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:
God of all wisdom, from our limited ability to choose rightly, we turn to You for guidance. We pray for light enough to walk worthily through this day and every day, for strength to carry the responsibilities that are ours, for uncompromising courage to do Your will, for eyes to see Your truth, and for wills to follow Your teachings wholeheartedly. We lay our tasks and problems before You, not to escape them, but asking Your help to carry them with renewed gallantry, that we fail neither out fellowbeings nor our God.
Give us the unlimited confidence of the Psalmist who writes: "The Lord is my Strength and my Shield; my hearts trusts in Him and I am helped" (Psalms 28:7).
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 Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 2, 1988
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. 1286:
S. 1286 -- Education Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 135 IN TITLE 59, RELATING TO EDUCATION, SO AS TO ENACT THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE ACT AND TO ESTABLISH THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE INTERAGENCY BOARD AND THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
On motion of Rep. P. HARRIS, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Legislative Council.
H. 2916 -- Ethics Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1010, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ETHICS, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 1430 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 176 OF 1987, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LAKE WYLIE MARINE COMMISSION, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES.
Reps. KIRSH, FOSTER, HAYES, NESBITT and SHORT, with unanimous consent, proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4568J), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Sections 1 through 9 of Act 176 of 1987 are amended to read:
"Section 1. For purposes of this act:
(1) 'Board' means the board of commissioners of one of the three counties Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, North Carolina and the county council of York County South Carolina.
(2) 'Commission' means the Lake Wylie Marine Commission or its governing board as the case may be.
(3) 'Commissioner' means a member of the governing board of the Lake Wylie Marine Commission.
(4) 'Three counties' means Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, North Carolina, and York County, South Carolina.
(5) 'Joint resolution ordinance' means a an resolution ordinance substantially identical in content adopted separately by the board in each of the governing agencies three counties.
(6) 'Lake Wylie' means the impounded body of water along the Catawba River in the three counties extending from the base of Mountain Island Dam downstream to the Catawba Dam.
(7) 'Shoreline area' means, except as modified restricted by a Joint resolution ordinance of the three counties, the area within the three counties lying within one thousand feet of the mean high-water line (five hundred seventy feet) on Lake Wylie. In addition, the shoreline area includes all islands within Lake Wylie and all peninsulas extending into the waters of Lake Wylie.
(8) 'Wildlife Commission' means the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources.
Section 2. The counties of York, South Carolina, Gaston and Mecklenburg, North Carolina, are authorized three counties may by ordinance or joint resolution ordinance to create the Lake Wylie Marine Commission. Upon its creation, the commission has the powers, duties, and responsibilities conferred upon it by ordinance or joint resolution ordinance subject to the laws of each applicable state. The provisions of any ordinance or joint resolution ordinance may be modified, amended, or rescinded by a subsequent joint resolution ordinance. A county may unilaterally withdraw from participation as required by any joint resolution ordinance or the provisions of this act, once the commission has been created, and any. Any county may, by ordinance, unilaterally withdraw from the commission at the end of any budget period upon ninety days prior written notice. Upon the effectuation of the withdrawal, the commission is dissolved until reestablished under the provisions of this act and all property of the commission must be distributed to or divided among the three counties and any other public agency or agencies serving the Lake Wylie area in a manner considered equitable by the commission by resolution adopted prior to dissolution.
Section 3. Upon its creation, the commission shall have a governing board of seven. Except as otherwise provided for the first four-year period, each commission commissioner shall serve either a three or a four-year term with commissioners to serve overlapping terms so that two commissioner appointments are made each year. Upon creation of the commission, the Board of Commissioners of Gaston County shall appoint three commissioners and the boards of the other two counties shall appoint two each. These initial appointees shall serve until September thirtieth following their appointment. Thereafter, appointments must be made for terms beginning each October first by the respective boards of the three counties as follows:
(1) First Year: Three commissioners from Gaston, one appointed for a one-year term, one appointed for a three-year term, and one appointed for a four-year term; two commissioners from Mecklenburg, one appointed for a one-year term and one appointed for a two-year term; two commissioners from York, one appointed for a two-year term and one appointed for a three-year term.
(2) Second Year: Two commissioners from Mecklenburg, one appointed for a three-year term and one appointed for a four-year term.
(3) Third Year: Two Commissioners from York, one appointed for a three-year term and one appointed for a four-year term.
(4) Fourth year: Two commissioners from Gaston, one appointed for a three-year term and one appointed for a four-year term.
(5) Fifth and succeeding years: Appointments for one three-year and one four-year term in rotation by county in the order set out above. On the death of a commissioner, resignation, incapacity, or inability to serve, as determined by the board appointing the commissioner, or removal of the commissioner for cause, as determined by the board appointing the commissioner, the board affected may appoint another commissioner to fill the unexpired term.
Section 4. The joint resolution ordinance of the three counties shall state the terms relating to compensation to commissioners, if any, compensation of consultants and staff members employed by the commission, and reimbursement of expenses incurred by commissioners, consultants, and employees. The commission is governed by these budgetary and accounting procedures as may be specified by joint resolution ordinance.
Section 5. Upon creation of the commission, its governing board shall meet at a time and place agreed upon by the board boards of the three counties concerned. The commissioners shall elect a chairman and such officers as they may choose. All officers shall serve one-year terms. The governing board shall adopt such rules and regulations as it may consider necessary, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act or of any joint resolution ordinance or the laws of the appropriate state, for the proper discharge of its duties and for the governance of the commission. In order to conduct business, a quorum must be present. The chairman may adopt those committees as may be authorized by such rules and regulations. The commission shall meet regularly at those times and places as may be specified in its rules and regulations or in any joint resolution ordinance. However, meetings of the commission must be held in all three counties on a rotating basis so that an equal number of meetings is held in each county. Special meetings may be called as specified in the rules and regulations. As to meetings held within South Carolina, the provisions of Chapter 4 of Title 30, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, (Freedom of Information Act) apply. As to meetings held within North Carolina, the provisions of that state's Open Meetings Law, Article 33C of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes apply.
Section 6. (A) Within the limits of funds available to it and subject to the provisions of this act and of any joint resolution ordinance, the commission may:
(1) hire and fix the compensation of permanent and temporary employees and staff as it may consider necessary in carrying out Its duties;
(2) contract with consultants for such services as it may require;
(3) contract with the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, or the federal government, or any agency, department, or subdivision of them for property or services as may be provided to or by these agencies and carry out the provisions of these contracts;
(4) contract with persons, firms, and corporations generally as to all matters over which it has a proper concern and carry out the provisions of contracts;
(5) lease, rent, purchase, or otherwise obtain suitable quarters and office space for its employees and staff, and lease, rent, purchase, or otherwise obtain furniture, fixtures, vessels, vehicles, firearms, uniforms, and other supplies and equipment necessary or desirable for carrying out the duties imposed in or under the authority of this act;
(6) lease, rent, purchase, construct, otherwise obtain, maintain, operate, repair, and replace, either on its own or in cooperation with other public or private agencies or individuals, any of the following: boat docks, navigation aids, waterway markers, public information signs and notices, and other items of real and personal property designed to enhance public safety in Lake Wylie and its shoreline area, or protection of property in the shoreline area subject however to the provisions of Title 50 of the 1976 Code Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, or regulations promulgated under that title as to property within South Carolina and Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina and rules promulgated under that chapter as to property within North Carolina.
(B) The commission may accept, receive, and disburse in furtherance of its functions any funds, grants, services, or property made available by the federal government or its agencies or subdivisions, by the state government or its the States of North Carolina or South Carolina or their agencies or subdivisions, or by private and civic sources.
(C) The governing bodies of the three counties may appropriate funds to the commission out of surplus funds or funds derived from nontax sources. They may appropriate funds out of tax revenues and may also levy annually taxes for the payments of such appropriation as a special purpose, in addition to any allowed by the Constitution or in North Carolina as provided by G.S. 153A-149.
(D) The commission is subject to those audit requirements as may be specified in any joint resolution ordinance.
(E) In carrying out its duties and either in addition to or in lieu of exercising various provisions of the above authorization, the commission may, with the agreement of the governing board of the county concerned, utilize personnel and property of or assign responsibilities to any officer or employee of any of the three counties. Such contribution in kind, if substantial, may with the agreement of the other two counties be considered to substitute in whole or in part for the financial contribution required of that county in support of the commission.
(F) Unless otherwise specified by joint resolution ordinance, each of the three counties shall annually contribute an equal financial contribution to the commission in an amount appropriate to support the activities of the commission in carrying out its duties.
Section 7. (A) A copy of the ordinance or joint resolution ordinance creating the commission and of any ordinance or joint resolution ordinance amending or repealing the ordinance or joint resolution ordinance creating the commission must be filed with the Executive Director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources. When the executive director receives resolutions directors receive ordinances that are in substance identical from all three counties concerned, the executive director they in accordance with procedures agreed upon, shall, within ten days, certify this fact and distribute a certified single resolution ordinance text to the following:
(1) the Secretary of the State of North Carolina and the Secretary of State of South Carolina;
(2) the clerk to the governing board of each of the three counties;
(3) the clerk of superior court of Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties and the clerk of court of York County. Upon request, the executive director directors also shall send a certified single copy of any and all applicable joint resolutions ordinances to the chairman of the commission;
(4) a newspaper of general circulation in the three counties.
(B) Unless a joint resolution ordinance specifies a later date, it shall take effect when the executive director's directors' certified text has been submitted to the Secretaries of State for filing. Certifications of the executive director directors under the seal of the commission as to the text or amended text of any joint resolution ordinance and of the date or dates of submission to the Secretaries of State is admissible in evidence in any court. Certifications by any clerk of superior court or county clerk of court of the text of any certified resolution ordinance filed with him by the executive director directors is admissible in evidence and the executive director's directors' submission of the resolution ordinance for filing to the clerk shall constitute prima facie evidence that the resolution ordinance was on the date of submission also submitted for filing with the Secretary of State. Except for the certificate of a clerk as to receipt and date of submission, no evidence may be admitted in court concerning the submission of the certified text of any resolution ordinance by the executive director directors to any person other than the Secretary of State.
Section 8. (A) Except as limited in subsection (B) of this section, by restrictions in any joint resolution ordinance and by other supervening provisions of law, the commission may make regulations applicable to Lake Wylie and its shoreline area concerning all matters relating to or affecting the use of Lake Wylie. These regulations may not conflict with or supersede provisions of general or special acts or of regulations of state agencies promulgated under the authority of general law. No regulations adopted under the provisions of this section may be adopted by the commission except after public hearing, with publication of notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the three counties at least ten days before the hearing. In lieu of or in addition to passing regulations supplementary to state law and regulations concerning the operation of vessels on Lake Wylie, the commission may, after public notice, request that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources pass local regulations on this subject in accordance with the procedure established by appropriate state law.
(B) Violation of any regulation of the commission commanding or prohibiting an act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars or thirty days imprisonment.
(C) The regulations promulgated under this section take effect upon passage or upon such dates as may be stipulated in the regulations except that no regulation may be enforced unless adequate notice of the regulation has been posted in or on Lake Wylie or its shoreline area. Adequate notice as to a regulation affecting only a particular location may be by a sign, uniform waterway marker, posted notice, or other effective method of communicating the essential provisions of the regulation in the immediate vicinity of the location in question. Where a regulation applies generally as to Lake Wylie or its shoreline area, or both, there must be a posting of notices, signs, or markers communicating the essential provisions in at least three different places throughout the area and it must be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the three counties.
(D) A copy of each regulation promulgated under this section must be filed by the commission with the following persons:
(1) the Secretaries of State of North and South Carolina;
(2) the clerk of superior court of each of the three counties Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties and the clerk of court of York County;
(3) the Executive Directors of the Wildlife Resources Commission of North Carolina and South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department.
(E) Any official designated in subsection (D) above may issue certified copies of regulations filed with him under the seal of his office. These certified copies may be received in evidence in any proceeding.
(F) Publication and filing of regulations promulgated under this section as required above is for informational purposes and is not a prerequisite to their validity if they in fact have been duly promulgated, the public has been notified as to the substance of regulations, a copy of the text of all regulations is in fact available to any person who may be affected and no party to any proceeding has been prejudiced by any defect that may exist with respect to publication and filing. Rules and regulations promulgated by the commission under the provisions of other sections of this resolution act relating to internal governance of the commission need not be filed or published. Where posting of any sign, notice, or marker or the making of other communication is essential to the validity of a regulation duly promulgated, it is presumed in any proceeding that prior notice was given and maintained and the burden lies upon the party asserting to the contrary to prove lack of adequate notice of any regulation.
Section 9. (A) Where a joint resolution ordinance so provides, all law enforcement officers, or those officers as may be designated in the joint resolution ordinance, with territorial jurisdiction as to any part of Lake Wylie or its shoreline area, within the limitations of their subject matter jurisdiction, have the authority of peace officers in enforcing the laws over all of Lake Wylie and its shoreline area.
(B) Where a joint resolution ordinance provides it, the commission may hire special officers to patrol and enforce the laws on Lake Wylie and its shoreline area. These special officers have and may exercise all the powers of peace officers generally within the area in question and shall take the oaths and are subject to all provisions of law relating to law enforcement officers.
(C) Every criminal violation must be tried in the county where it occurred. However, a certificate of training by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy, or its North Carolina counterpart a similar certificate issued by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission or the North Carolina Sheriffs' Education and Training Standards Commission, will suffice for certification in both states for the purposes of this act.
(D) Where a law enforcement officer with Jurisdiction over any part of Lake Wylie or its shoreline area is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the laws on Lake Wylie or in its shoreline area, he has such extraterritorial Jurisdiction as may be necessary to perform his duties. These duties include investigation of crimes an officer reasonably believes have been, or are about to be, committed within the area in question. This includes traversing by reasonable routes from one portion of this area to another although across territory not within the boundaries of Lake Wylie and its shoreline area; conducting prisoners in custody to a court or detention facilities as may be authorized by law, although this may involve going outside the area in question; execution of process connected with any criminal offense alleged to have been committed within the boundaries in question, except that this process may not be executed by virtue of this provision beyond the boundaries of the three counties. This also includes continuing pursuit of and arresting any violator or suspected violator as to which grounds for arrest arose within the area in question.
(E) Where law enforcement officers are given additional territorial Jurisdiction under the provisions of this section, this is considered an extension of the duties of the office held and no officer shall take any additional oath or title of office."
SECTION 2. Section 12 of Act 176 of 1987 is amended to read:
"Section 12. This act takes effect March 1, 1988 upon enactment by the State of North Carolina and upon approval by the Congress of the United States. Either North Carolina or South Carolina may withdraw from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same, but no withdrawal is effective until the Governor of the withdrawing state has sent formal notice in writing to the Governor of each other party state informing the Governors of the action of the legislature in repealing the compact and declaring an intention to withdraw. This withdrawal is effective on a date set by the withdrawing state, but not less than ninety days after enactment of the withdrawal statute. In case of the withdrawal, the property of the commission must be divided in an equitable manner by the commission as if dissolution had occurred under Section 2 of this act."
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
The Bill, as amended, was read the third time and ordered returned to the Senate.
The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, 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.
S. 1568 -- Senator Lee: A BILL TO AMEND AN ACT OF 1988 BEARING RATIFICATION NUMBER 719, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE.
The following Bill was taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 1571 -- Senator Giese: A BILL RELATING TO FIREARMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MILITARY FIREARMS MANUFACTURED IN RICHLAND COUNTY BY A FIRM LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE LEGALLY MANUFACTURED, TRANSPORTED, POSSESSED AND SOLD IN RICHLAND COUNTY BY THE MANUFACTURER THEREOF.
On motion of Rep. T. ROGERS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 1571 be read the third time tomorrow.
The motion period was dispensed with on motion of Rep. L. MARTIN.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blackwell Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Clyborne Cork Corning Dangerfield Day Edwards Faber Fair Foster Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Haskins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Limehouse Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McEachin McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Pearce Pettigrew Phillips, L. Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Simpson Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Wells White Wilder Wilkins Williams Winstead
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on June 20, 1988.
John J. Snow, Jr. Will S. McCain Charles H. Rice E.B. McLeod, Jr. Robert A. Kohn Paul Derrick Olin R. Phillips Irene K. Rudnick Marion P. Carnell William H. Jones James E. Lockemy James C. Johnson M. Washington Ralph Davenport M.J. Cooper Joseph McElveen Paul M. Burch John G. Felder John M. Baxley Tee Ferguson William D. Boan James W. Johnson, Jr. Stephen Lanford Derham Cole Joseph T. Petty Dell Baker Philip T. Bradley Gene Stoddard Larry Koon Alfred McGinnis C. Lenoir Sturkie Dick Elliott
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Rep. BEASLEY a leave of absence for the day.
Rep. T. ROGERS made a statement relative to Mrs. Candy Waites election to the House.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 10:30 A.M. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. McABEE the invitation was accepted.
The following was received.
June 6, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4257, R-690, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 1779 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE CHESTER FIRE DISTRICT IN CHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE DISTRICT.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is enclosed, which states in concluding that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality:
"H. 4257, R-690, amends Act No. 1779 of 1972 to enlarge the service area of the Chester Fire District. The entire service areas of the District as newly comprised appears to be entirely within Chester County. Thus, H. 4257, R-690, of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4257, R-690, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 2262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
"In addition, it must be noted that Article III, Section 34 of the State Constitution prohibits the enactment of special or local laws. Section 34(IX) particularly provides, "where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." A general law, Section 6-11-410 et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), already provides a mechanism whereby the boundaries of a district such as the Chester Fire District may be enlarged. H. 4257, R-690, is therefore constitutionally suspect on this basis, as well."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 2, 1988
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of May 31, 1988, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4257, R-690, an act enlarging the service area of the Chester Fire District of Chester County. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
H. 4257, R-690 amends Act No. 1779 of 1972 to enlarge the service area of the Chester Fire District. The entire service area of the District as newly comprised appears to be entirely within Chester County. Thus, H. 4257, R-690 of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4257, R-690 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
In addition, it must be noted that Article III, Section 34 of the State Constitution prohibits the enactment of special or local laws. Section 34(IX) particularly provides, "where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." A general law, Section 6-11-410 et seq. of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), already provides a mechanism whereby the boundaries of a district such as the Chester Fire District may be enlarged. H. 4257, R-690, is therefore constitutionally suspect on this basis, as well.
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4257, R-690 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Rep. O. PHILLIPS explained the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Cork Dangerfield Day Edwards Faber Foster Gentry Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Hayes Hearn Helmly Hodges Holt Huff Jones Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McEachin McElveen McGinnis McKay McTeer Moss Nesbitt Pearce Phillips, L. Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Snow Thrailkill Tucker Waldrop Wells White Wilder Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 6, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4012, R-723, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 1817 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE FLORENCE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AMONG THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL TWO MEMBERS FROM EACH REPRESENTED FIRE DEPARTMENT MUST BE APPOINTED INSTEAD OF FROM EACH SUBDISTRICT.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is enclosed, which states in concluding that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality:
"This act amends Section 2 of the Act No. 1817 of 1972 to provide that the board of fire control of the Florence County Fire District will be composed of twelve appointees of the Governor, two from each represented fire department, upon recommendation of a majority of the Florence County Legislative Delegation. From the description of the service area of the District described in Section 1 of Act No. 1817 of 1972, it appears that the service area is wholly within Florence County. Thus, H. 4012, R-723, of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4012, R-723, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4012, R-723 would be of doubtful constitutionality."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 3, 1988
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 2, 1988, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4012, R-723, an act changing the composition of the governing board of the Florence County Fire District, amending Act. No. 1817 of 1972. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
This act amends Section 2 of Act No. 1817 of 1972 to provide that the board of fire control of the Florence County Fire District will be composed of twelve appointees of the Governor, two from each represented fire department, upon recommendation of a majority of the Florence County Legislative Delegation. From the description of the service area of the District described in Section 1 of Act No. 1817 of 1972, it appears that the service area is wholly within Florence County. Thus, H. 4012, R-723 of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4012, R-723, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4012, R-723 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Brown, G. Chamblee Day Derrick Edwards Foster Gentry Gilbert Gregory Harris, P. Hayes Helmly Hodges Holt Huff Jones Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Limehouse Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McEachin McGinnis McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Phillips, L. Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sheheen Shelton Short Snow Taylor Tucker Waldrop Wells White Wilder
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 6, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4288, R-730, an Act:
TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 FOR CHARLESTON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET OF CHARLESTON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is enclosed, which states in concluding that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality:
"This act directs the Charleston County Auditor to levy the necessary millage to collect $3,485,461.00 for the 1988-89 operations of the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. In addition, the Commission is authorized to expend other sources of revenue to meet its budget of $4,002,156.00 for 1988-89. The Commission is operative only in Charleston County. Thus, H. 4288, R-730, of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that '[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to H. 4288, R-730, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4288, R-730 would be of doubtful constitutionality."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 3, 1988
Burnet R. Maybank
Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Maybank:
By your letter of June 2, 1988, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4288, R-730, an act requiring the Charleston County Auditor to levy the millage necessary for the 1988-89 expenses of the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
This act directs the Charleston County Auditor to levy the necessary millage to collect $3,485,461.00 for the 1988-89 operations of the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. In addition, the Commission is authorized to expend other sources of revenue to meet its budget of $4,002,156.00 for 1988-89. The Commission is operative only in Charleston County. Thus, H. 4288, R-730, of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4288, R-730, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974).
"Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4288, R-730 would be of doubtful constitutionality." Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Rep. J. BRADLEY explained the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Arthur Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, J. Chamblee Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Faber Foster Foxworth Gentry Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Haskins Hayes Helmly Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Jones Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Limehouse Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McBride McEachin McElveen McKay McLellan McLeod, E.B. McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Pearce Phillips, L. Phillips, O. Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sheheen Shelton Short Tucker Waldrop White Wilder Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
At 10:30 A.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were duly ratified.
(R779) S. 1194 -- Senators Thomas E. Smith, Jr., Bryan, Hayes and Fielding: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 62-1-108, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ACTS BY A HOLDER OF A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT, SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERM "PRESENTLY EXERCISABLE GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT"; TO AMEND SECTION 62-1-302, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURTS, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THIS JURISDICTION; TO AMEND SECTION 62-1-306, RELATING TO JURY TRIALS IN THE PROBATE COURT, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SITUATIONS WHEN JURY TRIALS MAY BE DEMANDED AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE TRIALS MAY BE WAIVED; TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-102, RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF PERSONS UNDER DISABILITY AND THEIR PROPERTY, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THE PROBATE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF CERTAIN PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS AND GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-402, RELATING TO PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT AND OTHER COURTS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN CLAIMS AND ISSUES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-411, RELATING TO BONDS IN PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE BONDING REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-424, RELATING TO POWERS OF A CONSERVATOR, SO AS TO REVISE HIS AUTHORITY TO PAY, CONTEST, OR SETTLE CERTAIN CLAIMS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 62-5-433 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE JURISDICTION OF SPECIFIED COURTS IN REGARD TO CERTAIN CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST A MINOR OR INCAPACITATED PERSON, AND TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN SETTLING THESE CLAIMS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 62-7-211 SO AS TO ALLOW THE COURT TO CONSOLIDATE OR DIVIDE TRUSTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 62-7-302, RELATING TO A TRUSTEE'S STANDARD OF CARE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS STANDARD OF CARE; TO AMEND SECTION 62-7-418, RELATING TO CHARGES WHICH MUST BE MADE AGAINST PRINCIPAL, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE CHARGES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 15-72-10 SO AS TO CONFORM THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 62-5-433; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 62-3-1202A SO AS TO PERMIT CERTAIN ESTATES UNDER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS NOT TO BE ADMINISTERED; TO AMEND SECTION 62-2-503, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ATTESTATION AND SELF-PROVING OF A WILL, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ATTESTATION AND SELF-PROVING; TO AMEND SECTION 62-3-406, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TESTIMONY OF ATTESTING WITNESSES TO A WILL IN CONTESTED CASES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE PRESUMPTIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXECUTION IF THE WILL IS SELF-PROVED; TO AMEND SECTION 62-3-603, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO BONDS OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR WHEN THESE BONDS MAY BE WAIVED AND ARE REQUIRED; TO AMEND SECTION 14-23-650, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A DESCRIPTION OF LANDS DEVISED, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE TO WHERE THESE DESCRIPTIONS MUST BE ENTERED; TO AMEND SECTION 62-3-806, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE TO NOTIFY THE CLAIMANT IF A CLAIM IS DISALLOWED; TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-103, RELATING TO THE MANNER IN WHICH A PERSON UNDER A DUTY TO PAY OR DELIVER MONEY OR PERSONAL PROPERTY UNDER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO A MINOR MUST PERFORM THIS DUTY, SO AS TO MAKE THESE PROVISIONS ALSO APPLICABLE TO INCAPACITATED PERSONS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 62-5-434 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF ANY CLAIM INVOLVING A MINOR COMPLETED BETWEEN JULY 1, 1987, AND SEPTEMBER 24, 1987, IS PRESUMED FACIALLY VALID WHETHER EFFECTUATED WITH OR WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL; TO MAKE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF MINORS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 33-14-200, 33-14-210, 33-14-220, AND 33-14-230, RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF 1988, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 33-15-300, 33-15-310, AND 33-15-320, RELATING TO REVOCATION OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS REVOCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 33-1-280, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FURNISHING CERTIFICATES OF EXISTENCE FOR CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE CONTENTS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXISTENCE AS IT RELATES TO A CORPORATION'S DISSOLUTION OR REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-1675, RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION OR REVOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO TRANSACT BUSINESS FOR FAILURE TO FILE CERTAIN TAX RETURNS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS DISSOLUTION OR REVOCATION; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 29 OF TITLE 33 RELATING TO FEES AND TAXES PAYABLE BY CORPORATIONS.
(R780) S. 1330 -- Senator Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INTEREST ON UNPAID OR ADDITIONAL TAX, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHENEVER THE TAX COMMISSION ISSUES A WARRANT OF TAX EXECUTION, INTEREST MUST BE CALCULATED ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX DUE FROM THE TIME THE TAX WAS DUE UNTIL PAID IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-30, RELATING TO REFUNDS OR CREDITS FOR OVERPAYMENT OF TAXES AND THE INTEREST ON THE REFUNDS OR CREDITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT INTEREST MAY ALSO BE PAID ON INCOME TAX REFUNDS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 12-7-1980 AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN OR TO PAY REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, NEW AND ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE OR PAY OR REPORT THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TAX, AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-54-155 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A PENALTY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL UNDERSTATEMENT OF TAX AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-54-225 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING TAX RETURNS.
(R781) S. 1534 -- Senators McLeod, Matthews and Waddell: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13 OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE JOINT ADMINISTRATION OF FUNCTIONS AND THE EXERCISE OF POWERS BY COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTIES SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FIRST PROVIDING BY LAW FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND SCHOOL FISCAL ABILITY CONSIDERATIONS, MAY JOINTLY DEVELOP AN INDUSTRIAL OR BUSINESS PARK WITH OTHER COUNTIES WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF ONE OR MORE OF THE MEMBER COUNTIES, WHERE THE AREA COMPRISING THE PARKS AND ALL PROPERTY HAVING A SITUS THEREIN IS EXEMPT FROM ALL AD VALOREM TAXATION BECAUSE THE OWNERS OR LESSEES OF ANY PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE PARK MUST PAY AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE PROPERTY TAXES OR OTHER IN-LIEU-OF PAYMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE AND PAYABLE EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE EXEMPTION.
(R782) S. 1398 -- Senator McLeod: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 43, TITLE 39, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GASES, SO AS TO CHANGE AND ADD DEFINITIONS AND TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR REGULATING THE USE OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GASES, TO CHANGE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND TO DELETE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES POWERED BY LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS.
(R783) S. 1220 -- Senators Land, Garrison, Peeler and Macaulay: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OPEN-END PERMITS FOR MOVING OVERSIZE MOBILE HOMES, MODULAR HOME UNITS, AND UTILITY BUILDINGS, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DELETE ALL THE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THIS OPEN-END PERMIT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAY ISSUE MULTIPLE TRIP PERMITS FOR THE MOVING OF OVER-DIMENSIONAL OR OVERWEIGHT NONDIVISIBLE LOADS OVER SPECIFIED STATE HIGHWAYS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT, PROVIDE FOR A FEE FOR THE PERMIT, PROVIDE FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE PERMIT, AND MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION, TERMS, OR CONDITION OF THE PERMIT; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4200, RELATING TO OPEN-END PERMITS FOR MOVING OVERSIZE MOBILE HOMES, MODULAR HOME UNITS, AND UTILITY BUILDINGS AND TO REPORTS, FEES, AND RECORDS, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDE FOR A FEE OF TEN DOLLARS A TRIP, RATHER THAN FIVE DOLLARS A TRIP; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4170, RELATING TO VEHICLES AND PERMITS FOR EXCESS SIZE AND WEIGHT OR OTHER NONCONFORMING ACTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL CHARGE A FEE OF TEN DOLLARS, RATHER THAN FIVE DOLLARS, FOR EACH PERMIT ISSUED.
(R784) S. 1367 -- Senators Moore, Shealy and Setzler: AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE NUMBER, DISTRICTS, AND LOCATION OF OFFICES OF MAGISTRATES IN AIKEN COUNTY AND TO REPEAL ACT 254 OF 1985 RELATING TO THE MAGISTRATES IN AIKEN COUNTY.
(R785) S. 379 -- Senators Lourie, Doar and McLeod: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-13-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS LAW", SO AS TO REDEFINE THE TERM "AGE"; TO AMEND SECTION 1-13-80, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND EXCEPTIONS UNDER THE "SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS LAW", SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 1 MAY BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ATTAINED SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE, RATHER THAN ANY EMPLOYEE "WHO HAS ATTAINED SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE BUT NOT SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE", AND WHO, FOR THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE RETIREMENT, IS EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE OR HIGH POLICY-MAKING POSITION, IF THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO AN IMMEDIATE NONFORFEITABLE ANNUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT FROM A PENSION, PROFIT SHARING, SAVINGS, OR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN, OR ANY COMBINATION OF SUCH PLANS, OF THE EMPLOYER OF SUCH EMPLOYEE, WHICH EQUALS, IN AGGREGATE, AT LEAST FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS, RATHER THAN TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 1, RELATING TO AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT MAY BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ATTAINED SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE AND WHO IS SERVING UNDER A CONTRACT OF UNLIMITED TENURE (OR SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING FOR UNLIMITED TENURE) AT AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND PROVIDE THAT THESE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS ARE EFFECTIVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1993, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER WHICH IS THE STATE, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AN AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE OR OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, OR AN INTERSTATE AGENCY TO FAIL OR REFUSE TO HIRE OR TO DISCHARGE ANY INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S AGE IF THE ACTION IS TAKEN (1) WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL AS A FIREFIGHTER OR AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE INDIVIDUAL HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF HIRING OR RETIREMENT IN EFFECT UNDER APPLICABLE LAW ON MARCH 3, 1983, AND (2) PURSUANT TO A BONA FIDE HIRING OR RETIREMENT PLAN THAT IS NOT A SUBTERFUGE TO EVADE THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 1 AND PROVIDE THAT THESE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS ARE EFFECTIVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1993, AND TO DEFINE THE TERMS "FIREFIGHTER" AND "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1530, RELATING TO RETIREMENT AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR RETIREMENT FROM EMPLOYMENT AT AGE SEVENTY AND EXCEPTIONS, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO "TEACHER" AND "TEACHER IN SERVICE" AND TO DEFINE FURTHER THE WORD "EMPLOYEE", AS USED IN THIS SECTION, AS ONE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1-13-80(h)(8), (10), OR (12).
(R786) S. 1166 -- Senator Martschink: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IS NOT LIABLE WHEN A LOSS RESULTS, SO AS TO INCLUDE NOTIFICATION OF ANY PERSON WITH WHOM A PUBLIC STUDENT RESIDES OF THE STUDENT'S SUSPECTED USE OF ALCOHOL, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, OR DRUGS IF MADE IN GOOD FAITH.
(R787) S. 1286 -- Education Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 137 IN TITLE 59, RELATING TO EDUCATION, SO AS TO ENACT THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE ACT AND TO ESTABLISH THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE INTERAGENCY BOARD AND THE SCHOOL-BASED ENTERPRISE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.
(R788) S. 1438 -- Senators Saleeby, Peeler, Lee and Land: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-1270, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIONS OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, AND SECTION 56-9-350, RELATING TO FORMS FOR VERIFICATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AFTER AN ACCIDENT, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE WHICH RESULTS IN A REQUIRED REPORT AND FORM FROM TWO HUNDRED TO FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS.
(R789) S. 1240 -- Senator Waddell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL NEW CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, CORPORATE OFFICE FACILITIES, DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, AND ALL ADDITIONS TO EXISTING HEADQUARTERS, OFFICE FACILITIES, OR DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, IF THE COST IS FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OR MORE AND SEVENTY-FIVE OR MORE NEW FULL-TIME JOBS ARE CREATED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, ARE EXEMPT FROM COUNTY AD VALOREM TAXES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE TIME OF ESTABLISHMENT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHING CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS IN THIS STATE OR ADDING TO AN EXISTING HEADQUARTERS, WHICH ESTABLISHMENT OR ADDITION COSTS FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OR MORE AND RESULTS IN THE CREATION OF SEVENTY-FIVE OR MORE NEW FULL-TIME JOBS AT LEAST FORTY OF WHICH ARE STAFF EMPLOYEES, ARE ALLOWED A CORPORATE INCOME TAX CREDIT EQUAL TO TWENTY PERCENT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
(R790) H. 3742 -- Rep. Beasley: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-221 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD TO ADVISE THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ON THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL FITNESS OF PERSONS TO BE LICENSED TO OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES AND ON THE MEDICAL CRITERIA AND VISION STANDARDS RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF DRIVERS.
(R791) H. 3379 -- Rep. Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-54-420, 12-54-430, AND 12-54-460, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEBT OFFSET COLLECTION ACT, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCLUSION OF THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE DEFINITION OF CLAIMANT AGENCY, TO REQUIRE THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION TO SUPPLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO CLAIMANT AGENCIES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX COMMISSION MAY RETAIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR EACH SETOFF IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS RATHER THAN A FLAT TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR FEE UNDER FORMER LAW, AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO INTEREST ACCRUES ON AN INCORRECTLY OFFSET TAX REFUND WHEN THE CLAIMANT AGENCY IS THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND TO REENACT AND AMEND SECTION 12-7-2240, RELATING TO INCOME TAX REFUNDS AND OFFSET AUTHORITY OF THE TAX COMMISSION, SO AS TO DELETE THE OFFSET AUTHORITY MADE OBSOLETE BY THE DEBT OFFSET COLLECTION ACT.
(R792) H. 4293 -- Reps. Blanding, Baxley, G. Brown, E.B. McLeod and McElveen: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 643 OF 1980, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SCHOOLS IN SUMTER COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 AND 17 OF SUMTER COUNTY MUST BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GENERAL ELECTION.
(R793) H. 2423 -- Reps. Clyborne, H. Brown, Mattos, Haskins, Kirsh, Nesbitt, Baker, McCain, P. Bradley, Wilkins, Petty, G. Bailey, McEachin, T.C. Alexander and Corning: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DRAWING AND UTTERING FRAUDULENT CHECKS, SO AS TO REDEFINE "CREDIT", SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCLUSION FOR POSTDATED CHECKS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-70, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT INTENT IN DRAWING A CHECK AND DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PROSECUTION, SO AS TO REDUCE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT FROM FIFTEEN TO TEN DAYS, TO RAISE THE SERVICE CHARGE ON DISHONORED CHECKS FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN DOLLARS, AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SERVICE CHARGES FOR CHECKS FOR PREEXISTING DEBTS.
(R794) H. 2539 -- Reps. Evatt, Cooper, Blackwell, Kay, Townsend, Snow, Shelton, Helmly, Taylor and Foster: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 44-7-110 THROUGH 44-7-340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND FRANCHISING ACT, SO AS TO CHANGE THE CITATION OF THE ARTICLE TO THE CERTIFICATION OF NEED AND HEALTH FACILITY LICENSURE ACT, PROVIDE FOR A STATE MEDICAL FACILITIES PLAN, PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTH FACILITIES INCLUDING HOSPITALS, PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS, SKILLED NURSING CARE, INTERMEDIATE CARE, AMBULATORY SURGICAL, CHIROPRACTIC INPATIENT, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE, AND ADULT DAY-CARE FACILITIES, FACILITIES FOR CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT OR ADDICTED PERSONS, END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE UNITS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 44-7-350 THROUGH 44-7-370, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF AND GROUNDS FOR DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES AND PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF A PENALTY OR DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE, SO AS TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF PERSONS IN A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES TO PROVIDE ADVICE FOR THE LICENSING AND INSPECTION OF THESE FACILITIES; AND TO REPEAL ARTICLES 4 AND 6, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 44, RELATING TO LICENSING, REGULATION AND INSPECTION OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND OUTPATIENT FACILITIES FOR CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT OR ADDICTED PERSONS; CHAPTER 39 OF TITLE 44, RELATING TO RENAL DISEASE; CHAPTER 65 OF TITLE 44, RELATING TO DAY-CARE FACILITIES FOR ADULTS; SECTION 44-7-355, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PERSONS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY CARE; AND SECTIONS 44-7-375 THROUGH 44-7-460, RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF DECISIONS PERTAINING TO CERTIFICATES OF NEED AND PENALTIES UNDER THE STATE HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND FRANCHISING ACT.
(R795) H. 4073 -- Reps. Dangerfield, J. Bradley, Aydlette, Washington, Winstead, Kohn, D. Martin, Klapman, Altman, Mappus, Whipper and Holt: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 57-5-820 AND 57-5-830, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONSENT OF A MUNICIPALITY TO WORK ON HIGHWAYS WITHIN ITS LIMITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, UPON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND ONE GENERAL PURPOSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AN APPEALS COMMITTEE WHEN A MUNICIPALITY DISAPPROVES CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ITS LIMITS, THE WORK MAY BE COMPLETED IF THE COMMITTEE MAKES A FINDING THAT THE WORK IS INCLUDED IN THE URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN, IS OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO MORE THAN ONE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE DISAPPROVING MUNICIPALITY AND WITHOUT PLAN APPROVAL OF THE DISAPPROVING MUNICIPALITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPEALS.
(R796) H. 3572 -- Reps. T.C. Alexander, M.O. Alexander, Neilson, Petty and G. Bailey: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-10-240, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS ON INSURERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS WHEN A MOTOR VEHICLE IS NOT INSURED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, SO AS TO INCREASE THE REINSTATEMENT FEE DUE WHEN THE REGISTRATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS SUSPENDED FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN INSURANCE ON THE VEHICLE FROM TWENTY-FIVE TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO GIVE NOTICE OF FAILURE TO PAY A PREMIUM FOR AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WITHIN TEN DAYS OF A PERIOD ENDING FIVE WORKING DAYS AFTER THE PREMIUM DUE DATE OR EXPIRATION OF ANY CUSTOMARY GRACE PERIOD, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE TO THE VEHICLE OWNER WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF A VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-455, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT OWNING OR OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE FOR THIRTY OR MORE CONSECUTIVE DAYS DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COVERAGE DISQUALIFIES THE PERSON FROM OBTAINING AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE AT THE BASE RATE.
(R797) H. 2593 -- Reps. M.D. Burriss, Hearn and Pearce: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 23-45-135, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN PLUMBING CONTRACTORS AND UTILITY CONTRACTORS WHEN PERFORMING SPECIFIED FUNCTIONS.
(R798) H. 4072 -- Reps. Sheheen and Wilkins: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE XVI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO AMENDMENT AND REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PROPOSALS MAY BE MADE FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION YEAR 1990 FOR THE REVISION OF AN ENTIRE ARTICLE OR THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE IN A SINGLE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL, WHICH PROPOSAL MAY CHANGE PROVISIONS FROM OTHER ARTICLES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
(R799) H. 3596 -- Reps. Rudnick, Faber and Whipper: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-1100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE INSURANCE RATES, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM THREE TO FIVE THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF AN INSURERS BUSINESS WHICH MAY BE INVESTIGATED, PLUS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATION IS MADE AND PROVIDE FOR THE RATE OF INTEREST OF A REFUND TO BE THE INSURERS AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-1110 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO PROMULGATE A REGULATION CONCERNING THE CALCULATION AND REFUNDING OF EXCESS PROFITS AND FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATION.
(R800) H. 3861 -- Rep. Lewis: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 33-55-210, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RECOVERY AGAINST CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND LIABILITY OF A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR SERVICES RENDERED VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ACTION AGAINST THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, RATHER THAN THE JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION, UNDER SECTIONS 33-55-210 THROUGH 33-55-230 CONSTITUTES A COMPLETE BAR TO ANY RECOVERY, RATHER THAN A COMPLETE BAR TO ANY ACTION, BY THE CLAIMANT, BY REASON OF THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE OF THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION WHOSE ACT OR OMISSION GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM UNLESS IT IS ALLEGED AND PROVED IN THE ACTION THAT THE EMPLOYEE ACTED IN A RECKLESS, WILFUL, OR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT MANNER, PROVIDE THAT, IN SUCH A CASE, THE EMPLOYEE MUST BE PROPERLY JOINED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT, PROVIDE THAT NO JUDGMENT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION MAY BE RETURNED EXCEPT UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, PROVIDE THAT IF THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME THE ACTION IS INSTITUTED, THE PLAINTIFF MAY NAME AS A PARTY DEFENDANT THE EMPLOYEE, AND THAT THE ENTITY FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING MUST BE ADDED OR SUBSTITUTED AS PARTY DEFENDANT WHEN IT CAN BE SO REASONABLY DETERMINED, AND DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 33-55-220 RELATING TO THE PROVISION THAT THE BAR TO ANY ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS ADJOURNED TO HAVE ACTED RECKLESSLY OR WANTONLY OR WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
(R801) H. 3669 -- Reps. Sharpe, Huff and Jones: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 15-78-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXCEPTIONS TO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY OF LIABILITY BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, SO AS TO EXEMPT MEMBERS OF THE STATE AND COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSION AND RINGSIDE PHYSICIANS FROM LIABILITY FOR ACTS PERFORMED IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 52-7-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DENIAL OR APPROVAL OF PERMITS FOR THE HOLDING OF EVENTS WHEN THE APPLICATIONS ARE LATE.
(R802) H. 3493 -- Reps. Edwards, Felder and Winstead: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-53-51, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE OPERATION OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT INSTITUTIONAL FEES AND LOCALLY APPROPRIATED COUNTY FUNDS MUST BE RETAINED IN ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE AREA COMMISSIONS FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THEIR DIRECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND OTHER LAWS, AND TO AMEND SECTION 59-53-53, RELATING TO BORROWING BY AREA COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN AREA COMMISSION MAY ISSUE COVENANTS, ENTER INTO MORTGAGES, AND GRANT LIENS LIMITING THE SALE OR USE OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY IN ITS POSSESSION WHEN REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF ACCEPTING A GRANT, LOAN, OR DONATION FOR SPECIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL AREA COMMISSIONS MAY DISPOSE OF REAL PROPERTY THAT IS SURPLUS TO THEIR NEEDS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
(R803) H. 4198 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 42-11-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR DISABILITY FROM AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND EXCEPTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE, AMONG OTHER REASONS, FOR THE DEGREE OF DISABILITY RESULTING FROM NONCOMPENSABLE CAUSES OR THE EMPLOYEE'S REFUSAL TO USE A SAFETY APPLIANCE PROVIDED BY AND REGULARLY REQUIRED TO BE USED BY THE EMPLOYER, RATHER THAN A SAFETY DEVICE, OR TO OBEY A SAFETY RULE OR REGULATION ADOPTED AND REGULARLY ENFORCED BY THE EMPLOYER, RATHER THAN A SAFETY REGULATION APPROVED BY THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 42-11-190, RELATING TO OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW AND THE PROMULGATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SCHEDULES, SO AS TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION, AFTER NOTICE TO PARTIES INTERESTED AND PUBLIC HEARINGS IF REQUESTED, TO PROMULGATE REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE USE OF SAFETY APPLIANCES FOR THE REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS WHICH CAUSE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES, AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION LIMITS THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE REASONABLE SAFETY REGULATIONS SUBMITTED BY AN EMPLOYER FOR APPLICATION TO HIS BUSINESS WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 42-17-60, RELATING TO CONCLUSIVENESS OF AN AWARD UNDER THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, APPEAL, AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION DURING APPEAL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, IN CASE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ON QUESTIONS OF LAW, THE APPEAL DOES NOT OPERATE AS A SUPERSEDEAS, RATHER THAN PROVIDE THAT THE APPEAL DOES OPERATE AS A SUPERSEDEAS FOR THIRTY DAYS ONLY; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 42-3-200, RELATING TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS, 42-9-50, RELATING TO REDUCTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION WHEN INJURY OR DEATH IS DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEE, AND 42-9-70, RELATING TO INCREASE IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION WHEN INJURY OR DEATH IS DUE TO THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYER.
(R804) H. 4357 -- Rep. Hayes: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE FOR YORK COUNTY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR HIS TERM, JURISDICTION, AND JURY AREA.
At 10:45 A.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE in the chair.
The following was received.
June 6, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4253, R-701, an Act:
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-3025 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A BIRD SANCTUARY IN A CERTAIN PORTION OF CHARLESTON COUNTY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is enclosed, which concludes that this legislation is violative of Article VIII, Section 34 of the South Carolina Constitution.
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 3, 1988
Mark R. Elam
Senior Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Elam:
By your letter of June 1, 1988, you have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4253, R-701, an act establishing a bird sanctuary in a certain portion of Charleston County within the City of Charleston. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the Act is of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
This act establishes a bird sanctuary in the specified area of the City of Charleston in Charleston County and makes it a misdemeanor for any person to trap, hunt, molest or attempt to molest any birds' nests or wild fowls' nests within the sanctuary. Criminal penalties are provided therefor. Thus, H. 4253, R-701 of 1988 is clearly an act for a specific county and specific municipality within the county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to H. 4253, R-701 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E.2d 107 (1979), Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E.2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 2262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974). Likewise, Article VIII, Section 10 of the State Constitution provides that "[n]o laws for a specific municipality shall be enacted...." Because H. 4253, R-701 addresses only the City of Charleston, contravention of this provision is also a concern.
In addition, Article III, Section 34 of the Constitution provides that
[t]he General Assembly of this State shall not enact local or special laws concerning any of the following subjects or for any of the following purposes, to wit:
...
VI. To provide for the protection of game.
...
Provided, That the General Assembly is empowered to divide the State into as many zones as may appear practicable, and to enact legislation as may appear proper for the protection of game in the several zones.
...
The subject act is clearly a special or local act in that it relates to protection of birds in one area of Charleston County, in the City of Charleston. Because the act is not for the protection of game in the entire zone of which this area would be a part, see Section 50-1-60(6) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1987 Cum. Supp.) Article III, Section 34 is most probably contravened by the act in question. Cff., Ops. Atty. Gen. dated June 8, 1983; June 20, 1983; and June 18, 1984 (copies enclosed).
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 4257, R-690 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Arthur Bradley, J. Dangerfield Edwards Gentry Harris, P. Mappus Martin, L. McAbee McEachin McLeod, E.B. Phillips, O. Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Short Tucker Waldrop Wilder
Those who voted in the negative are:
Davenport Foxworth Holt Klapman Kohn Washington White Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 6, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4276, R-775, an Act:
TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989 FOR CERTAIN LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, AND COMMISSIONS OF THE COUNTY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TOTAL OPERATING BUDGETS OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, AND COMMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office, a copy of which is enclosed, which states in concluding:
"It has been, and continues to be, the opinion of this Office that sections one through six and eight of the above-cited act are most probably unconstitutional. For further discussions of the matter, I refer you to opinions of this Office dated May 22, 1987; June 4, 1986; June 21, 1985...
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
June 3, 1988
Burnet R. Maybank
Counsel to the Governor
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11369
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Maybank:
You have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 4276, R-775. which act sets the millage for several agencies, special purpose districts, and commissions located within Charleston County. It has been, and continues to be, the opinion of this Office that sections one through six and eight of the above-cited act are most probably unconstitutional. For further discussions of the matter, I refer you to opinions of this Office dated May 22, 1987; June 4, 1986; June 21, 1985; June 18, 1984; June 7, 1983; January 6, 1983, June 2, 1983; June 14, 1982; and June 6, 1980. Section seven would probably pass constitutional muster, as concluded in the opinions dated June 21, 1985; June 4, 1986; and May 22, 1987.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Patricia Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Rep. J. BRADLEY explained the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Arthur Bradley, J. Dangerfield Day Foxworth Gentry Hayes Holt Kohn Mappus Mattos McGinnis McTeer Moss Nesbitt Phillips, O. Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Waldrop Washington Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 8, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 2680, R-755, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 13-9-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLARK'S HILL-RUSSELL AUTHORITY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME TO THE SAVANNAH VALLEY AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTION 13-9-30, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD AND THE AUTHORITY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE POWERS AND DUTIES AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 13-9-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY MAY BE EXERCISED.
Although I believe the changes embodied in Section 1 and Section 2 of this Act are appropriate and probably warranted, I am concerned about the purpose and affection of Section 3. Section 3 concerns the exercise of the powers and duties of the Savannah Valley Authority provided under 13-9-30 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, (1976). This provision appears to be a gross abrogation of the Separation of Powers of Article I, Section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution. The Legislature should not undertake both to pass laws and to execute them by setting its own members to the task of discharging such functions by virtue of their offices as legislators. If this provision is not unconstitutional, it is at the very least confusing in its intent, and could, perhaps more importantly, factionalize the Authority so as to dilute its effectiveness.
I urge the members of the General Assembly to carefully examine the impact of this section and consider a reasonable provision that would not pose either a constitutional problem or hamper the effectiveness of the Authority.
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. McTEER explained the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Burch Carnell Chamblee Cole Cooper Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Foster Gentry Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Keyserling Kirsh Koon Lockemy Martin, L. McAbee McEachin McGinnis McLellan McLeod, E.B. McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Phillips, L. Phillips, O. Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sheheen Shelton Short Snow Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilder Wilkins Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. GILBERT made a statement relative to Ms Maggie Wallace Glover's election to the House.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
Rep. WILKINS moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request.
S. 1 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 22 SO AS TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM MINIMUM COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MAGISTRATES AND THE FUNDING OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS; TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-10, RELATING TO THE CIVIL JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES, SO AS TO REVISE THE JURISDICTION; TO REPEAL SECTION 22-2-180 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAGISTRATES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 14, RELATING TO MASTERS AND REFEREES, BY ADDING SECTION 14-11-200 SO AS TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY IN ALL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO REAL ESTATE TO BE TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED AND IN ALL OTHER CASES TO BE TRANSCRIBED UPON REQUEST OF A PARTY OR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-10, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY COURTS IN THE COUNTIES OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURTS IN EACH COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE TO A DATE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PART-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-20, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF TERMS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE INSTEAD OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A TERM OF SIX INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT AS NEEDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, TO PROHIBIT A FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND STANDING MASTERS-IN-EQUITY FROM SERVING AS PROBATE JUDGES, AND TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PART-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY PRACTICE LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-30, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY'S OFFICE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EITHER A PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY BASED UPON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY OR THE AREA SERVED; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-60, RELATING TO THE FILLING OF A VACANCY, DISQUALIFICATION, OR DISABILITY IN THE OFFICE OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRESIDING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, AFTER GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN AND UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, MAY APPOINT A SPECIAL REFEREE WITH ALL THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY WHO MUST BE COMPENSATED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-90, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY HAS THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, PROVIDE THAT THE EQUITY COURT IS CONSIDERED A DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS ENTITLED TO ALL BENEFITS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SAME RESPECT AS CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY DECIDE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND PROOF, AND PROVIDE THAT APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MUST BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OR BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-140, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY INVOLVING THE PARTITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO THE ADMEASUREMENT OF DOWER; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-310, RELATING TO FEES COLLECTED BY MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS HEARD BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-20, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-30, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-40, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DESIGNATE SOME OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE, AND TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROBATE COURTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO REPEAL SECTION 14-11-320 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF REFEREES; TO AMEND ARTICLE 7 OF CHAPTER 21 OF TITLE 8, RELATING TO PROBATE FEES AND COSTS, BY ADDING SECTIONS 8-21 -765, 8-21 -766, AND 8-21-795 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROBATE JUDGES BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THEY SERVE WHICH MUST BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE THAT ALL PROBATE JUDGES WHO, ON JULY 1, 1988, ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM REMAIN MEMBERS OF THESE SYSTEMS, AND PROVIDE THAT ALL FEES, AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, TO WHICH THE PROBATE COURT IS ENTITLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-21-790 MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-760, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF PROBATE JUDGES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF EACH COUNTY TO FUND THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROBATE COURT IN THAT COUNTY EXCEPT FOR THE SALARIES OF JUDGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING A BENEFICIARY OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETURNING TO THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A RETIRED JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO BE CALLED UPON AND APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN PROBATE COURTS.
The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burch Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Faber Fair Felder Foster Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Koon Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McCain McEachin McElveen McGinnis McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Pettigrew Phillips, O. Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Snow Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Waldrop Washington Wells White Wilder Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference, the SPEAKER appointed Reps. WILKINS, HAYES and HODGES to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., June 2, 1988
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 1 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 22 SO AS TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM MINIMUM COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MAGISTRATES AND THE FUNDING OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS; TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-10, RELATING TO THE CIVIL JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES, SO AS TO REVISE THE JURISDICTION; TO REPEAL SECTION 22-2-180 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAGISTRATES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 14, RELATING TO MASTERS AND REFEREES, BY ADDING SECTION 14-11-200 SO AS TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY IN ALL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO REAL ESTATE TO BE TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED AND IN ALL OTHER CASES TO BE TRANSCRIBED UPON REQUEST OF A PARTY OR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-10, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY COURTS IN THE COUNTIES OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURTS IN EACH COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE TO A DATE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PART-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-20, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF TERMS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE INSTEAD OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A TERM OF SIX INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT AS NEEDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, TO PROHIBIT A FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND STANDING MASTERS-IN-EQUITY FROM SERVING AS PROBATE JUDGES, AND TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PART-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY PRACTICE LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-30, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY'S OFFICE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EITHER A PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY BASED UPON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY OR THE AREA SERVED; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-60, RELATING TO THE FILLING OF A VACANCY, DISQUALIFICATION, OR DISABILITY IN THE OFFICE OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRESIDING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, AFTER GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN AND UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, MAY APPOINT A SPECIAL REFEREE WITH ALL THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY WHO MUST BE COMPENSATED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-90, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY HAS THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, PROVIDE THAT THE EQUITY COURT IS CONSIDERED A DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS ENTITLED TO ALL BENEFITS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SAME RESPECT AS CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY DECIDE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND PROOF, AND PROVIDE THAT APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MUST BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OR BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-140, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY INVOLVING THE PARTITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO THE ADMEASUREMENT OF DOWER; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-310, RELATING TO FEES COLLECTED BY MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS HEARD BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-20, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-30, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-40, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DESIGNATE SOME OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE, AND TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROBATE COURTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO REPEAL SECTION 14-11-320 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF REFEREES; TO AMEND ARTICLE 7 OF CHAPTER 21 OF TITLE 8, RELATING TO PROBATE FEES AND COSTS, BY ADDING SECTIONS 8-21-765, 8-21-766, AND 8-21-795 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROBATE JUDGES BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THEY SERVE WHICH MUST BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE THAT ALL PROBATE JUDGES WHO, ON JULY 1, 1988, ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM REMAIN MEMBERS OF THESE SYSTEMS, AND PROVIDE THAT ALL FEES, AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, TO WHICH THE PROBATE COURT IS ENTITLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-21 -790 MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-760, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF PROBATE JUDGES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF EACH COUNTY TO FUND THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROBATE COURT IN THAT COUNTY EXCEPT FOR THE SALARIES OF JUDGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING A BENEFICIARY OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETURNING TO THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A RETIRED JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO BE CALLED UPON AND APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN PROBATE COURTS.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend that the bill do pass amended as follows:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
SECTION 1. Section 8-21-1010 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 8-21-1010. Except as otherwise expressly provided, the following fees and costs shall must be collected by the magistrates and deposited in the general fund of the county:
(1) For for taking civil recognizance, with or without sureties, five dollars
(2) For for granting an order for civil special bail, with or without sureties, five dollars;
(3) For for receiving and filing bond in claim and delivery, attachment, five dollars; if justification of sureties required, an additional five dollars;
(4) For for administering and certifying oaths or documents in writing, two dollars;
(5) For for issuing any prerogative writ, five dollars;
(6) In in all civil actions, for issuing a summons and a copy for defendant, and for giving judgment with or without a hearing, fifteen twenty-five dollars;
(7) For for issuing execution and renewal thereof, ten dollars;
(8) For for making up, certifying, and forwarding a transcript of record and judgment in a case for purpose of appeal, ten dollars;
(9) For for proceedings by a landlord or lessor against a tenant or lessee, including notices to quit, eviction orders, or recovery of rents, five ten dollars;
(10) For for proceedings on a coroner's inquest, as prescribed by law, ten dollars, if inquest is demanded by a party other than the State or county or authorized officer thereof either;
(11) for proceeding on estrays, including judgment for possession, sale, or damages, ten dollars;
(12) For taking and certifying renunciation of dower, five dollars;
(13) For for qualifying appraisers to set off homestead or qualifying sureties on any a bond posted in any a case, including bail bonds, five dollars;
(14)(13) For for each tax execution collected, five dollars;
(15)(14) For for filing or issuing any other paper not herein provided for in this section, five dollars;.
(16) No fees or costs shall may be chargeable assessed against any a party for summoning jurors or expense of jury service in any a criminal case, in which a trial by jury is had."
SECTION 2. Section 8-21-1060 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 8-21-1060. Except as otherwise expressly provided, the following fees and costs shall must be collected by the magistrate or his officers and deposited in the general fund of the county:
(1) For for summoning a witness to magistrate court in a civil action, three dollars, plus mileage at the current state rate;
(2) For for summoning the jury panel to try a civil action in magistrate court, five dollars, to be taxed against the losing party;
(3) For for summoning a coroner's jury and witnesses, five dollars, and mileage, to be paid only if inquest is demanded by person other than the State, county, or authorized officer thereof;
(4) For for serving a summons, rule, order or notice by a magistrate in a civil action, five dollars, plus mileage;
(5) For for serving an attachment or civil arrest on a person and making return thereof, five dollars, plus mileage;
(6) For for selling an estray, five percent of the sale proceeds;
(7) For for levying execution, posting notice of sale, conducting sale, and paying over proceeds in a magistrate court action, five ten dollars;
(8) For for serving warrants, or any other criminal process, and for conveying prisoners by order of the magistrate or other court, mileage as permitted under Section 8-21-1040."
SECTION 3. A magistrate may award attorney's fees in the same manner as is provided by law for circuit judges in this State in civil matters.
SECTION 4. Section 22-1-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 22-1-10. The Governor may, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint magistrates in each county of the State, who shall hold their office for the term of two years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. The number of magistrates to be appointed for each county and their territorial jurisdiction shall be as prescribed by law prior to March 2, 1897, for trial justices in the respective counties of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.
(A) The Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may appoint magistrates in each county of the State who shall hold their office for the term of four years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. Magistrates serving the counties of Abbeville, Allendale, Bamberg, Beaufort, Calhoun, Cherokee, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Colleton, Dillon, Edgefield, Florence, Greenville, Hampton, Jasper, Lancaster, Lee, Marion, McCormick, Oconee, Pickens, Saluda, Sumter, and Williamsburg shall serve terms of four years commencing May 1, 1990. Magistrates serving the counties of Aiken, Anderson, Barnwell, Berkeley, Charleston, Chester, Darlington, Dorchester, Fairfield, Georgetown, Greenwood, Horry, Kershaw, Laurens, Lexington, Marlboro, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, Spartanburg, Union, and York shall serve terms of four years commencing May 1, 1991.
The number of magistrates to be appointed for each county and their territorial jurisdiction is as prescribed by law before March 2, 1897, for trial justices in the respective counties of the State, except as otherwise provided in this section.
(B) No person is eligible to hold the office of magistrate who is not at the time of his appointment a citizen of the United States and of this State, and who has not been a resident of this State for at least five years, has not attained the age of twenty-one years upon his appointment and has not received a high school diploma or its equivalent educational training as recognized by the State Department of Education."
SECTION 5. The provisions of Section 22-1-10(B) of the 1976 Code do not apply to a magistrate serving on the effective date of this act during his tenure in office. A magistrate presently holding office must achieve a high school education or the equivalent educational training as recognized by the State Department of Education within two years of the effective date of this act and must submit a certified copy of his high school diploma or certified proof of its recognized equivalent in educational training as established by the State Department of Education to the South Carolina Court Administration. However, this requirement does not apply to a magistrate with at least five years' service as a magistrate on the effective date of this act. The South Carolina Court Administration must report to the Governor's Office a magistrate's failure to submit the proper documentation and such violation terminates that magistrate's term of office.
SECTION 6. Section 22-2-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 22-2-10. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law and specifically Canon 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, any Senatorial A senatorial delegation in determining the persons to be recommended to the Governor for appointment as magistrates may appoint a screening committee to assist them in their selection of nominees. Such delegations may also direct the commissioners of election of the county from which magistrates are to be appointed to conduct a nonpartisan preferential election to assist in the selection process.
In the event a nonpartisan preferential election for a magistrate's office is requested it shall be conducted at the same time as the general election. The election shall be conducted by the election commission of the county wherein the magistrate's office is situated. All such elections shall be subject to the election laws of this State except as provided in this act.
Whenever a majority of the Senators representing a particular county desire to have a preferential election for a magistrate's office, they shall notify the county election commission in writing at least one hundred and fifty but not more than two hundred and ten days before the general election.
The county election commission shall cause such election to be advertised three times in a daily and/or weekly or bi-weekly newspaper of general circulation in the magisterial district in which such election is to be held.
Any qualified elector residing in the magisterial district may have his name placed on the preferential election ballot by filing a petition with the county election commission at least sixty days prior to the date of the general election. The petition shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 7-11-70 and 7-11-80 of the 1976 Code.
The preferential elections shall be nonpartisan and no candidate shall have a party designation on the ballot. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be certified by the county commission as the winner. The commission shall report to each Senator representing the county the number of votes received by each candidate.
Any candidate in a magistrate's preferential election may campaign for his own candidacy but shall not identify himself with any political party nor attend any partisan political meetings.
Participation of candidates in any of the processes authorized by this section shall not be deemed to be a violation of Canon 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics."
SECTION 7. Title 22 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 22-8-10. As used in this chapter:
(1) 'Chief magistrate' means the magistrate in each county who is designated by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court as the chief magistrate for administrative purposes for the county which he serves.
(2) 'Full-time magistrate' means a magistrate who regularly works forty hours a week performing official duties required of a magistrate as a judicial officer.
(3) 'Part-time magistrate' means a magistrate who regularly works less than forty hours a week performing official duties required of a magistrate as a judicial officer.
Section 22-8-20. Magistrates are judicial officers, and the hours they spend in the performance of their official duties are hours spent in the exercise of their judicial function. The exercise of the judicial function involves the examination of facts leading to findings, the application of law to those findings, and the ascertainment of the appropriate remedy. Time spent in the performance of judicial functions also includes time spent performing ministerial duties necessary for the exercise of the magistrates' judicial powers, as well as necessary travel and training time. In the case of chief magistrates, the judicial function includes time necessary to perform the administrative and other duties required of a chief magistrate for administrative purposes. The classification or reclassification of magistrates as full-time or part-time must be made in consideration of these factors.
Section 22-8-30. (A) Each county shall provide sufficient facilities and personnel for the necessary and proper operation of the magistrates' courts in that county.
(B) Other personnel determined to be necessary by the county for magistrates in a county must be provided by the governing body of the county and must be county employees and be paid by the county.
(C) The compensation of constables may vary, and salaries and perquisites must be determined by the governing board of the county and funded by the county.
Section 22-8-40. (A) The county governing body of each county shall designate magistrates serving within the county as either full time or part time. A county is not required to have a full-time magistrate and may have only part-time magistrates.
(B) All magistrates in this State must be paid the base salary as determined by the following factors:
(1) There is established a base salary for each population category as follows:
(a) for those counties with a population of two hundred thousand and above according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is twenty-nine thousand dollars;
(b) for those counties with a population of at least one hundred fifty thousand but not more than one hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is twenty-seven thousand dollars;
(c) for those counties with a population of at least one hundred thousand but not more than one hundred forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is twenty-five thousand dollars;
(d) for those counties with a population of at least fifty thousand but not more than ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is twenty-two thousand dollars;
(e) for those counties with a population of at least thirty-five thousand but not more than forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is nineteen thousand dollars; and
(f) for those counties with a population of less than thirty-five thousand according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the base salary is seventeen thousand dollars.
(2) There is established a ratio of one magistrate for every twenty-eight thousand persons in each county of the State based on the latest official United States Decennial Census.
(3) There is established a ratio of one magistrate for every one hundred fifty square miles of area in each county of the State as a factor to be used in determining the base salary as provided in this section.
The maximum number of magistrates in each county is the greater of that number determined by taking one magistrate for every twenty-eight thousand persons in each county or that number determined by taking the average of the ratio of one magistrate for every twenty-eight thousand persons in each county as provided by item (2) of this section and the ratio of one magistrate for every one hundred fifty square miles of area in each county as provided in item (3) of this section. However, no county is required to have fewer than the equivalent of one full-time magistrate and one part-time magistrate. If a fraction of a magistrate results, the county must round off the fraction, establishing an additional part-time magistrate. No additional magistrates may be added until a county has less than the ratio.
(C) Part-time magistrates are to be computed at a ratio of four part-time magistrates equals one full-time magistrate.
(D) Part-time magistrates are entitled to a proportionate percentage of the salary provided for full-time magistrates. This percentage is computed by dividing by forty the number of hours a week the part-time magistrate spends in the performance of his duties. The number of hours a week that a part-time magistrate spends in the exercise of the judicial function, and scheduled to be spent on call, must be the average number of hours worked and is fixed by the county governing body upon the recommendation of the chief magistrate.
(E) A cost of living increase must be paid by the county in the amount provided classified state employees in the annual state general appropriations act of the previous fiscal year. The base salaries provided for in this Part must be adjusted annually based on the percentage amount of the cost of living increase paid to classified state employees in the annual state general appropriations act of the previous fiscal year.
(F) A full-time chief magistrate must be paid a yearly supplement of three thousand dollars and reimbursed for travel expense as provided by law while in the actual performance of his duties. A part-time chief magistrate must be paid a yearly supplement of fifteen hundred dollars and reimbursed for travel expense as provided by law while in the actual performance of his duties.
(G) Magistrates in a county are entitled to the same perquisites as those employees of the county of similar position and salary.
(H) A ministerial magistrate is entitled to the same compensation as a part-time magistrate.
(I) A magistrate who is receiving a salary greater than provided for his position under the provisions of this chapter must not be reduced in salary during his tenure in office. Tenure in office continues at the expiration of a term if the incumbent magistrate is reappointed.
(J) No county may pay a magistrate lower than the base salary established for that county by the provisions of subsection (B) of this section.
(K) Nothing in this section may be interpreted as prohibiting a county from paying a magistrate more than the base salary established for that county.
(L) The South Carolina Court Administration shall monitor compliance with this section. Nothing contained in this section may be construed as prohibiting a county from paying in excess of the minimum base salaries provided for in this section.
Section 22-8-50. (A) A magistrate aggrieved by a ruling or action taken by a county or the governing body of the county concerning classification, reclassification, or compensation of magistrates based upon this chapter, or with respect to the operation of the magistrates' court system within the county, may petition the county governing body, in writing, for redress.
(B) The county governing body of each county shall hear and determine contested cases arising within the county in connection with classification, reclassification, and compensation of magistrates, or with respect to the operation of the magistrates' court system within its county, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, Chapter 23, of Title 1, and subject to judicial review as provided in Section 1-23-380."
SECTION 8. When a counterclaim is filed which if successful would exceed two thousand five hundred dollars then the initial claim and counterclaim must be transferred to the docket of the common pleas court for that judicial circuit.
SECTION 9. The provisions of this part may in no way be construed to mandate the reduction of the total number of magistrates in any county which generates four million dollars or more annually in accommodations tax revenue. This in no way prohibits the county which generates four million dollars or more annually in accommodations tax revenue from increasing the number of its magistrates notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter.
SECTION 10. The number of magistrates in the counties below fifteen thousand in population may be increased by one part-time additional magistrate if the number allowed under this bill, as amended, is less by .25 than the number presently serving in office.
SECTION 1. Section 14-11-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-11-10. There As a part of the unified judicial system. there is hereby established in each of the several counties of this State having a population of at least one hundred thirty thousand, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, a master-in-equity court. The master-in-equity for the court must be appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 14-11-20. The master-in-equity for each county holding office on the effective date of this act shall continue to serve as master-in-equity until the expiration of his term of office at which time his successor shall be selected as provided by law; provided, however, noting herein shall prohibit. Nothing in this section prohibits a county or area with a population of less than one hundred thirty thousand, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, from having a part-time master-in-equity. The governing bodies of any two or more counties from joining may join together to elect one fund the office of master-in-equity to serve two or more counties, if such action is approved by the General Assembly. Funding of such this master-in-equity shall must be borne by each county so included on a per capita population basis."
SECTION 2. The master-in-equity for each county presently holding office continues to serve as master-in-equity until the expiration of his term of office at which time his successor may be selected as provided by law.
SECTION 3. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 14-11-15. The equity court is considered a division of the circuit court, and the master-in-equity, as judge of the equity court, is entitled to all the benefits and subject to all the requirements of the South Carolina Bar and the rules of the Supreme Court in the same respect as circuit court and family court judges. This section may not be construed as providing retirement for masters-in-equity under the provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 9."
SECTION 4. Section 14-11-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-11-20. Masters-in-equity shall must be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the General Assembly for a term of four six years and until their successors shall be are appointed and shall qualify. The Governor in his appointment shall designate the master-in-equity to serve either in a full-time or part-time capacity. No person is eligible to hold the office of master-in-equity who is not at the time of his appointment a citizen of the United States and of this State, has not attained the age of twenty-six years upon his appointment, has not been a licensed attorney for at least five years upon his appointment, and has not been a resident of this State for five years immediately preceding his appointment.
Each master-in-equity of this State qualifies by taking the oath required by the Constitution of this State before a justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of the Court of Appeals, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a circuit judge, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, a clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, or a probate judge of the county and immediately enters upon his duties. The oath must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.
A full-time master-in-equity is prohibited from engaging in the practice of law. A Part-time master-in-equity may practice law but is prohibited from appearing before another master-in-equity. A probate judge of any county."
SECTION 5. Section 14-11-30 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-11-30. A master-in-equity shall be compensated in such amounts as may be provided and appropriated by the governing body of the county in which such master-in-equity shall serve, provided, a salary scale based upon caseload by the Court Administrator's office may be used as a guideline by the governing body of a county in compensating the master-in-equity, but in no case shall the governing body of the county have a full-time master compensate such master in an amount less than he is receiving as of June 15, 1979, provided, further, that nothing in this section shall in any way give the Court Administrator's office any additional control over the masters-in-equity.
The governing body of the county or counties in which a master-in-equity serves shall provide the salary, equipment, facilities, and supplies of the master-in-equity, together with the salaries of support personnel and all other costs for the necessary and proper operation of the master-in-equity's office. The salaries of the masters-in-equity are as follows:
(1) Where the area served has a population of up to thirty-four thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is part-time and must be paid a salary equal to ten percent of that of a circuit judge.
(2) Where the area served has a population of between thirty-five thousand and forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is part-time and must be paid a salary equal to fifteen percent of that of a circuit judge.
(3) Where the area served has a population of between fifty thousand and seventy-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is Part-time and must be paid a salary equal to twenty-five percent of that of a circuit judge.
(4) Where the area served has a population of between eighty thousand and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is part-time and must be paid a salary equal to forty-five percent of that of a circuit judge.
(5) Where the area served has a population of between one hundred thousand and one hundred twenty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is part-time and must be paid a salary equal to fifty-five percent of that of a circuit judge.
(6) Where the area served has a population of between one hundred thirty thousand and one hundred forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is full-time and must be paid a salary equal to seventy-five percent of that of a circuit judge.
(7) Where the area served has a population of between one hundred fifty thousand and one hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is full-time and must be paid a salary equal to eighty percent of that of a circuit judge.
(8) Where the area served has a population of between two hundred thousand and two hundred forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, the master-in-equity serving that area is full-time and must be paid a salary equal to eighty-five percent of that of a circuit judge.
(9) Where the area served has a population of over two hundred fifty thousand, according to the latest official United States Decennial Census, or where the area served is located in a county which generates four million dollars or more in accommodations tax revenue, the master-in-equity serving that area is full-time and must be paid a salary equal to ninety percent of that of a circuit judge.
No sitting master-in-equity, whether full-time or part-time, may have his salary reduced during his tenure in office. Tenure in office continues at the expiration of a term if the incumbent master-in-equity is reappointed."
SECTION 6. Section 14-11-60 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-11-60. In case of a vacancy in the office of master-in-equity or in case of the disqualification or disability of the master-in-equity from interest or any other reason for which cause can be shown the circuit court or a judge thereof presiding circuit court judge may, upon agreement of the parties, appoint a special referee in any case who shall as to such the case be clothed with has all the powers of a master-in-equity. The special referee must be compensated by the parties involved in the action."
SECTION 7. Section 14-11-310 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-11-310. Masters-in-equity shall collect the following fees which shall must be deposited in the general fund of the county:
(1) For every day or part thereof spent in the business of a reference, twenty-five dollars.
(2) For making and filing of each report in a cause, fifteen dollars.
(3) For examing or auditing accounts of guardians, trustees or receivers, five dollars.
(4) For fees or commissions on monies passing through the court by sales or otherwise, one-half of one percent, up to a maximum of one thousand dollars for any one sale or for any one action referred to it.
(5) For proceeding on a petition to determine homestead, twenty-five dollars.
(6) For issuing subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, one dollar.
(7) For each master's summons or orders issued appointing or establishing a hearing date, two dollars.
(8) For preparing or executing any deed of conveyance or mortgage under court order or statute, fifteen dollars.
(9) For the public or private sale or auction (per lot or parcel), five dollars.
(10) For receiving and filing any bond required in civil action, including justification of surety, six dollars.
(11) For all other orders, five dollars.
Provided that a minimum deposit of fifty dollars for a master's fee and cost shall be collected by the master-in-equity and deposited in the general fund of the county upon filing of the order of reference; provided, further, that in actions for partition or for foreclosure or liens upon real property, the minimum deposit shall be one hundred dollars. Such deposits shall cover or be applied to costs and fees for issuance of orders, reports and for other official acts by the master, except costs on sales and fees for receiving and paying over money officially.
(1) in actions for partitions, foreclosure of liens upon real property, or sales of real property, either in private or by auction, a fee of one hundred dollars. If the matter requires more than one day of hearing, there is a thirty-five dollar charge for each additional day or portion of the day until the matter is concluded;
(2) for the preparation of a deed, a fee of twenty-five dollars;
(3) on sales of land, a fee equal to one percent of the bid or of the funds passing through the court, whichever is greater. The minimum commission collectible under this item is twenty-five dollars, and the maximum commission is two thousand, five hundred dollars;
(4) for a supplemental proceeding, a fee of twenty-five dollars;
(5) in all other cases, fifty dollars for the first day's hearing or any portion of the day and for each day after the first day, thirty-five dollars. The fees must be assessed at the time of the order or report of the master-in-equity.
The fees provided for in this section, including the first day's fee provided for in item (5) and excluding the commission on sale, must be paid at the time the order of reference is signed and is nonrefundable unless 90 ordered by the master-in-equity on proper cause being shown. The cost of transcribing the record is in addition to the fees provided for in this section and must be assessed at the rate prescribed for circuit courts.
SECTION 1. Section 14-27-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-27-20. The Judicial Council shall be is composed of the following:
(1) The the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, or some other member of the court designated by him;
(2) Two two circuit court Judges of the State;
(3) A representatives of the inferior courts of the State, including the county courts and the courts of juvenile-domestic relations two family court judges of the State;
(4) A two representative of the probate courts judges of the State;
(5) The the Attorney General or one of the Assistant Attorneys General or one of the circuit solicitors;
(6) The dean the Dean or a member of the faculty of the Law School of the University of South Carolina;
(7) The president the President of the South Carolina State Bar;
(8) The the Lieutenant Governor or his designee;
(9) The speaker the Speaker of the House of Representatives or his designee;
(10) The chairman the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee or his designee;
(11) The chairman the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee or his designee;
(12) The chairman the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or his designee;
(13) The chairman the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee or his designee;
(14) The director the Director of the Legislative Council;
(15) Six six other members, of whom at least four shall must be members of the bar of this State;
(16) Two two judges of the magistrates' courts.; and
(17) two masters-in-equity."
SECTION 2. Section 14-27-30 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-27-30. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint the following members to the Judicial Council: the two circuit judges; the representative of the inferior courts two family court judges; the representative two of the probate courts judges; the two judges of the magistrates' courts; the two masters-in-equity; the Attorney General or one of the Assistant Attorneys General or one of the circuit solicitors; the dean Dean or member of the faculty of the Law School of the University of South Carolina; and the six remaining members of the Judicial Council.
The Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House or their designees, the Chairmen chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, and House Judiciary Committee or their designees, the Director of the Legislative Council, and the President of the South Carolina State Bar shall serve ex officio."
SECTION 3. Section 14-27-40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-27-40. Members of the Judicial Council shall serve for the following terms:
(1) If he designates no other member of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice shall serve serves during his term of office;. If the Chief Justice designates some other member of the court, the other member serves during his term of office.
(2) The Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House or their designees, chairman and the chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee or their designees shall serve during their respective terms as such; those officers.
(3) The president President of the South Carolina State Bar shall serve serves during his term of office;.
(4) The member of the legal department of the State (Attorney General, one of the Assistant Attorneys General, or one of the circuit solicitors) shall serve serves for a period of four years;.
(5) The dean Dean or member of the faculty of the Law School of the University of South Carolina shall serve serves for a period of four years;.
(6) The two circuit judges shall serve for a term period of four years each;.
(7) The representatives of the inferior courts shall two family court judges serve for a period of four years; each.
(8) The representative two judges of the probate courts shall serve serve for a period of four years; each.
(9) The director Director of the Legislative Council shall serve serves during his term of office;.
(10) The two judges of the magistrates' courts shall serve for a period Or four years each;.
(11) The two masters-in-equity serve for a period of four years each.
(11)(12) Three of the remaining six members of the Judicial Council shall must be appointed initially for terms of two years each, and three members shall must be appointed initially for terms of four years each and thereafter. After the initial appointments all six members shall must be appointed for terms of four years each.
The members designated in subsections items (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) shall (8), (10), and (11) cease to be members of the Judicial Council prior to before the expiration of their respective terms should if they cease to hold the official positions entitling them to membership of on the Judicial Council."
SECTION 1. Section 8-21-760 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 8-21-760. The probate judges of the several counties shall judges must receive such salaries for performance of their duties as may be fixed by the governing body of the county, which shall not be diminished during their terms of office pursuant to Section 8-21-765.
A probate judge who is receiving a salary greater than provided for his position under the provisions of this chapter must not be reduced in salary during his tenure in office. Tenure in office continues at the expiration of a term if that judge is reelected.
Such compensation shall not be measured or affected by the fees and costs received by such officers under the provisions of this article.
The governing body of the county shall provide the salary, equipment, facilities, and supplies of the support personnel and staff of the probate judge, together with all other costs necessary for the efficient operation of the court, including but not limited to court reporters, secretaries, clerks, per diem, travel, educational, and other benefits for the judge and his staff. A probate judge is not prohibited from acting as special referee with the agreement of the county governing body, but no probate judge is eligible to serve as a standing master-in-equity.
The probate judge in each county must serve full-time and shall carry out all duties assigned by law.
All such fees Fees and costs received under the provisions of this article by such the officials of any a county shall must be accounted for and paid into the general fund of the county as directed by the governing body thereof of that county. Any remuneration received by a probate judge for performing duties assigned by the Department of Mental Health must be remitted by the probate judge to the county treasurer for deposit into the general fund of the county."
SECTION 2. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 8-21-765. (A) The salary of the office of probate judge is based on a salary schedule which uses base salaries determined by population categories according to the latest official United States Decennial Census. The governing body of each county shall pay the probate judge of the county a base salary as follows:
(1) for those counties with a population of two hundred thousand and above, the base salary is fifty-nine thousand dollars;
(2) for those counties with a population of at least one hundred fifty thousand but not more than one hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, the base salary is forty-nine thousand dollars;
(3) for those counties with a population of at least one hundred thousand but not more than one hundred forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, the base salary is thirty-eight thousand dollars;
(4) for those counties with a population of at least fifty thousand but not more than ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, the base salary is thirty-three thousand dollars;
(5) for those counties with a population of at least thirty-five thousand but not more than forty-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, the base salary is thirty-one thousand, five hundred dollars;
(6) for those counties with a population of at least twenty thousand but not more than thirty-four thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, the base salary is twenty-five thousand dollars;
(7) for those counties with a population less than twenty thousand, the base salary is twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars.
(B) The South Carolina Court Administration is charged with monitoring compliance with this section. Nothing contained in this section may be construed as prohibiting a county from paying in excess of the minimum base salaries provided for in this section.
A probate judge is entitled to the same perquisites as those employees of the county of similar position and salary.
A cost of living increase must be paid by the county in the amount provided classified state employees in the annual state general appropriations act of the previous fiscal year. The base salaries provided for in this Part must be adjusted annually based on the percentage amount of the cost of living increase paid to classified state employees in the annual state general appropriations act of the previous fiscal year."
SECTION 3. Section 14-23-1040 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 14-23-1040. No person shall be is eligible to hold the office of Judge of probate or associate judge of probate unless he is who is not at the time of his election a citizen of the United States and of this State, has not attained the age of twenty-one years upon his election, has not become a qualified elector of the county in which he is to be such a judge and has not received a four-year bachelor's degree from an accredited post-secondary institution or if he has received no degree he must have four years' experience as an employee in a probate judge's office in this State."
SECTION 4. Section 14-23-1040 of the 1976 Code does not apply to probate Judges presently holding office upon the effective date of this act.
SECTION 5. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 9-11-25. Probate judges may elect to participate in the South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System or they may elect to remain under regular State Retirement. A probate judge who elects to participate in a police retirement system shall first reimburse the South Carolina Retirement System for the difference between amounts paid by the judge and the county into the regular retirement system, and the amounts which should have been paid in by the judge and the county for the previous years of service under the Police Officers Retirement System, not to exceed five years of previous service. Upon election to join the Police Officers Retirement System and the payment of all amounts due, the probate judge and the county shall pay the contribution required to the Police Officers Retirement System out of each salary check."
SECTION 1. Sections 14-11-90, 14-11-140, 14-11-320, and 22-2-180 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
The provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of Part I and Section 7 of Part II take effect upon approval of this act by the Governor. The remaining provisions of this act take effect January 1, 1989, except that the provisions of Section 14-11-10 of the 1976 Code amended in Part II of this act which require the establishment of a master-in-equity court where one is not in existence on the effective date of this act take effect July 1, 1989.
Amend title to conform.
/s/Thomas E. Smith, Jr. /s/David H. Wilkins /s/Glenn F. McConnell /s/Robert Wesley Hayes /s/John C. Hayes, III /s/James H. Hodges On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., June 2, 1988
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 2752 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA 1976, RELATING TO MAGISTRATES' CIVIL JURISDICTION SO AS TO INCREASE THE LIMIT FROM ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and that the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein:
/SECTION 1. Section 22-3-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 22-3-10. Magistrates shall have concurrent civil jurisdiction in the following cases:
(1) In in actions arising on contracts for the recovery of money only, if the sum claimed does not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(2) In in actions for damages for injury to rights pertaining to the person or personal or real property, if the damages claimed do not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(3) In in actions for a penalty, fine, or forfeiture, when the amount claimed or forfeited does not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(4) In in actions commenced by attachment of property, as provided by statute, if the debt or damages claimed do not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(5) In in actions upon a bond conditioned for the payment of money, not exceeding one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars, though the penalty exceeds that sum, the judgment to be given for the sum actually due and when the payments are to be made by installments an action may be brought for each installment as it becomes due;
(6) In in any actions action upon a surety bond taken by them, when the penalty or amount claimed does not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(7) In in any actions action upon a judgment rendered in a court of a magistrate or an inferior court when such action it is not prohibited by Section 15-35-190;
(8) To to take and enter judgment on the confession of a defendant in the manner prescribed by law when the amount confessed shall does not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(9) In in any actions action for damages or for fraud in the sale, purchase, or exchange of personal property, if the damages claimed do not exceed one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars;
(10) In in all matters between landlord and tenant and the possession of land as provided in Chapters 33 to through 41 of Title 27; and
(11) In in any actions action to recover the possession of personal property claimed, the value of which, as stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney, shall does not exceed the sum of one thousand two thousand five hundred dollars
(12) In cases of bastardy."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/Thomas E. Smith, Jr. /s/David H. Wilkins /s/Glenn F. McConnell /s/Robert W. Hayes, Jr /s/John C. Hayes, III /s/James H. Hodges On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
Rep. WILKINS explained the report.
The report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. EDWARDS moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request.
H. 3890 -- Reps. Edwards, Taylor, Keyserling, Cork and M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY OIL OVERCHARGE REFUND MONIES PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THIS STATE'S ENERGY POLICY AND THE SPECIFIC USES FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PROVIDE THAT THE USE OF THE FUNDS BE WITHIN CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, GRANT THE COMMITTEE CONTINUOUS ENERGY PROGRAM OVERSIGHT REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND USE OF THE OIL OVERCHARGE FUNDS, PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EVALUATION, PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN COST SAVINGS, PROVIDE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF THESE FUNDS AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, AND REQUIRE THE STATE AUDITOR TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT.
The yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Faber Felder Ferguson Foster Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Harris, J. Harris, P. Haskins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McGinnis McLellan McLeod, E.B. Pettigrew Phillips, O. Rhoad Rudnick Rogers, J. Rogers T. Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wells White Wilder Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee Or Free Conference was agreed to.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference, the SPEAKER appointed Reps. EDWARDS, KEYSERLING and TAYLOR to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S.1576 -- Senator Saleeby: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE INSURANCE LAW STUDY COMMITTEE FOR THEIR MANY HOURS OF EFFORT AND HARD WORK ON THE RECODIFICATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE CODE.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was introduced:
H. 4368 -- Reps. Aydlette, Dangerfield, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, Mappus, D. Martin, Washington, Whipper and Winstead: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE HONORABLE JOHN D. BRADLEY, III, OF CHARLESTON IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR HIS LEGISLATIVE SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO WISH HIM WELL IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
Whereas, Representative John D. Bradley, III, of Charleston in Charleston County will not be returning to his seat in the South Carolina House of Representatives after the 1988 legislative session; and
Whereas, Representative Bradley has served in the House of Representatives for the past thirteen years effectively representing House District 114; and
Whereas, in the House of Representatives he has been chairman of the Charleston County Legislative Delegation and chairman of the Insurance Subcommittee of the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee and he currently serves on the Rules Committee; and
Whereas, Representative Bradley is a prominent attorney in Charleston and he and his wife, the former Beverly Rae Cox, are the parents of four fine sons; and
Whereas, his colleagues in the General Assembly are proud to have served with him and recognize the many accomplishments he has made in his service to House District 114 and to this State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives commend the Honorable John D. Bradley, III, of Charleston in Charleston County for his legislative service as a member of the House of Representatives and wish him well in all his future endeavors.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Representative Bradley.
The Resolution was adopted.
Reps. DANGERFIELD, WASHINGTON and KOHN made statements relative to Rep. J. BRADLEY'S service in the House.
Rep. FELDER made a statement relative to Rep. J. BRADLEY'S service in the House.
The following was introduced:
H. 4369 -- Reps. Blackwell, M.O. Alexander Baker, P. Bradley, Clyborne, Fair, Haskins, Mattos L. Phillips, Rice and Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE HONORABLE SARA V. SHELTON OF GREENVILLE COUNTY FOR HER OUTSTANDING SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THANKING HER FOR HER FRIENDSHIP.
Whereas, the Honorable Sara V. Shelton was elected in 1984, and reelected in 1986, to represent the citizens of District No. 23 (Greenville County) in the South Carolina House of Representatives; and
Whereas, she has rendered highly commendable service and has always sought to do the very best job possible for all the people of South Carolina;
Whereas, she is a dedicated individual and a wonderful person and has been a good friend to all the members of this House during her terms of office. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution commend the Honorable Sara V. Shelton of Greenville County for her outstanding service in the House of Representatives and thank her for her friendship.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Sara V. Shelton.
The Resolution was adopted.
Rep. MATTOS made a statement relative to Mrs. SARA SHELTON'S service in the House.
Rep. SHELTON made a statement relative to her service in the House.
The following was introduced:
H. 4370 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss, T. Rogers, J. Brown, Corning, McBride, Faber, Taylor, Hearn and M.D. Burriss: A HOUSE RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND CONGRATULATING THE HONORABLE ALVA HUMPHRIES OF RICHLAND COUNTY FOR HIS EXCELLENT SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THANKING HIM FOR HIS FRIENDSHIP.
Whereas, the Honorable Alva Humphries of Richland County has represented the citizens of House District Number Seventy-one with dedication and excellence since his election last January; and
Whereas, he has consistently sought to do the best job possible not only for his own constituents but also for all of the people of the State of South Carolina; and
Whereas, he has been a good friend to his colleagues in the House who are going to miss his presence in this Chamber. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, commend and congratulate the Honorable Alva Humphries of Richland County for his excellent service in the House of Representatives and thank him for his friendship.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Alva Humphries.
The Resolution was adopted.
Rep. T.M. BURRISS made a statement relative to Rep. HUMPHRIES' service in the House.
Rep. HUMPHRIES made a statement relative to his service in the House.
The following was introduced:
H. 4371 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MR. CHARLES F. THOMAS OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4372 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MR. ANDREW GILFORD TRAPP OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4373 -- Reps. Blackwell, M.O. Alexander, Baker, P. Bradley, Clyborne, Fair, Haskins, Mattos, L. Phillips, Rice, Shelton and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF DR. STANLEY I. COLEMAN, SR., OF TRAVELERS REST, UPON HIS DEATH.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1477 -- Senator Wilson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE STUDENT LEGISLATURE TO USE THE SENATE AND HOUSE CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 3 THROUGH 6, 1988, FOR ITS ANNUAL MEETING.
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the South Carolina State Student Legislature is authorized to use the chambers of the Senate and House of Representatives November 3 through 6, 1988, for its annual meeting. If either house is in statewide session, or the chambers are otherwise unavailable, the chambers of that house may not be used.
Be it further resolved that the State House security forces shall provide assistance and access as considered necessary for this meeting in accordance with previous procedures.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was introduced:
H. 4374 -- Reps. Rudnick, M.O. Alexander, Altman Arthur, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Barfield, Bennett Blackwell, Boan, J. Bradley, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Burch, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss; T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Cork, Corning, Dangerfield, Davenport, Day, Derrick, Edwards, Fair, Felder, Foster, Foxworth, Gentry, Gilbert, J. Harris, Haskins, Hayes, Hearn, Helmly, Hodges, Holt, Huff, Humphries, J.C. Johnson, Jones, Kay, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon Limehouse, Lockemy, Mappus, L. Martin, Mattos McAbee, McCain, McEachin, McElveen, McGinnis McKay, McLellan, E.B. McLeod, McTeer, Moss Neilson, Nesbitt, Pettigrew, Petty, O. Phillips, Rhoad, Rice, J. Rogers, T. Rogers, Sharpe, Short Snow, Taylor, Thrailkill, Waldrop, Washington Wells, White, Wilder, Wilkins and Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING MR. PALMER E "SATCH" KRANTZ, DIRECTOR OF RIVERBANKS ZOO IN COLUMBIA, UPON BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was received.
June 8, 1988
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker
House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 3880, the 1988-89 Appropriations Bill, with my vetoes. I am also signing H. 3882, the Capital Reserve Fund Bill, without any vetoes.
The number of vetoes in the Appropriations Act is substantially lower than last year for several reasons. First, the Bill is devoid of the tax increases that I found necessary to veto last year. Second, the projected growth rates for recurring revenue reflected in the Bill are more reasonable than in last year's Bill, and should, if the economy holds firm, avoid mid-year budget cuts. Third, almost all of the priorities that I outlined in my proposed budget last November are reflected in the Bill. The long-standing dilemma over the two reserve funds has finally been resolved, and the Bill contains substantial increases for education, economic development, and the Department of Youth Services.
I commend the members of the General Assembly for producing a responsible Bill that meets the needs of the State without raising taxes.
I have repeatedly stated the importance I place on avoiding general tax increases, using one unchanging revenue estimate throughout the budget process, and relying on reasonable revenue growth rates. This Bill meets all three standards.
For the first time in the past three years, and for only the third time during the last eight years, we have avoided large revenue shortfalls and the resulting mid-year budget buts during FY1987-88. Avoiding those debilitating mid-year cuts during FY1988-89 is one of my highest budgetary priorities.
Table 1 summarizes our recent General Fund revenue history, and shows that the growth rate for recurring revenue in the FY1988-89 Bill is very consistent with the past few years. In FY1984-85, revenues grew at a 7.4 percent annual rate, in FY1985-86 at 4.8 percent, in FY1986-87 at 7.3 percent, and in FY1987-88 at 7.2 percent if we make the revenue estimate, and all indications are that we will. The projected growth rate for recurring revenue in the Bill for FY1988-89 is 6.5 percent over the current fiscal year, a reasonable rate of growth based on the past four years. (When the Bill was sent to me last year, the projected growth rate was 8.9 percent.)
Moreover, the Bill contains $53.9 million in the Capital Reserve Fund, or two percent of the 1986-87 revenue, that acts as a cushion against revenue shortfalls. With a projected growth rate that is very consistent with previous years, coupled with a two percent cushion, I believe there is a reasonable prospect that this Bill will avoid mid-year budget cuts in FY1988-89.
The one major problem in the revenue portion of the Bill involves the amount of non-recurring revenue spent on recurring expenditures. The amount of non-recurring revenue for 1988-89 is substantially greater than normal, primarily because of reducing the two reserve funds from a total of six to five percent. The Bill appropriates some of this money on expenditures that would under normal circumstances recur in the following years.
To address this problem the Senate Finance Committee added proviso 129.45 that states explicitly that three percent of each agency's budget should be considered as non-recurring expenditures, and will be considered as such by the Budget and Control Board when it makes initial allocations for 1989-90. This is a creative and reasonable way to handle the non-recurring revenue. Moreover, the proviso moves us closer toward the highly desirable goal of examining agency base budgets, rather than just analyzing requested increases over the base. All agencies need to understand that they are receiving in this Bill appropriations that they would not normally receive, and three percent of their 1988-89 budget will not be available in following fiscal years.
__________________________________________________
Appropri-
ations Act
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89
New Fees
and Revenue
Projected 41 75 44 93 24
Total Actual
Revenue Col-
lected/Pro-
jected 2393 2509 2692 2886* 3074**
Percentage
Increase Over
Previous
Year 7.4% 4.8% 7.3% 7.2% 6.5%
Surplus/
Deficit From
Revenue Pro-
jected in
Appropriation
Act +12 -91 -86
__________________________________________________
Sources:
Board of Economic Advisors for new taxes and revenue projected, 1983-84 to 1987-88
Budget Division, Budget and Control Board, for total revenue projected for 1988-89
Comptroller General's Office for total actual revenue collected, 1983-84 to 1986-87
* Board of Economic Advisors 2/15/88 estimate
** Board of Economic Advisors 2/15/88 estimate for $3050 million plus $24 million from sources such as improved collected procedures at the Tax Commission and additional departmental revenue. This figure does not include $19.7 million in non-recurring revenue included in Part I of the Appropriations Act.
In my proposed budget for 1988-89, I suggested that agencies reduce their base costs to fund higher priority new initiatives, and I advocated capping the two reserve funds at a total of five rather than six percent. I am pleased that the General Assembly incorporated both proposals in this Bill.
I suggested that the widespread availability of information technology and improved management practices should allow increased productivity and a corresponding reduction in administrative costs. Consequently I proposed that agencies requesting increased appropriations take a five percent reduction in administrative costs to fund those increases. The total amount of money saved through this procedure was $4.3 million.
The Ways and Means Committee, arguing that across-the-board cuts were unfair, rejected the proposal. The Committee then adopted its own across-the-board cut by increasing the vacancy rate factor from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. That move required agencies to cut their budgets by $5 million to fund expanded programs.
Because the increased vacancy rate factor has virtually the same effect as may proposed cuts in administrative costs, I support the Ways and Means Committee's decision.
I also recommended in my proposed budget that the General Reserve Fund and the Capital Expenditure Fund together be capped at five percent of available revenue. I argued that five percent was sufficient to cover the State's reserve needs, and that I preferred at least two percent of the budget be available to cover mid-year revenue shortfalls.
I am very pleased that the General Assembly agreed to create a General Reserve Fund at three percent of the previous year's revenue, and a Capital Reserve Fund at two percent of the previous year's revenue. This agreement resolves one of the most bedeviling issues that has complicated our budget process for several years, and provides a two percent cushion against revenue shortfalls that I advocated during my campaign for Governor. I believe the State and the budget process will be well-served by this agreement.
In my proposed budget last November I outlined my priorities for expenditures. With only a few exceptions, those priorities are reflected in this Bill.
I called for substantial increases for elementary and secondary education. Among the proposals I recommended that are included in this Bill are:
Full funding of the Education Finance Act.
The southeastern average pay for public school teachers.
A substantial increase in school bus driver salaries. This Bill increases the State's portion of driver salaries to $4.75 per hour, which can be supplemented by the districts.
Improvements in bus safety through the addition of crossing arms and mirrors.
Significant increases for purchasing new textbooks. The Bill includes $5.5 million for this important but recently neglected expenditure.
Funding for the new Governor's School for Science and Math.
Additional funds for Adult Education.
I asked for substantial increases for higher education to recognize that educational excellence should not end at the 12th grade. Among my proposals that are included in the Bill are:
A major increase in formula funding for colleges and universities. The Bill increases the percentage of the formula funded from 88.52 to 93.24 percent.
Start-up funding for the Cutting Edge. The Bill contains $5 million to begin this important research and development initiative.
A significant increase in formula funding for Technical and Comprehensive Education. The Bill increases the formula funding from 88.06 percent to 93.41 percent.
I recommended a major increase in funding at the Department of Youth Services to relieve severe overcrowding and create alternatives for troubled youth before they become hardened criminals. Among my recommendations that are included in the Bill are:
Funding for three new marine institutes, or alternative correctional programs to double the number of those alternative programs in South Carolina. I am pleased the Appropriations and Capital Reserve Fund Bills contain construction money for all three, and operational money for two. I hope we will be able to find operational money for the third program in the 1989-90 budget. Support for a substantial number of new juvenile corrections officers to provide adequate counseling, supervision, and safety for children who are institutionalized.
I proposed significant increases for our economic development efforts. I am pleased that the General Assembly provided:
Support for a substantial expansion of programs at the State Development Board, with a 40 percent increase that should support a number of major new initiatives.
Expanded economic development initiatives at the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, the Department of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission, and the Clemson Public Service Activities.
Increases for programs that will improve the job skills of our work force at the Department of Education, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Mental Retardation, the School for the Deaf and Blind, and the State Board of Technical and Comprehensive Education.
I proposed increased funding in several health areas. Among my recommendations included in the Bill are:
Substantial increases to fight AIDS through educational and tracking programs at the Department of Health and Environmental Control and treatment efforts through the Health and Human Services Finance Commission.
An expansion of the Medicaid Program including the National Governor's Association initiative to provide health care to poor, pregnant mothers and their children through age one.
A major increase in funding at the Department of Mental Health.
I suggested a number of increased expenditures to protect our environment and natural resources. Among my recommendations included in the Bill are:
Additional funds to combat toxic waste at the Department of Health and Environmental Control.
Increased support for programs to protect our water supply at the Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Water Resources Commission.
Expansion of efforts to prevent and fight forest fires at the Forestry Commission.
Resources to open or expand nine state parks in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
I recommended significantly increased funding for our law enforcement efforts. The General Assembly incorporated a number of those recommendations in the Bill, including:
Appropriation for a new automatic fingerprint machine at the State Law Enforcement Division.
Money to open two new prisons.
Support for a program to refurbish school buses at the Broad River Road Prison.
Additional parole officers to handle the increased caseload at the Department of Parole and Community Corrections.
Support for an electronic surveillance project to monitor offenders on parole.
Funds for a new forensic laboratory at SLED.
In my proposed budget, I recommended assistance to financially- strapped local governments. I am pleased that the General Assembly also decided to assist local governments by providing:
$5 million to match EPA grants for wastewater treatment plants.
$4 million to match EDA grants for water and sewer development.
Over $24 million for Aid to Subdivisions for the homestead exemption, inventory tax phaseout, and formula funding.
I had recommended sufficient new employees and appropriations for the State Museum to allow the Museum to open. I am pleased that the General Assembly agreed and provided the necessary resources.
Finally, I recommended a 5 percent pay raise for state employees, split evenly between a cost-of-living and merit increase. The General Assembly included in this Bill a 4 percent cost-of-living increase and a one-time bonus of $365 for classified employees only. I am pleased that the Bill contains a total of almost 5 percent, but I am disappointed that the General Assembly did not agree to include at least a portion of the money as a merit increase.
I recognize that problems exist in the merit pay system, many of which will be explored by the new study committee that is included in the Bill. I believe very strongly that superior employees should receive superior raises. I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the study committee.
Since the projected revenue growth is very reasonable, and since my priorities are included in the Bill, I have decided not to veto expenditure lines. I do have reservations about some of the expenditures; I will recommend that those be deleted or handled differently in my next proposed budget.
For example, the Department of Health and Environmental Control has in its base budget $176,028 and five FTE's to staff the Hazardous Waste Task Force. But the Task Force has completed its work, and will report to the DHEC Board on June 16, 1988. The Department argues that the appropriations and employees are needed next year to conduct follow-up research and draft legislation and regulations based on the Task Force recommendations. I will agree to allowing the appropriation for one more year, but I expect DHEC to request that those employees and the corresponding appropriation be removed from its 1989-90 budget. I certainly intend to recommend their removal.
Six of our public colleges and universities received additions for public service activities outside the funding formula. One of the purposes of the funding formula is to avoid this type of additional appropriation. Because I believe the money will be spent on worthy public service activities that will benefit the State, I will reluctantly accept those appropriations this year. But I strongly believe that similar appropriations in the future should be programmed into the formula.
I have found it necessary to veto several provisos.
VETO 1, Part I, Section 29.5, Page 29-005 (20% Salary Increase at TEC)
I vetoed this proviso last year, but it was added in the Appropriations Act again this year. My thinking has not changed since my veto message last year, so I am vetoing this section for the same reason.
This proviso allows the State Board of Technical and Comprehensive Education to "increase the teaching faculty salaries up to twenty percent (20%) in addition to any other increases provided in this Act."
We already have procedures by which salaries may be raised by more than the normal amount if such raises can be justified. I see no compelling reason to deviate from normal procedures which have proven effective in meeting the need for ordinary salary adjustments. I have encouraged the Executive Director of the State Board of Technical and Comprehensive Education to pursue the normal channels for salary adjustments when they are warranted, and he has assured me that he will do so.
VETO 2, Part I, Section 67.9. Page 67-010 (Wildlife Notification)
I also vetoed this proviso last year, but once again it was added to the Appropriations Act. I am vetoing the proviso for the following reason.
This proviso requires the S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department to provide at least ten days in advance written notification of the intention to hire any wildlife conservation officer, including the individual's name, to the legislative delegation of the county to which the officer is to be assigned. Moreover, appropriations made for hiring are specifically conditioned upon compliance with this section. No rationale is given for this requirement.
Conservation officers are charged with the responsibility and authority for policing our fish, game and other environmental laws and regulations on a statewide basis. They are not county employees. I am concerned that this proviso gives the appearance that the hiring of these individuals is subject to veto or control by the local delegation. I also object to a precedent being set which gives a local legislative delegation authority over administrative functions undertaken by a State agency.
VETO 3, Part II, Section 22, Pages II-25, II-26, II-27 (Oil Overcharge)
I am vetoing this proviso dealing with the process for awarding oil overcharge funds for three reasons.
First, separate legislation dealing with the same subject is pending before a Conference Committee that should report to the General Assembly on its return on June 20, 1988. That Conference Committee will provide an opportunity to address the problems I outline below. I am vetoing this proviso in part because it duplicates that separate legislation.
Second, this proviso is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The proviso gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy authority to determine energy policy, establish restrictions on the use of funds, and oversee administration of the program, all of which are perfectly legitimate functions for a legislative committee. But the proviso also charges the Committee with "approval and adoption of... the specific uses for proposed energy conservation programs." The proviso goes on to state criteria by which "consideration for funding any energy program or activity by the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy" should be based. The proviso charges that Committee with responsibility for the "receipt and review of all reports, contracts, and subcontracts issued..."
Clearly this proviso charges the Committee not only with establishing policy and overseeing administration but also with the actual administration of the funds. Making decisions on particular grant applications and reviewing contracts and subcontracts is an executive, not a legislative, function. It would be difficult to find a more blatant violation of the separation of executive and legislative functions than is established by this proviso.
Third, having both the Governor's Office and the Joint Energy Committee trying to administer oil overcharge money has so complicated the administrative process that extreme delays have arisen in grant awards. Since the oil overcharge money became available to South Carolina in March of 1986, only one of 94 projects recommended by two Governors has been funded. Governor Riley recommended that 48 applications be funded, but none made it through the dual administrative process. I have recommended funding 46 applications, but thus far the full Committee has agreed on only one. Since the oil overcharge settlement requires "timely, efficient, and effective distribution of overcharge funds," this delay caused by dual administrative efforts could jeopardize our access to the funds.
I have been concerned about the wording of this proviso and the corresponding separate legislation for some time. Consequently I asked my staff to try to construct substitute language that would satisfy my concerns and the desires of the members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy. Several weeks ago my staff worked out compromise language that addressed my concerns and was acceptable to both the Chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee, a House member, and a key Senator on the Committee.
That language maintained the Joint Committee's responsibility to establish energy policy, determine criteria by which grants would be awarded, and provide continuous oversight of administration of the grant funds. It placed responsibility for making decisions about specific grant applications in the Governor's Office. The Joint Committee would then review those decisions and could remand to the Governor's Office for reconsideration any approved projects with which the Committee disagreed.
The compromise language passed the Senate easily. But apparently some in the House found the compromise language objectionable, and forced the original language to be reinserted in both the proviso and the separate legislation.
I believe that the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy has a legitimate role to play in the awarding of oil overcharge money. But the action of the House has left me with no option but to veto the entire proviso. I am more than willing to work with members of the Joint Committee to devise acceptable language in the separate legislation when the Conference Committee meets.
VETO 4, Part II, Section 42, Pages II-77, II-78 (Millage Increase)
I am vetoing this proviso for two reasons.
First, the proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Bill.
Second, this proviso permits counties to increase millage for certain purposes following years of reassessment at an unrestricted level, and is therefore contrary to Act 208 of 1975. One important safeguard for unreasonable increases in property taxes following a reassessment was the one percent limitation provided in Act 208. The one percent limitation prohibits local governments from increasing millage rates greater than one percent when reassessment occurs.
The rationale for this limitation was to prohibit local governments from increasing millage rates under the guise of reassessing the increased value of property. To allow this legislation to become law would be a clear contravention of the safeguard provided in Act 208.
VETO 5, Part II, Section 46, Pages II-81, II-82 (Nonresident Vendors)
I am vetoing this proviso dealing with a change in the resident vendor requirements for state procurements for the following reason.
Industries and firms with offices in South Carolina merit preferential treatment in the state procurement process. Such firms have made a substantial commitment to our State in their decision to locate at least a portion of their corporate hierarchy here. Moreover, they are providing a decision locus where state agencies can Bet immediate resolution to problems related to materials or services acquired through the competitive bid process. In most instances, they are South Carolinians doing business with the State of South Carolina.
While I am sympathetic to the company for which this proviso is designed, it can qualify as a South Carolina vendor by meeting the existing criteria. I am concerned that giving preferences to out-of-state companies would disadvantage our local firms.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
VETO 1, Part I, Section 29.5, Page 29-005 (20% Salary Increase at TEC)
I vetoed this proviso last year, but it was added in the Appropriations Act again this year. My thinking has not changed since my veto message last year, so I am vetoing this section for the same reason.
This proviso allows the State Board of Technical and Comprehensive Education to "increase the teaching faculty salaries up to twenty percent (20%) in addition to any other increases provided in this Act."
We already have procedures by which salaries may be raised by more than the normal amount if such raises can be justified. I see no compelling reason to deviate from normal procedures which have proven effective in meeting the need for ordinary salary adjustments. I have encouraged the Executive Director of the State Board of Technical and Comprehensive Education to pursue the normal channels for salary adjustments when they are warranted, and he has assured me that he will do 90.
Rep. T.M. BURRISS explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Proviso become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, T.C. Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baxley Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, J. Burch Carnell Chamblee Cooper Dangerfield Faber Foster Gentry Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hayes Hodges Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Keyserling Kirsh Martin, L. McBride McElveen McLellan McLeod, E.B. McTeer Neilson Nesbitt Phillips, L. Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Short Townsend Tucker Washington White Wilder Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Altman Baker Blackwell Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Clyborne Cole Cork Corning Day Derrick Fair Ferguson Foxworth Haskins Hearn Hendricks Humphries Klapman Koon Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Mattos McCain McEachin McGinnis McKay Moss Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Phillips, O. Sharpe Simpson Snow Thrailkill Wells Wilkins Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 2, Part I, Section 67.9, Page 67-010 (Wildlife Notification)
I also vetoed this proviso last year, but once again it was added to the Appropriations Act. I am vetoing the proviso for the following reason.
This proviso requires the S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department to provide at least ten days in advance written notification of the intention to hire any wildlife conservation officer, including the individual's name, to the legislative delegation of the county to which the officer is to be assigned. Moreover, appropriations made for hiring are specifically conditioned upon compliance with this section. No rationale is given for this requirement.
Conservation officers are charged with the responsibility and authority for policing our fish, game and other environmental laws and regulations on a statewide basis. They are not county employees. I am concerned that this proviso gives the appearance that the hiring of these individuals is subject to veto or control by the local delegation. I also object to a precedent being set which gives a local legislative delegation authority over administrative functions undertaken by a State agency.
Rep. T.M. BURRISS explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Proviso become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Blanding Gregory McEachin Rudnick
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Faber Fair Foster Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lanford Lockemy Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McCain McGinnis McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Petty Phillips, L. Phillips, O. Rice Rogers, J. Roger, T. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Short Simpson Snow Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Washington Wells White Wilder Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I inadvertently voted aye when I intended to sustain the Governor's veto. I wish to be recorded as having voted to sustain the Governor s veto.
Rep. D. MALLOY McEACHIN, JR.
VETO 3, Part II. Section 22, Pages II-25, II-26, II-27 (Oil Overcharge)
I am vetoing this proviso dealing with the process for awarding oil overcharge funds for three reasons.
First, separate legislation dealing with the same subject is pending before a Conference Committee that should report to the General Assembly on its return on June 20, 1988. That Conference Committee will provide an opportunity to address the problems I outline below. I am vetoing this proviso in part because it duplicates that separate legislation.
Second, this proviso is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The proviso gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy authority to determine energy policy, establish restrictions on the use of funds, and oversee administration of the program, all of which are perfectly legitimate functions for a legislative committee. But the proviso also charges the Committee with "approval and adoption of... the specific uses for proposed energy conservation programs." The proviso goes on to state criteria by which "consideration for funding any energy program or activity by the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy" should be based. The proviso charges that Committee with responsibility for the "receipt and review of all reports, contracts, and subcontracts issued..."
Clearly this proviso charges the Committee not only with establishing policy and overseeing administration but also with the actual administration of the funds. Making decisions on particular grant applications and reviewing contracts and subcontracts is an executive, not a legislative, function. It would be difficult to find a more blatant violation of the separation of executive and legislative functions than is established by this proviso.
Third, having both the Governor's Office and the Joint Energy Committee trying to administer oil overcharge money has so complicated the administrative process that extreme delays have arisen in grant awards. Since the oil overcharge money become available to South Carolina in March of 1986, only one of 94 projects recommended by two Governors has been funded. Governor Riley recommended that 48 applications be funded, but none made it through the dual administrative process. I have recommended funding 46 applications, but thus far the full Committee has agreed on only one. Since the oil overcharge settlement requires "timely, efficient, and effective distribution of overcharge funds," this delay caused by dual administrative efforts could jeopardize our access to the funds.
I have been concerned about the wording of this proviso and the corresponding separate legislation for some time. Consequently I asked my staff to try to construct substitute language that would satisfy my concerns and the desires of the members of the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy. Several weeks ago my staff worked out compromise language that addressed my concerns and was acceptable to both the Chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee, a House member, and a key Senator on the Committee.
That language maintained the Joint Committee's responsibility to establish energy policy, determine criteria by which grants would be awarded, and provide continuous oversight of administration of the grant funds. It placed responsibility for making decisions about specific grant applications in the Governor's Office. The Joint Committee would then review those decisions and could remand to the Governor's Office for reconsideration any approved proJects with which the Committee disagreed.
The compromise language passed the Senate easily. But apparently some in the House found the compromise language objectionable, and forced the original language to be reinserted in both the proviso and the separate legislation.
I believe that the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy has a legitimate role to play in the awarding of oil overcharge money. But the action of the House has left me with no option but to veto the entire proviso. I am more than willing to work with members of the Joint Committee to devise acceptable language in the separate legislation when the Conference Committee meets.
Rep. EDWARDS moved to adjourn debate upon the Veto, which was adopted.
VETO 4. Part II, Section 42. Pages II-77 II-78 (Millage Increase)
I am vetoing this proviso for two reasons.
First, the proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Bill.
Second, this proviso permits counties to increase millage for certain purposes following years of reassessment at an unrestricted level, and is therefore contrary to Act 208 of 1975. One important safeguard for unreasonable increases in property taxes following a reassessment was the one percent limitation provided in Act 208. The one percent limitation prohibits local governments from increasing millage rates greater than one percent when reassessment occurs.
The rationale for this limitation was to prohibit local governments from increasing millage rates under the guise of reassessing the increased value of property. To allow this legislation to become law would be a clear contravention of the safeguard provided in Act 208.
Rep. T.M. BURRISS explained the veto.
The question was put, shall the Proviso become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
McEachin
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Faber Fair Ferguson Foster Foxworth Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lanford Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McCain McElveen McGinnis McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Petty Phillips, L. Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Short Simpson Snow Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Washington Wells White Wilder Wilkins Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I inadvertently voted aye when I intended to sustain the Governor's veto. I wish to be recorded as having voted to sustain the Governor's veto.
Rep. D. MALLOY McEACHIN, JR.
VETO 5, Part II, Section 46, Pages II-81, II-82 (Nonresident Vendors)
I am vetoing this proviso dealing with a change in the resident vendor requirements for state procurements for the following reason.
Industries and firms with offices in South Carolina merit preferential treatment in the state procurement process. Such firms have made a substantial commitment to our State in their decision to locate at least a portion of their corporate hierarchy here. Moreover, they are providing a decision locus where state agencies can get immediate resolution to problems related to materials or services acquired through the competitive bid process. In most instances, they are South Carolinians doing business with the State of South Carolina.
While I am sympathetic to the company for which this proviso is designed, it can qualify as a South Carolina vendor by meeting the existing criteria. I am concerned that giving preferences to out-of-state companies would disadvantage our local firms.
The question was put, shall the Proviso become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Blanding Rogers, J. Sheheen
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Arthur Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Baker Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Faber Fair Foster Foxworth Gentry Gregory Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Hendricks Hodges Holt Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lanford Lockemy Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McCain McEachin McElveen McGinnis McKay McLellan McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rudnick Sharpe Short Simpson Snow Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Wells White Wilder Wilkins Williams Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. P. HARRIS, on behalf of the House, staff and friends, presented to Mrs. Lois T. Shealy, Clerk of the House, gifts honoring her for 36 years of service to the House.
Governor Carroll Campbell presented THE ORDER OF THE PALMETTO to Mrs. Shealy.
A reception was held immediately following the presentation in honor of Mrs. Lois T. Shealy Clerk of the House.
Rep. BLACKWELL moved that the House recede until 3:00, which was adopted.
At 3:00 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the chair.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. J. HARRIS a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
The following was received.
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 3890 -- Reps. Edwards, Taylor, Keyserling, Cork and M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY OIL OVERCHARGE REFUND MONIES PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THIS STATE'S ENERGY POLICY AND THE SPECIFIC USES FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PROVIDE THAT THE USE OF THE FUNDS BE WITHIN CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, GRANT THE COMMITTEE CONTINUOUS ENERGY PROGRAM OVERSIGHT REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND USE OF THE OIL OVERCHARGE FUNDS, PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EVALUATION, PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN COST SAVINGS, PROVIDE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF THESE FUNDS AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, AND REQUIRE THE STATE AUDITOR TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the bill do pass amended as follows: strike all after the enacting words and insert:
/SECTION 1. Prior to authorization of the expenditure of any oil overcharge refund monies by the Governor and the Joint Appropriations Review Committee, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 65, Title 2, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy shall review and make a recommendation as to the approval and adoption of this State's energy policy. Energy policy established by the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy must be based primarily on the potential for reducing the costs of energy consumption, and such potential cost savings must be estimated and documented for future analysis.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the guidelines established by the Department of Energy, decisions of the federal courts, and the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy, the Governor's office shall make decisions on the allocation of energy program funding. After consultation with the Governor's office, the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy shall review the projects approved by the Governor for funding. This review may not exceed sixty days and the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy may within that time period remand to the Governor 9 office for reconsideration any of the approved projects with which the committee is in disagreement.
SECTION 3. The Joint Legislative Committee on Energy has the authority and responsibility of continuous energy program oversight on the actual expenditure and use of the oil overcharge funds, including, but not limited to, the receipt and review of all reports, contracts, and subcontracts issued and any other information considered necessary to assure that such funds are being utilized in accordance with the energy policy and energy program plans approved as stated in this act.
SECTION 4. Any state agency, board, commission, institution, or other entity funded from the general fund of the State which receives a financial gain as a result of energy efficiency improvements undertaken as a result of the state's energy programs must be evaluated as to the actual annual dollar savings attained. The cost savings must be reported to the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy by the entity administering the state energy program. The Joint Legislative Committee on Energy shall review the report of cost savings to ensure that the dollar amounts saved are accurate, and the Committee shall report its findings to the Senate Finance Committee and to the House Ways and Means Committee annually, not later than January first. The entity administering the state energy program shall cooperate fully with the Joint Legislative Committee on Energy to ensure that the annual reporting requirement is met.
SECTION 5. Oil overcharge funds must be deposited by the State Treasurer in interest-bearing accounts of the State, with interest earned to be earmarked for the same purposes as the oil overcharge monies. The administering entity shall ensure that funds are drawn down and disbursed in a manner which ensures the maximum interest accruing to the State Treasurer's oil overcharge funds account. The State Auditor shall conduct an annual financial compliance audit and budget adequate funds to cover its cost.
SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. /s/T. W. Edwards, Jr. /s/Thomas L. Moore /s/Harriet H. Keyserling /s/T. Ed Garrison /s/Luther L. Taylor, Jr. On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
Rep. EDWARDS explained the Free Conference Report.
The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Debate was resumed on Veto No. 3 on H. 3880.
The question was put, shall the Proviso become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Arthur Baker Barfield Baxley Bennett Blackwell Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burch Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Dangerfield Derrick Edwards Faber Foster Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Hodges Huff Humphries Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Lanford Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McCain McGinnis McLellan McTeer Neilson Nesbitt Nettles Pearce Pettigrew Petty Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Taylor Thrailkill Tucker Waldrop Wells White Williams Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Thomas E. Smith, Jr., McConnell and Hayes of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 1:
S. 1 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 22 SO AS TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM MINIMUM COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MAGISTRATES AND THE FUNDING OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS; TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-10, RELATING TO THE CIVIL JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES, SO AS TO REVISE THE JURISDICTION; TO REPEAL SECTION 22-2-180 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAGISTRATES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 14, RELATING TO MASTERS AND REFEREES, BY ADDING SECTION 14-11-200 SO AS TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY IN ALL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO REAL ESTATE TO BE TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED AND IN ALL OTHER CASES TO BE TRANSCRIBED UPON REQUEST OF A PARTY OR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-10, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY COURTS IN THE COUNTIES OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURTS IN EACH COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE TO A DATE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PART-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-20, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF TERMS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE INSTEAD OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A TERM OF SIX INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT AS NEEDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, TO PROHIBIT A FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND STANDING MASTERS-IN-EQUITY FROM SERVING AS PROBATE JUDGES, AND TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PART-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY PRACTICE LAW; TO AMEND-SECTION 14-11-30, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY'S OFFICE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EITHER A PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY BASED UPON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY OR THE AREA SERVED; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-60, RELATING TO THE FILLING OF A VACANCY, DISQUALIFICATION, OR DISABILITY IN THE OFFICE OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRESIDING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, AFTER GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN AND UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, MAY APPOINT A SPECIAL REFEREE WITH ALL THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY WHO MUST BE COMPENSATED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-90, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY HAS THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, PROVIDE THAT THE EQUITY COURT IS CONSIDERED A DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS ENTITLED TO ALL BENEFITS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SAME RESPECT AS CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY DECIDE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND PROOF, AND PROVIDE THAT APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MUST BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OR BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-140, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY INVOLVING THE PARTITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO THE ADMEASUREMENT OF DOWER; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-310, RELATING TO FEES COLLECTED BY MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS HEARD BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-20, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-30, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-40, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DESIGNATE SOME OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE, AND TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROBATE COURTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO REPEAL SECTION 14-11-320 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF REFEREES; TO AMEND ARTICLE 7 OF CHAPTER 21 OF TITLE 8, RELATING TO PROBATE FEES AND COSTS, BY ADDING SECTIONS 8-21-765, 8-21-766, AND 8-21-795 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROBATE JUDGES BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THEY SERVE WHICH MUST BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE THAT ALL PROBATE JUDGES WHO, ON JULY 1, 1988, ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM REMAIN MEMBERS OF THESE SYSTEMS, AND PROVIDE THAT ALL FEES, AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, TO WHICH THE PROBATE COURT IS ENTITLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-21-790 MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-760, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF PROBATE JUDGES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF EACH COUNTY TO FUND THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROBATE COURT IN THAT COUNTY EXCEPT FOR THE SALARIES OF JUDGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING A BENEFICIARY OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETURNING TO THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A RETIRED JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO BE CALLED UPON AND APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN PROBATE COURTS.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 37
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on S. 1, and the Report having been adopted by both Houses,
S. 1 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 22 SO AS TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM MINIMUM COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MAGISTRATES AND THE FUNDING OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS; TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-10, RELATING TO THE CIVIL JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES, SO AS TO REVISE THE JURISDICTION; TO REPEAL SECTION 22-2-180 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF MAGISTRATES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 14, RELATING TO MASTERS AND REFEREES, BY ADDING SECTION 14-11-200 SO AS TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY IN ALL CASES INVOLVING TITLE TO REAL ESTATE TO BE TAKEN AND TRANSCRIBED AND IN ALL OTHER CASES TO BE TRANSCRIBED UPON REQUEST OF A PARTY OR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-10, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY COURTS IN THE COUNTIES OF THIS STATE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURTS IN EACH COUNTY HAVING A POPULATION OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE TO A DATE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PART-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-20, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF TERMS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE INSTEAD OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A TERM OF SIX INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS, TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GOVERNOR TO DESIGNATE PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT AS NEEDED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, TO PROHIBIT A FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND STANDING MASTERS-IN-EQUITY FROM SERVING AS PROBATE JUDGES, AND TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PART-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY PRACTICE LAW; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-30, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPENSATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY'S OFFICE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF EITHER A PART-TIME OR FULL-TIME MASTER-IN-EQUITY BASED UPON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY OR THE AREA SERVED; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-60, RELATING TO THE FILLING OF A VACANCY, DISQUALIFICATION, OR DISABILITY IN THE OFFICE OF MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRESIDING CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, AFTER GOOD CAUSE BEING SHOWN AND UPON AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, MAY APPOINT A SPECIAL REFEREE WITH ALL THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY WHO MUST BE COMPENSATED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ACTION; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-90, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE POWERS OF A MASTER-IN-EQUITY, PROVIDE THAT A MASTER-IN-EQUITY HAS THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY AS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, PROVIDE THAT THE EQUITY COURT IS CONSIDERED A DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY IS ENTITLED TO ALL BENEFITS AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE SAME RESPECT AS CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES, PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MAY DECIDE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND PROOF, AND PROVIDE THAT APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY A MASTER-IN-EQUITY MUST BE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OR BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-140, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF MASTERS-IN-EQUITY INVOLVING THE PARTITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO THE ADMEASUREMENT OF DOWER; TO AMEND SECTION 14-11-310, RELATING TO FEES COLLECTED BY MASTERS-IN-EQUITY, SO AS TO REVISE THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ACTIONS HEARD BEFORE THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-20, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-30, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO APPOINT THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE STATE ON THE COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 14-27-40, RELATING TO THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO DESIGNATE SOME OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE, AND TO ADD TWO MASTERS-IN-EQUITY AND INCREASE FROM ONE TO TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROBATE COURTS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO REPEAL SECTION 14-11-320 RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF REFEREES; TO AMEND ARTICLE 7 OF CHAPTER 21 OF TITLE 8, RELATING TO PROBATE FEES AND COSTS, BY ADDING SECTIONS 8-21-765, 8-21-766, AND 8-21-795 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SALARY SCHEDULE FOR PROBATE JUDGES BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THEY SERVE WHICH MUST BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PROVIDE THAT ALL PROBATE JUDGES WHO, ON JULY 1, 1988, ARE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM REMAIN MEMBERS OF THESE SYSTEMS, AND PROVIDE THAT ALL FEES, AFTER JUNE 30, 1988, TO WHICH THE PROBATE COURT IS ENTITLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-21-790 MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE TREASURER AND DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-760, RELATING TO THE SALARIES OF PROBATE JUDGES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF EACH COUNTY TO FUND THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROBATE COURT IN THAT COUNTY EXCEPT FOR THE SALARIES OF JUDGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 9-8-120, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING A BENEFICIARY OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM RETURNING TO THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A RETIRED JUSTICE OR JUDGE TO BE CALLED UPON AND APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES IN PROBATE COURTS.
has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 61
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators Moore, Peeler and Garrison of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 3890:
H. 3890 -- Reps. Edwards, Taylor, Keyserling, Cork and M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY OIL OVERCHARGE REFUND MONIES PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THIS STATE'S ENERGY POLICY AND THE SPECIFIC USES FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PROVIDE THAT THE USE OF THE FUNDS BE WITHIN CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, GRANT THE COMMITTEE CONTINUOUS ENERGY PROGRAM OVERSIGHT REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND USE OF THE OIL OVERCHARGE FUNDS, PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EVALUATION, PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN COST SAVINGS, PROVIDE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF THESE FUNDS AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, AND REQUIRE THE STATE AUDITOR TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 38
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
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. 1430:
S. 1430 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 176 OF 1987, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LAKE WYLIE MARINE COMMISSION, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on H. 3890:
H. 3890 -- Reps. Edwards, Taylor, Keyserling, Cork and M.D. Burriss: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF ANY OIL OVERCHARGE REFUND MONIES PURSUANT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THIS STATE'S ENERGY POLICY AND THE SPECIFIC USES FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PROVIDE THAT THE USE OF THE FUNDS BE WITHIN CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS, GRANT THE COMMITTEE CONTINUOUS ENERGY PROGRAM OVERSIGHT REGARDING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND USE OF THE OIL OVERCHARGE FUNDS, PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN EVALUATION, PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN COST SAVINGS, PROVIDE FOR THE DEPOSIT OF THESE FUNDS AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, AND REQUIRE THE STATE AUDITOR TO CONDUCT AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 62
Received as information.
Rep. BLACKWELL moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow, which was agreed to.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 730, H. 4288 by a vote of ayes 45; nays 1:
(R730) H. 4288 -- Rep. J. Bradley: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 FOR CHARLESTON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATING BUDGET OF CHARLESTON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 7
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 755, H. 2680 by a vote of ayes 45; nays 1:
(R755) H. 2680 -- Rep. McTeer: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 13-9-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CLARK'S HILL-RUSSELL AUTHORITY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME TO THE SAVANNAH VALLEY AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTION 13-9-30, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD AND THE AUTHORITY, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE POWERS AND DUTIES; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 13-9-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY MAY BE EXERCISED.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 8
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the "advice and consent of the House," and is, therefore, submitted for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
The appointment was confirmed and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 723, H. 4012 by a vote of ayes 44; nays 2:
(R723) H. 4012 -- Reps. J.W. McLeod, Gilbert, McEachin, Nettles and McKay: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1817 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE FLORENCE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AMONG THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL TWO MEMBERS FROM EACH REPRESENTED FIRE DEPARTMENT MUST BE APPOINTED INSTEAD OF FROM EACH SUBDISTRICT.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 11
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 690, H. 4257 by a vote of ayes 46; nays 0:
(R690) H. 4257 -- Reps. Short, O. Phillips and Lewis: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1779 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE CHESTER FIRE DISTRICT IN CHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE DISTRICT.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 10
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 775, H. 4276 by a vote of ayes 45; nays 1:
(R775) H. 4276 -- Rep. J. Bradley: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989 FOR CERTAIN LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, AND COMMISSIONS OF THE COUNTY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TOTAL OPERATING BUDGETS OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, AND COMMISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-1989.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 9
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 20, 1988
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R. 701, H. 4253 by a vote of ayes 44; nays 2:
(R701) H. 4253 -- Rep. J. Bradley: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-3025 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A BIRD SANCTUARY IN A CERTAIN PORTION OF CHARLESTON COUNTY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 13
Received as information.
The following was introduced:
H. 4375 -- Rep. G. Brown: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DECLARE AUGUST 21, 1988, "DRAKE HOGESTYN DAY" IN LEE COUNTY.
Whereas, Drake Hogestyn, who plays the part of Roman Brady in the television serial "Days of Our Lives", will visit Lee County on August 21, 1988. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That August 21, 1988, is declared "Drake Hogestyn Day" in Lee County.
The Resolution was adopted.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1577 -- Senator Saleeby: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO DESIGNATE THAT PORTION OF THE HIGHWAY IN DARLINGTON COUNTY FROM SEGARS MILL PLACE TO HIGHWAY 151 AS THE "BOBO NEWSOME HIGHWAY".
Rep. NEILSON moved to adjourn debate upon the Concurrent Resolution, which was adopted.
Rep. L. MARTIN moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4371 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MR. CHARLES F. THOMAS OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
H. 4372 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MR. ANDREW GILFORD TRAPP OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
H. 4373 -- Reps. Blackwell, M.O. Alexander, Baker, P. Bradley, Clyborne, Fair, Haskins, Mattos, L. Phillips, Rice, Shelton and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF DR. STANLEY I. COLEMAN, SR., OF TRAVELERS REST, UPON HIS DEATH.
H. 4374 -- Reps. Rudnick, M.O. Alexander, Altman, Arthur, G. Bailey, K. Bailey, Barfield, Bennett, Blackwell, Boan, J. Bradley, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Burch, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Burriss, Carnell, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Cork, Corning, Dangerfield, Davenport, Day, Derrick, Edwards, Fair, Felder, Foster, Foxworth, Gentry, Gilbert, J. Harris, Haskins, Hayes, Hearn, Helmly, Hodges, Holt, Huff, Humphries, J.C. Johnson, Jones, Kay, Kirsh, Klapman, Kohn, Koon, Limehouse, Lockemy, Mappus, L. Martin, Mattos, McAbee, McCain, McEachin, McElveen, McGinnis, McKay, McLellan, E.B. McLeod, McTeer, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Pettigrew, Petty, O. Phillips, Rhoad, Rice, J. Rogers, T. Rogers, Sharpe, Short, Snow, Taylor, Thrailkill, Waldrop, Washington, Wells, White, Wilder, Wilkins and Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING MR. PALMER E. "SATCH" KRANTZ, DIRECTOR OF RIVERBANKS ZOO IN COLUMBIA, UPON BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS.
At 3:20 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. BLACKWELL and H. 4355 (Sine Die Adjournment Resolution) adjourned to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:38 P.M.