to obviously be -- have to have personal integrity and you have to have some level of intelligence, but the best thing, the best attribute you can have is a sense of humor, and I don't think you can take yourself too seriously. I mean you take -- you have to take the position seriously. I try to, through a combination of humor and civics lecture when I qualify a jury, the jury panel.

We'll have 150 people in Richland County. I tell them that they'll be some light hearted moments during the course of the qualification, during the course of the voir dire, perhaps during the course of the trial, but once their function begins that the matter is deadly serious to the litigants, it's the most important thing they have.

I try to impress upon the jury the absolute importance of according dignity and respect to all of the litigants, while at the same time, people who come in to court, jurors, litigants, witness, are for the most part intimidated. It's the first time they've been there and they're overwhelmed sometimes, so I try to make them feel as at-home as possible while at the same time maintaining, I think, the decorum of the court. And I immodestly have to state that I think I do an excellent job of doing that.
Q.     What tries your judicial temperament the most?
A.     Well, I have a three-by-five index card that I put on the bench when I -- I don't know if the word is ascended to the bench, or when I was elected to the bench. I put it out there and it sits there today, and it says, "Remember where you came from."

By that, I try to remind myself that I was once a lawyer and that it's not easy being a lawyer. Being a lawyer is one of the hardest things that there is, particularly a lawyer who litigates frequently. I try not to let anything get to me.

I guess abject stupidity gets to me more than anything, on the part of a lawyer, because I get infuriated if a lawyer is not appropriately representing his or her client's interests through not a well considered strategic approach, but just you didn't read the book. You know, if they don't know what Rule 24 is or Rule 43, and I don't like lawyers who aren't prepared.

But I don't -- you can't hold that against their clients except as may be necessary. Now, obviously, there are tenants of law that if a person selects a certain lawyer, you have to hold the lawyer's mistakes against the client sometimes.

But I guess dumb mistakes. And I don't mean mistakes of inexperience, because you get young lawyers in all the time. Mistakes of inexperience could be strategic judgements. I'm talking about the person that didn't read the book.
Q.     On your Personal Data Questionnaire, you reported having an interest in a Hampton Office --
A.     I do.
Q.     Hampton Street office building and, as I understood it, that was an office building with your former law firm.
A.     Uh-huh.
Q.     It also indicated that apparently you must have made an attempt to divest your interest in that and there were serious financial consequences if you had done so.
A.     Right.
Q.     And what do you do when those attorneys appear before you now, the ones that you have in that partnership with you?
A.     As you know, the ethical considerations require you to divest yourself of a business interest that may create a potential conflict as soon as practicable and without economical adversity to any party. That particular office building is going to be perhaps forever an economic adversity to divest myself of that interest.

And, as you also noticed on the Personal Data Questionnaire, I have just determined that I will permanently recuse myself from anything involving my old law firm. I don't -- they don't appear before me. Anything that they are involved in -- even if I get rid of the building that I own with them, I'm not going to hear any of their cases, and I'll tell you why. It's simply because I could not -- having practiced law with these people for as long as I did and having the kind of relationship that I had with them, there's no question in my mind that I would be biased in their favor, and I simply won't do it.

It does not create a problem in, thankfully, in Richland County owing to the fact that we have five judges within the Circuit and so although my law firm, my old law firm is all over the docket, they're fairly easy to duck. So that's what I do, I just don't hear their cases.
Q.     Just a point of clarification. Your Personal Data Questionnaire reported that you're receiving fees through, I think, 1993 --
A.     I did through 1993.
Q.     And those were for services prior to your going on the bench?
A.     Absolutely, yes.
Q.     Well, I say point of clarification.
A.     Yes, yes.
Q.     You're a member of the American Inn of Court?
A.     I was a charter member of the John Belton O'Niell Chapter of the American Inns of Court. I resigned from the organization, I think, shortly after I -- about a year after I got on the bench, frankly, because that membership roles are limited and I felt that somebody else should perhaps have an opportunity to serve on that body, and also because the dues was $500 a year and my old law firm paid them, and now I'm on a fixed income.
Q.     You had a couple of lawyers to write you letters of recommendation to this Committee.
A.     Uh-huh.
Q.     How did you determine what lawyers to ask -- well, how did you determine who was appropriate to ask to write a letter of recommendation?
A.     First of all, I read your judicial evaluation criteria and I was also sensitive to the fact that you said that the Committee may consider it to be inappropriate if lawyers who frequently appear before you wrote letters of recommendation.

You will note that of the four people holding law degrees who wrote letters of recommendation for me, one no longer practices law, is a university official, a college official; one has now become a federal judge and was pending that appointment at the time. The other is in Anderson and was a college classmate and fraternity brother of mine. I wanted somebody who had known me for a number of years, yet who had never practiced before me and who likely never will practice before me. That person does not do appellate work and it's very unlikely that he would ever appear before me as a trial lawyer.

The other person is a person likewise who was involved in the judicial selection process at the time that I became a municipal judge. He was on the city council and I felt that it would be beneficial for this committee to have the benefit of that background. That lawyer, to my knowledge, I cannot say for an absolute fact, has never appeared before me, but I don't remember if he ever has.

I know that one of his partners at one time appeared before me in a criminal case, but as I put on my note, the addendum, these people are not likely to appear before me simply because of the nature of their practice.
Q.     In the area of pledges, have you sought the pledge of any legislator before this screening either directly or indirectly?
A.     No, I have not. I certainly have made every effort to meet legislators I do not know, very frankly, to ingratiate myself with those that I do know, and I have not asked the question.

I have approached them maintaining visibility, which I think is important. I think that's the way these things are done in part, and
-- but I have not make any -- made any efforts to directly or, by my definition of the term, indirectly solicit their votes. I have said a lot of, "Hi, how are you doing."
Q.     That's about the extent of it?
A.     And, you know, of course, you know, as you know, I disclosed, I wrote a fairly extensive -- I wrote a brief letter to each Member and I also included an extensive biographical summary.

And, I will tell you this, that I follow up many of the contacts that I have with people, particularly for the first time, with a personal letter and -- for instance, the other day, as an example, and this would be a fairly typical example, I met with a legislator who I had not had the previous opportunity to meet, talked to him about my background, and he -- this person, particular person, had seen a newspaper article concerning me and these judicial ratings and mentioned that. And I was gratified that he mentioned it, and so then I sent him a copy of the article when I wrote the note to him. That's the kind of thing that I have been doing.
MR. ELLIOTT:     That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members? Thank you, Judge.

That concludes the candidates for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. We'll move now to the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Family Court Bench, Seat Number Two.

The first candidate is Harris L. Beach, Jr. Mr. Beach, step forward, please.
HARRIS LEWIS BEACH, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Beach, have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. BEACH:     Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     And is it correct?
MR. BEACH:     Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any changes or additions that need to be made?
MR. BEACH:     I did notice when I went over this that when I reported the suits in which I was a defendant, I neglected to add one of the cases entitled Green versus Colleton County, which was brought to my attention by the SLED Report.

This was in my capacity as a county council member and it was an employment discrimination case which we settled within a short period of time, but it was not reported on my Questionnaire.

I also noticed that, when I was listening to Judge Pleicones, he spoke about interest in properties. I do have an interest in the law office that we have and I don't think -- I really didn't go back through here to see, but I did not report that, I don't think, on my Personal Data Questionnaire. That's going to be transferred if I'm lucky enough to be elected to this position.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Those changes will be noted.
MR. BEACH:     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     We would at this time make your Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony, if there's no objection.
MR. BEACH:     No objection.

1.     Harris Lewis Beach, Jr.
Home Address:                     Business Address:
Route 3, Box 536                 202 Carn Street
Walterboro, SC 29488         P. O. Box 1122
Walterboro, SC 29488

2.     He was born in Ellenton, South Carolina on May 15, 1947. He is presently 46 years old.

4.     He was married to Betty Chloe Lynn on August 16, 1969. He has one child:     Harris Lewis, III, age 21 (student at Florida Community College; Jacksonville, Florida).

5.     Military Service:     1969 to 1977 (ADT and inactive reserve); Army Signal Corps; Captain SN 247768879; discharged, honorable on May 8, 1977

6.     He attended Clemson University, 1965 to 1969, BA, Political Science; and the University of South Carolina, 1969 to 1973, JD, Law.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
For the past five years, he has taken various continuing legal education courses in domestic, criminal and civil law. He has taken twice the number of hours required each year.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
He has lectured on domestic law to local paralegal courses.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Since graduation from law school on May 13, 1972, he worked briefly for the firm of Levi and Wittenberg in Sumter, South Carolina, prior to taking the bar examination. He assisted them with commercial litigation cases and did general legal research.

He took the bar exam and reported to Fort Gordan, Georgia, for Active Duty for Training. He completed this training in October of 1973, and was sworn before the Supreme Court on November 16 of that year.

He then went to work for Ackerman, Boensch and Butler in Walterboro, South Carolina, where he handled commercial litigation and some limited general practice until he left in 1974.

His next job was an associate with McLeod, Unger and Fraser in Walterboro from 1974 to 1975. He had a general practice with emphasis on domestic and criminal cases.

In 1975, he became associated with Keith M. Kinard, Esquire, of Walterboro, South Carolina. They formed the firm of Kinard and Beach, Attorneys, where he has practiced until this date. They have a general practice, and he concentrates on domestic cases and does some criminal and plaintiff's litigation.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     BV

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - less than twice a year
State - frequently, an average of once every other week, especially in Family Court
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%
Criminal - 20%
Domestic - 50%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 25%
Non-Jury - 75%
Sole Counsel, most often

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         State v. Carlos Elliott, 88-GS-15-135, 136 & 138. This was a capital murder case tried before a jury. The defendant received a life sentence.
(b)         State v. Ruben Martinez, 93-GS-15-554. This also is a capital murder case which has not yet been completed. It involves a participant in the Mariel Boat Lift of 1980.
(c)         Alewine v. Alewine, 89 MO 23 (1989). This was a complicated divorce and custody case which was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
(d)         White v. White, 91-DR-15-342. This was a complicated divorce and equitable distribution case involving the fraudulent transfer of marital assets.
(e)         Ethel Taylor v. John Doe, et al., 93 UP 321 (1993). This was an adverse possession case which he tried and successfully defended against an appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Rehearing was denied last month.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Alewine v. Alewine, 89 MO 023 (SC, 1989). Appeal from Family Court, 14th Circuit, decided February 6, 1989. He tried the case originally and assisted but was not lead counsel on appeal.
(b)         State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. William Edward Cobb, et al., 92 MO 187 (SC, 1992). Appeal from Circuit Court, 16th Circuit, decided July 23, 1992. He represented one of the Respondents on appeal.
(c)         Ethel Taylor v. John Doe, et al., 93 UP 321 (SC, 1993). Appeal from Circuit Court, 14th Circuit, decided November 30, 1993. He represented two of the Respondents in this appeal.
(d)         Denise B. Matthews v. Ricky B. Taylor, 86 MO 384 (SC, 1986). Appeal from Circuit Court, 14th Circuit, decided June 19, 1986. He represented the Respondent on appeal.

NOTE:     This firm does not usually do appeals. These represent all of the appeals with which he has been involved. Only the first is a domestic case. He tried the case and assisted in the preparation of the appeal.

20.     Judicial Office:
He has never held a judicial office except to serve as an arbiter or special referee on several occasions. He has also served for several years as the Reconsideration Officer for appeals of denials of medically indigent assistance.

22.     Public Office:
For the past 16 years he has served as an elected member of the Colleton County Council, 14 of those years as Vice-Chairman. He has also served two one-year terms as President of the County Council Coalition which is an organization of all County Council members in South Carolina.
23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
None other than occasional services as an arbiter or as a special referee

24.     Unsuccessful Candidate:
He was unsuccessful in bids for election to the South Carolina House of Representatives, District 121, in 1980 and in 1991.

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He is currently an agent for title insurance. He has maintained an agency named Tidewater Title since 1982. He is the owner and sole employee of this sole proprietorship.

26.     Officer or Director:     None other than in Question #25.

32.     Sued:     He was sued in his capacity as a County Councilman in a reapportionment/single member district suit in Federal Court and in a wrongful discharge suit in Circuit Court. Both cases have been disposed of.
The following are Post Conviction Relief Actions against him:
(1)     State v. Theotis Hall, 79-CP-15-244, dismissed February 18, 1981. This originally was a capital murder case. The Defendant entered a plea to a lesser offense and filed a P.C.R. over a disagreement as to parole eligibility. the problem was corrected, and the P.C.R. withdrawn before trial.
(2)     State v. Lester Jolly, 91-CP-15-424, decided August 19, 1992. The Defendant was convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor and filed a P.C.R. alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to certain evidence. The P.C.R. relief was denied.
(3)     State v. Malcolm Bruton, 93-CP-15-298. The Defendant pled guilty to burglary charges and filed a P.C.R. for ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that certain incorrect facts were presented to the trial judge. The P.C.R. relief was denied.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
None other than postage to send out resumes on November 18, 1993, and December 14, 1993, in the amount of $67.86 which was paid by him.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association:     Family Law Section; Alimony, Maintenance & Child Support Committee; Divorce Law & Procedures Committee; Trial Techniques Committee
South Carolina Bar Association:     Family Law Section; Practice and Procedure Committee; Rule 55, Default Judgment Subcommittee; Pro Bono Program
South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association:     Family Law Section, Secretary
South Carolina Supreme Court:     Member, Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
South Carolina Historical Society; Colleton County Historical Society; ACE Basin Advisory Committee; Savannah River Groundwater Study Committee; Walterboro-Colleton Chamber of Commerce; Habitat for Humanity

46.     He has practiced domestic law since his return to Walterboro, South Carolina. He has done trial work under the old county court system and under the newer Family Court system. He has grown up professionally with this system and he believes this experience will make him a better judge. He has tried to take as many courses as possible in domestic law, and he has been active in the bar in this area. He believes that this background will help him become a competent, compassionate and effective jurist.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Harold E. Tolbert, Senior Vice-President
First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Walterboro
P. O. Box 1367, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-2526
(b)         Keith M. Kinard, Esquire
Kinard & Beach
P. O. Box 1122, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-5824
(c)         B. Ray Woodard, Esquire
Woodard & Butler
P. O. Box 1906, Walterboro, SC 29488
538-4566
(d)         Donald H. Fraser, Esquire
McLeod, Fraser & Cone
P. O. Drawer 230, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-2516
(e)         Kim Miller Bethay, Esquire
P. O. Box 1152, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-1969

2.     Positions on the Bench:
(1)     Special Referee, Common Pleas, 1976, Black v. Black, 75-CP-15-072. He served as Special Referee in this pre-family court system case.
(2)     Arbiter, Common Pleas, case settled, 88-AP-15-001, Donald A. Brinson v. Jerry David Steen.
(3)     Arbiter, Common Pleas, case settled, 90-AP-15-001, Jack Barwick v. Pamela K. Bryan.
(4)     Arbiter; Common Pleas; decided May 3, 1991; 90-AP-15-003; Robert C. Garvin v. Debra S. Garnsey.
(5)     Arbiter; Common Pleas; decided March 12, 1991; 90-AP-15-007; Gloria J. Goodwine v. Keith Justin Hutto.
(6)     Arbiter, Common Pleas, case settled, 92-AP-15-001, Paul N. Siegel v. Willie J. Washington and Valarie H. Peterson.
(7)     Arbiter; Common Pleas; decided March 31, 1993; 92-AP-15-005; Mitchell Headden v. Magnolia Florists.
(8)     Arbiter; Common Pleas; decided August 23, 1993; 93-AP-15-002; Tisa F. Adkins v. Thomas Goff.

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He is active in his church and in the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity. Since his judicial offices have been infrequent, he practices law full time.

THE CHAIRMAN:     The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Colleton County Sheriff's, Walterboro City Police, SLED and FBI, all are negative.

Judgement Rolls of Colleton County are negative. Federal court records show no judgements or criminal actions against you.

Apparently, you made reference to one action that was brought against you. The suits that we show which were brought against you and other defendants, including Colleton County, both have been dismissed.
MR. BEACH:     That's correct.
THE CHAIRMAN:     No complaints or statements have been received against you. No witnesses are present to testify against you. Prior to turning you over to Mr. Elliott for questioning, you have the opportunity to make an opening statement, if you like.
MR. BEACH:     I believe everything that I was going to say was covered in my PDQ and I will waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you.
MR. BEACH - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Good morning.
A.     Good morning, sir.
Q.     For the record, let's get some of your experience in Family Court on the record. What percentage of your practice is domestic, or is in Family Court?
A.     It's about 50 percent. That's a rough estimate. I guess it varies from month to month or year to year, but I would say at least 50 percent.
Q.     How many times in an average year would you appear in Family Court?
A.     Every time we have term a there.
Q.     Well, would you quantify that?
A.     I would say we probably have two weeks of Family Court a month, and I'm there probably at least three days of any of those weeks.
Q.     What percentage of your domestic practice or your Family Court practice is contested?
A.     I would say a very high percentage of it. Of course, that goes to how you define contested. There aren't that many matters in Family Court that aren't contested to some degree or another, but I would say probably half of it is contested divorce matters that go on to some resolution.

And probably half of it would be temporary orders and adoptions and other matters which I wouldn't consider necessarily contested.
Q.     Let's talk about some specific things. You mentioned a divorce. Would you kind of quantify your experience or tell us what kind of experience you've had, for example, in handling a termination of parental rights action?
A.     I've done several terminations of parental rights actions, both representing the plaintiff, in a couple of cases representing one of the defendants, and in a number of cases as attorney for the guardian ad litem or as the guardian ad litem.
Q.     Child custody?
A.     Many child custody cases, usually representing the plaintiff.
Q.     Abuse and neglect cases?
A.     Quite a few.
Q.     Have you represented juveniles?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Is that one case or --
A.     Many cases. A lot of them appointed cases and some of them retained cases.
Q.     Paternity, equitable distribution of property?
A.     Yes. A good many of them.
Q.     On your Personal Data Questionnaire, you're asked to list your five most significant cases.
A.     Yes.
Q.     And, as I recall yours, you listed two domestic cases although you're seeking a Family Court seat and there's, of course, nothing wrong with that. Two of them are capital murder cases and one an adverse possession case. Why did you choose to list those instead of Family Court cases?
A.     Well, the two Family Court cases that I listed were unusual cases, complicated cases and cases that went all the way through a complete trial, and one of them I appealed to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. I thought those were significant. But when you asked about the most significant cases, I thought that that should include just that, not necessarily in the Family Court area. And the two -- actually, I've done four capital murder cases. But the two that I listed are in that same category, they're unusual. They've gone the distance and they are, I think, very significant cases.

The adverse possession case was also a very complicated case which was decided by the Court of Appeals just recently.
Q.     Apparently, you teach or have taught domestic law to paralegals?
A.     Yes.
Q.     How often do you teach, where, do you still do that, and what type of subjects do you teach?
A.     I haven't done that now in about three years and -- but before I was doing it through the University of South Carolina, Beaufort Campus program for paralegals. There are a couple of new paralegal programs, one out of Orangeburg and -- the one out of Orangeburg is the one I'm thinking about right now and I'm -- I've been talking with them, but I haven't done anything in that area yet.
Q.     Was this one course you taught, one semester?
A.     I think it's three. I believe it's three times.
Q.     Three.
A.     And it was generally procedure, teaching paralegals time constraints, Family Court rules and preparation of different documents and what had to go into a Complaint and what had to go into a Financial Declaration.
Q.     Your materials indicate a tax lien, and you -- which was, according to what you've written in your PDQ, promptly paid as soon as that came to your attention?
A.     Right.
Q.     What was that about?
A.     That was, we had a secretary who had not filed something with the Employment Security Commission and when we found out that that was the situation, we paid it and filed everything and got rid of it, but still a tax lien was filed.
Q.     You list some experiences of a quasi-judicial nature. What benefit, if any, would those experiences be to you on the Family Court bench?
A.     I think that -- I listed special referee and arbiter, I believe are the two that I listed.
Q.     Yes, sir.
A.     And they, I think, gave me a feel for sitting as a judge, listening to testimony rather than presenting it and making a decision which had to be reduced to writing and brought out promptly. And I think that -- I think that's where the value lies in that. It made me more aware of what the presiding officer has to do.
Q.     You've been on the Colleton County Council and have run for the House, South Carolina House of Representatives?
A.     Right.
Q.     Do you understand your ethical responsibilities as a judge with regard to political activities?
A.     Yes.
Q.     And what are those responsibilities?
A.     There can be none. That was a big consideration when I decided to run, was whether or not I wanted to give that up, because I've been involved in politics for a long time and I really like it. But since I've been on Colleton County Council and done some other things I'm more interested now in the public service aspect of it than I am in the political aspect of it.
Q.     And that's the reason I asked the question.
A.     Yes.
Q.     Some people tend to get hooked on politics and it's hard to give up.
A.     Well, you have to realize that there are two components, the political component, that's the fun part. And then the public service component, sometimes that can be drudgery, but it's -- I enjoy politics. I always have and I hate to give it up, but I do want to pursue this and I'm prepared to do that.
Q.     You did report your interest in the law office building. As I understand, it --
A.     Yes.
Q.     -- you intend to divest that?
A.     I've already talked to my partner and, assuming this goes well, I'm ready to turn that over.
Q.     You also report being the owner and sole employee of a title insurance company.
A.     Yes.
Q.     What would be your plans with regard to that title insurance company?
A.     I'm ready to shut that down. We decided to do -- or I decided to do that about ten years ago to help out our real estate practice. We represent a savings and loan association and do a fair amount of real estate, and this was very helpful in preparing closings.

And that's -- but that's been limited -- the limited use of it has been in that area, so it will take a very short period of time to close that down.
Q.     On the average, how many hours do you work in a week?
A.     I usually get to the office about 8:00 o'clock and I usually leave about 6:00 or 6:30, so however that averages out. I'm there late on Fridays, and usually there on the weekends, at least one day on the weekend.
Q.     How do you envision, or how would -- as a judge, how would you envision your workday? When's it going to start and when's it going to end? Is it going to be much like your experience now?
A.     I think it'd be very similar. I'd like to get there about 8:00, or maybe a little earlier, and do some of the things in preparation for holding court. I don't think that a hearing should start before 9:00 or 9:30, in order for the litigants to get together and actually come over to the courthouse and be prepared. But I'd like to take a little extra time before then to maybe work on orders, maybe work on maybe some continuing education for me, reading Supreme Court Reports and things like that. And I don't have any problems staying late to do orders or to meet with people who have problems late in the afternoon.

As a member of a county council, I think I have a meeting every night, so I very rarely get home before 9:00 o'clock, so I have no problems staying late.
Q.     Do you have any special thoughts on how you would operate your courtroom to achieve efficiency?
A.     The judges that I admire the most are the judges who project a presence in court. When you come in, you know who the judge is, that judge makes it plain to the attorneys, particularly to the litigants, particularly in a Family Court situation, early on and operates court in an efficient manner and makes certain that you stick to the time limits that have been imposed on you to the extent possible, and just runs the court efficiently and on time.
Q.     I think what you're saying, mostly about sticking to a set schedule? Is that what --
A.     Yes. Now, sometimes that's not always possible. I've taken plenty of court -- plenty of cases in front of judges where we thought it would take an hour and it ended up taking longer than that, but --
Q.     Well, in Family Court, a lot of things seem to drop out at the last minute as well.
A.     That's true.
Q.     Is there anything you do to handle that sort of thing, to make the court operate more efficiently?
A.     Well, I believe that -- a lot of the judges are doing this now. I believe that you should have more pretrial conferences with attorneys on cases that have been scheduled for large blocks of time to see if anything can be knocked out, to see if you can get to any issues.

I also believe that the judge ought to suggest to a number of these attorneys and litigants to have temporary hearings, that a lot of these issues can be mediated. And I think that that will -- I know that in my cases, it's helped me get cases better prepared and it's helped me to be able to project the amount of time I need a lot better than if I don't do something like that.

And a lot of these cases, you get everything ready, you're ready for a day-long hearing, you go over to the courthouse, you stand around and talk a few minutes and you settle everything; go in there, change your pleadings and go in for a 15-minute hearing. That happens quite often.

And I think if you have more pretrials, I think if you have more mediation, you're going to get rid of those issues and you're going to know, and that's going to help the administration of the court.
Q.     How do you think it's important for a judge to act, both towards the litigants and the attorneys?
A.     Going back to the judges I admire the most, these are the judges who are polite to the litigants, but firm with them. And these are the ones who don't do anything to degrade or make fun of the litigants' position. Particularly the lawyer's position, too. I've had several case -- situations where I've had to get up and make arguments which could have been ridiculed by a sitting judge, and I've had that happen at times.

But the judges I admire most are the ones who take the argument, make a ruling on it, and these are the judges who are, I won't say all business, but they make you feel like you're getting a fair hearing and they make you feel like you're respected in the courtroom.
Q.     You may have just mentioned one, but have you had experiences that have helped you develop a sense of compassion? Having a judge listen to your --
A.     I have a lot that developed a sense of humility. And I think I've had a -- I've had several judges -- the judges I -- the judge I want to replace, Judge Kleckley, is one of the judges I have a great deal of respect for because he will listen to your argument and he will make a ruling on it, and he may take you back later and say, that was ridiculous, but he's not going to do that in front of the litigants. And I've had judges who have done that exact same thing.

And that's one of the things I really admire in a judge, particularly in a Family Court situation because it is so emotion packed. It's not like somebody coming up and suing somebody because they didn't pay him on a note or foreclosing a mortgage or something like that. These people are really -- they're really intent, they're really into what's going on, and a lot of cases, they're bitter and they're not thinking properly. And I think the judge in a Family Court situation has a much greater responsibility to treat this in a way that these people walk out and they're not -- and they don't feel like they've been abused.
Q.     The Judicial Code of Conduct allows judges to accept social hospitality, but not gifts. How broadly would you define social hospitality?
A.     Well, I would not accept any gifts of anything tangible. I would also avoid any social setting where I might be in direct contact with people who are litigants in cases pending or people who I think may very well have cases pending in the near future. I would just avoid that at all possible times.
Q.     If you're elected a Family Court Judge, how do you envision making your decision and writing -- having the orders prepared?
A.     I was in here yesterday when you asked that question of the people for the Fifth Circuit, and almost everyone said that they wanted to write theirs themselves. That just doesn't work in a small circuit like ours. There just isn't the support staff to do it.

What I would like to do is make a decision, hopefully immediately, on the date of the trial, before the people and announce it to the court and read it in the record and ask one of the attorneys to prepare an order, to submit it to me and to submit it to the opposing attorney, or to the other party if there is no attorney. And then I would take that order, go over it very carefully, compare it with the notes that I've taken at trial and issue that order.
Q.     In Family Court, oftentimes one of the parties isn't represented by an attorney, and that tends to be the group that wants to come to you and talk about the case without the attorney on the other side or the other party. How do you feel about that?
A.     I believe that whether that person is represented or whether that person is not represented, that them coming to you is still an ex parte communication, and I would have to explain to them that I cannot do that, that I would be glad to try to get the other attorney and sit down and see what the complaint is.

I know that is a problem. I had that arise just a couple of weeks ago, where we had an order that the other party did not agree with and got an attorney and came back. We had to have another hearing on it. The situation came out the same, but it still was a problem.

But even though that person is not represented, on a communication like that you couldn't treat them any differently than someone who was represented, that you would have to avoid the ex parte communication and get the attorney involved.
Q.     If you're a Family Court Judge, what would you do about hearing cases involving your partner, Mr. Kinard?
A.     I would -- I don't think I would hear those cases. I think that I would have to -- of course, I would have to recuse myself from anything that would have been in the office while I was practicing. And after that, I would probably recuse myself for, I would say, at least a year, until anything that had been in the office had been cleared out.
Q.     Have you been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court?
A.     No.
Q.     You mentioned in your Personal Data Questionnaire that you'd contacted a number of people across the state. You essentially have them --
A.     Yes.
Q.     -- poised to make some contacts on your behalf after -- and, as it indicated, it was after screening; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     What have you done to insure that they have not done anything until after screening?
A.     When I contacted these people, and most of them are members of county councils all over the state. I was State Chairman for two terms of the County Council Coalition, which is a group of all county council members, and I know a lot of them very well. A lot of them offered to help and -- but what I did with each one of these was to send -- everyone who showed an interest, I sent them a letter, I sent them a resume, and then I sent them a copy of the law as to what you can do and when you could do it, and I tried in my letter to spell out exactly what was proper and what wasn't proper.

I have talked to some of those people since this proceeding has been going on and I have reminded them, please don't do anything until screening is over and the report is out.
Q.     Have you sought -- other than the activity we've just talked about, have you sought in any other way a pledge of a Member of the General Assembly?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you asked anybody else, other than what we've already talked about, to contact a Member of the General Assembly?
A.     No.
MR. ELLIOTT:     That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from Members? Thank you very much, Mr. Beach.
A.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     The next candidate is Jane Dowling Fender. Ms. Fender, would you step forward, please?
JANE DOWLING FENDER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN:     Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire?
MS. FENDER:     Yes, sir, I have and I have two additions. I forgot to put some things in here. First of all, I'm a member of the Family Law Council of the South Carolina Bar, and I've been on that since 1992. And the other thing that I forgot to put in is my honor, that I was awarded the Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year Award in 1991. Those two additions. Other than that, it's correct. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any objection of making the Summary a part of your record?
MS. FENDER:     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It will be done at this time.

1.     Jane Dowling Fender
Home Address:                 Business Address:
2007 Bay Street                 1509 King Street
Beaufort, SC 29902         P. O. Drawer 1507
Beaufort, SC 29901-1507

2.     She was born in Beaufort, South Carolina on September 17, 1946. She is presently 47 years old.

4.     She was previously divorced:     February 14, 1980; Sherwood N. Fender (moving party); Beaufort County, South Carolina Family Court; one year's continuous separation without cohabitation. She has two children:     Sherwood N., Jr., age 27 (teacher), and Addison D., age 18 (Freshman at the University of South Carolina).

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     She attended the University of South Carolina (Columbia, South Carolina), 1965-1967 (left due to husband receiving job in Spartanburg, South Carolina); Converse College (Spartanburg, South Carolina), 1967-1968 (left due to husband receiving job in Beaufort, South Carolina); Armstrong College (Savannah, Georgia), 1967-1969, B.A. in Political Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law (Columbia, South Carolina), 1982-1984, Juris Doctor.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has attended over 15 hours of various Continuing Legal Education courses offered by the South Carolina Bar and by various agencies offering such courses each year since being admitted to the practice of law.

9.     Taught or Lectured:
She has lectured at the Technical College of the Low Country (as substitute teacher) in domestic law.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Law Office of Harvey L. Golden; Columbia, South Carolina; February-July, 1985; Family Law Practice
Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough; Columbia, South Carolina, August 1985-August 1986; Insurance Defense
Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Williams, Infinger, Patterson & Meeks; August 1986-May 1992; General Practice, concentrating in Family Law
Dowling Law Firm, P.A.; May 1992 to present; General Practice, concentrating in Family Law

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     BV

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - several times a week
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5% (predominantly Probate Court)
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 95% (including juvenile criminal matters)

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 0%
Non-Jury - 100%
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Sherbert v. Sherbert. A divorce with an unusual fact situation concerning a 32-year marriage, with a 18-year separation and sporadic marital relations. The husband continued to give the wife support, both emotionally and financially. He was a radiologist with substantial assets, primarily acquired after separation, and a very favorable settlement was negotiated for the wife.
(b)         Department of Social Services v. Hearne. She represented a young mother who suffered from Muchausen Syndrome by Proxy, (MSP), a mental condition which caused her to secretly harm her own children for the sympathy she received because her children were so sick. Beaufort County D.S.S. had never been faced with M.S.P. before, and neither had she. The mother was so very convincing that everyone believed that her corpsman husband had been administering drugs to the children. Handwriting experts proved the mother had forged prescriptions and had filled them in Charleston. When faced with evidence she could not explain away, the mother committed suicide.
(c)         Morrison v. Morrison. The husband filed for a reduction of child support and alimony based upon his reduced financial situation. She represented the wife and proved husband's assets had not been reduced but that he was manipulating finances to suit his own purposes.
(d)         Domino v. Domino. She represented the father in this action and succeeded in having the Court award him custody of his three minor children from his adulterous homemaker spouse.
(e)         Department of Social Services v. Youmans. She represented the custodial grandfather who was falsely accused of molesting his granddaughter by the D.S.S. The case involved lengthy psychological evaluations and challenged D.S.S. methodology of interviews with children. She believes Beaufort County D.S.S. has changed its interviewing policy because of this case.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
None.

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
1969-1970     Substitute Teacher; Beaufort County Schools; Beaufort, South Carolina; all grades
1970-1971     Science Teacher; Beaufort Academy; Beaufort, South Carolina; 5th grade
1978-1979     Real Estate Salesman; Diversified Properties, Inc.; Beaufort, South Carolina
1980-1982     Paralegal; Remler & Henderson Law Firm; Savannah, Georgia

28.     Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships (Conflict of Interest):
Partner, Dowling Law Firm, P.A. She will not hear contested matters in which her brother is involved.

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Postage                         $50.00
Stationery                     $10.00
Identification Badge     $6.50

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar, Member 1985 to present; American Bar Association, Member 1985 to present; Beaufort County Bar, Member 1986 to present; Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity, Justice Pinckney Chapter, 1983-1984 (Vice-Justice, Palmetto Alumnae Chapter, 1985-1986)

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Program, Richland and Beaufort Counties, Member 1984 to present; Low Country Mediation Network, Member 1990 to present; Mental Health Association of Beaufort and Jasper Counties, Board Member 1987 to 1991, Secretary 1988 to 1991; St. Helena's Episcopal Church, Beaufort, South Carolina, Board of Episcopal Church Women (1987 to present), Advisor to Episcopal Young Churchmen (1987 to 1993), Sunday School Teacher (1986 to present); Child Abuse Prevention Association (C.A.P.A.), Board Member 1994; Coastal Speech and Hearing Clinic, Board Member 1988 to 1993, Chairman 1990 to 1992; Coastal Empire Mental Health Clinic, Board Member 1989 to present; Beaufort High School, School Improvement Council 1991-1993; Beaufort County Public School Education Foundation, Board Member 1988 to present; American Cancer Society, Beaufort Chapter, Board Member 1990 to present; and Greater Beaufort County Boys & Girls Club, Board Member 1992 to present

46.     She feels that her life experiences as a wife and mother and as a former wife and single parent, coupled with her legal training and experience with Family Court matters makes her an ideal candidate for a Family Court Judge.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         John R. Perrill, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1047, Beaufort, SC 29901
522-2200
(b)         William C. Robinson, CPA
Robinson Grant & Co., P.A.
P. O. Box 1406, Beaufort, SC 29901-1406
524-3003
(c)         W. Brantley Harvey, Jr., Esquire
Harvey & Battey, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 1107, Beaufort, SC 29901-1107
524-3109
(d)         Robert B. Dunbar, Interim Rector
St. Helena's Episcopal Church
P. O. Box 1043, Beaufort, SC 29901-1043
522-1712
(e)         Raymond H. Williams, Esquire
Dukes, Williams, Infinger & Meeks, P.A.
P. O. Drawer 1027, Beaufort, SC 29901
521-5000

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Beaufort County Sheriff, Beaufort City Police, SLED and FBI, are all negative.

Judgement Rolls of Beaufort County are negative. Federal Court records are negative. No complaints were received, no witnesses are present to testify against you.

Prior to Mr. Elliott questioning you, you have the chance to make a -- or an opportunity to make a statement or to submit a written statement for the record.
MS. FENDER:     No, sir. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much. Mr. Elliott.
MR. ELLIOTT:     Thank you.
MS. FENDER- EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Let's talk about your experience and background, to begin with, in Family Court. What percentage of your practice is in Family Court?
A.     At least 95 percent.
Q.     And how many times on the average in a year do you appear in Family Court?
A.     I'm usually in Family Court three, four, five times a week. But it's sometimes more.
Q.     And that's four weeks a month?
A.     Four weeks a month, yes. We hold court every week in Beaufort County.
Q.     What percentage of your domestic practice is contested?
A.     Probably just about all of it is contested in one way or another. That doesn't mean they all go to a full trial, but there's usually someone on the other side even if it's the -- a termination of parental rights of someone who's already signed a release. They're still named, so that could be considered contested. They may not show up.
Q.     Well, in the sense of where you really have a bitter dispute?
A.     Fifty percent, maybe a little more.
Q.     If you would, let's talk about some of the specific things just to see what your experience has been. Termination of parental rights?
A.     I've done many of them. I tried one just a few weeks ago.
Q.     Child custody?
A.     Lots of those. Mostly getting men custody.
Q.     Well, I noticed that on your --
A.     Yes, that's one thing I do a lot of.
Q.     -- PDQ. So you apparently have no bias against men having custody?
A.     I think men ought to have custody. That's what I do, I get men custody. Yes, I think they make good fathers.
Q.     Abuse and neglect?
A.     Lots of times. Appointed cases, retained cases, guardian ad litem for abuse and neglect, attorney for the guardian
- I do quite a few of those.
Q.     Divorce?
A.     Lots of divorce. Military divorces. I do -- probably 25 percent of my cases are military divorces, with retirements and all the benefits, and then the rest of them civilian.
Q.     Juvenile cases?
A.     Juveniles, appointed juveniles, also retained juveniles.
Q.     In the area of legal writing and contributing to CLE's and JCLE's, do you have any experience in that area with regard to Family Law?
A.     No.
Q.     You list being a member of the Low County Mediation Network?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Would you tell us a little bit about that?
A.     To be a member of that, you have to have taken the 40-hour mediation course, which I did probably '89 or
'90, a good while ago, and I'm a qualified mediator. I mediate divorce cases, mainly with child custody issues.
Q.     In your Personal Data Questionnaire, a case that was particularly interesting to me, it was the DSS versus Hearne, regarding the MSP.
A.     The Muchausen Syndrome by Proxy?
Q.     Yes.
A.     That's an interesting syndrome.
Q.     Would you tell us a little bit about that?
A.     About the syndrome?
Q.     Yes, please?
A.     It's a syndrome that is becoming more and more recognized now. There was something in the paper about it just the other day, about that woman who had -- the five children had died and they thought it was crib death, and it turned out she had the Muchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

The parent hurts their child, so they can get sympathy because their child was hurt. "Oh, you poor, dear child is so sick. They're in the hospital all the time. Can't we bring you supper? Can't we do this for you?" It's a recognized disease. A sad case. That woman committed suicide.
Q.     You're a member of quite a lengthy list of civic and community organizations. Do you understand what your ethical considerations are with regard to those --
A.     Absolutely.
Q.     -- if you're elected as a judge?
A.     I would take my church membership and my church activities and probably drop out of everything else if I'm elected.
Q.     Your brother is a lawyer, I think, according --
A.     Yes.
Q.     -- to the information, that he's your partner?
A.     Uh-huh, he is.
Q.     Does he practice family law?
A.     He does some family law and -- but I do mainly the family law in our office. He'll probably start having to do more. I will not hear any contested cases that he has. Beaufort is a small place and sometimes there may be a consent order, and with the consent of all parties in open court, I might approve an order if there is no other judge for a couple of weeks.

We don't have the luxury of having more than one judge at a time. That may come up, but he and I have discussed it and I will never hear anything that he has that's contested.
Q.     All right, and I did understand what you said, that you would do that on the record and get the parties' consent to that?
A.     Absolutely, 100 percent.
Q.     You're also a stockholder in the Dowling Law Firm?
A.     Yes.
Q.     What would be your intentions with regard --
A.     I would withdraw. Actually, I've never paid my money, so it wouldn't be much to withdraw.
Q.     Tell us about your work ethic. If we asked one of the members of the Beaufort County Bar to describe your work ethic, what would they say?
A.     The first thing they would say, she gets up at 3:00 o'clock in the morning and works at home until 7:00. Everybody knows I do that. That's -- I have a computer at home. I have a whole office set up at home. I'm -- as a female, I don't like working in an office building alone.

So, instead of going to the office early like some guys do, I stay at the house, I work on my computer, I draft all of my orders and pleadings on my computer at home and take the disk to my secretary to put them in the proper order. I take all my reading material home, I read it at home between the hours of 3:00, 3:30 and 7:00, and then I go to the office around 8:30, when someone else has arrived, and I usually leave around 5:30 or 6:00, before dark, and get home and go to bed quite early, so I can get up the next morning.
Q.     What is your idea of good judicial temperament? Is there anything that you can tell the Committee that would demonstrate to us that you have that kind of temperament?
A.     I feel I'm even natured, I don't lose my temper. I'm willing to listen to everyone. I like to emulate Marc Westbrook and Judge Inabinet, are my two sort of role models and I think they both -- they smile at the litigants, they make them feel at ease, make them feel that everyone's being fair to them, listening and rendering a decision in a timely manner.
Q.     How would you intend to run your courtroom?
A.     I would try to make people feel at ease, because this is the most significant day in their life. They are nervous, they are scared, in most cases, they've never been in court before. This is more important than the money cases or the contract cases because it effects the rest of their lives and the lives of their children. So I would try to explain the procedure to them and tell them that they will have a full hearing, and I would listen to them.

Start about 9:30 in the morning and probably go -- set cases up until 4:00 or 4:15, maybe 4:30. Family law cases don't always end when they're supposed to, and that will allow for a little cushion there at the end of the day.
Q.     In the area of gifts and social hospitality, what's your bright line test?
A.     Well, most of my friends are lawyers and I would refrain from going to lunch with any that would be trying cases. A lot of my friends are not domestic lawyers and they would never, ever, ever come to the Family Court. I would probably go to lunch with them and have dinner with them. I would reciprocate by having them over. I would not accept any gifts.
Q.     Well, a meal, it sounds like you don't consider a meal necessarily a gift --
A.     Well, I would pay for my own. And, if I went to their house, then I would reciprocate by having them to my house.
Q.     Please tell the Committee how you plan to go about decision making and order writing if you are elected as a Family Court Judge?
A.     Once again, like Harris said, Beaufort's a small county. We don't have a support staff like they have up here in Richland County to draft the orders. I would most probably rule from the bench and ask one or both of the attorneys to prepare orders for my signature.

At that time, I would review them very carefully, compare with my notes. If I had any questions, I'd ask the court reporter to play that portion of the transcript back to me and then sign the orders, if both parties had seen it and approved it.
Q.     It's interesting because I don't think the Family Court bench here in Richland County has any more support staff than you would. But it's interesting to hear the different responses.
A.     Well, I believe they have a docketing clerk. See, we have -- our -- the secretaries of our judges do everything. They file, they docket, they do the entire thing and they don't have any help. They don't have any
-- but really, I think they do have a little more up here.
Q.     Oh, I understand. How do you handle ex parte communications now and how would you expect the Bar to handle them with you if you're elected judge?
A.     Our judges do not allow ex parte communication. We'll have conference calls or they'll call us both to come in the office. And I intend to do that same thing, either have both parties come into the office or if I learn to use that conference call capability on the machine.
Q.     Well, have you found there are any gray areas where it's not quite as easy to apply a real hard and fast rule?
A.     It's more difficult when the litigant is pro se, the defendant doesn't have a lawyer. It's more difficult and normally what our judges do, and I intend to do, is just say we'll wait until the hearing and handle all of that in open court.
Q.     In your Personal Data Questionnaire, you did report that you wrote some letters to the, I think the Beaufort County Bar members and some friends regarding your candidacy?
A.     Yes, I did, and the reason I did that is because everybody was stopping me at the mall, in the courthouse, and asking me what can we do, what can we do. And at that time I thought that they could contact legislators and just say that they knew me and thought I'd be a good judge, and that's why that letter was written.

I've since found out I'm not supposed to do that and I have totally refrained since then, asked people not to contact anybody.
Q.     You have actually gone back to make a correction on your letter --
A.     I didn't write another letter, but I would tell them when I saw them.
Q.     Have you been sanctioned or found in contempt by a court?
A.     No.
Q.     Other than the letter we've talked about, have you sought a pledge either directly or indirectly of a legislator's vote for you in this race?
A.     No.
Q.     Even as a condition --
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     A conditional vote, conditional before passing screening?
MR. ELLIOTT:     That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Committee Members?
MS. FENDER:     Thank you.

(Off the record)
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     We will go to the next applicant, who will be Mr. William E. Myrick, Jr., Judge of the Family Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. Mr. Myrick, if you'd come around, please, sir.
WILLIAM E. MYRICK, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     I note this is your first screening; is that correct, sir?
MR. MYRICK:     Yes, sir. I was supposed to be screened yesterday, but for some reason they couldn't get a screening committee together, and so they told me they'd have to let me know another time.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     It was a busy place yesterday.
MR. MYRICK:     Yes, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. MYRICK:     Yes, sir, I have.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Is it correct or does it need any clarification?
MR. MYRICK:     None that I know of. I've practiced law for 35 years and some of these things -- one may deviate a year or two, but basically it's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     All right, sir. Then you have no objection to us making that Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. MYRICK:     None whatsoever.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     It will be put in the transcript at this point.

1.     William E. Myrick, Jr.
Home Address:                 Business Address:
P. O. Box 555                 297 Memorial Avenue
Allendale, SC 29810     Allendale, SC 29810

2.     He was born in Allendale County, South Carolina on July 13, 1933. He is presently 60 years old.

4.     He has previously been divorced:     (1) Kathleen D. Myrick (moving party), adultery, non-contested, Family Court, 1978; (2) W. E. Myrick, Jr. (moving party), no fault, Family Court, 1990. He has four children:     William E., III, age 37 (Bard Urological Lab., sales representative); Jane Ashley M. McMillan, age 34 (attorney - Dallas, Texas); James Dunbar, age 32 (attorney - Charleston, South Carolina); and John Morrison, age 28 (legal assistant - Columbia, South Carolina).

5.     Military Service:     1958-1961; Captain, Judge Advocate, General's Department A03060745; United States Air Force; Honorable Discharge; resigned commission in 1968 to accept gubernatorial appointment to State Board of Draft Appeals

6.     He attended Clemson A & M University, 1951-1955, B.S. Degree, and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1955-1958, Juris Doctor Degree.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
All CLE requirements met - graduate National College of Advocacy; Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1974 and 1975; Association of Trial Lawyers of America

9.     Taught or Lectured:
He taught Commercial Law at USC-Salkehatchie, 1968-1969

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1958-1961             Three years of military law as a Judge Advocate
1961-Present         Thirty-five years of general practice as a trial lawyer in federal and state courts. Domestic cases, civil and criminal law, no change in character, but evolvement into more complex practice, i.e., Family Court, domestic practice and pro bono program
13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     BV. At one time he had an AV rating, but a disgruntled former law partner requested reduction for no apparent valid reason. He never knew why.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 1
State - 50 plus
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 20%
Criminal - 30%
Domestic - 50%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-Jury - 80%
Co-Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         State v. Eric Robinson (murder, capitol case); received life sentence instead of death penalty. Attorney appointed by Court, Jasper County.
(b)         State v. Edward Lester Rheim (murder, capitol case); received life sentence instead of death penalty. Attorney appointed by Court, Allendale County.
(c)         State v. Blanton O'Neal (murder, capitol case); attorney retained, chief counsel, defendant's case dropped by state. Allendale County.
(d)         Patricia Annette Williams v. Rodney L. Williams (divorce); represented Defendant; proved by DNA testing that the Defendant was not the father of two out of three children. Retained by Defendant; Hampton County, Family Court.
(e)         Workman's Compensation - Jimmy Morris v. SCDHPT. Injured on job, two separate incidents. Settled for $87,000. Allendale County.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
None

20.     Judicial Office:
Municipal Judge; Town of Allendale; November, 1992 to present. Town Limits of Allendale, South Carolina, appointed by Town Council.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
No opinions or orders of magnitude

22.     Public Office:
Town Attorney; Town of Allendale, South Carolina; July, 1991 - November, 1992
Municipal Judge; Town of Allendale, South Carolina; November, 1992 - present
Public Service Commission - appointed by Governor West to serve unexpired term of William "Chick" Amick - 1972
State Commission on Draft Appeals - appointed
South Carolina Commission on Human Affairs, appointed, seven years of service (1970-1977)

32.     Sued:     Only in a divorce action

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Previously listed - Also:     Chairman of the Western Carolina Higher Education Commission (served for the past 27 years); recipient of Distinguished Service Award from USC Educational Foundation (April 18, 1991); President of Allendale County Bar Association

46.     By virtue of having practiced law since 1958, 36 years, without one grievance or complaint, he feels that he is qualified to serve his state by applying the experience gained through the years to the administration of justice. His practice has been general and has run the gamut of just about any occasion that could arise. If elected, he intends to pursue a firm course to stop the teenage violence which is tearing our country apart. Juveniles must be treated as adults where violent crime is involved.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Walker R. Harter, President
Allendale County Bank
P. O. Box 248, Fairfax, South Carolina 29827-0248
632-3521
(b)         G. H. Kearse, Esquire
P. O. Box 521, Allendale, SC 29810
584-2934
(c)         Hayward L. Simmons, Jr.
The Cedar Knoll Club
Route 1, Box 166-W, Allendale, SC 29810
584-4785
(d)         Honorable Mary Jean Carlson
Clerk of Court of Allendale County
P. O. Box 126, Allendale, SC 29810
584-2737
(e)         Henry Spann Laffitte, President
Carolina Commercial Bank
P. O. Box 38, Allendale, SC 29810
584-2191

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Municipal Judge - Town of Allendale; Allendale County, South Carolina; November, 1992 - present

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He has not been a Municipal Judge long enough to have extensive extra-judicial community involvement.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you.

The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies:     Allendale County Sheriff's Office are negative; the Allendale City Police Department, negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. Judgement Rolls of Allendale County are negative. Federal Court records are negative. No complaints or statements were received and no witnesses are present to testify.

Mr. Myrick, I'm going to turn you over to Ms. McNamee for some questions, please, sir.
MR. MYRICK - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good morning, Mr. Myrick.
A.     Good morning.
Q.     Just one question to clarify. When you said there was no screening available for you yesterday, are you talking about the Bar?
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     I see.
A.     I went down there yesterday and she said that she could not find her investigator and she apologized and said they'd have to do it another time.
Q.     I see. Another matter for clarification, Mr. Myrick. Have you spent any money on your campaign for a judgeship to this point?
A.     To this point, the only money that I've spent is for a resume and some cards that I have had printed.
Q.     Would you please report that to Ms. Satterwhite and -- at the appropriate time, supplement your --
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     -- Questionnaire?
A.     These -- the resume nor the cards have been distributed yet, but I did spend some money having them printed.
Q.     Thank you, sir. Mr. Myrick, I note that your practice began in 1961.
A.     That's correct. That was after I served three years as a judge advocate in the Air Force.
Q.     And that you are currently a municipal judge and have been one for a year and a few months.
A.     Yes, ma'am. That is correct.
Q.     Since you are now a municipal judge, tell us what your idea of good judicial temperament is, please.
A.     I think that until you've seen a bad one, you don't really know what a good one is. We had one judge that called all the attorneys in the room and used profanity and just words that I've never heard, and we started to report him, but I told him in a nice way, because I was president of the Bar, that we would appreciate him not doing that anymore.

But if I were a judge, I would be of even temperament. I would respect the clients and all the attorneys. First of all, you have to keep the courtroom quiet. I would tolerate no noise from anyone, and I -- it has to be judged -- Mr. Justice Rhodes, William Rhodes, taught me that, because his courtroom was always like a tomb and he was -- he -- once you start with that, you can maintain discipline. And you do not have to curse and do whatever's necessary to do that. And I would think that that's the way that I would handle a courtroom.
Q.     Is that the way you handle your Municipal Court --
A.     Yes, ma'am. We have court every other week and, for example, Monday, there was -- the courtroom was packed. I handled about 50 cases, 70 percent minority, and you just have to do it that way.
Q.     What will be your approach to the litigants in your courtroom?
A.     They have to realize that you care about them. You have that -- you have a decorum. As they say, you have a presence, and you just treat them, because it is their day, as best you can.
Q.     Would you tell the Committee, sir, why you want to be a Family Court judge at this point?
A.     Yes. Could I have a drink of water, please?

(Off the record)
A.     Repeat the question, please.
Q.     Certainly. I asked you why you wanted to be a Family Court judge.
A.     I want to address the issue of juvenile crime. I think that this is something that has got to be addressed. We cannot put our heads in the sand. The juvenile -- the subculture of juveniles that -- on the one hand, you have to be understanding, realize they come from poor homes, but I do not think that they should be coddled. There's a difference.

I think -- I feel very strongly that if a juvenile is capable of rape and murder, that they ought to be tried as an adult. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, we need better education in my county, in Allendale County.

It's a paternal situation, the fathers are not there. The children just go out and do whatever they want to. They kicked the back door in to my office about two weeks ago, came in, ransacked the office. They were caught, and their ages ranged from eight to fifteen. And this is something that's got to be addressed now because if we don't, it's going to really result in a horrible, terrible situation.
Q.     Using that as an example, what would you do if you were the Family Court judge and that case came before you?
A.     Of course, every case is different and I -- if I found a sense of remorse and the person, the young man or woman, understood what was really going on, I would give them a second chance.

But on the other hand, if they came up with an attitude problem, in a situation where I felt that they were one of the have-nots who wanted to take, take, take, not give, I would treat them rather severely.
Q.     Would you please tell us about your Family Court experience? I believe that you say that you have spent a majority of your time in Family Court; is that correct?
A.     Yes, ma'am. You have to realize that Allendale has only six attorneys in the whole county. And I do a tremendous amount of pro bono work with DSS, and Mr. Sanders can attest to that. We stay in court a lot representing appointments, guardians ad litem and stuff like that, and it's just -- we spend a great amount of our practice doing the pro bono work because there's so few attorneys in the county.

And I handle divorces, many, many divorces, contested divorces. I have a, I don't know whether it's an enviable reputation or not, of being rather tough, having been a trial lawyer for so many years, and I've had some right interesting cases in Family Court.
Q.     When you say you've been tough, you are --
A.     Well, let me -- I have --
Q.     -- vigorous about your --
A.     I am -- I am vigorous. That's the way I was trained. I was trained as a trial lawyer and I have to go at it. I mean, there's no halfway. You just have to do it or not do it.
Q.     Have you handled adoptions?
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     Have you represented parties in a paternity hearing?
A.     Yes. As a matter -- if you would refer to one of my cases, I had a young man who was -- whose wife was after him. He was in service and she wrote his commanding officer and he was going to be court-martialed, and finally we had a hearing. I had DNA testing, and the case was Patricia Annette Williams versus Rodney L. Williams, and found out that two of the children -- two of the three children were not even his. So that was a very hotly contested and complicated case.
Q.     Have you represented juveniles in Family Court?
A.     By appointment, I think. Not many juveniles in Family Court.
Q.     How much of your time is spent in the courtroom, sir?
A.     Well, my percentage of litigation is 50 percent, but I would say 25 to 30 percent in the courtroom.
Q.     That would be the time you spend in court?
A.     Yes, ma'am.
Q.     From your Personal Data Questionnaire, I note that you have taught at USC-Salkehatchie awhile back in commercial law. Have you done any other teaching or have you participated --
A.     That's the only teaching that I've ever done. I've given lectures, but insofar as a teaching position, that's the only jobs that I've had.
Q.     Have those lectures been in CLE settings or are they more community lectures, when you say --
A.     Community lectures. Not in a CLE setting.
Q.     Have you ever been found in contempt or sanctioned by any court that you've --
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     This is just a question of curiosity, Mr. Myrick, but what kind of advice would you give to a young lawyer these days?
A.     I would tell a young lawyer, be true to himself. There will be many cases when he has a gray area, but as long as he's true to himself, that would be one element of what I would tell him. I would also tell him, and this is good, we had an old dean in law school, he said when you go home, put your cases in a corner and leave them there. Don't go home and agonize over cases, ruin your family.

Be true to yourself and to your family, and in that way I feel -- and also, try to be kind and helpful and -- to everybody as much as you could and have a reflection of a young attorney who does his best and who cares. That's what I would tell him.
Q.     Thank you. What is your typical workweek like, Mr. Myrick?
A.     This is a small, very -- Allendale, I might add, has never had a sitting judge in 40 years. It's a small -- and that -- only six lawyers, that might explain that. I don't know. But it's just a situation -- give me that question again, now?
Q.     I just asked you what was your normal, typical workweek.
A.     My normal workweek?
Q.     Right.
A.     Get up, go to work at 8:30, and then I break at 12:00, come back at 1:00 and then stay as long as necessary. In a small town, you have a lot of farmers and agriculture people, and they can't get off work until 5:00, 5:30, so oftentimes I have to stay in the office until 5:00, 6:00, 7:00.

But the first thing I do when I come to the office, at 9:30, I call the police station. I ask them -- this is in my capacity as municipal judge. I ask them if they have any warrants to be signed or anything like that -- bond hearings. If they say no, then I go on with my workday.

All right, at 5:00 o'clock, if I am not in my office, if I'm not -- don't have work there, I go back to the police station and have bond hearings of people who I've had put in jail by signing the necessary warrants.

I might add, it's an interesting thing, that I'll probably be called on to sign two more murder warrants against this Wallace man. We have found that he allegedly killed two women in Allendale, which will add to his total. But that's just typical of what I do.
Q.     Do you think that this schedule would change at all when you -- if you become Family Court --
A.     Not really. Of course, I would divest myself of any municipal work, but it wouldn't change anything. When something's in front of you. Don't procrastinate, just go ahead and do it and get it over with is the way I like to do it. I don't like to have things hanging on my neck.

I like to hunt and fish a lot, because in Allendale, Lord knows, that's all there is to do. If you don't hunt and fish in Allendale, you just might as well move because you would definitely die of boredom, and I say this with all love and -- if you don't have a shotgun or a fishing pole, there are no theaters in Barnwell County, Allendale County or Hampton County. In three counties -- there's three counties and there's not one movie theater.

The only thing we do have is the Salkehatchie Players, which I've been a Trustee for 27 years. It's at USC-Salkehatchie, and I've been Chairman of that.
Q.     Well, let me ask you this, then. Perhaps this is digressing, but what activities can you involve juveniles in? Let's say you're the Family Court Judge --
A.     We have --
Q.     -- and you wanted to establish some --
A.     We have a recreational director --
Q.     -- other programs.
A.     They have softball teams and basketball teams and things like that. That's -- the juveniles have got to -- we have a hard-core of juveniles with an attitude. They do not care about anything. They are fighting each other.

Last Monday night, I had razor cuttings, stabbings, one hit another one with a baseball bat, just -- and I asked those young men -- they'd get up in front of me and I'd say, "Why don't y'all join the Army if you want to fight so much?"

There's a place called Flatt Street in Allendale. This judge told me, he said, "I've been in two wars, but no officer could ever get me upon command to go to Flat Street on a Saturday night." He said -- I mean, just every -- you would not believe the crime that's going on among the juveniles.

And so we're just going to have to find -- get them early and find something for them. We even have to have
-- we even had to set up a curfew of 10:00 o'clock to get them off the street.
Q.     Is that functioning? Is that working?
A.     It's functioning, and I told them I didn't know whether it was constitutional or not, but it's functioning. It's working.
Q.     Mr. Myrick, how will you go about making your decision in a case, in a Family Court case? How will you get the order written --
A.     The first thing you have to do is divest the emotions from the facts. I mean, in other words, you've got to keep your eye on the sparrow, as Dean Prince told us. Keep your eye on the issues. Keep your -- keep the welfare of the child foremost in your mind. Sometimes you might have to hurt the mother, sometimes you have to hurt the father and go through this. But the welfare of the child is of the paramount concern because the child is there, he is at the mercy, I mean, of anything that's done to him.
Q.     Will you be writing your own orders, Mr. Myrick, or will you be using attorneys to propose --
A.     I would elicit the facts, rule on the facts, and then I would tell the prevailing attorney to submit me an order, subject to my revision and, upon reading the order and revising it, comparing it with my notes, I would then sign the order if everything was okay, send the opposing other attorney a copy of my order.
Q.     What is your experience, sir, with the whole subject of ex parte communication --
A.     I just --
Q.     -- being in a small county?
A.     -- do not believe in them. As I said, Mr. Justice Rhodes, if you wanted to insult him or make him turn red, you try to talk to him about a case without the other attorney being present. I just feel that it's a definite no-no. It just should not be done in any way or shape or form.
Q.     What is your experience with this subject as a municipal judge?
A.     In what regard?
Q.     Well, do people try to talk to you about --
A.     Oh, yes.
Q.     -- a case?
A.     All the time. They call me up --
Q.     And what is your response?
A.     I tell them that this is my law office. I cannot talk to you without a police officer being present. I'm not going to try this case now. I'm not going to listen to why you don't think you should be charged with running a stop sign. I'm just -- save it for court. That's what I tell them, and I refuse to discuss it. As Mr. Beach said, you have to have a presence.
Q.     Have you -- would you please tell the Committee how you have gone about introducing yourself to Members of the General Assembly?
A.     I have not done anything except hang around and say,
"Hello, how do you do?" And I must admit, I feel very stupid doing that because I can't say anything to them. I haven't said anything to them and I think that that's the -- those are the rules of the game and you just have to play by them.

Now, assuming that I am found to be qualified, I will try to do the best I can in eliciting pledges. But I have not tried to elicit any pledges. I haven't been any -- to any functions, parties with legislators there or anything like that.
Q.     Have you asked anyone to write a letter on your behalf?
A.     No. No, ma'am.
Q.     And so, then, you have not directly or indirectly solicited any --
A.     No, ma'am, I have not. I have not.
Q.     What is your opinion of mediation, Mr. Myrick?
A.     This -- mediation in pretrial, good. The courts now are just so full that I think it's very good. And anytime you can get the parties together to keep from spending the State's money in court, lengthy court battles, I think -- I'm fully in favor of it.
Q.     Have you had any experience with it yourself?
A.     Never have had any experience in mediation per se. I've had -- been special referee in certain cases.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Thank you, ma'am. Any Members of the Committee have any questions? It seems you've answered them all. Thank you, sir.
A.     Thank you, sir, and ma'am.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Appreciate you coming.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     I request a break at this time, please.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     All right, we'll take a five-minute break by legislative time.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Is that Senate time or House?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     By Senate time.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     Okay, I'll know when to be back.

(A short break was taken)
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     We begin the hearing again and begin the process. We have, I believe, two left. Next would be Mr. Walter H. Sanders, Jr. Mr. Sanders, how are you doing this morning?
MR. SANDERS:     Just fine. How are y'all?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     I see you will be for the Judge of Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat Number Two.
WALTER H. SANDERS, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     This is your first screening, ever?
MR. SANDERS:     Yes, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. SANDERS:     I have.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     And does it need any clarification or corrections?
MR. SANDERS:     It does not.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Do you have any objection, then, to our making that Summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony as if you said it here today?
MR. SANDERS:     No, sir.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     So that will be done at this point in the transcript.

1.     Walter H. Sanders, Jr.
Home Address:                 Business Address:
Seventh Street                 117 Main Street
P. O. Box 840                 P. O. Box 840
Fairfax, SC 29827         Fairfax, SC 29827

2.     He was born in Fairfax, South Carolina on July 24, 1952. He is presently 41 years old.

4.     He was married to Cynthia Gore on April 25, 1981. He has two children:     Walter Hazel, III, age 10, and Hardee Gore, age 6.

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, 1970-1974, B.S. Degree in Accounting, and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1974-1977, Juris Doctor Degree.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Attendance at numerous CLE and JCLE programs

9.     Taught or Lectured:
He has been a part-time Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina - Salkehatchie Branch teaching Business Law.

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
November, 1977 - July, 1979         Associate with the Law Firm of Lawton, Myrick & Detrick; Allendale, South Carolina
August, 1979 - present                     Sole Practitioner - Walter H. Sanders, Jr., P.A.

The general character of his practice has been a general practice since returning to Allendale County.

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     He is only listed in Martindale-Hubbell.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 5%
State - 95%
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 50%
Criminal - 15%
Domestic - 35%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 25%
Non-Jury - 75%
Sole Counsel and/or Associate Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         Virginia Ruth Allen v. William Dale Allen (Family Court). This case involved the granting of a father and husband custody of the minor children and support from the wife.
(b)         H. J. Kinard and Flossie Kinard v. Beth Morris, Paul W. Morris and Amy Paulette Morris, a minor child under the age of five (5) years (Family Court). This case involved the conflict between natural parents and grandparents and what is in the best interest of the minor child in regards to custody and visitation privileges.
(c)         State of South Carolina v. Eric Robinson (Circuit Court). This was a death penalty case involving multiple defendants who murdered two individuals.
(d)         State of South Carolina v. George Campfield (Circuit Court). This was a murder case of the Defendant's wife and her unborn fetus.
(e)         State of South Carolina v. Edward Lester Rhein (Circuit Court). This was a murder case by two individuals who were only 16 and 17 years of age.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         Beth Morris and Paul Morris, Petitioners-Respondents v. Flossie Kinard, Respondent-Appellant and H. J. Kinard and Flossie Kinard, Petitioners-Appellants v. Beth Morris, Paul Morris & Amy Paulette Morris, a minor child under the age of five (5) years, Respondents-Respondents. This case was in the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and the date of decision was June 26, 1979.
(b)         Terry Cohen, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Allendale Coca-Cola Bottling Co., merged w/and into Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Defendant-Appellant. This case was in the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the date of decision was December 29, 1986. 351 S.E.2d 897 (S.C. App. 1986)

20.     Judicial Office:
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Fairfax, 1980-1994
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Varnville, 1984-1994
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Brunson, 1988-1989
Appointed Interim Municipal Judge of Town of Allendale, 1992 -
Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts is offenses which are subject to the penalties of a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days or both (criminal jurisdiction only)

Appointed Master-in-Equity for Allendale County - April 2, 1991 to 1994
Masters-in-Equity have jurisdiction in equity matters referred by the Circuit Court. They have the power and authority of a Circuit Court sitting without a jury.

21.     Five (5) Significant Orders or Opinions:
(a)         Small Business Funding Corp. v. Metric Constructors, Inc.
(b)         The Farm Credit Bank of Columbia f/k/a The Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Charsana, Inc., et al.
(c)         Ernestine W. Robinson v. Brenda P. Bennett as Probate Judge of Allendale County, et al.
(d)         Douglas Faunt, Jr. and Emily F. Clarkson v. Rainsford & Sons, et al.
(e)         Cecil Chavous, et al. v. John Sanders, Jr., d/b/a Sanders Logging and Trucking

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
None except as listed in Question #20

25.     Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
He owns a real estate agency known as Sanders Real Estate Agency, and he is the Broker-in-Charge.

26.     Officer or Director:     He owns a real estate agency known as Sanders Real Estate Agency, and he is the Broker-in-Charge.

32.     Sued:     He has been made a party to several Foreclosure Actions where he had a lien on the property being foreclosed. He was party to a lawsuit, Kustom Electronics v. Sanders, which was filed and then dismissed when a voluntary non-suit was requested and granted to Kustom Electronics.

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Allendale County Bar Association (Treasurer, Vice-President)

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Fairfax Lions Club - President, Secretary, Treasurer and Lion of the Year for the years 1988-1989 and 1992-1993; Allendale County Rural Health Programs, Inc. (Board of Directors); Allendale County Business Association

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Walker R. Harter, President
Allendale County Bank
P. O. 248, Fairfax, SC 29827-0248
632-2221
(b)         Michael J. Cavanaugh
P. O. Box 50666, Columbia, SC 29250
734-9220
(c)         Honorable Brenda P. Bennett
Judge of Probate, Allendale County
P. O. Box 737, Allendale, SC 29810
584-3157
(d)         The Reverend Kenneth B. Timmerman
First United Methodist Church
P. O. Box 1367, Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
626-5957
(e)         Det F. Bowers, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 11384, Columbia, SC 29211-1384
254-5555

2.     Positions on the Bench:
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Fairfax:     1980-1994
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Varnville:     1984-1994
Appointed Municipal Judge of Town of Brunson:     1988-1989
Appointed Interim Municipal Judge of Town of Allendale:     1992
Appointed Master-in-Equity for Allendale County:     April, 1991 to 1994

10.     Extra-Judicial Community Involvement:
He is involved in Fairfax Lions Club, First Baptist Church of Fairfax affairs and other community areas. He does not use his Judicial Office to further these interests.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints have ever been filed against you. The Judicial Standards Commission has no record of reprimands against you.

The records of applicable law enforcement agencies:     Allendale County Sheriff's Office are negative; Fairfax City Police Department, negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. Judgement Rolls of Allendale County are negative. Federal Court records showed no judgement or criminal actions against you.

There were five civil actions to which you were a party. Three of these were actions of foreclosure brought by the United States against you and others. One action was a breach of contract action brought against you, which was dismissed in 1986, and the final action was brought by you as administrator of an estate against the Allendale Police Department and the City of Allendale, and was dismissed in 1987.

No complaints have been received.
MR. SANDERS:     That's correct.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     And no witnesses are present to testify. Did you bring your fishing pole or --
MR. SANDERS:     I was going to add that. I agree with everything Mr. Myrick said about Allendale County.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     All right.
MR. SANDERS:     It's waiting on me back at home.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     The Chairman has been giving people the opportunity, of course, to give a statement if they wish. Was there anything you wish to say before I turn you over to Mr. Elliott for questions?
MR. SANDERS:     No, sir, I'll waive any opening.
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     If you would, please answer any questions that he has for you.
MR. SANDERS - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q.     Let's talk about your background experience first, too, in Family Court. Could you sort of give us that background? What is that? What have you done in Family Court? What percentage of your practice is family law?
A.     On my data information sheet, I listed, it's 35 to 40 percent. I have been practicing in Family Court regularly since I was admitted to the Bar, in the late seventies. I have handled every type of case, whether it be divorce actions, termination of parental rights, represented plaintiffs and defendants, most of them wives, represented juveniles.

And I've also at times prosecuted cases for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit when the acting solicitor was not available, and I've also acted in many cases as the guardian ad litem and represented guardian ad litems. You know, we live, again, in a small county. You get a chance to do a little bit of everything. You get introduced to all aspects of family law.
Q.     And you've dealt with marital property and --
A.     Right.
Q.     -- divorces? You also have some experience as a judge. If you would, just tell us a little bit about that, you have in a number of capacities. If you would tell us a little bit about that.
A.     Well, currently, I am the municipal judge for the town of Fairfax, the town of Brunson, and that may be an addition because that has changed since I made this. I've been hired as the town of Brunson judge also, again, and I am the town of Varnville municipal judge. And what -- municipal judges have only criminal jurisdiction, $500 or 30 days.

I am also the standing Master-in-Equity for Allendale County. With Allendale County being a small county, it's an optional office that Allendale County has elected to have and, of course, the jurisdiction of a Master-in-Equity is similar to a Circuit Court, but sitting without a jury.
Q.     What about that experience will benefit you as a Family Court judge if you're elected?
A.     Well, I think that experience is going to be very vital to being a Family Court judge. As y'all know, a Family Court judge sits without a jury, and so the judge is the judge and the jury. And in Municipal Court, most cases the judge sits without a jury, and also Master-in-Equity I sit without a jury.

You have to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts, so I think it would help you to be able to handle Family Court situations that arise.
Q.     In terms of legal scholarship, have you written anything in the area of family law, other than appellate or trial briefs?
A.     No.
Q.     Why are you -- what is it about the job of Family Court judge that appeals to you and what do you think you can contribute? And, I guess the obvious answer is for entertainment from where you come from, but aside from that, what would be your answer?
A.     Well, of course, I just said I'm a municipal judge and Master-in-Equity, and I enjoy, you know, the role of being a judge. I'm very concerned and interested in the issues that come before Family Court, and I'd like to think that I can make a difference.

You know, the perception of Family Courts, whether right or wrong, is that they don't do anything to anybody, especially to juveniles, but then when you read the papers that all of our facilities are overflowing with juveniles. But if you ever go to Family Court and listen to Family Court hearings, you know, a lot of times it does appear that the litigants -- not the litigants, but the parties are just being slapped on the hand, talking about juveniles.
Q.     What are your thoughts on that while we're on that topic? What can be done about the rising tide of juvenile crime from the perspective of a Family Court judge?
A.     Well, I think as a Family Court judge, you've got to be ready to punish to meet the particular crime. Of course, we have to work within the framework of the system that has been established by the legislature.

But if -- you know, some juveniles can be rehabilitated much easier than others, so there are different options that you have to follow, depending on the particular facts of each case.
Q.     You own a real estate agency. What would be your intentions with regard to that if you're elected --
A.     I would close it.
Q.     You also have a number of property interests, and correct me if I'm wrong, too, but it seems that those lead you into foreclosure actions on --
A.     Right.
Q.     Or at least on several occasions.
A.     Well, I have an -- you know, I've never been actually foreclosed against. What those foreclosure actions involve are where I have an interest, a lien against somebody on interest behind the person foreclosing, and any time you bring a foreclosure action, you have to bring -- name parties to the action, anyone who has an interest in order to clear the title to it.
Q.     Is that a situation that's likely to continue?
A.     Of course, I own some rental properties myself. But what rental properties I handle for other people, I would not do, but I would still own property and probably maybe have some liens against people, so it could.
Q.     Does that cause you any trouble in your mind serving as a Family Court judge?
A.     I don't see how it could. Of course, if anyone who was involved in any of that was a party in the court that I was sitting as judge, I'd have to recuse myself, unless there was full disclosure and no one objected to it.
Q.     If you are elected, what's going to be -- or who is going to be your role model for judicial temperament?
A.     Well, of course, I have -- since I have been practicing law, whether it be in Circuit Court or Family Court, I have always almost judged judges by their temperament. And by and far the judiciary that y'all have elected is a good judiciary and they have good temperament.

It's like Mr. Myrick said, you don't know bad temperament until you see it. Of course, there's some who don't have good temperament, but I would -- the judge that I would like to emulate is the judge that I am hopefully replacing, Judge Al Kleckley.

If you've ever been in his courtroom, you appreciate a judge who has his temperament because he treats everybody equally, he treats everybody with firmness, and he reaches decisions that are fair. And even though I've been before him many times, I've lost many cases, I've never argued with his decisions because of the way he renders his decisions and explains his verdict.
Q.     You talked about what's good judicial temperament. I'm just interested, both of you have mentioned you've been victimized by someone with bad judicial temperament. Describe the bad judicial temperament --
A.     Well, a bad judicial temperament is a judge who is not respectful of the lawyers and litigants, who -- you know, I've had some judges that make, you know, being a lawyer
-- you know, I've been in that position, it makes the lawyer feel like they're stupid. There are ways of telling a lawyer that they're doing something wrong without making them feel stupid.
Q.     How would you approach that? If you have a lawyer you think's, for example, not prepared on a regular basis, how would you handle that?
A.     I think that I would have an in camera conference with him and express my concerns to him, that I don't think that he is preparing his cases. Of course, there's nothing I can do if he doesn't prepare his cases and as a result of him not being prepared, you know, his clients will continue to lose. But I think I would advise him, give him my advice.
Q.     If you're elected to the Family Court, there are probably going to be some hearings where you fairly early on say, gosh, I've heard enough, I know what the answer is in this case and we've got a crowded docket, I need to move things along. What would you do in that instance?
A.     That's a hard question because, you know, most parties want to be heard. You know, they want to have their day in court, and a lot of times a lot of the information that is presented it is not necessary in order to make a decision. I wouldn't with diplomacy try to lengthen the time that it takes each side to present their case, but I would allow each side to present their case as they think they should to protect their clients' interests.
Q.     Well, talking about courtroom efficiency, too, how would you achieve that? I mean, it sounds like one of the things you might do is set time limits for hearings.
A.     Well, I think it's essential. If you've ever been in Family Court, the worst thing for lawyers and litigants is to have court running behind time, which they usually do, so the judge has got to put some constraints on time, a time limit. And a lawyer will call and schedule a case for an hour when he knows the case is going to take five hours. If you have a five-hour case scheduled for an hour, that throws everybody the rest of the day out. So I think that you would have to be generally firm in holding them to the time constraints that they have put on themselves, taking into consideration that there will be circumstances where the lawyers don't have any idea that it's going to get into other issues that they have no control over.
Q.     Tell the Committee how you envision making decisions and preparing orders as a Family Court judge.
A.     Of course, a lot of matters in Family Court are not contested. I would envision that most uncontested matters that are simple, that the attorney would prepare the order and present it to me and I would review it based on the facts presented.

The more complicated cases, I would be more inclined to issue my own opinion based on briefs or proposed orders from the respective parties.
Q.     For those orders that are drafted by the attorney, what would be your procedure about that? If an attorney comes to you with the order he's asked about -- you've asked him to draft, what would you ask him? What would you make sure he's done --
A.     Well, I would read it and make sure -- and I would also
-- I think it's important that the other side, if there is another side, have a chance to review that order and make any objections to it before I sign it.
Q.     What's your work schedule like during a typical week now and how do you envision that working as a Family Court judge?
A.     I get to the office a little bit before 7:00. I started doing that years ago because I felt like I could get more work done early in the morning. But it hasn't worked out that way because when you live in a small town, all my back door clients are bamming on my door when they see the light on. But I usually get there a little bit before 7:00 and usually it's six -- 6:30 or 7:00 before I leave. And then I go in on the weekend if I'm in town.
Q.     You said a back door client? What's a back door client?
A.     Well, a back door client is a client that comes to your back door and knocks on it when your office staff is not there.
Q.     Oh, okay.
A.     To discuss things with you.
Q.     Outside normal hours?
A.     Right.
Q.     What's your understanding of the Canons of Ethics as they relate to gifts and social hospitality?
A.     Well, I think that gifts are precluded, you know, absolutely. And social hospitality, you have to be very careful as to not put yourself in a position that -- where there may be a conflict.

But it's impossible, again, in a small area where we are not going to run into lawyers and run into people who may appear in court, but you have to keep your distance as far as discussing any type of pending Family Court matters.
Q.     Well, it does seem that it would be difficult. What's the size of the Bar there?
A.     We have six or so practicing attorneys. But, now, you have to realize, too, in Allendale County, we don't hold court. Allendale doesn't have -- well, like right now, we don't -- we're not having any court this month because there is no money to send us a judge.

So, we don't -- Allendale County in the circuit doesn't have court but, you know, one week a month, if there's a judge. So, you know, any judge who's elected to this position would be riding not only maybe outside the circuit, but would be within the five-county area.
Q.     While we're talking about that, I understand you're hampered to some degree by the amount of court that's held there, but on the average how often would you appear in Family Court on the year -- in a year?
A.     Well, every time there's court in Allendale, and generally when there's court in Hampton County, too, which Fairfax, if you're familiar with geography, it's right on the Hampton County line, I'm usually in court. I also attend court in Barnwell and Bamberg Counties more so than any other counties.
Q.     About how many times would that be?
A.     Well, we have court about -- that's about one week every month.
Q.     You're a judge now. How do you deal with ex parte communications?
A.     I've heard that question, and anyone who's a judge, especially a Municipal Court judge, knows that it's a very hard situation. I have my office staff -- every call that comes into my office, they ask, and most people don't like to be asked what their call is in regards to, in order to try to stop people from calling me about a traffic ticket and those types of things.

But, you know, my position on ex parte communication is you're not supposed to have any. And if someone does get through to you, you know, friends call and they don't tell you what it's about and the first thing they say is they got pulled coming into Fairfax. You have to -- you have to cut them off and tell them that you cannot -- you know, the law requires you can't discuss it unless the prosecutor or the police officer is present, and you'll be glad to, you know, hear their court -- I mean, their case in court. And that's very hard in a small town as you can imagine when your next door neighbor gets pulled.
Q.     Have you been sanctioned or held in contempt by a court?
A.     I have not.
Q.     In answer to question 42 on your Personal Data Questionnaire, you said you might request friends and colleagues to contact the General Assembly after screening.
A.     Correct.
Q.     Is that still accurate? Have you made any efforts --
A.     No. I sent out -- initially, I sent out a letter to all the legislators. This is back in December, which I'm sure they got summarily trashed by a lot of them, but I did send a letters.

And then I sent letters out to friends throughout the state, specifically in that letter outlining my understanding that they were not to contact any legislator on my behalf either by talking to them or sending letters prior to being cleared by the Screening Committee.
Q.     Have you otherwise sought the pledge of a legislator directly or indirectly?
A.     Except for, as Mr. Myrick said, hanging around here. But I haven't actually -- you know, just met and been present as we all are told you have to do, be present, but I haven't asked anybody to support me.
Q.     In the area of mediation, do you have any experience in that area?
A.     I do not have.
Q.     Do you have any particular views or opinions about that?
A.     Well, I think it's an effective way to dispose of cases with the least time and expense, without going into an actual courtroom situation. Most Family Court cases, most issues can be resolved if the parties can, you know, get down and negotiate out most of the issues that are in dispute.
MR. ELLIOTT:     That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from the Members?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     Yes, I've got one.
THE CHAIRMAN:     You do?
EXAMINATION BY MR. MCCONNELL:
Q.     If y'all don't have court but every two months, how in the world do the lawyers down there make a living? And I won't ask for the answer.
MR. ELLIOTT:     I think we got one.
A.     Well, you're talking about Family Court. Well, Circuit Court, generally like twice a week. Circuit Court -- well, of course, you have Circuit and you have Civil and Criminal, but --
THE CHAIRMAN:     You practice in other counties, too, though, don't you?
A.     Practice in other counties and that's probably why all of us do other things. I have a real estate agent and I have -- get hold of judgeships and I teach at Salkehatchie also.
Q.     And you've got a fishing pole also?
A.     I've got a fishing pole. And a gun, yes. That's a prerequisite for living in that area.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Well, I've been both to Fairfax and Allendale. I don't know if any of the other Committee Members can say that. I'm well aware of what you're talking about. Any other questions? Thank you very much.
GERALD C. SMOAK, JR., having been duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CHAIRMAN:     Mr. Smoak, have you had a chance to review the Personal Data Questionnaire?
MR. SMOAK:     Yes, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Any additions or deletions?
MR. SMOAK:     Yes, two additions. At number 12, it's listed I'm a public defender for conflict cases in Colleton County for General Sessions -- well, it's just for General Sessions and juveniles, 1993 to the present. And also, another addition, I've been on the Board of Grievances for about a year and a half or two years now; I don't think that I've reflected in my PDQ.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right. Any other changes?
MR. SMOAK:     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Those will be noted and we'll place this in the record. Any objection to our making the Summary a part of the record?
MR. SMOAK:     No, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That will be done at this point.

1.     Gerald C. Smoak, Jr.
Home Address:                         Business Address:
130 Jefferson Davis Road         218 Carn Street
Walterboro, SC 29488             Walterboro, SC 29488

2.     He was born in Walterboro, South Carolina on July 25, 1959. He is presently 34 years old.

4.     He was married to Elizabeth Thompson on June 1, 1985. He has two children:     Gerald C., III, age 7 and Caleigh Elizabeth, age 4 months.

5.     Military Service:     No.

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, 1977-1980, B.A. English, and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1983, J.D.

8.     Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
12-15 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE) per year

9.     Taught or Lectured:
He has taught Paralegal courses for Technical College of the Lowcountry
(1) Estates, (2) Family Law, (3) Legal Bibliography, (4) Litigation, and (5) Torts

12.     Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1983                 Clerk for Honorable William T. Howell
1984-1994         General practice with majority of work in Family Court
1984-1993         Prosecutor of child abuse and neglect cases for the Fourteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office - Also prosecution of Department of Youth Services cases
1993                 Public Defender for conflict cases of the Colleton County Public Defender
1984-1994         Public Defender for City of Walterboro

13.     Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:     Not rated. Doesn't know why. He currently does not subscribe.

14.     Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 5 times per year
State - 200 times per year or more
Other -

15.     Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 10%
Criminal - 10%
Domestic - 80%

16.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-Jury - 80%
Sole Counsel

17.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a)         DSS v. Johnson, et al.; 94-UP-039; Court of Appeals; filed February 8, 1994.
This case was significant because it dealt with expert opinion testimony and burden of proof in neglect cases.
(b)         Hiott v. Nolind, et al. This case is significant because it hinged on the efforts of the disabled natural mother to get custody or unsupervised visitation of a small child.
(c)         Hughes v. Hughes. This case was significant because the father was granted custody of the minor children of the parties based on the best interest of the minor children.
(d)         DSS v. New Bethany School for Boys. This case was significant because the case received national attention and press on allegations of abuse at the school.
(e)         Estate of Myers. This case was significant because the wife had to prove common law marriage to inherit from the deceased husband.

These are the most significant in recent memory, but all cases are significant to each of his clients at the time of their representation.

18.     Five (5) civil appeals:
(a)         DSS v. Johnson, et al.; 94-UP-039; Court of Appeals; filed February 8, 1994.

23.     Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
Special Referee three times per year
Arbitration Judge three times per year

39.     Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
Mailings 11/15/93         $69.30 (stamps, letters, envelopes)
Mailings 01/10/94         $69.30 (stamps, letters, envelopes)

TOTAL:     $138.60

44.     Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, South Carolina Bar Association, Colleton County Bar Association

45.     Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
former member Jaycees; Sertoma member; Walterboro Chamber of Commerce Board Member, 1988-1991; South Carolina Real Enterprises, Rural Enterpreneurship Through Action Learning, 1990

46.     He has spent the last ten years of his life in the Family Court. He has spent nine years prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases and various juvenile cases, not to mention his domestic practice. He believes his experience and knowledge of the Family Court would benefit the Family Court bench.

47.     Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a)         Eugene M. Varn
Enterprise Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 247, Cottageville, SC 29435
835-2222
(b)         Perry M. Buckner, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 470, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-9544
(c)         Donald H. Howe, Esquire
Gedney M. Howe, III, P.A.
P. O. Box 1034, Charleston, SC 29402
722-8048
(d)         A. Cranwell Boensch, Esquire
P. O. Box 258, Walterboro, SC 29488
549-5923
(e)         David B. Wheeler, Esquire
P. O. Box 858, Charleston, SC 29402-0585
724-1327

2.     Positions on the Bench:
He was appointed by the Circuit Court Judge to act as Special Referee one time in 1992 and four times in 1993.

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints. Judicial Standards Commission has no reprimands against you. Records of law enforcement agencies, Colleton County Sheriff, Walterboro City Police, SLED and FBI, are all negative. Judgement Rolls of Colleton County are negative. Federal Court records are negative. We have no complaints against you, no witnesses present to testify.

Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning, you have the opportunity to give a brief oral statement or one in writing, if you so desire.
MR. SMOAK:     I'll waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Thank you very much.
MR. SMOAK - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q.     Good morning, Mr. Smoak. Mr. Smoak, could you tell the Committee what your experience, as I understand, aside from one year of being a law clerk for a State Circuit Court judge, that you have spent your ten years of practice in Family Court; is that correct?
A.     That's correct. The vast majority, probably 80 percent, 75 to 80 percent.

I was a prosecutor for the solicitor's office for child abuse and neglect cases. I was a prosecutor for juvenile cases. I've spent -- my practice is the majority a domestic practice. I've been a guardian many times. I've represented children. I've represented
-- now I've represented juveniles. I've done adoptions, many adoptions, both privately and for DSS, as a matter of fact.

I guess I've handled the whole gamut of Family Court.
Q.     Also talking about contested custody cases, equitable distribution?
A.     Sure. I do a very good -- a good amount of contested custody cases, equitable distribution, I've handled a lot of them.
Q.     How many -- what percentage of your case load is contested?
A.     Contested, it's hard to say. I would say probably over 50 percent. Maybe 60, just, you know, that's contested at the time you're going to trial. Sometimes you can work out something before you get to trial and get to the courthouse. But a lot of times it's worked out at the courthouse. You can -- once the parties get together, it seems like then all of a sudden you can resolve some issues.

But probably contested that actually are tried and come to a judgement by a judge, probably 50 percent would probably be close. 40 to 50.
Q.     Are you like the other candidates for this position in that you are in court every time Family Court holds a session?
A.     I sure am.
Q.     Do you just practice in Colleton County or do you also practice --
A.     I do go to other counties. I have -- you know, I've had some cases in Dorchester, a few in Charleston, a few in Hampton, just -- it's kind of hodgepodge, but, you know, the vast majority in Colleton.
Q.     What is the most satisfying kind of case that you deal with in Family Court?
A.     Probably -- I enjoy doing child abuse and neglect cases because I felt like I was making a difference in some child's life. And I think doing stuff like that -- adoptions, I enjoy doing that. I think that's a happy time.

I enjoy some juvenile cases because where they don't get caught up in the system, you know, every now and then they'll listen to what you have to say. You can talk to them in your office and show them that you care about them.

I have a fellow right now whose -- kind of as an aside, ever since about a year ago, he has brought me his report card and, you know, the case has been over two or three years ago. But he brings it to me and he says, you know, I'm doing great, and I say man, that's great and talk with him. That's the kind of case I like.
Q.     What is the juvenile crime situation in your area? What is it like?
A.     It's getting out of hand.
Q.     What do you mean by that?
A.     It's gone from -- it's gone from, you know, stealing something where you get some benefit out of it, you know, you can kind of see that, that you're stealing something, you're going to get something out of it.

But all of a sudden it's gone to destroying property, guns in school, knives, people getting beat up by juveniles, and it's -- I mean, it's -- you're seeing a definite increase and a definite problem. For the last couple of years it's gone on.
Q.     What are your suggestions in this area that you would make to --
A.     One thing I think that, you know, I kind of have in mind is, there needs to be some kind of break between the court and just sending them to Columbia to incarcerate them potentially in the Department of Youth Services until age 21 or whatever.

The big problem I find is, some children don't need to be sent into the system. There needs to be an alternative because when they get up there, somebody that really hadn't been involved in the system too much, they get involved in it and all of a sudden they're being taught to be criminals by other people up there. And I think that's a definite problem and the way to solve it, I don't know. You need places like the Beaufort Marine Institute, maybe mentor programs. It's a bad problem, no question.
Q.     Why do you want to be a Family Court judge?
A.     I feel like I can make a difference. I've done that for approximately ten years and it's something I enjoy doing. I mean, it's -- and, you know, people kind of -- somebody asked me, I remember when I was running for this judgeship, they asked me, they said, "Well, do you have your psychiatric insurance paid up?" I just kind of laughed and I said, you know -- you know, it's just something I enjoy and think I can make a difference maybe in a child's life or make somebody feel more comfortable when they're in that court, because it's definitely an, you know, an emotional time and an emotional court.
Q.     You list one appeal on your questionnaire. You do not -- is that because you do not do appeals?
A.     Walterboro is such, when most people -- first of all, a lot of people can't afford appeals. I mean, you know, their contract, usually it doesn't include the appeal. And every now and then, I'll have a case where either somebody -- they'll get somebody else to appeal it because I usually don't handle them. But that's very few because people just don't appeal because they don't have the money, to be honest with you. And that's why the one appeal I have, that's a DSS case I did.
Q.     What is your experience about good and about bad temperament of judges? What have you learned from that and what will you then carry on into your -- if you are elected, to your judgeship?
A.     Good temperament in regards to judges or just in regards to general characteristics?
Q.     Well, we're talking about judges. What is a good judicial temperament?
A.     I've -- I like judges who are courteous to litigants, who let you know who's in control of the courtroom, courteous to their staff, their secretary, and they make people -- you know, you can still have a sense of humor and make people feel comfortable in that situation.

Judge Kleckley is one of them; he's been mentioned. Judge Inabinet's been mentioned, and he seems to do that, in my opinion. Judge Kinard Johnson, I remember he was in Colleton a little while back and I think he exhibits that. And I believe Myers might have been before that.
Q.     What are the qualities that you will emulate --
A.     I think I have a good sense of humor. I think I'm a fair person. I don't like -- I think I have a penchant for being fair, I like to see things handled fairly. I think any lawyer who probably has practiced has lost a case, but as long as you get in there and have a fair shot then, you know, you can deal with that.

I think I would be, you know, sensitive to the litigants. I understand it's an important day for them and I understand it's an emotional day for them, and to the children, the same way.
Q.     What do you foresee your approach to writing orders and making decisions?
A.     The decisions of the vast majority would be made, probably, from the bench. There are some cases that you're in a two- or three-day, for example, custody trial, divorce, and the whole nine yards of issues; you probably couldn't make that decision from the bench.

But the cases that were decided from the bench, and I'm -- I imagine I would make notes as to what my order would be and have the attorney -- have one attorney or the other prepare it.

When it comes back to me, read through it, make sure it's what I ordered and, you know, check off my checklist, and make sure the other attorney's seen it, make sure there's no objections to it. If there are, we have to hear the objections and determine exactly what was ordered.
Q.     What do you mean by checklist?
A.     What I -- the notes I made when I'm doing a trial.
Q.     I understand that you have experience in teaching paralegal courses --
A.     That's correct.
Q.     -- in a paralegal institute. Do you have any other experiences in teaching, in CLE's or in writing articles for a legal --
A.     No, I don't.
Q.     -- magazines? Are most of your CLE's domestic, that you attend domestic ones or are you --
A.     Probably about half, maybe a little bit more than that.
Q.     What is -- this was one of your entries in your activities -- REAL Enterprises, Rural Entrepreneurship Through Action Learning; could you tell us about that?
A.     Sure. That was a group of business persons from Colleton County that went to the high school in Colleton County and young volunteers from the school, I think juniors -- no, they're sophomores, juniors and seniors.

They would kind've get up an idea about how to start a business and what you would need to start one, kind of get a, you know, kind of brain trust going to what kind of business it would be, drawbacks, what you have to think about in forming that business, and that's what we did. As a matter of fact, one we -- they were talking about was an ice cream parlor in Walterboro. But that's what it was.

We volunteered our time to meet out there with them, and it was a good experience for them, I think.
Q.     Sort of a Junior Achievement kind of thing?
A.     Very close.
Q.     Is there such an ice cream parlor now, or was it just to plan it?
A.     Well, there was about to be. As a matter of fact, where they were going to put it, I think they moved the building or I've forgot where they were going to do it, but they moved the building and couldn't do it, and so that kind of just -- that ended it when the building fell through.
Q.     Is this an activity of yours that's ongoing?
A.     No, I haven't done it since I think it was '90 or '91, I forgot which.
Q.     Do you have any activities, extra community activities that you will feel compelled to pull back from if you become a judge?
A.     I may have to pull back -- I'm in Sertoma. I may have to pull back from there because I couldn't -- if I were to be elected, I couldn't raise any funds; I don't think I could get into that. I'm a part-time -- well, I'm a coach for my little boy's little league team. I mean, I think I could probably still do that. Nothing else I can think of that I would have to pull back from. Of course, the public defender for the city of Walterboro, I couldn't do that if I was elected judge.
Q.     What would be some examples of times when you would need to recuse yourself if you became a Family judge that you perceive?
A.     Family members, people that are kin to me, perhaps former law partners, maybe. We'd have to fully disclose that and see if anybody had an objection to it, and if they did, of course, I'd recuse myself. Anybody I was a close personal friend with, whether it be an attorney -- I can't think of an attorney I'm that close with that I wouldn't just right off the bat say I'd recuse myself, but -- and anybody else that's a close personal friend, I don't think it'd be proper.
Q.     Could you discuss with the Committee your philosophy of ex parte communication?
A.     I don't believe in them. I've kind of learned a little bit from Judge Howell when I clerked for, you know, for him. If somebody walked in the office and said anything about a case, you know, he said, you know, get the other attorney in here and we'll talk about it, but, you know, we're not going to talk about a case without everybody being here. And that's the way I feel about it.
Q.     I think that -- I think we show -- oh. If you have any additions, Mr. Smoak, to your campaign expenditures, I guess you will update our --
A.     Sure. I don't think I do. Maybe phone calls, but I don't think --
Q.     Have you indirectly or directly sought the pledge of any legislator?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you asked anyone to write any letters on your behalf?
A.     No, not at this time. I understand some have been written because I've heard a legislator say, "I got a letter on you," and I don't know who it was from, I don't know what it said. I just -- and I said, "Well, I don't know who would do it," and that's all I said.
Q.     You don't know who -- that was not done at your behest?
A.     No.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Questions from Members? Thank you, Mr. Smoak.
A.     Thank you.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Oh, I have one more, I'm sorry.
Q.     What is the Palmetto Home Care? You have a quarter interest in that.
A.     Yes, I'm a stockholder in that. Originally my father was and now I am. It's basically a care home for not -- nobody that needs to be in a hospital, but somebody that needs a place to go, to make sure they take their medicines.

That's about the best explanation I can give you. They just have caretakers out there and it's an old house. It's pretty updated of course, but it's a motel, I don't know how many rooms, 15 maybe.
Q.     Is it residential, people live there?
A.     Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:     It's a licensed residential care facility; is that what it is?
A.     Sure is. And, you know, in that regard, I mean, now that you've brought it up, I will probably try to divest myself of that because, it never has happened before, but technically you might get in a problem with, you know, some kind of adult abuse and neglect cases. It probably wouldn't happen and never has happened, but I just -- that's something you kind of keep in mind.
Q.     And so, therefore, you would divest yourself of that?
A.     If I could, uh-huh.
MS. MCNAMEE:     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     Other questions? Thank you very much.
Q.     Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:     That concludes the business of the Committee. Do we need an Executive Session at all before we adjourn? Do I hear a motion to keep the record open in the event that we have any additional information that we need to address on the candidates?
SENATOR MCCONNELL:     I would so move.
THE CHAIRMAN:     All right, moved by Senator McConnell, seconded by Representative Alexander. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Any matters we need to take in Executive Session before concluding today's forum? If not --
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     What about, when will we expect -- I know they would like to know --
THE CHAIRMAN:     Yes, let me --
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:     I think we ought to give them a little idea of when --
THE CHAIRMAN:     And we announced -- for the candidates who weren't here yesterday when this statement was made, we anticipate it taking a good two weeks or so to get the transcript back, and after that, I would think it would take us at least a week or so to work through the transcript and try to prepare our findings.

So we probably are looking at three weeks from today's date. I would suggest that you not call Ms. Satterwhite.
MS. SATTERWHITE:     I'll call them.
THE CHAIRMAN:     She'll call you. But not be anticipating receiving anything until at least two weeks have expired
-- really, until at least three weeks have expired. And our policy is not to give anybody a head start, but to try to contact all the candidates and say the screening report will be issued at X time. That way we want to get in touch with everybody and not let one of you have a four- or five-hour head start.

So, that's the way we'll handle it. So there's no need to call her next week or the next week, but she will contact you to let you know prior to the time the report goes is out. Thank you very much. Is there a motion we adjourn?
(There being nothing further, the hearing was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.)

Findings of Fact

The Committee in its review and investigation of the candidates for South Carolina Supreme Court and Family Court seats conducted two full days of screening hearings based, in part, on extensive background research compiled by the Committee's legal and administrative staff. To ensure full public input, the Committee asked for the assistance of all print and electronic media in the state in advertising the judicial vacancies and the Committee's desire for citizens to appear before the Committee and offer testimony regarding any or all of the candidates.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Committee was thoroughly impressed with the experience of The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr.. He served with distinction as a circuit court judge from 1976 to 1985, and as an Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court from 1985 until the present. In addition to his experience, Justice Finney enjoys an excellent reputation for impartiality and judicial temperament. His reputation was well supported by his responses to the Committee's questions in these areas. The Committee also notes that Justice Finney possesses a strong sense of ethics regarding conflicts of interest, acceptance of gifts, and ex parte communications. As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Finney would serve as an outstanding role model for the judiciary and the bar.

One witness testified against Justice Finney's candidacy. The witness' complaint was based upon media accounts of the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte: Lexington County, No. 24032 (S.C. Mar. 21, 1994).

This opinion involved a consolidated appeal of two orders of the trial court regarding proceedings held pursuant to the State's death penalty statute, S.C. Code Section 16-3-26 (C)(Law. Coop. 1993). The proceedings held by the trial court were in response to motions by defendants' counsel requesting funds to pay for services needed to develop and present its case. The trial court's order allowed Lexington County, as a payor of public funds for the defense, to participate as a party in the proceedings and question the necessity and reasonableness of the requested expenses. The order also allowed the press to remain present in the courtroom throughout the proceedings.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Finney concurring, reversed the trial judge and held that South Carolina's death penalty statute specifically provided for an ex parte proceeding on the necessity and reasonableness of the defense's expenses, and to allow Lexington County to participate in the proceeding was outside the scope of allowable judicial interpretation of the statute. The Supreme Court also reversed the trial judge for not holding a hearing to determine if a closed proceeding should be held on the issue of the necessity and reasonableness of the defense's expenses. The Supreme Court held that the ex parte proceeding required by state statute does not mandate a closed proceeding, but one may be ordered by the trial court upon an appropriate motion by a defense counsel and the trial court's finding that there is a substantial probability of prejudice to the defendant and no reasonable alternatives to closure exist.

The complaining witness testified against Justice Finney for joining in the Supreme Court's opinion in Ex Parte: Lexington County, supra, because the witness objected to closed proceedings which involve the expenditure of public funds and because he perceived the Supreme Court's opinion as the Court's policy decision that counties should not be allowed to participate in such proceedings. The witness further objected to the expenditure of public funds on defendants for "personal enhancements" such as clothing.

The Committee finds that the complaint against Justice Finney is without merit. First, by excluding the county from participation in the proceeding on the defense's expenses, the Supreme Court was interpreting a statute passed by the General Assembly, which required an ex parte proceeding. Second, the Supreme Court did not require a closed proceeding in every case, but rather provided for one when there is a "substantial probability of prejudice which would result from publicity (emphasis added)" and "there are no reasonable alternatives to closure which would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial (emphasis added)." Finally, the case, as presented to the Supreme Court, did not raise any issue regarding the appropriateness of any items the trial court authorized the defense to acquire.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Committee was impressed with the dedication and continued service of The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, Jr., who has served as a circuit court judge for the past fourteen and one-half years. Judge Anderson is known for his hard work, with ten-hour work days being common. He testified that he reads the briefs and available information in preparation for cases he hears, and that he is committed to staying with a matter, reaching a decision and producing an order. The Committee also appreciates his legal scholarship. Judge Anderson has compiled approximately 50 notebooks of resource material that he uses as the basis for consideration of every case. The Committee believes Judge Anderson holds a deep commitment to fairness and appreciates the decorum he maintains in the courtroom and his understanding of a judge's ethical considerations.

The witness who objected to Justice Finney raised the same objections to Judge Anderson's candidacy. The Committee also finds the complaint against Judge Anderson to be without merit.

Judge Anderson was the trial judge who was reversed by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte: Lexington County, supra. Therefore, Judge Anderson actually issued orders which were in accord with the complaining witness' opinion on how such proceedings should be handled. That is, Judge Anderson allowed Lexington County to participate in the proceedings and the press to be present, as the witness suggested would be proper. Regarding the expenditure of public funds for "personal enhancements" of criminal defendants, Judge Anderson explained to the Committee's satisfaction that he did not believe requiring defendants to face the jury in prison clothes, especially in death penalty cases, comports with constitutionally required due process. The Committee also notes that Judge Anderson's interpretation has support in case law. See, Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S. Ct. 1691, 48 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1976), and Felts v. Estelle, 875 F. 2d 785 (9th Cir. 1989).

The Committee finds The Honorable Julius H. Baggett has served as a circuit court judge with distinction and honor for the past eighteen years. In his testimony he described several very difficult cases he has presided over. In the opinion of the Committee, his experiences on the circuit court bench and his experience as an acting appellate judge on occasion have prepared him well if he is elected to the Supreme Court. The Committee was impressed that Judge Baggett has faced the challenges of increasing case loads and the substantive changes in the law by becoming innovative with the use of computers in his courtroom.

Judge Baggett articulated a clear understanding of the ethical concerns facing a judge. He also demonstrated his concern that the record clearly reflect his thoughts on a question concerning rules of evidence which was asked of him. His letter to the Committee has been incorporated in this record.

The Committee is very impressed with the record of The Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr. He has practiced law for twenty-four years and has been a circuit court judge for the past six years. Judge Kinard has served admirably as the Chief Administrative Judge for General Sessions court for two years and for Common Pleas court from mid 1992 until now. In these capacities Judge Kinard has experienced added pressure concerning the issue of ex parte communication and has developed an approach to this issue which he shared with the committee. His approach combines respect for the concept of avoiding ex parte communication on the substance of particular cases while maintaining some flexibility for procedural and scheduling issues which arise with great frequency for a chief administrative judge. The Committee appreciates his candor and thoughtful discussion of this issue.

Judge Kinard demonstrated a keen awareness of the rules of recusal and the ethical considerations surrounding social engagements. He thoughtfully discussed issues concerning maintenance of docket control in an urban court such as the use of computers by the judge, the use of one judge for all hearings in complex cases and an expanded role for alternative dispute resolution. He spoke from experience as he has used these techniques himself.

The Committee found The Honorable Costa M. Pleicones to possess outstanding credentials. He has an extensive twenty-three year career as a practicing attorney, including substantial appellate experience, and presently serves as a circuit court judge. Judge Pleicones has also served as an Acting Associate Justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court on several occasions.

The Committee was impressed with Judge Pleicones' commitment to service as a judge. He prepares for court and is thorough in his approach to decision-making. In addition, Judge Pleicones is industrious, making himself readily available to hear matters even when court is not in session. The Committee appreciated Judge Pleicones' approach to writing orders and believes him to be compassionate and respectful of litigants and lawyers while maintaining decorum in the courtroom. The Committee also found Judge Pleicones to possess a solid understanding of ethical concerns and was particularly impressed with his sensitivity to ex parte communications and conflicts of interest.

The Committee recognizes and appreciates the substantial record of service of The Honorable John H. Waller, Jr. Judge Waller has served as a circuit court judge since 1980, and also has been a hearing officer, member and, now, Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission, which inquires into allegations of judicial misconduct and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court based upon its findings. Additionally, he is Chairman of the Circuit Court Advisory Committee, which provides an orientation program for new judges and which advises the Supreme Court upon request and on behalf of the circuit court and Bar Association.

As with other candidates, Judge Waller was questioned about ethical concerns for a judge, including acceptance of gifts and social hospitality, ex parte communications and recusal. His responses demonstrated a firm understanding of proper conduct.

Questions were raised about the South Carolina Supreme Court's reversal of Judge Waller's handling of several death penalty cases and about one particular error for which Judge Waller was reversed twice. While the Committee does not regard reversals lightly, especially those which are for commission of a previous error, it does not consider Judge Waller's reversals to warrant an adverse finding regarding him. The Committee checked the cumulative reversal records of judges with similar years of experience as Judge Waller and determined that the number of Judge Waller's reversals was not extraordinary. Furthermore, the Committee notes that one of the errors in the death penalty cases related to the proper jury instructions about a defendant's parole eligibility, which has been the subject of some confusion for the Bench and Bar.

A question was also raised about a one-sentence comment made by Judge Waller in May, 1987, which allegedly demonstrated racial prejudice. The comment was presented to the Committee in an order of Judge Waller settling the record in State v. Arthur, 296 S.C. 495, 374 S.E. 2d 291 (1988). The Committee investigated the facts surrounding the statement and concludes the one sentence statement does not demonstrate racial bias.

Finally, recent news reports of the misconduct of a former family court judge raised questions about the diligence of the Judicial Standards Commission, which potentially reflected upon Judge Waller because he was a member and later chairman of the Commission while a grievance against the family court judge was pending before the Commission. The news reports indicated that the grievance had been filed with the Commission without prosecution for two and one-half years.

Because of the seriousness of this situation, the Committee received a written statement from Judge Waller about the Commission's handling of the grievance and verified Judge Waller's statement with the United States Attorney. A copy of Judge Waller's statement is included in this report as Appendix A.

Based upon Judge Waller's substantiated statement and further explanation by the United States Attorney, the Committee concludes that the Commission acted reasonably and within its discretion. The allegations of the grievance were denied by the family court judge and an attorney who was also implicated. Both the Commission and the United States Attorney concluded for their separate purposes that the controverted testimony of the complainant, standing alone, was insufficient to successfully prosecute. Judge Waller's statement indicates that in the early stages the Commission coordinated its investigation with a broader one being conducted by the federal government. A central part of the federal government's investigation involved a plea arrangement whereby the attorney implicated with the family court judge would testify truthfully about the judge's misconduct. The Commission awaited receipt of this corroborative evidence to commence its prosecution of the grievance, but the anticipated evidence did not materialize until the attorney's sentencing on March 28, 1994.

Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat No. Four.

The Committee finds that Steven D. Dennis has an extensive background in family and criminal law and for the last four years has been a judge for the City of Columbia. It is pleased with Mr. Dennis' understanding of the many facets of the judge's role. He discussed with the Committee the need for a judge to communicate his decision completely, to maintain respect in the courtroom, to be sensitive to the needs of the people who find themselves in court, and to deal with them fairly and allow their dispute or problem to be fully aired.

The Committee finds that Mr. Dennis has a strong grasp of the rules of ethical conduct which govern a judge's life. He also described for the Committee a well reasoned approach to the task of writing orders.

The Committee recognizes that Barbara M. Heape was in private practice for several years which included experience in family court handling a wide variety of domestic cases. Since Ms. Heape joined the Attorney General's Office in 1989, she has concentrated on criminal and attorney grievance matters. The Committee recognizes that Ms. Heape has a very responsible position in the Attorney General's Office and works very hard in that position. She has a reputation for being firm yet fair in her capacity as an Assistant Attorney General. She indicated to the Committee that firmness and fairness were two qualities of the utmost importance for a family court judge.

Ms. Heape's experience with the Council on Child Abuse and Neglect will be valuable to her if she attains the family court judgeship. She explained to the Committee her plan for writing orders, if elected, which the Committee finds to be carefully thought out and ambitious. By her testimony Ms. Heape expressed a firm understanding of the ethical bounds within which a judge must function.

The Committee believes The Honorable Francenia B. (Frannie) Heizer possesses a keen intellect. As an undergraduate student at the University of South Carolina, Ms. Heizer was a Carolina Scholar and graduated Summa Cum Laude. Then, as a law student, she achieved distinction by receiving the Am Jur Award for the highest grade in three of her law school courses.

The Committee also finds Ms. Heizer has substantial experience, which is relevant to service as a family court judge. Approximately one-third of her law practice is presently in the area of family law, and before 1989, Ms. Heizer handled a broad range of domestic matters with almost daily appearances in family court. Ms. Heizer also has experience as a hearing officer for the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Ms. Heizer demonstrated a thorough knowledge of ethical considerations and an appreciation of the role of the family court and the family court judge.

The Committee found Leslie Kirkland Riddle to have extensive and wide experience in family court matters. During her ten years as an attorney, she has practiced almost exclusively in family court. Ms. Riddle was a juvenile prosecutor for the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office for approximately one and one-half years and has handled a broad range of contested domestic matters in private practice. She appears almost daily in family court.

The Committee appreciated Ms. Riddle's work ethic and her desire, if she becomes a family court judge, to move the docket for the benefit of the litigants. Ms. Riddle's responses to questions about ethical concerns and judicial temperament indicated a commitment to fairness and a sensitivity to the litigants.

The Committee notes with approval that Donna S. Strom's legal experience, aside from one year clerking for a circuit court judge, has all been in family court. As the chief counsel for the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Department of Social Services, she has had valuable experience in many areas of family court jurisdiction. The Committee feels Ms. Strom has the resourcefulness and ability to master those areas of family court jurisdiction with which she may not be as familiar. She has been conscientious about maintaining a brief bank for herself and attorneys at DSS; she has given presentations on child support enforcement and related topics; and she has attended many CLE's on family law topics.

The Committee appreciated Ms. Strom's understanding of the ethical considerations governing a judge's life on and off the bench. The Committee was impressed with several of Ms. Strom's ideas concerning juvenile crime.

The Committee finds H. Bruce Williams has extensive experience in domestic law as his practice for the past twelve years has been almost exclusively in family court. He also serves as a municipal judge part time. Mr. Williams works closely, as a volunteer, with high school groups. The Committee finds that he has thoughtful plans for alternative programs he would like to employ in juvenile cases, if he is elected to this family court position.

The Committee is impressed with Mr. Williams' thoughts on the components of good judicial temperament. Also, the Committee recognizes that Mr. Williams understands thoroughly the rules of ethical conduct including recusal, ex parte communications and social hospitality which govern a judge's life.

One witness testified against Mr. Williams' candidacy. Mr. Williams was the court appointed guardian ad litem for the complainant's two children in a contested custody proceeding. The witness expressed dissatisfaction with his performance of that role. She criticized him for being indecisive and said Mr. Williams was predisposed in favor of the father concerning his residence and life style offering more security and stability to the children. Mr. Williams replied that his participation in the case had been noted positively by the judge in the order. The judge stated that Mr. Williams had participated vigorously in interviewing witnesses and that his input was important in the final resolution of the case. Mr. Williams also presented affidavits from the two attorneys involved who attested to his dedication to his appointment as guardian ad litem in this case.

The Committee finds that this custody dispute involved a very difficult decision for the judge. It finds that Mr. Williams performed his duties thoroughly, with care and professionalism. His investigation included a trip out of state to the father's neighborhood, interviews with the children's teachers and principal, a visit with the children in their home in Columbia, and several discussions with the children's therapist. The final outcome of the case was that the judge awarded custody of the children to the complainant and that the visitation arrangements were not substantially different from what the parties had previously worked out. The complainant has appealed financial aspects of the order including the requirement that she pay Mr. Williams' fee. The Committee, however, is satisfied that Mr. Williams performed his duties in this contested case with objectivity and professionalism.

Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat No. Two.

The Committee found The Honorable Harris Lewis Beach, Jr., to have substantial and varied experience in family law. Mr. Beach has been a member of the South Carolina Bar for approximately twenty years. While he has been engaged in a general practice, Mr. Beach has concentrated on domestic cases. About one-half of his practice is in family court and has involved a wide array of domestic and juvenile matters. Mr. Beach has a long history of public service as a member of County Council, has taught paralegals family court procedure and has served on several occasions as an arbiter and special referee.

The Committee was well-satisfied with Mr. Beach's understanding of ethical concerns and his appreciation of the special requirements that the emotional nature of family court proceedings place upon a family court judge. The Committee also appreciated Mr. Beach's interest in using the hours before court for continuing his education, his thoughts on achieving courtroom efficiency through pre-trial conferences and mediation and his willingness to make himself available for unscheduled matters.

The Committee considers Jane Dowling Fender to have an extensive and broad experience in family court matters. Ninety-five percent of her practice is in domestic and juvenile cases, with weekly appearances in family court. Ms Fender has also completed the forty hours of instruction to qualify as a mediator, and she mediates divorce cases, primarily with child custody issues. Ms Fender is also a member of the governing council of the South Carolina Bar's Family Law Section.

The Committee was impressed with the dedication and work ethic Ms Fender would bring to the bench. Ms Fender testified that her work day begins at 3:00 or 3:30 a.m. and concludes around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. The Committee considered Ms Fender to have an understanding of the appropriate temperament for a judge, and especially appreciated her sensitivity to the litigants. She understood the importance of family court proceedings in the litigants' lives, and expressed an intent to put litigants at ease and explain the proceedings to them. The Committee found Ms Fender to have an appreciation for ethical concerns, and an appropriate approach to writing orders.

The Committee finds that William E. Myrick, Jr. has had an active law practice in Allendale County for the past thirty five years and that he has added to his legal credentials and experience by being a city judge in Allendale for the last year and one half. Mr. Myrick expressed a clear understanding of the decorum he would expect to maintain in his courtroom if he were elected to the family court bench. Mr. Myrick told the Committee of his experience in family court which has made up approximately one-half of his general practice. He has served in a pro bono capacity on many cases involving the Department of Social Services.

Mr. Myrick is concerned about the rising incidence of juvenile crime and clearly expressed this issue as one he would devote much of his time and energy to as a family court judge.

The Committee found that The Honorable Walter H. Sanders, Jr., has practiced regularly in family court during his seventeen year career as an attorney. Mr. Sanders has handled a wide range of family court cases. Besides the usual domestic matters, Mr. Sanders has defended juveniles and also prosecuted them when the acting solicitor was unavailable. Mr. Sanders also has experience as a judge, serving as a municipal judge for several towns and as a Master-in-Equity. For two of the municipalities, he has served as municipal judge for ten years or more.

The Committee considered Mr. Sanders to have a solid understanding of ethical considerations and appreciated his view of proper judicial temperament. Mr. Sanders indicated that firm, but fair, impartial and respectful treatment of litigants and attorneys was important. The Committee also found Mr. Sanders to have a strong work ethic and appreciated his approach to writing orders.

The Committee is impressed that Gerald C. Smoak, Jr. has concentrated his ten years of legal experience as an attorney in family court and as a prosecutor for the solicitor's office of child abuse and neglect cases and on juvenile cases. The Committee notes with approval his obvious sensitivity to the serious nature of family court cases. It is also impressed with the personal interest he has taken in some of his younger clients and the improvement in their attitude which has occurred as a result.

Mr. Smoak demonstrated a keen understanding of the elements of a good judicial temperament and the ethical principles by which a judge must live.

Appendix A
Statement of John H. Waller, Jr., Chairman of the South Carolina Judicial Standards Commission

The South Carolina Supreme Court has been briefed on the investigation of former Family Court Judge Sam Mendenhall. After consultation with the Supreme Court, I am authorized to issue the following statement as Chairman of the South Carolina Judicial Standards Commission.

On November 1, 1991 the Board received a complaint by Dorothy Bone against former Family Court Judge Sam Mendenhall. Judge Mendenhall categorically denied the allegations and an investigation ensued. Early on, the investigation was coordinated with a broader investigation by the federal government. It became apparent that a grievance against Judge Mendenhall could not be successfully prosecuted without the information the federal investigation sought to obtain. Central to the federal investigation was the plea bargain arrangement with attorney Sam Fewell whereby Fewell agreed to testify truthfully regarding Judge Mendenhall. Fewell did not disclose under oath the charges involving Judge Mendenhall until March 28, 1994. The Judicial Standards matter has been awaiting the completion of the federal investigation and the receipt of the admissions made by Fewell during his sentencing on March 28, 1994.

Summary

The following persons were unanimously found qualified:

The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., candidate for Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, Jr., candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

The Honorable Julius H. Baggett, candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

The Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

The Honorable Costa M. Pleicones, candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

The Honorable John H. Waller, Jr., candidate for Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court;

Steven D. Dennis, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

Barbara M. Heape, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

Francenia B. Heizer, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

Leslie Kirkland Riddle, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

Donna S. Strom, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

H. Bruce Williams, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

Harris L. Beach, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Jane Dowling Fender, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

William E. Myrick, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Walter H. Sanders, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges, Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. M.O. Alexander
/s/Rep. Donald W. Beatty
/s/Rep. C. Lenoir Sturkie

On motion of Rep. HODGES, the Report was ordered printed in the Journal.

Rep. R. YOUNG moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Patricia Kelley of Charleston, which was agreed to.

The following was received.
Columbia, S.C.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 796:
S. 796 -- Senator Leventis: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 39, TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EGGS, SO AS TO REVISE THE RESTRICTIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND PENALTIES ON THE LABELING AND MARKETING OF EGGS; AND TO REPEAL ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 39, TITLE 39, RELATING TO THE SALE OF EGGS AND BABY CHICKS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.

Very respectfully,
President

Received as information.

The following was received.

Document No. 1682
Promulgated By Department of Health and Environmental Control
Hazardous Waste Management
Received by Speaker December 17, 1993
Referred to House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
120 Day Review Expiration Date May 11, 1994
Withdrawn and Resubmitted April 28, 1994
Revised Expiration Date May 18, 1994

The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:

H. 4478 -- Reps. Snow, Inabinett, Riser and Law: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-15-65 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN ALLIGATOR HARVEST PROGRAM ON PRIVATE LANDS.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:

H. 4596 -- Rep. Hodges: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-5-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE LAW ON GAS, HEAT, WATER, SEWERAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, AND STREET RAILWAY COMPANIES, SO AS TO ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC UTILITY" BY PROVIDING THAT THE TERM INCLUDES EVERY CORPORATION AND PERSON DELIVERING NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTED OR TRANSPORTED BY PIPE, AND DELETE THE WORD "GAS" FROM THE DEFINITION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 58-5-240, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO GAS, HEAT, WATER, SEWERAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, AND STREET RAILWAY COMPANIES, FILING SCHEDULES OF PROPOSED RATES, AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE THE SAME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS EXIST OR THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MAKES CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS, A RATE OF RETURN DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CALCULATED IF THE RATE IS DETERMINED TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:

H. 4628 -- Reps. Kirsh, G. Bailey, Boan, J. Brown, Harwell and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-67-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CREATION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN SPEECH PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY, SO AS TO REVISE THE NAME OF THE BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 40-67-80, RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR TWO SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS ON THE BOARD RATHER THAN TWO SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS AND TO PROVIDE THAT NOMINATION FOR BOARD APPOINTMENT MUST BE MADE ONLY FOR THE SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST AND AUDIOLOGIST POSITIONS; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY FOR SIX YEARS.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:

H. 4629 -- Reps. Kirsh, G. Bailey, Boan, J. Brown, Harwell and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-36-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, SO AS TO REVISE BY WHOM AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM MUST BE ACCREDITED; TO AMEND SECTION 40-36-180, RELATING TO FEES, SO AS TO INCLUDE VERIFICATION FEES AMONG THOSE FEES THAT THE BOARD MAY PRESCRIBE IN REGULATION; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY FOR SIX YEARS.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:

H. 4630 -- Reps. Kirsh, G. Bailey, Boan, J. Brown, Harwell and Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THREE NOMINEES FOR EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD MUST BE ELECTED BY PHARMACISTS RESIDING IN THAT DISTRICT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE GOVERNOR FOR APPOINTMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-420, RELATING TO PHARMACY FEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THESE FEES MUST BE SET IN REGULATION; TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN FEES ARE IN EFFECT UNTIL THEY ARE SET IN REGULATION; TO REPEAL SECTION 40-43-480, RELATING TO FUNDING IN THE 1986 APPROPRIATIONS ACT; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY FOR SIX YEARS.

The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

Rep. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 5161 -- Rep. J. Bailey: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROMPTLY ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FOR MEDICAL CARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 1282 -- Senator Moore: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE JOHN L. HIXON BRIDGE IN THE NORTH AUGUSTA AREA TO THE JOHN L. HIXON INTERCHANGE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WALDROP, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 1138 -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Courson and Bryan: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATING COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN SOUTH CAROLINA, TO PROVIDE THE MEMBERSHIP AND PURPOSE OF THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS DISSOLUTION UPON COMPLETION OF ITS WORK.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following was introduced:

H. 5175 -- Rep. Wright: A HOUSE RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS OF THE LATE RICHARD M. NIXON, THIRTY-SEVENTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Whereas, the members of the House of Representatives were saddened to note the passing on April 22, 1994, of Richard M. Nixon of California, the thirty-seventh President of the United States; and

Whereas, Mr. Nixon, a graduate of Whittier College and Duke University Law School, and a World War II veteran of the United States Navy, began his life in politics on his election to the United States House of Representatives in 1946 and to the United States Senate in 1950; and

Whereas, at the young age of thirty-nine, he was elected Vice-President of the United States, serving with distinction in that office during the eight years of the Eisenhower administration; and

Whereas, he was a candidate for President in 1960, losing an extremely close election to John F. Kennedy, after which in 1962 he ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California; and

Whereas, Mr. Nixon then practiced law in New York, joining the Mudge Rose Law Firm and continued to work in Republican politics, once again becoming a candidate in 1968 when he was elected thirty-seventh President of the United States; and

Whereas, in 1972, he was re-elected in a forty-nine-state landslide, warmly appreciated in South Carolina by achieving the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina for President of the modern two-party system era only to see the fruits of that great political victory ruined by the Watergate affair, which ultimately forced his resignation, and in his three races for President he received more votes for President than any other person in the history of the Republic; and

Whereas, the American people owe this extraordinarily complicated man much for his skillful conduct of foreign and domestic policy, including the orderly withdrawal from Vietnam, the opening to China, the first strategic arms agreement with the Soviet Union, the implementation of revenue sharing, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other important domestic initiatives; and

Whereas, in the years after his resignation he devoted himself to writing and maintained contact with foreign leaders, quietly providing welcome advice on foreign policy matters to his presidential successors; and

Whereas, it is appropriate for members of the House of Representatives to pause in their deliberations so that they might note the passing of so distinguished an American whose career in politics spanned so many years, that witnessed so much change, that endured much despair, and that generated abundant hope. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That the members of the House of Representatives express sympathy to the family and many friends of the late Richard M. Nixon, thirty-seventh President of the United States.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to his daughters.

The Resolution was adopted.

The following was introduced:

H. 5176 -- Reps. McLeod, Keegan, Quinn and Shissias: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR TWO DECADES OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE PALMETTO STATE, AND ENCOURAGING THE COLLEGE TO KEEP UP ITS GOOD WORK.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5177 -- Reps. Scott, J. Brown, Neal, Byrd, Shissias, Waites, Quinn, Harrison, Corning and Rogers: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE BOOKER T. WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 1944 AS THEY GATHER IN CELEBRATION OF THEIR FIFTIETH HIGH SCHOOL REUNION JUNE 10, 1994, AND TO WISH THEM A SUCCESSFUL AND ENJOYABLE REUNION AND BEST WISHES FOR THE FUTURE.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 5178 -- Rep. Anderson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING DR. NORMAN P. PEARSON, SR., ON HIS SILVER ANNIVERSARY AS PASTOR OF NEW PROSPECT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF WILLIAMSTON.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 1390 -- Senators O'Dell, Drummond and Waldrep: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF STATE TROOPER RANDALL LAMAR (RANDY) HESTER, EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS, AND REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, TO ERECT AN APPROPRIATE MEMORIAL MARKER AT THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT WHICH LED TO STATE TROOPER HESTER'S DEATH, TO BE PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF STATE TROOPER HESTER, AND TO CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE FAMILY AS TO THE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF THE MARKER.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 5179 -- Rep. Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 745 OF 1967, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOUNDARIES OF WESTERN CAROLINA REGIONAL SEWER AUTHORITY, IS FURTHER AMENDED SO AS TO ADD A NEW AREA TO THE DISTRICT.

Rule 5.12 was waived by a division vote of 25 to 0.

On motion of Rep. COOPER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 5180 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1682, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Without reference.

S. 649 -- Senator Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 36 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES BEARING AN EMBLEM, SEAL, OR OTHER SYMBOL OF A COUNTY OR REGION OF COUNTIES REPRESENTING A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE STATE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 855 -- Senators Reese and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-3710, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY AUTOMOBILE LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION TO ISSUE SUCH PLATES FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE AND PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUE OF THESE SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 1313 -- Senator Land: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-17-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PURCHASER OF A RAILROAD SHALL REORGANIZE AND COMMENCE OPERATION WITHIN SIXTY DAYS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PURCHASE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION INCLUDES A FORECLOSURE AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS BY MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION, AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 58-17-610 AND 58-17-620, RELATING TO MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MERGER OF RAILROAD COMPANIES AND THE PROCEDURES THEREFOR SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT, AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES AND THE PROCEDURES THEREFOR SHALL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL RAILROAD LAW.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

S. 1343 -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-310, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OPEN SEASON FOR TAKING DEER, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM PROVIDING A BREAK IN THE SEASON ON PRIVATE LANDS IN GAME ZONE 4.

Rep. HODGES asked unanimous consent to have the Bill placed on the Calendar without reference.

Rep. FARR objected.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.

S. 1345 -- Senator Saleeby: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRANSFER OF ASSETS OF FORMER LIBRARIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING SUCH TRANSFERRED ASSETS AND PROPERTY TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR LIBRARY PURPOSES.

On motion of Rep. NEILSON, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 1366 -- Education Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CHAIRMAN IS SELECTED; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-60, RELATING TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AS A RECIPIENT OF SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS AND DELETE THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND PROVIDE THAT THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD MAY REFER TO THE COMMISSION CERTAIN REQUESTS OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING; AND TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-90 RELATING TO THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF THE COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION TO SERVE AT ITS PLEASURE WITH NO GRIEVANCE RIGHTS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE OTHER PROFESSIONAL STAFF COMPLEMENT OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION.

Rep. SHARPE asked unanimous consent to have the Bill placed on the Calendar without reference.

Rep. STILLE objected.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 1377 -- Senators Washington and Cork: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 56 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO CREATE THE BEAUFORT-JASPER HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, MEETINGS, AUTHORITY, AND DUTIES; TO REPEAL ACT 90 OF 1959 RELATING TO THE BEAUFORT COUNTY HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR FINAL AND INITIAL TERMS.

On motion of Rep. KEYSERLING, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 1378 -- Transportation Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RELATING TO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AND THE HIGHWAY ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1764, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 1379 -- Transportation Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RELATING TO SPECIFIC INFORMATION SERVICE SIGNING, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1767, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

The following was introduced:

H. 5181 -- Reps. Mattos, Vaughn, Stuart, Kelley, Snow, McMahand, Stille, Wells, Shissias, Harvin, McCraw, Breeland, Chamblee, Keegan, Inabinett, Anderson, J. Brown, Thomas, Jaskwhich, Meacham, Waites, Harrelson, Rhoad, Koon, Lanford, Rudnick, McTeer and R. Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO URGE OBSERVANCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE FAMILY AND THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES AND TO HONOR DISTINGUISHED VISITORS TO A SYMPOSIUM ON THE RIGHT TO A FAMILY ENVIRONMENT.

Whereas, the United Nations General Assembly has proclaimed 1994 to be the International Year of the Family and May 15, 1994, to be the first International Day of Families; and

Whereas, the initiation of the International Year of the Family and the International Day of Families was based on concern for the family as the fundamental unit of society, acknowledgment of the extraordinary changes that have taken place in family life around the world in the last generation, and recognition of the need to foster community support for families, often in the face of increased isolation of families, decreased commitment to family life, and increased social and economic stressors for young families; and

Whereas, the Governor and directors of relevant state agencies have recognized "a crisis situation both here and nationally" that necessitates diligent application of a philosophy that puts "Families First" and that requires "work in concert with families and local communities to ensure the best services for children and their families"; and

Whereas, the General Assembly on May 5, 1992, affirmed its support for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989, and urged state agencies to ensure that their programs achieve the goals of the Convention; and

Whereas, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, now ratified by most nations of the world, affirms "that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding"; and

Whereas, the Convention further declares "that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community"; and

Whereas, the Institute for Families in Society of the University of South Carolina has convened a distinguished group of scholars, diplomats, public officials, and administrators of nongovernmental organizations from around the world to study the meaning of the right to a family environment under the Convention; and

Whereas, the Institute has acted in collaboration with the Columbia World Affairs Council, the Medical University of South Carolina, the Alliance for South Carolina's Children, and the national Consortium on Children, Families, and the Law; and

Whereas, the Institute's distinguished guests have contributed their expertise to assist legislators, agency administrators, human service professionals, faculty, students, and concerned citizens as they plan implementation of the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in South Carolina. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, urges all agencies in South Carolina, especially those concerned with housing, nutrition, education, protection, health and mental health care, recreation, and economic opportunity for children and families, to use the International Year of the Family and the International Day of Families as opportunities to learn about the challenges facing families in South Carolina and around the world, to strengthen the agencies' commitment to support families in their role as the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all people, especially children, and to plan and implement programs to assist the State's communities in support for the families within them.

Be it further resolved that the General Assembly urges civic, religious, education, and local-government leaders to observe the International Year of the Family and the International Day of Families and to use those observances as opportunities to strengthen communities' commitment to support the families within them.

Be it further resolved that the General Assembly recognizes the support that the Institute for Families in Society of the University of South Carolina is giving to the General Assembly and state and local agencies in the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in South Carolina.

Be it further resolved that the General Assembly welcomes the Institute's distinguished visitors to South Carolina, thanks them for their assistance, and honors their work to enhance the welfare of the world's children and families.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be published in the next issue of the State Register.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The Greenwood Delegation submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on the Senate amendments on:

H. 4967 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee and Klauber: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 546 OF 1982, RELATING IN PART TO THE MANNER OF ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 50, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE TRUSTEES SHALL BE ELECTED INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NINE SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH TRUSTEES SHALL BE ELECTED BEGINNING IN 1994, AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING IN 1994, ELECTIONS FOR THESE TRUSTEES SHALL BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GENERAL ELECTION.

On motion of Rep. CARNELL, with unanimous consent, the Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration.

H. 4967 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee and Klauber: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 546 OF 1982, RELATING IN PART TO THE MANNER OF ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GREENWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT 50, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE TRUSTEES SHALL BE ELECTED INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NINE SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH TRUSTEES SHALL BE ELECTED BEGINNING IN 1994, AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING IN 1994, ELECTIONS FOR THESE TRUSTEES SHALL BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GENERAL ELECTION.

Reps. CARNELL, McABEE and KLAUBER proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\20854SD.94), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     (A)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board of Trustees of Greenwood School District 50 consists of nine members who must be elected in nonpartisan elections to be held beginning in 1994 at the same time as the general election in the year specified or required in the manner hereinafter provided. Based on the implementation schedule provided in subsection (B), one member of the board must be a resident of and elected from each of the nine defined single-member election districts established in Section 2 of this act. Except for initial terms otherwise provided in subsection (B), members of the board shall be elected for four-year terms and until their successors are elected and qualify. In the event of a vacancy on the board occurring for any reason other than expiration of a term, the Greenwood County Board of Education shall call a special election to fill the unexpired term, so long as the vacancy does not occur within ten months of a regular trustee election. In this case, the vacancy must be filled for the unexpired term or for a full term as appropriate at the next regular election.

Each member of the board must be elected by the qualified electors of the respective district from which the candidate seeks election. All persons desiring to qualify as a candidate shall file written notice of candidacy with the county election commission on forms furnished by the commission. This notice of candidacy must be a sworn statement and must include the candidate's name, age, residence address, voting precinct, period of residence in the election district from which election is sought, and other information as the commission requires. The filing period opens on the first Tuesday in September at noon to run for two weeks.

The county election commission shall conduct and supervise the elections for members of the board in the manner governed by the election laws of this State, mutatis mutandis. The county election commission shall prepare the necessary ballots, appoint managers for the voting precincts, and do all things necessary to carry out the elections, including the counting of ballots and declaring the results. The commission shall publish notices of the time, polling places, and purpose of the election in a newspaper of general circulation within the district once a week for at least two successive weeks before the election. The results of the elections must be determined by the nonpartisan plurality method as contained in Section 5-15-61 of the 1976 Code. The costs of the elections shall be borne by the school district.

The members of the board elected in these nonpartisan elections shall take office one week following certification of their election as provided in Section 59-19-315 of the 1976 Code.

(B)     (1)     In 1994, members from Districts 1, 2, and 4 must be elected and the three current members of the board whose terms are scheduled to expire on June 30, 1994, shall continue to serve until the members elected in 1994 from Districts 1, 2, and 4 qualify and take office, at which time the terms of these three current members shall expire. All other current members of the board shall continue to serve in the manner specified in this subsection. The initial terms of members elected in 1994 from Districts 1 and 2 shall be four years each, and the initial term of the member elected in 1994 from District 4 shall be two years.

(2)     In 1996, members from Districts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 must be elected and the three current members of the board whose terms are scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996, and the three current members of the board whose terms are scheduled to expire on June 30, 1997, shall serve until the members elected in 1996 from Districts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 qualify and take office, at which time the terms of these six current members shall expire. The initial terms of the members elected in 1996 from Districts 3, 5, 7, and 9 shall be four years each, and the initial terms of the members elected in 1996 from Districts 6 and 8 shall be two years each.

(3)     After the initial election of a member of the board from a respective election district in the manner specified herein, his successors shall be elected at the elections conducted at two or four- year intervals thereafter as appropriate to serve for terms of four years each./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

The Senate amendments, as amended, were then agreed to and the Bill ordered returned to the Senate.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, G.
Baker                  Baxley                 Beatty
Boan                   Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Byrd
Canty                  Carnell                Cato
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Corning                Cromer
Davenport              Delleney               Elliott
Fair                   Farr                   Fulmer
Gamble                 Gonzales               Govan
Graham                 Hallman                Harrelson
Harris, J.             Harrison               Haskins
Hines                  Hodges                 Holt
Houck                  Huff                   Hutson
Inabinett              Jaskwhich              Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kennedy
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Klauber                Lanford                Law
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Mattos
McAbee                 McCraw                 McKay
McLeod                 McMahand               McTeer
Meacham                Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Neilson                Phillips               Quinn
Rhoad                  Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Rudnick                Scott
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Snow                   Spearman               Stille
Stoddard               Stone                  Stuart
Sturkie                Thomas                 Trotter
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Waites
Waldrop                Walker                 Wells
Whipper                White                  Wilder, D.
Wilder, J.             Wilkes                 Wilkins
Williams               Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.
Young, R.

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, April 28.

James J. Bailey                   Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
B. Hicks Harwell                  Timothy F. Rogers
Joseph T. McElveen, Jr.           John G. Felder
Morgan Martin                     Robert A. Barber, Jr.
C. Alex Harvin, III

The SPEAKER granted Rep. P. HARRIS a leave of absence for the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. TOWNSEND a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. HARVIN signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on Wednesday, April 27.

Reps. QUINN, BYRD, NEAL, SCOTT and ROGERS recognized the Columbia High School girls' basketball team and their coach, winners of the 1994 AA State Championship; the Eau Claire High School Academic Team and their sponsors, winners of the Black History Bowl; and the Eau Claire High School boys' basketball team, staff and coaches, winners of the 1994 Class AAA State Championship.

The following Bill was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1347 -- Senator Peeler: A BILL TO ENACT THE CHEROKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 SCHOOL BOND-PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT.

On motion of Rep. PHILLIPS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 1347 be read the third time tomorrow.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 5037 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 11, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC FINANCE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 40, THE SOUTH CAROLINA INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES ACT, SO AS TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AUTHORITY AND PROVIDE FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO PROVIDE FOR A REVOLVING FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING LOANS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO FINANCE ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, TO AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF ISSUING AND SECURING THE BONDS AND THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS, TO ALLOW FEDERAL GRANTS, LOAN REPAYMENTS, STATE APPROPRIATIONS AND OTHER AVAILABLE AMOUNTS TO BE CREDITED TO THE REVOLVING FUND, AND TO AUTHORIZE LENDING TO AND BORROWING BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGH THE REVOLVING FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 11-37-60, RELATING TO THE BONDING AUTHORITY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RESOURCES AUTHORITY, SO AS TO ALLOW IT TO ISSUE BONDS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING BONDS ISSUED BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1992, AND TO REDUCE FROM TWO HUNDRED MILLION TO SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDS AUTHORIZED; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 11-37-70 RELATING TO THE BONDING AUTHORITY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RESOURCES AUTHORITY.

H. 4814 -- Rep. Fulmer: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-138 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A NO WAKE ZONE IN CHARLESTON COUNTY.

H. 4804 -- Reps. Shissias, Cromer, Cobb-Hunter, Mattos, Inabinett, McElveen, Wells, Neal, Hutson, Wofford and Govan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-5-590, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES UNDER ITS APPROVED CHILD SUPPORT PLAN, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DEVELOP AND DISTRIBUTE MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES TO HOSPITALS FOR USE IN OBTAINING VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ON NEWBORNS, AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR DENYING, REVOKING, OR SUSPENDING HOSPITAL LICENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

H. 4857 -- Reps. P. Harris, Waldrop and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 37-11-95 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR OF A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO DISTRIBUTE A DIVIDEND OR SIMILAR DISTRIBUTION; BY ADDING SECTION 37-11-105 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR OF A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY TO SUBMIT A FINANCIAL PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THE OPERATOR IS OR MAY BECOME INSOLVENT; BY AMENDING SECTION 37-11-30, RELATING TO LICENSING OF CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, SO AS TO REVISE INFORMATION THAT MUST ACCOMPANY LICENSE APPLICATIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 37-11-40, RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN APPLICANT FOR LICENSURE, SO AS TO REVISE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A BOND OR OTHER GUARANTEE IS REQUIRED; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 37-11-50, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSURE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY THOSE CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES WHICH REQUIRE PAYMENT OF AN ENTRANCE FEE OR OTHER FEE IN RETURN FOR A PROMISE OF FUTURE CARE MUST OBTAIN A LICENSE RATHER THAN ALL CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES.

H. 5078 -- Reps. Cato, Mattos, Clyborne, Vaughn, Baker, Wilkins, Anderson, McMahand, Haskins, Fair and Jaskwhich: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE TO STUDY AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY SHOULD BE SUBDIVIDED INTO NOT LESS THAN THREE NOR MORE THAN FIVE SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IF A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT AT A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE 1994 GENERAL ELECTION VOTE IN FAVOR OF ESTABLISHING THE TASK FORCE.

H. 4429 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-35-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS REGARDING FIREWORKS BY THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FIRE CHIEF OR HEAD OF FIRE SERVICES OF ANY COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY TEMPORARILY MAY BAN THE USE OF FIREWORKS IN THAT JURISDICTION IF OTHERWISE PERMITTED WHEN WEATHER CONDITIONS OR OTHER CONDITIONS REQUIRE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MUST CONFIRM THE TEMPORARY BAN AT ITS NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING BY EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OR TERMINATE THE BAN, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE.

H. 4756 -- Reps. Waites, Inabinett, Moody-Lawrence, Graham, Whipper, Waldrop, Neilson, Scott, Snow, Shissias, Harrelson, Breeland, Govan, Neal, Corning, Rudnick, Rogers, Thomas, Riser and T.C. Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 32 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SAFE CREMATION ACT" AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF, THE PROCEDURES FOR, AND REGULATION OF CREMATION; BY ADDING SECTION 17-5-305 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE REMAINS OF AN UNIDENTIFIED DEAD PERSON MAY NOT BE CREMATED BUT MUST BE BURIED; TO AMEND SECTION 17-5-310, RELATING TO CREMATION PERMITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CORONER MAY ISSUE SUCH PERMIT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 17-5-320, RELATING TO REPORTING THE ABSENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION OF VIOLENT OR SUSPICIOUS DEATHS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REPORT MAY BE MADE TO A CORONER.

H. 4969 -- Reps. Lanford, Holt, Marchbanks, Inabinett, Jaskwhich, R. Smith, Haskins, Hines, Simrill, Neilson, Stone, Moody-Lawrence, Robinson, Trotter, Beatty, Farr, McMahand, Chamblee, Baker, Cato, Worley, Huff, Stoddard, Riser, Davenport, Breeland, McTeer, Byrd, Govan, D. Smith, Whipper, Wright, Richardson, Koon, McLeod and Thomas: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL DAYS MISSED BY THE STUDENTS OF ANY SCHOOL OF ANY DISTRICT OF THIS STATE DURING SCHOOL YEAR 1993-94 WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS CLOSED DUE TO SNOW, COLD, OR INCLEMENT WEATHER ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

The motion of Rep. COOPER to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a second reading was taken up.

H. 4864 -- Rep. Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-17-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALTERATION OR DIVISION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF CERTAIN PETITION REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO ALTER OR DIVIDE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONCERNED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED IN THE PETITION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT IF CERTAIN OTHER PETITION REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO CALL THE REFERENDUMS CONCERNING THE ALTERATION OR DIVISION OF THE AFFECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND IF THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUMS ARE FAVORABLE IN EACH OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO ALTER OR DIVIDE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE MANNER STIPULATED.

Rep. RICHARDSON moved to table the motion to reconsider, which was not agreed to by a division vote of 25 to 35.

The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

Rep. STURKIE moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 3, which was adopted.

S. 1118 -- Senators Drummond, Washington, Leventis, Peeler and J. Verne Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-55-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CLIENT RECEIVING EXTENDED PSYCHOTHERAPY MUST BE REFERRED TO A PHYSICIAN FOR EXAMINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-55-80, RELATING TO LICENSURE, SO AS TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REFERENCES AND THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT REQUEST MORE THAN THREE REFERENCES AND TO FURTHER REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO HAVE COMPLETED TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISED EXPERIENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-55-130, RELATING TO COMPLAINTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A COMPLAINT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY AFFIDAVIT AND TO REVISE NOTICE PROCEDURES; TO AMEND SECTION 40-55-150, RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY GROUNDS, SO AS TO DELETE GROUNDS RELATING TO SOLICITATION; TO AMEND SECTION 40-55-170, RELATING TO VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO BRING ACTIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS AND TO REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ASSIST WITH PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN PSYCHOLOGY FOR SIX YEARS.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles be changed to that of Acts, and that they be enrolled for ratification.

S. 25 -- Senators Bryan and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-737 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN OFFER OF COVERAGE FOR MENTAL ILLNESS IN GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES AND PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS WHICH OFFER THE COVERAGE.

S. 1026 -- Senator McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 52-7-15 AND 52-7-20, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFICERS AND MEETINGS OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER AND REPLACE IT WITH AN ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATION; TO AMEND SECTION 52-7-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, SO AS TO ALLOW A DESIGNEE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING, AND REGULATION TO APPOINT OFFICIALS; TO AMEND SECTION 52-7-65, RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PROVISION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND EXTEND THE AUTHORITY TO COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES IN CHARGE OF AN EVENT; TO AMEND SECTION 52-7-75, RELATING TO APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF PERMITS, SO AS TO CHANGE REFERENCES TO CHIEF COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTRATOR AND ADD A REFERENCE TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY PROVISION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 52-7-310, RELATING TO COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF A COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSION SHALL RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION FROM THE STATE AND MAY RECEIVE OTHER COMPENSATION AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNTY AND AS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION IF PAID BY A PROMOTER WHILE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED A STATE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR AN EVENT.

S. 1321 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO TITLE V OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1706, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

S. 1322 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT OR CLEAN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND SELF-CONTAINED TOILETS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1691, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. McTEER moved to reconsider the vote whereby the following Resolution was adopted.

H. 5170 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO SET BY SPECIAL ORDER H.4036, RELATING TO THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES, FOR SECOND READING OR OTHER CONSIDERATION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING SECOND READING OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF H.5058 AND TO PROVIDE FOLLOWING THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR ON EACH SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE DAY, FOR THE CONTINUING SPECIAL ORDER CONSIDERATION OF H.4036 UNTIL THIRD READING OR OTHER DISPOSITION.

Rep. CLYBORNE spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.

On motion of Rep. HARRISON, with unanimous consent, Rep. CLYBORNE'S remarks were ordered printed in the Journal as follows:

"Mr. Speaker... Although the taxpayers may not know the significance of the May 1st deadline, we do. The Senate, without a super majority vote does not have to accept any legislation. This is Crime Victims Week. Read in the newspaper today that Butler Derrick's wife was robbed. A tourist was brutally murdered on the streets of Charleston. For us to go home without addressing this bill is to slap in the face victims in South Carolina. The legislature is the last line of defense and out of this deliberative Body meaningful crime legislation is possible. The people of this State deserve the peace of mind that comes when you do not have to worry about being robbed, raped, or killed. I ask this House to help make debate on crime possible by allowing us to get to the Truth in Sentencing Bill, H. 4140, and use this Bill as a vehicle for the Crime Bill. I hope that we will not recur to the morning hour and work through the Special Orders and adjourn debate on all bills preceding H. 4140. We need to stay as long as it takes."

Rep. McTEER spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.

The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to by a division vote of 58 to 41.

Rep. CLYBORNE proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5979AC.94), which was tabled.

Amend the house resolution, as and if amended, by deleting lines 25 and 26 and inserting:

/consideration on April 28, 1994, immediately following motion period and to provide, following the call of the/.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CLYBORNE explained the amendment.

Rep. HASKINS spoke against the amendment.

Rep. GONZALES spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. SHEHEEN spoke against the amendment.

Rep. CLYBORNE spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. SHEHEEN moved to table the amendment.

Rep. CLYBORNE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Anderson
Askins                 Bailey, J.             Baxley
Boan                   Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Cobb-Hunter            Corning
Cromer                 Delleney               Elliott
Farr                   Govan                  Harrelson
Harris, J.             Harwell                Haskins
Hines                  Hodges                 Holt
Houck                  Inabinett              Jaskwhich
Jennings               Kennedy                Keyserling
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Martin
Mattos                 McCraw                 McElveen
McKay                  McLeod                 McMahand
Moody-Lawrence         Neilson                Phillips
Rogers                 Rudnick                Scott
Sheheen                Spearman               Stille
Tucker                 Waites                 Waldrop
Whipper                Wilder, D.             Wilder, J.
Wilkes                 Williams               Worley

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Baker                  Barber
Brown, H.              Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Cooper                 Davenport
Fair                   Felder                 Fulmer
Gamble                 Gonzales               Graham
Hallman                Harrell                Harrison
Huff                   Hutson                 Keegan
Kelley                 Klauber                Koon
Lanford                Law                    Littlejohn
Marchbanks             McAbee                 McTeer
Meacham                Quinn                  Richardson
Riser                  Robinson               Sharpe
Shissias               Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Snow                   Stoddard
Stone                  Stuart                 Sturkie
Thomas                 Trotter                Vaughn
Walker                 Wells                  White
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Wright                 Young, A.

So, the amendment was tabled.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the Resolution, which was agreed to.

Rep. JASKWHICH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Joint Resolution until Wednesday, May 4, which was adopted.

H. 4858 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATION, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1661, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. JASKWHICH moved to adjourn debate upon the following Joint Resolution until Wednesday, May 4, which was adopted.

H. 4859 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATOR ASH LANDFILL, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1669, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. TUCKER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 3, which was adopted.

S. 226 -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-27-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE LEASE-PURCHASE OR LEASE-BACK AGREEMENTS INVOLVING REAL PROPERTY ENTERED INTO BY THE STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE WHEREIN THE STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IS THE LESSEE CONSTITUTES GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT FOR THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT MAY NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION UNDER ARTICLE X OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

The following Bill was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4864 -- Rep. Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-17-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALTERATION OR DIVISION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF CERTAIN PETITION REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO ALTER OR DIVIDE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONCERNED IN THE MANNER STIPULATED IN THE PETITION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT IF CERTAIN OTHER PETITION REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO CALL THE REFERENDUMS CONCERNING THE ALTERATION OR DIVISION OF THE AFFECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND IF THE RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUMS ARE FAVORABLE IN EACH OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION IS REQUIRED TO ALTER OR DIVIDE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE MANNER STIPULATED.

On motion of Rep. RICHARDSON, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4864 be read the third time tomorrow.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3491 -- Reps. Neilson, Quinn, Govan, Cobb-Hunter, G. Brown, Sturkie, Hutson, Holt, Harwell, Richardson, McLeod, Hines, Breeland, Canty, Shissias, Davenport, Fair, Trotter, Harrell, Chamblee, McMahand, Allison, Vaughn, Wright, Inabinett, Gonzales, Harrison, Corning, Lanford, Walker, Meacham, D. Wilder and Stone: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 8, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES BY ADDING CHAPTER 10 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING OF PROSPECTIVE STATE EMPLOYEES.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Wednesday, April 27, by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

On motion of Rep. NEILSON, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3491 be read the third time tomorrow.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4634 -- Reps. Cromer, Tucker, Baxley, Gonzales, Stoddard, Inabinett, Kennedy, Wells, Allison, Hallman, Townsend, Hodges, H. Brown, Corning, Lanford, Law, Govan, Stone, G. Brown, G. Bailey, Meacham, D. Wilder, Witherspoon, McKay, Simrill, McCraw, Walker, Robinson, Riser, Kelley, Vaughn, Shissias, Stuart, R. Smith, Stille, Littlejohn, Chamblee, Houck, Harrison, Farr, Gamble, Fulmer, Haskins, Davenport, Williams, Cato, Neilson, J. Wilder, Marchbanks, Spearman, Harvin, Richardson and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-25-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ALLOWING ABLE-BODIED CONVICTS TO PERFORM LABOR ON PUBLIC WORKS OR WAYS, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN CONVICTS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-35, RELATING TO USE OF COUNTY PRISONERS FOR LITTER REMOVAL, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE USE OF PRISONERS INSTEAD OF THE PERMISSIVE USE OF PRISONERS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-7-10, 24-7-20, 24-7-30, 24-7-40, AND 24-7-50, RELATING TO COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL CHAIN GANGS, SO AS TO MANDATE THE USE OF ABLE-BODIED PRISONERS LOCATED IN COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ON WORK GANGS ON PUBLIC WORKS.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Wednesday, April 27, by the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. ROBINSON moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was rejected by a division vote of 18 to 67.

Further proceedings were interrupted by expiration of time on the uncontested Calendar, the pending question being consideration of amendments.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 5058 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO ENACT THE SCHOOL SAFETY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1994 INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO JUVENILE OFFENDERS; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-753 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FAMILY COURT TO DESIGNATE A LEAD STATE AGENCY TO CONDUCT A FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMEND A SERVICE PLAN FOR FAMILIES WHEN A CHILD IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING; TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE ASSESSMENT AND ADOPT A PLAN THAT WILL SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-420, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER PARENTS OF A CHILD BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT ON A DELINQUENCY MATTER TO COOPERATE WITH AND PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COURT TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-3230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES FOR JUVENILES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO PREADJUDICATORY JUVENILES IN ITS CUSTODY; TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-430, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FINE FROM ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-390, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "CHILD", SO AS TO REVISE THIS DEFINITION WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN CRIMES; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-430, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OF JUVENILES FROM ONE COURT TO ANOTHER SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DETENTION AND CUSTODY OF A CHILD FOUND VIOLATING THE LAW, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CHILD IN POSSESSION OF A DEADLY WEAPON MAY BE DETAINED IN A SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELEASE FROM DETENTION; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1330, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF A CHILD BEFORE THE COURT ON A DELINQUENCY MATTER, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT TO ORDER A DETERMINATE SENTENCE FOR A JUVENILE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-19-10, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO THE CORRECTION AND TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; TO AMEND SECTION 59-63-32, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENROLLING A CHILD IN PUBLIC SCHOOL, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF RECORDS IF A CHILD HAS PREVIOUSLY ATTENDED ANOTHER SCHOOL; TO AMEND SECTION 59-63-210, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR EXPULSION AND SUSPENSION OF PUPILS, SO AS TO REQUIRE EXPULSION FROM SCHOOL IF THE PUPIL IS CONVICTED OF COMMITTING CERTAIN CRIMES; TO AMEND TITLE 59, RELATING TO EDUCATION, SO AS TO ADD CHAPTER 66 "SCHOOL SAFETY" WHICH REQUIRES SCHOOLS TO RETAIN DISCIPLINARY RECORDS AND PROVIDES FOR THE USE OF THESE RECORDS; ESTABLISHES FUNDS FOR SCHOOL SAFETY COORDINATORS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING FOR AND DISTRIBUTING THESE FUNDS; REQUIRES ONE HANDHELD METAL DETECTOR IN EACH MIDDLE, JUNIOR HIGH, AND HIGH SCHOOL; REQUIRES PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTING SCHOOL FACILITIES; REQUIRES ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURRICULUM FOR TEACHING PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND NONVIOLENT LIVING; REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT AND PILOT TESTING OF ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE A THREAT TO SCHOOL SAFETY; REQUIRES EACH SCHOOL TO DEVELOP AND HAVE APPROVED A COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SAFETY PLAN; ESTABLISHES A SCHOOLHOUSE SAFETY RESOURCE CENTER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ESTABLISHES A JOINT PILOT PROJECT FOR SCHOOL BASED COUNSELING BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; TO ADD SECTION 59-17-130 SO AS TO DIRECT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ENCOURAGE PARENTS TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THEIR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION INCLUDING OFFERING SERVICES AND REFERRALS TO FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE; TO ADD SECTION 59-26-90 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS PROVIDING THAT THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF GUIDANCE COUNSELORS IS TO COUNSEL STUDENTS AND WORK WITH PARENTS AND TEACHERS; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-20, RELATING TO THE STATE CHILDREN'S POLICY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PROVIDING AN EDUCATION IS OF PARAMOUNT INTEREST AND THAT OFFICIALS SHALL DO EVERYTHING WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAWS AND PREVENT NONATTENDANCE; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-1352 SO AS TO REQUIRE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF ALL PROBATION ORDERS; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-1353 SO AS TO REQUIRE PROBATION AND PAROLE COUNSELORS TO ASSIST IN REENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN RELEASED FROM CONFINEMENT AND TO REPORT ANY SCHOOL'S REFUSAL TO ENROLL A CHILD; TO ADD SECTION 59-65-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A STUDENT TRANSFERS TO ANOTHER SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE RECORDS AND PLANS FOR THAT STUDENT REGARDING TRUANCY BEHAVIOR ALSO MUST BE FORWARDED TO THE RECEIVING SCHOOL DISTRICT; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-20, RELATING TO THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO ENROLL OR CAUSE A CHILD TO ATTEND SCHOOL, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING AND PROSECUTING VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-50, RELATING TO THE NONATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL REPORTED TO THE COURTS AND THE SOLICITOR HAVING JURISDICTION OF JUVENILES, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH, CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH, AND PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH THESE REPORTS ARE MADE; TO AMEND SECTION 59-65-60, RELATING TO COURT PROCEDURES UPON RECEIPT OF REPORTS OF NONATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL, SO AS TO REVISE THESE PROCEDURES AND THE ACTION NEEDED TO BE TAKEN IN REGARD TO THE CHILD; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS DO NOT EFFECT THE EXCEPTIONS TO COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAWS AND HOME-SCHOOLING PROGRAMS; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-1351 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FAMILY COURT TO ORDER PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF SERVICES TO PREVENT VIOLENT BEHAVIOR TO APPEAR, TO ORDER FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT, AND TO HOLD A PARENT IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-600, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DETENTION, CUSTODY, AND RECORDS OF A CHILD FOUND VIOLATING THE LAW, SO AS TO REVISE WHAT RECORDS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TAKING A CHILD INTO CUSTODY TO NOTIFY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-770, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO RELEASE OF A JUVENILE'S RECORD, SO AS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL OFFENSE FOR WHICH RECORDS MAY BE RELEASED AND TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE TO MAINTAIN JUVENILE RECORDS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-780, RELATING TO RECORDS, FINGERPRINTING, AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF JUVENILES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES RECORDS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THE IDENTITY OR PICTURE OF A CHILD MAY BE PUBLISHED BY THE MEDIA, FINGERPRINTS MAY BE TAKEN, AND RECORDS MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1335, RELATING TO DESTRUCTION OF JUVENILE RECORDS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A JUVENILE'S ADJUDICATION MAY NOT BE EXPUNGED; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-3300, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JUVENILE'S RECORDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A JUVENILE'S RECORD IS PROVIDED TO A SCHOOL; AND TO PROVIDE THAT REFERENCES TO VIOLENT CRIMES ARE AS DEFINED ON THIS ACT'S EFFECTIVE DATE OR AS THE DEFINITION MAY BE AMENDED.

The Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the Senate.

I was not at my desk when the Bill H. 5058 was up for second reading. Had I been present, I would have voted for the Bill as amended.

Rep. JOHN J. SNOW, JR.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4036 -- Reps. Wilkins, Clyborne, Jaskwhich, Fair, G. Brown, R. Smith, Quinn, Hines, Sharpe, McAbee, Richardson, Cato, Jennings, Gamble, Wofford, Wells, J. Bailey, Stone, Hallman, G. Bailey, J. Wilder, Marchbanks, Trotter, H. Brown, P. Harris, Keegan, Mattos, Vaughn, Walker and Phillips: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES.

Reps. JASKWHICH and WILKINS proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5969HTC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION ___.     There is created a study committee to determine the desirability and feasibility of providing additional state funding to establish a year-round Governor's School for the Arts and Humanities. The study committee consists of seven members as follows:

(1)     one member of the House Ways and Means Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House;

(2)     one member of the House Education and Public Works Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House;

(3)     one member of the Senate Finance Committee appointed by the President of the Senate;

(4)     one member of the Senate Education Committee appointed by the President of the Senate;

(5)     the State Superintendent of Education or the superintendent's designee;

(6)     the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education or the chairman's designee; and

(7)     one member appointed by the Governor.

The study committee shall report its findings to the General Assembly before July 1, 1995, and the study committee terminates when the report is made./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BYRD a temporary leave of absence.

Rep. WILKINS continued speaking.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.

Rep. WILKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Baxley                 Boan                   Breeland
Brown, G.              Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Corning                Cromer
Davenport              Delleney               Farr
Felder                 Fulmer                 Gamble
Gonzales               Govan                  Graham
Hallman                Harrell                Harrelson
Harris, J.             Harrison               Harwell
Haskins                Hines                  Hodges
Holt                   Huff                   Hutson
Inabinett              Jaskwhich              Jennings
Keegan                 Kelley                 Kennedy
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Klauber
Lanford                Littlejohn             Marchbanks
Mattos                 McAbee                 McCraw
McElveen               McKay                  McLeod
McMahand               Meacham                Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Phillips
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Richardson
Riser                  Robinson               Rudnick
Scott                  Sheheen                Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Snow
Spearman               Stille                 Stoddard
Stone                  Stuart                 Sturkie
Thomas                 Trotter                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Walker                 Wells                  Whipper
White                  Wilder, D.             Wilder, J.
Wilkes                 Wilkins                Williams
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Canty                  Fair                   Keyserling
Martin

So, the amendment was adopted.

Rep. KEYSERLING proposed the following Amendment No. 5 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\N05\7850BDW.94), which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION     1.     (A)     An Arts and Humanities School Study Committee is established composed of five members as follows:

(1)     a representative of the South Carolina Arts Commission;

(2)     a representative of the South Carolina Humanities Council;

(3)     the chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Cultural Affairs, or his designee;

(4)     a representative of the State Department of Education;

(5)     one member appointed by the Governor.

(B)     One member of the committee must be elected from the membership to serve as chairman. The expenses of the members must be paid from the accounts of their respective represented agency or organization, except for the gubernatorial appointee, whose expenses must be paid by the Governor's office.

(C)     The purpose of the committee is to study whether there is a need in this State for a Governor's School for the Arts and Humanities, where the school should be located, the fiscal impact of establishing the school, and its impact on South Carolina.

(D)     The committee shall report its findings and recommendations for legislative action to the General Assembly by February 1, 1995. After its report, the committee is dissolved.

SECTION     2.     This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. KEYSERLING explained the amendment.

Rep. J. HARRIS spoke against the amendment.

Rep. SIMRILL moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 76 to 18.

Rep. SHEHEEN proposed the following Amendment No. 6, which was adopted.

Section 1 shall not take effect until July 1, 1995.

Rep. SHEHEEN explained the amendment.

The SPEAKER Pro Tempore granted Rep. RHOAD a leave of absence.

Rep. SHEHEEN continued speaking.

Rep. SHEHEEN spoke in favor of the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Reps. JASKWHICH, WILKINS and HASKINS proposed the following Amendment No. 7 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\JIC\5969HTC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION ___.     There is created a study committee to determine the desirability and feasibility of providing additional state funding to establish a year-round Governor's School for the Arts and Humanities. The study committee consists of seven members as follows:

(1)     one member of the House Ways and Means Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House;

(2)     one member of the House Education and Public Works Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House;

(3)     one member of the Senate Finance Committee appointed by the President of the Senate;

(4)     one member of the Senate Education Committee appointed by the President of the Senate;

(5)     the State Superintendent of Education or the superintendent's designee;

(6)     the chairman of the Commission on Higher Education or the chairman's designee; and

(7)     one member appointed by the Governor.

The study committee shall report its findings to the General Assembly no later than April 1, 1995, and the study committee terminates when the report is made./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

The SPEAKER Pro Tempore granted Rep. G. BAILEY a leave of absence.

The question then recurred to the passage of the Bill, as amended, on second reading.

Pursuant to Rule 7.7 the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, J.
Baker                  Barber                 Baxley
Boan                   Breeland               Brown, G.
Brown, H.              Brown, J.              Canty
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Corning                Cromer                 Davenport
Delleney               Farr                   Felder
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Gonzales
Govan                  Graham                 Hallman
Harrell                Harrelson              Harris, J.
Harrison               Harwell                Haskins
Hines                  Holt                   Houck
Huff                   Hutson                 Inabinett
Jaskwhich              Jennings               Keegan
Kelley                 Kennedy                Keyserling
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Klauber
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Mattos
McAbee                 McCraw                 McElveen
McKay                  McLeod                 McMahand
McTeer                 Meacham                Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Neilson                Phillips
Quinn                  Rhoad                  Richardson
Riser                  Robinson               Rudnick
Scott                  Sharpe                 Sheheen
Shissias               Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Snow                   Spearman
Stille                 Stoddard               Stone
Stuart                 Sturkie                Thomas
Trotter                Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Whipper                White
Wilder, D.             Wilder, J.             Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams               Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Wright
Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Fair                   Hodges                 Martin

So, the Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

On motion of Rep. J. HARRIS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4036 be read the third time tomorrow.

Rep. HARWELL moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Anderson               Askins
Bailey, J.             Baxley                 Boan
Breeland               Brown, G.              Canty
Carnell                Delleney               Fair
Farr                   Felder                 Harrelson
Harris, J.             Harwell                Hines
Holt                   Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Koon                   McAbee                 McCraw
McKay                  McLeod                 McMahand
Moody-Lawrence         Phillips               Sheheen
Spearman               Stille                 Sturkie
Waldrop                White                  Wilkes
Williams

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Allison                Baker
Barber                 Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Cato                   Chamblee               Clyborne
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Corning
Cromer                 Davenport              Fulmer
Gamble                 Gonzales               Govan
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Hodges
Huff                   Hutson                 Inabinett
Keegan                 Kelley                 Klauber
Lanford                Law                    Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Martin                 Mattos
McElveen               McTeer                 Meacham
Neal                   Neilson                Quinn
Richardson             Riser                  Robinson
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Shissias
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Snow                   Stoddard               Stone
Thomas                 Trotter                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Walker
Wells                  Wilder, D.             Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Wright
Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

Rep. KENNEDY moved that the House recede until 1:55 P.M., which was rejected by a division vote of 22 to 72.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. TROTTER a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. VAUGHN moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour.

Rep. CLYBORNE raised the Point of Order that the motion to recur to the Morning Hour was out of order as the House was considering Special Orders.

The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

H. 4835 -- Reps. McElveen, Cobb-Hunter, Cromer, Neal, Govan, Shissias, Inabinett, Waldrop, Boan, Wells, Mattos and Hodges: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1994 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE WELFARE POLICY OF THE STATE; TO EXPAND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES WORK SUPPORT PROGRAM STATEWIDE; TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE WORK SUPPORT PROGRAM; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL WAIVERS FOR A TRANSITION TO EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, REMOVAL OF THE AUTOMOBILE RESOURCE VALUE LIMIT, A SELF-SUFFICIENCY PILOT PROJECT, AND ELIMINATION OF THE PARENTAL DEPRIVATION RULE; TO REQUIRE MANDATORY PARTICIPATION IN THE WORK SUPPORT PROGRAM BY NONCUSTODIAL UNEMPLOYED PARENTS; TO EXPAND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TEEN COMPANION PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE PARENTING AND DAILY LIVING SKILLS AS PART OF THE WORK SUPPORT PROGRAM; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO CONTINUE EXPANSION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES INCLUDING A FEDERAL WAIVER EXTENDING MEDICAID FAMILY PLANNING ELIGIBILITY FOR TWO YEARS AFTER CHILDBIRTH AND TO RECOMMEND A FIVE-YEAR FUNDING PHASE-IN FOR THESE SERVICES.

Reps. WOFFORD, CROMER, WILKINS, HUTSON, A. YOUNG and WELLS proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\16121AC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION _____.     (A)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no family may receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children for more than thirty-six months unless the head of the household is:

(1)     permanently or totally disabled, whether physical or mental;

(2)     unable to obtain employment in the private sector because no job for which the person is qualified is available but the person is working forty hours per week in a volunteer public sector community placement;

(3)     providing full time care to a disabled dependent in the home; or

(4)     unemployed because Work Support program services including, but not limited to, transportation or child care are not available to assist the person in becoming self-sufficient.

Evidence of the exceptions to the thirty-six month benefit limit as enumerated in this subsection must be provided to the department in the manner and form as the department may require.

(B)     The Department of Social Services shall apply for a waiver to implement the provisions of subsection (A).

(C)     Using funds currently appropriated in the 1994-95 General Appropriations Act for the Department of Social Services JOBS Program, the Department shall contract with the State Budget and Control Board to conduct a study to determine the savings in state funds that will be realized by limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to thirty-six months, as provided for in subsection A, and shall report to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on or before June 30, 1995, and any savings realized from this limitation must be appropriated to the department to expand and enhance its JOBS Program.

(D)     This section takes effect July 1, 1994, and applies to families who apply for Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits after June 30, 1994, and upon recertification to families receiving or who have been determined eligible to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children as of July 1, 1994./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CROMER explained the amendment.

Rep. FELDER moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. CROMER raised the Point of Order that fifteen minutes had not elapsed since a similar motion was made, which point was not sustained by the Chair.

Rep. CLYBORNE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Anderson               Askins
Bailey, J.             Barber                 Baxley
Boan                   Breeland               Brown, J.
Canty                  Carnell                Cobb-Hunter
Delleney               Fair                   Farr
Felder                 Govan                  Harrelson
Harris, J.             Harwell                Hines
Holt                   Houck                  Inabinett
Jaskwhich              Jennings               Kennedy
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Koon                   Martin                 McAbee
McCraw                 McMahand               Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Phillips               Rogers
Scott                  Sheheen                Shissias
Spearman               Stoddard               Sturkie
Waites                 Waldrop                Whipper
White                  Wilkes                 Williams
Worley

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Allison                Baker
Brown, H.              Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Cooper                 Corning
Cromer                 Davenport              Fulmer
Gamble                 Gonzales               Graham
Hallman                Harrell                Harrison
Haskins                Huff                   Hutson
Keegan                 Kelley                 Klauber
Lanford                Littlejohn             Marchbanks
Mattos                 McElveen               McTeer
Meacham                Quinn                  Richardson
Riser                  Robinson               Rudnick
Sharpe                 Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Snow                   Stille
Stone                  Stuart                 Thomas
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Walker
Wells                  Wilder, D.             Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Wright
Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. SPEARMAN a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. WOFFORD spoke in favor of the amendment.

The SPEAKER granted Reps. BOAN and THOMAS a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. WOFFORD continued speaking.

Rep. WILKES moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. WELLS raised the Point of Order that fifteen minutes had not elapsed since a similar motion was made, which point was not sustained by the Chair.

Rep. SIMRILL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Bailey, J.             Barber
Baxley                 Breeland               Brown, J.
Canty                  Carnell                Cobb-Hunter
Corning                Davenport              Delleney
Fair                   Farr                   Govan
Harrelson              Harwell                Hines
Hodges                 Holt                   Inabinett
Jaskwhich              Kinon                  Kirsh
Koon                   McAbee                 McCraw
McMahand               Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Phillips               Scott                  Sheheen
Shissias               Stille                 Stoddard
Sturkie                Waites                 Waldrop
Whipper                White                  Wilder, D.
Wilkes

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Baker                  Brown, H.              Cato
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cooper
Cromer                 Fulmer                 Gamble
Gonzales               Graham                 Hallman
Harrell                Harris, J.             Harrison
Haskins                Huff                   Hutson
Keegan                 Klauber                Lanford
Law                    Littlejohn             Marchbanks
Martin                 McElveen               McTeer
Quinn                  Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Rudnick                Sharpe
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Snow                   Stone                  Stuart
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Wells
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. WILKES a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. D. WILDER a temporary leave of absence.

Reps. COBB-HUNTER and INABINETT spoke against the amendment.

Rep. STURKIE moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. CROMER raised the Point of Order that fifteen minutes had not elapsed since a similar motion was made, which point was not sustained by the Chair.

Rep. CROMER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, J.
Barber                 Baxley                 Breeland
Brown, J.              Carnell                Cobb-Hunter
Corning                Fair                   Govan
Harrelson              Hines                  Hodges
Holt                   Inabinett              Keyserling
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Martin
McAbee                 McCraw                 McMahand
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Phillips
Rogers                 Rudnick                Scott
Shissias               Sturkie                Waites
Whipper                White

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Baker                  Brown, H.              Cato
Clyborne               Cooper                 Cromer
Davenport              Delleney               Farr
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harris, J.             Harrison               Harwell
Haskins                Houck                  Huff
Jaskwhich              Keegan                 Kelley
Klauber                Koon                   Lanford
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Mattos
McElveen               McTeer                 Neilson
Quinn                  Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Sharpe                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Snow                   Stille                 Stoddard
Stone                  Stuart                 Tucker
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Wright
Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

Rep. STURKIE moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.

The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Allison                Anderson
Baker                  Barber                 Baxley
Breeland               Brown, H.              Cato
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cobb-Hunter
Cooper                 Cromer                 Delleney
Fulmer                 Gamble                 Gonzales
Govan                  Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Houck
Huff                   Inabinett              Keegan
Kelley                 Keyserling             Klauber
Lanford                Littlejohn             McElveen
McMahand               McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Phillips               Quinn
Richardson             Riser                  Sharpe
Shissias               Simrill                Smith, D.
Smith, R.              Snow                   Sturkie
Tucker                 Walker                 Wells
Whipper                White                  Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Askins                 Brown, J.
Canty                  Carnell                Davenport
Fair                   Farr                   Harwell
Kinon                  Kirsh                  Koon
Marchbanks             McAbee                 McCraw
Meacham                Robinson               Rogers
Rudnick                Scott                  Sheheen
Stille                 Stoddard               Stone
Stuart                 Vaughn                 Waldrop

So, immediate cloture was ordered.

Rep. J. BROWN moved that Rule 3.9 be invoked. The motion was seconded by ten members and the SPEAKER ordered that the absent members be sent for.

Rep. QUINN moved to rescind Rule 3.9, which was agreed to by a division vote of 55 to 40.

Rep. INABINETT continued speaking.

Rep. SHISSIAS spoke against the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.

Rep. A. YOUNG demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Baker                  Baxley                 Brown, H.
Cato                   Chamblee               Clyborne
Cooper                 Cromer                 Davenport
Fair                   Gamble                 Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Huff
Hutson                 Jaskwhich              Keegan
Kelley                 Kirsh                  Klauber
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Meacham
Neilson                Quinn                  Riser
Robinson               Sharpe                 Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Stone
Stuart                 Sturkie                Tucker
Vaughn                 Walker                 Wells
Wilkins                Witherspoon            Wofford
Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Askins                 Bailey, J.             Barber
Breeland               Brown, J.              Canty
Carnell                Cobb-Hunter            Corning
Delleney               Farr                   Govan
Harrelson              Harris, J.             Hines
Holt                   Houck                  Inabinett
Keyserling             Kinon                  Martin
Mattos                 McAbee                 McCraw
McElveen               McMahand               McTeer
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Phillips
Richardson             Rogers                 Rudnick
Scott                  Sheheen                Shissias
Snow                   Stille                 Stoddard
Waites                 Waldrop                Whipper
White

So, the amendment was adopted.

Reps. HUFF and CLYBORNE proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\16197AC.94), which was tabled.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION _____.     (A)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no family may receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children for more than thirty-six months unless the head of the household is:

(1)     permanently or totally disabled, whether physical or mental;

(2)     unable to obtain employment in the private sector because no job for which the person is qualified is available but the person is working forty hours per week in a volunteer public sector community placement; or

(3)     providing full time care to a disabled dependent in the home.

Evidence of the exceptions to the thirty-six month benefit limit as enumerated in this subsection must be provided to the department in the manner and form as the department may require.

(B)     The Department of Social Services shall apply for a waiver to implement the provisions of subsection (A).

(C)     Using funds currently appropriated in the 1994-95 General Appropriations Act for the Department of Social Services JOBS Program, the Department shall contract with the State Budget and Control Board to conduct a study to determine the savings in state funds that will be realized by limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to thirty-six months, as provided for in subsection A, and shall report to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on or before June 30, 1995, and any savings realized from this limitation must be appropriated to the department to expand and enhance its JOBS Program.

(D)     This section takes effect July 1, 1994, and applies to all individual families who are receiving or who apply for Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits after June 30, 1994, and upon recertification to families receiving or who have been determined eligible to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children as of July 1, 1994./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. HUFF moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Reps. HUFF and CLYBORNE proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\16198AC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION _____.     (A)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no family may receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children for more than thirty-six months unless the head of the household is:

(1)     permanently or totally disabled, whether physical or mental;

(2)     unable to obtain employment in the private sector because no job for which the person is qualified is available but the person is working forty hours per week in a volunteer public sector community placement;

(3)     providing full time care to a disabled dependent in the home; or

(4)     unemployed because work support program services.

Evidence of the exceptions to the thirty-six month benefit limit as enumerated in this subsection must be provided to the department in the manner and form as the department may require.

(B)     The Department of Social Services shall apply for a waiver to implement the provisions of subsection (A).

(C)     Using funds currently appropriated in the 1994-95 General Appropriations Act for the Department of Social Services JOBS Program, the Department shall contract with the State Budget and Control Board to conduct a study to determine the savings in state funds that will be realized by limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to thirty-six months, as provided for in subsection A, and shall report to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on or before June 30, 1995, and any savings realized from this limitation must be appropriated to the department to expand and enhance its JOBS Program.

(D)     This section takes effect July 1, 1994, and applies to all individual families who are receiving or who apply for Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits after June 30, 1994, and upon recertification to families receiving or who have been determined eligible to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children as of July 1, 1994./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. HUFF explained the amendment.

Rep. CROMER spoke against the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.

Rep. SIMRILL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Allison                Baker
Brown, H.              Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Cooper                 Davenport
Fair                   Fulmer                 Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Haskins                Huff
Hutson                 Jaskwhich              Keegan
Kelley                 Kirsh                  Klauber
Koon                   Lanford                Law
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Meacham
Phillips               Quinn                  Riser
Robinson               Sharpe                 Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Stone
Stuart                 Sturkie                Vaughn
Walker                 Wells                  Wilkins
Witherspoon            Wofford                Wright
Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Anderson               Askins
Bailey, J.             Barber                 Baxley
Breeland               Brown, J.              Canty
Carnell                Cobb-Hunter            Cromer
Delleney               Farr                   Gamble
Govan                  Harrelson              Hines
Holt                   Houck                  Inabinett
Keyserling             Kinon                  Martin
McAbee                 McCraw                 McElveen
McKay                  McMahand               McTeer
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Richardson
Rogers                 Rudnick                Scott
Sheheen                Shissias               Snow
Stille                 Stoddard               Tucker
Waites                 Waldrop                Whipper
White                  Wilder, D.             Worley

So, the amendment was adopted.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. FULMER a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. NEILSON proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\20886SD.94), which was ruled out of order.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION     _.     Section 20-7-420 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 441 of 1992, is further amended by adding an appropriately numbered item to read:

"( )     To require a parent or custodian of a child who receives child support on behalf of a child to submit to the parent paying the support or to the court, or both, at such times as the court requires an accounting of expenditures made from the child support received and such evidence of these expenditures as the court requires."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. NEILSON explained the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 4 was out of order as it was not germane.

Rep. NEILSON argued contra the Point.

The SPEAKER stated that it did not apply to the Self-Sufficiency and Parental Responsibility Act and that the Bill also dealt with the Department of Social Services and he sustained the Point of Order and ruled the amendment out of order.

Rep. McELVEEN spoke in favor of the Bill.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

On motion of Rep. COBB-HUNTER, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4835 be read the third time tomorrow.

I was unable to vote on H. 4835 due to an appointment with a constituent. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted for the Bill.
Rep. MOLLY M. SPEARMAN

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. CLYBORNE demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Anderson               Askins
Bailey, J.             Barber                 Baxley
Breeland               Brown, J.              Carnell
Chamblee               Corning                Fair
Harrelson              Harris, J.             Hines
Holt                   Houck                  Jaskwhich
Kinon                  McAbee                 McCraw
McKay                  McMahand               Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Phillips               Rudnick
Scott                  Sharpe                 Sturkie
Tucker                 Waites                 Waldrop
Whipper                Wilder, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Allison                Baker
Brown, H.              Cato                   Clyborne
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Cromer
Davenport              Delleney               Farr
Gamble                 Gonzales               Govan
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Harwell                Haskins
Huff                   Hutson                 Inabinett
Keegan                 Kelley                 Keyserling
Kirsh                  Klauber                Koon
Lanford                Law                    Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Martin                 McElveen
McTeer                 Meacham                Neilson
Quinn                  Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Rogers                 Sheheen
Simrill                Smith, D.              Smith, R.
Snow                   Stille                 Stoddard
Stone                  Stuart                 Vaughn
Walker                 Wells                  White
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright                 Young, A.

So, the House refused to adjourn.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

H. 4837 -- Reps. McElveen, Cobb-Hunter, Cromer, Neal, Govan, Shissias, Inabinett, Wells, Mattos, Boan, Hodges and Waldrop: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA WELFARE AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM ACT OF 1994 SO AS TO ESTABLISH STATE WELFARE POLICY; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN, FOOD STAMP, AND MEDICAID PROGRAM WAIVERS TO ALLOW THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR CLIENT NONCOMPLIANCE AND TO REVISE INCOME DISREGARDS FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY; TO DIRECT THE STATE HOUSING FINANCE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR A FEDERAL PILOT PROJECT WAIVER PLACING A CEILING ON RENT IN PUBLIC HOUSING; AND TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE A STATEWIDE NETWORK OF MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS; TO INITIATE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES INCLUDING INCREASING PHYSICIAN PARTICIPATION IN MEDICAID, TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION, PRENATAL CARE, CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATIONS, ACCESS TO CLINIC SERVICES, SCHOOL NURSES, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INTERVENTION AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION; TO PROVIDE EDUCATION INITIATIVES INCLUDING COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE THROUGH AGE EIGHTEEN FOR AFDC RECIPIENTS AND A REVIEW OF COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE GENERALLY, DESIGNING ADULT EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL PROGRAMS TO TARGET AFDC RECIPIENTS AND AT-RISK YOUTH, DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO PROMOTE STATE AGENCY HIRING OF AFDC RECIPIENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO REVISE, REVIEW, AND DEVELOP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES INCLUDING SIMPLIFICATION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FORMS, STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IN-HOSPITAL MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY WORKER PROGRAM, PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, ENHANCED UTILIZATION OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, AND CHILD DAY CARE VOUCHER PROCEDURES AND ACCESS TO DAY CARE SERVICES.

The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\15998AC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 which begins on page 5 in its entirety.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WOFFORD was recognized.

Rep. FARR moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.

The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, J.
Baker                  Barber                 Baxley
Breeland               Brown, H.              Brown, J.
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cobb-Hunter
Cromer                 Farr                   Gamble
Gonzales               Govan                  Hallman
Harris, J.             Harrison               Harwell
Haskins                Holt                   Houck
Jaskwhich              Keegan                 Kelley
Klauber                Lanford                Law
Marchbanks             Mattos                 McCraw
McKay                  McMahand               McTeer
Meacham                Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Phillips               Quinn                  Richardson
Riser                  Rogers                 Simrill
Smith, R.              Snow                   Stille
Stuart                 Sturkie                Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Whipper
Wilder, D.             Witherspoon            Wofford
Worley                 Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Allison                Canty
Carnell                Cato                   Davenport
Fair                   Harrell                Huff
Hutson                 Inabinett              Keyserling
Kirsh                  Koon                   Littlejohn
McAbee                 Robinson               Rudnick
Stoddard               Stone                  Walker
Wells

So, immediate cloture was ordered.

Rep. WOFFORD explained the amendment.

Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. WOFFORD demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Anderson               Breeland               Canty
Delleney               Govan                  Hines
McMahand               Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Scott                  Whipper

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Askins                 Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Baxley                 Brown, H.
Carnell                Cato                   Chamblee
Clyborne               Corning                Cromer
Davenport              Farr                   Gamble
Gonzales               Hallman                Harrell
Harris, J.             Harrison               Haskins
Holt                   Houck                  Huff
Hutson                 Inabinett              Jaskwhich
Jennings               Keegan                 Kelley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klauber
Koon                   Law                    Littlejohn
Marchbanks             Mattos                 McAbee
McCraw                 McElveen               McKay
McTeer                 Meacham                Neilson
Phillips               Quinn                  Riser
Robinson               Rogers                 Rudnick
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Shissias
Simrill                Smith, R.              Snow
Stille                 Stoddard               Stone
Stuart                 Sturkie                Tucker
Vaughn                 Waldrop                Walker
Wells                  Wilder, D.             Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Young, A.

So, the House refused to table the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. McELVEEN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\16102AC.94), which was adopted.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by deleting Section 4, Part II, and inserting:

/SECTION 4.     The State Housing Finance and Development Authority and the Department of Social Services shall cooperate in making an application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a waiver for Charleston, Berkeley, Dorchester, and Barnwell Counties to develop a pilot project placing a ceiling on rent and other federal rental subsidy programs./

Amend further, Section 4, Part IV, and Section 5, Part IV, by deleting /Division of Information Resource Technology/ on page 7, line 40, and on page 8, line 5, lines 8-9, and lines 14-15, and inserting /Office of Research and Statistics Information Resource Planning and Management/.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. McELVEEN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Reps. WOFFORD, CROMER, CLYBORNE and WILKES proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\CYY\16128AC.94), which was tabled.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION     _____.     (A)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no family may receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children for more than thirty-six months unless the head of the household is:

(1)     permanently or totally disabled, whether physical or mental;

(2)     unable to obtain employment in the private sector because no job for which the person is qualified is available but the person is working forty hours per week in a volunteer public sector community placement;

(3)     providing full time care to a disabled dependent in the home; or

(4)     unemployed because Work Support program services including, but not limited to, transportation or child care are not available to assist the person in becoming self-sufficient.

Evidence of the exceptions to the thirty-six month benefit limit as enumerated in this subsection must be provided to the department in the manner and form as the department may require.

(B)     The Department of Social Services shall apply for a waiver to implement the provisions of subsection (A).

(C)     Using funds currently appropriated in the 1994-95 General Appropriations Act for the Department of Social Services JOBS Program, the Department shall contract with the State Budget and Control Board to conduct a study to determine the savings in state funds that will be realized by limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits to thirty-six months, as provided for in subsection A, and shall report to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on or before June 30, 1995, and any savings realized from this limitation must be appropriated to the department to expand and enhance its JOBS Program.

(D)     This section takes effect July 1, 1994, and applies to families who apply for Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits after June 30, 1994, and upon recertification to families receiving or who have been determined eligible to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children as of July 1, 1994./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WOFFORD moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. FAIR proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc Name

L:\council\legis\amend\DKA\3405JM.94), which was rejected.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, page 6, by striking line 22 and inserting:

/comprehensive family planning and prenatal care for Medicaid clients, provided, however, that no state funds shall be used under any circumstances anywhere in this State, either directly or indirectly, to pay the costs of an abortion for any person./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. FAIR explained the amendment.

Rep. WALDROP raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 4 was out of order as it was not germane.

Rep. FAIR argued contra the Point.

Rep. SHISSIAS stated that it was as germane to the Joint Resolution as some of the other issues.

The SPEAKER stated that it was germane to the section added and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. MOODY-LAWRENCE moved to table the amendment.

Rep. HASKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Askins                 Beatty                 Breeland
Brown, J.              Carnell                Cobb-Hunter
Farr                   Govan                  Hines
Houck                  Inabinett              Jennings
Keyserling             Kirsh                  McAbee
McElveen               McMahand               McTeer
Moody-Lawrence         Neal                   Phillips
Rogers                 Rudnick                Scott
Snow                   Stille                 Waites
Waldrop                Whipper                Wilder, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Baxley                 Brown, H.              Cato
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cooper
Cromer                 Davenport              Delleney
Fair                   Gamble                 Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Haskins                Holt                   Huff
Hutson                 Jaskwhich              Keegan
Kelley                 Klauber                Koon
Lanford                Littlejohn             Marchbanks
Martin                 Mattos                 McKay
Meacham                Riser                  Robinson
Sharpe                 Shissias               Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Stone
Stuart                 Vaughn                 Walker
Wells                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Worley                 Wright
Young, A.

So, the House refused to table the amendment.

Reps. McELVEEN and SHISSIAS spoke against the amendment.

Rep. FAIR spoke in favor of the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.

Rep. SIMRILL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Allison
Baker                  Baxley                 Brown, H.
Cato                   Chamblee               Clyborne
Cooper                 Corning                Davenport
Delleney               Fair                   Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Haskins                Huff                   Hutson
Jaskwhich              Keegan                 Kelley
Klauber                Koon                   Lanford
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Meacham
Quinn                  Riser                  Robinson
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Simrill
Smith, D.              Smith, R.              Stone
Sturkie                Vaughn                 Walker
Wells                  Wilkins                Witherspoon
Wofford                Wright                 Young, A.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Anderson               Askins                 Bailey, J.
Barber                 Beatty                 Breeland
Brown, J.              Canty                  Carnell
Cobb-Hunter            Cromer                 Farr
Gamble                 Govan                  Harrelson
Harris, J.             Hines                  Holt
Houck                  Inabinett              Jennings
Keyserling             Kinon                  Kirsh
Law                    Martin                 Mattos
McAbee                 McCraw                 McElveen
McMahand               McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence
Neal                   Phillips               Richardson
Rogers                 Rudnick                Scott
Shissias               Snow                   Stille
Stoddard               Tucker                 Waites
Waldrop                Whipper                Wilder, D.
Worley

So, the amendment was rejected.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. CANTY a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

Rep. NEILSON proposed the following Amendment No. 5 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\20886SD.94), which was adopted.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION     _.     Section 20-7-420 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 441 of 1992, is further amended by adding an appropriately numbered item to read:

"( )     To require a parent or custodian of a child who receives child support on behalf of a child to submit to the parent paying the support or to the court, or both, at such times as the court requires an accounting of expenditures made from the child support received and such evidence of these expenditures as the court requires."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. NEILSON explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. HUTSON proposed the following Amendment No. 6 (Doc Name L:\council\legis\amend\GJK\20887DW.94), which was tabled.

Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION     ____. A.     Section 43-5-65(a) of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:

"(3)     agree to repay the State the aid to families with dependent children that the recipient receives with repayment to begin after eighteen months have elapsed since the last benefit is paid; at the time the last benefit is paid to a recipient, the department shall provide the recipient with the total amount of benefits paid, a repayment amount and schedule based on the family size and an income at one hundred and twenty-five percent of the federal poverty level, the date on which payments are to begin, which will be eighteen months from the last payment made, when payments will be completed, and circumstances warranting and procedures for requesting a temporary waiver; the recipient shall begin making these payments eighteen months after the last benefit payment is made to the recipient, unless the recipient requests a temporary waiver which must be granted if the recipient's income is not at least one hundred twenty-five percent of the federal poverty level or if there are extenuating circumstances such that repayment under the terms provided would place an undue hardship on the former recipient; instead of granting a temporary waiver, the department may modify the amount or terms of payment; if a temporary waiver is granted the department shall review the matter in three months and every three months thereafter so long as the waiver is in effect; by accepting aid to families with dependent children a recipient is considered to have agreed to repay the State pursuant to the provisions of this item and regulations promulgated under this item for the benefits the recipients receive. The department may employ those legal means necessary to ensure the collection of the payments owed under this item."

B.     The payments the State Department of Social Services receives pursuant to Section 43-5-65(a) must be remitted to the General Fund of the State but must be dedicated to providing early intervention services for children and their families who are at risk for being recipients of aid to families with dependent children.

C.     The amendments to Section 43-5-65(a), as contained in Section 1 of this act, apply to recipients who apply or reapply or who are reinstated for aid to families with dependent children on or after this act's effective date and apply only to benefits paid on or after this act's effective date.

D.     The Department of Social Services shall apply to the federal government for a waiver allowing the department to retain matching federal funds as a result of the enactment of this section and for the purposes of this section./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

Rep. HUTSON explained the amendment.

Rep. COBB-HUNTER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

The Joint Resolution, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

On motion of Rep. COBB-HUNTER, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4837 be read the third time tomorrow.

Rep. JENNINGS moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. KLAUBER demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Anderson
Askins                 Bailey, J.             Baxley
Beatty                 Breeland               Brown, J.
Byrd                   Canty                  Carnell
Chamblee               Cobb-Hunter            Corning
Fair                   Farr                   Govan
Harrelson              Harris, J.             Hines
Holt                   Houck                  Jaskwhich
Jennings               Keyserling             Kinon
Kirsh                  Koon                   Martin
Mattos                 McAbee                 McCraw
McElveen               McKay                  McMahand
McTeer                 Moody-Lawrence         Neal
Neilson                Phillips               Rudnick
Scott                  Sheheen                Stille
Stoddard               Sturkie                Waites
Waldrop                Wilder, D.

Those who voted in the negative are:

Allison                Baker                  Barber
Brown, H.              Cato                   Clyborne
Cooper                 Cromer                 Davenport
Delleney               Gamble                 Gonzales
Graham                 Hallman                Harrell
Harrison               Harwell                Haskins
Inabinett              Keegan                 Kelley
Klauber                Lanford                Law
Littlejohn             Marchbanks             Meacham
Quinn                  Richardson             Riser
Robinson               Rogers                 Sharpe
Shissias               Simrill                Smith, R.
Snow                   Stone                  Stuart
Vaughn                 Walker                 Wells
Witherspoon            Wofford                Worley
Wright

So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 5176 -- Reps. McLeod, Keegan, Quinn and Shissias: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR TWO DECADES OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE PALMETTO STATE, AND ENCOURAGING THE COLLEGE TO KEEP UP ITS GOOD WORK.

H. 5177 -- Reps. Scott, J. Brown, Neal, Byrd, Shissias, Waites, Quinn, Harrison, Corning and Rogers: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE BOOKER T. WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 1944 AS THEY GATHER IN CELEBRATION OF THEIR FIFTIETH HIGH SCHOOL REUNION JUNE 10, 1994, AND TO WISH THEM A SUCCESSFUL AND ENJOYABLE REUNION AND BEST WISHES FOR THE FUTURE.

H. 5178 -- Rep. Anderson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING DR. NORMAN P. PEARSON, SR., ON HIS SILVER ANNIVERSARY AS PASTOR OF NEW PROSPECT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF WILLIAMSTON.

At 2:55 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. R. YOUNG adjourned in memory of Patricia Kelly of Charleston, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 3:34 P.M.