Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Reverend Floyd Parker, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Ware Shoals:

O Lord, we have much on our minds today, in fact, we rush to make room for this prayer of praise, guidance, and strength. We praise You and thank You that you love us. Our Father, may we experience deep within our souls Your love for us. May we know Your peace in the midst of all life's circumstances especially in this chamber today. Lord, as we so often do, we pray for these our leaders.

I ask that they may be filled with the knowledge of Your will in wisdom and in understanding; so that they may live in a manner that is pleasing unto You, who created them and chose them. Strengthen them with Your power, humble them with your presence, encourage them with Your Spirit, and call them through Your Son. Lord, bless and protect their families. May the families of these devoted leaders know of their loving commitment to their families. Bind them together as families though distance and time may separate. Now, may our lives give people a reason to praise and glorify You, Our Father and Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. 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 following was received.

TO:     The Clerk of the Senate The Clerk of the House

FROM:     John I. Rogers, III,

Chairman, Judicial

Screening Committee

DATE: April 20, 1989

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1976, lt is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,

John I. Rogers, III

Chairman

/s/     Sen. Thomas H. Pope, Vice-Chairman
/s/     Sen. Isadore E. Lourie
/s/     Sen. John A. Martin
/s/     Sen. Glenn F. McConnell
/s/     Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/     Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/     Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1976, this Committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain Judicial positions. The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

The following Court of Appeals Judges are running for reelection to their respective seats and are unopposed:

Hon. Randall T. Bell     Seat #3

Hon. C. Tolbert Goolsby. Jr.     Seat #4

The following Circuit Court Judges are running for reelection to their respective seats and are unopposed:

Candidate     Circuit

Hon. J. Ernest Kinard, Jr.     Fifth

Hon. Jonathon Z. McKown     Seventh

Hon. Richard E. Fields     Ninth

Hon Tom J. Ervin     Tenth

The following Family Court Judges are running for reelection to their respective seats and are unopposed:

Candidate     Seat     Jud. Circuit

Hon. Maxey G. Watson     #1     First

Hon. G. Larry Inabinet     #2     Second

Hon. Marion D. Myers     #2     Third

Hon. S.H. Belser     #3     Third

Hon. Benny R. Greer     #2     Fourth

Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, II     #2     Fifth

Hon. Berry L. Mobley     #1     Sixth

Hon. Clyde K. Laney, Jr.     #1     Seventh

Hon. Thomas E. Foster     #2     Seventh

Hon. William J. Craine, Jr     #1     Eighth

Hon. William K. Charles     #3     Eighth

Hon. Robert R. Mallard     #2     Ninth

Hon. Wayne M. Creech     #4     Ninth

Hon. J. Frank McClain     #1     Tenth

Hon. H. Dean Hall     #3     Tenth

Hon. Jeff D. Griffith, Jr.     #2     Eleventh

Hon. Marc H. Westbrook     #3     Eleventh

Hon. David G. Baroody     #1     Twelfth

Hon. A. E. Morehead, III     #2     Twelfth

Hon. Larry R. Patterson     #1     Thirteenth

Hon. R. Kinard Johnson, Jr.     #2     Thirteenth

Hon. John T. Black     #1     Fourteenth

Hon. Donald A. Fanning     #3     Fourteenth

Hon. David Maring     #1     Fifteenth

Hon. Samuel B. Mendenhall     #2     Sixteenth

There is a contested race to fill the unexpired portion of the term of the Honorable Marion H. Kinon, Circuit Judge At Large, Seat 6, who retired March 17, 1989. Two candidates are seeking to fill this term which expires June 30, 1991. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:

Hon. James E. Lockemy: (Dillon, South Carolina) He was born in Dillon South Carolina and is 39 years old. He is married and has two children. He graduated from Pembroke State University in 1971 and earned a J.D. degree from the University of South Carolina in 1974. He is a member of the House of Representatives, serving since 1982, and is a partner in the private practice of Greene, Lockemy and Bailey.

Alfred Victor Rawl: (Charleston, South Carolina) He was born in Norfolk, Virginia and is 43 years old. He is married and has two children. He graduated from The College of Charleston in 1968 and earned his law degree from the University of South Carolina in 1973. He served as a member of the House of Representatives, 1977-1978 and 1980-1986, and he is presently a South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commissioner, serving since July, 1986.

There is also a contested race to fill the unexpired portion of the term of Hon. William J. McLeod, Judge of the Family Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3. Judge McLeod's resignation will be effective July 1, 1990. Two candidates are seeking to fill this term which expires June 30, 1990. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:

Barbara Pearce Ohanesian: (Bennettsville, South Carolina) She was born in Hepzibah, Georgia and is 40 years old. She is married and has one child. She graduated from the University of South Carolina in 1969 and earned her J. D. degree from George Mason university in 1980. She is a partner in the private practice of Ohanesian and Ohanesian.

James A. Spruill, III: (Cheraw, South Carolina) He was born in Wadesboro, North Carolina and is 44 years old. He is married and has two children. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1966 and earned his J. D. degree for the University of North Carolina in 1970.

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the Committee by this Report respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcripts of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held at the State House on February 23, March 9, April 6 and April 11, 1989, and the portions of the documents submitted by the respective candidates which were made part of the public record. Each candidate filed an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in 402B Blatt Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidates were present at the screenings and testified under oath.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE HAVE A VERY BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND THEN WE WILL ASK YOU TO COME BACK IN AND WE WILL BEGIN THE SCREENING. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOMENT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND IF ALL PRESENT WILL CLEAR THE ROOM EXCEPT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: FOR THE BENEFIT OF APPLICANTS AND THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC, THE PROCEDURE WE WILL FOLLOW TODAY IS THAT I WILL SWEAR EACH OF THE APPLICANTS AND THEN STEVE BATES, WHO IS ACTING AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMMITTEE, WILL CONDUCT SOME EXAMINATION AND THEN WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE QUESTIONING OF THE SIX APPLICANTS WE WILL THEN HAVE A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION. I THINK IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF. THEN WE WILL COME BACK INTO AN OPEN SESSION AND CONCLUDE THESE HEARINGS FOR TODAY. JUDGE BELL, YOU ARE FIRST BY VIRTUE OF YOUR POSITION AND THE FACT THAT YOUR NAME BEGINS WITH A "B." WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN.

THE HONORABLE RANDALL T. BELL, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: I WILL NOW ASK STEVE BATES TO PROVE HIS METTLE.

Q.     FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR ME, ALL THE LAWYERS SITTING DOWN AND HAVING THE JUDGES STAND UP. JUDGE BELL, I BELIEVE YOU FILLED OUT A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THERE WAS A SUMMARY OF YOUR ANSWERS RETURNED TO YOU FOR YOU TO LOOK OVER?
A.     YES.
Q.     AFTER REVIEWING THAT, DO YOU FIND THE MATERIAL IN THE SUMMARY TO BE ACCURATE?
A.     YES. THERE WERE SOME MINOR THINGS. I THINK A COUPLE OF THE CHILDREN HAD BIRTHDAYS BETWEEN THE TIME IT WAS INITIALLY FILED AND THE TIME IT WAS SUMMARIZED.
Q.     YOU PROBABLY CALLED US BACK UP AND LET US KNOW?
A.     YES. I BELIEVE THOSE CORRECTIONS WERE GIVEN TO MRS. SATTERWHITE.
Q.     IS ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION NECESSARY?
A.     I THINK NOT. I THINK THE SUMMARY ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE FULL QUESTIONNAIRE.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE SHOWED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES AGAINST YOU, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION SHOWED NO PUBLIC REPRIMANDS AT ALL. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS CLEAR AND THE RECORDS CHECK OF RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. DO YOU RESIDE IN RICHLAND COUNTY OR LEXINGTON COUNTY?
A.     I NOW RESIDE IN LEXINGTON.
Q.     HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN LEXINGTON?
A.     I HAVE BEEN IN LEXINGTON ABOUT TWO YEARS.
Q.     WOULD A CHECK OF THEIR RECORDS ALSO INDICATE THAT THEY ARE CLEAR, LEXINGTON COUNTY?
A.     YES.
Q.     ALSO THE F.B.I. RETURNED YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD AND IT WAS CLEAR. AN EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND OF THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOWED THERE WERE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU ALSO. ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOWED YOUR INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM YOUR SALARY AS COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE AND YOU ALSO RECEIVED A TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR STIPEND FROM THE LAW SCHOOL?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ARE YOU STILL TEACHING OVER AT THE LAW SCHOOL?
A.     I AM. I HAD CLASS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
Q.     YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1986 I BELIEVE?
A.     YES.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES THE COMMITTEE MIGHT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT AS FAR AS YOUR STATUS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE SINCE THAT TIME?
A.     I THINK THE ONLY MATERIAL CHANGE IS THAT I HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND REMARRIED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. OTHERWISE NO CHANGES.
Q.     IN YOUR PACKET ALSO YOU RETURNED OR HAD RETURNED A LETTER FROM YOUR DOCTOR, DR. WILLIAM A. KEANE, HERE IN COLUMBIA DISCUSSING YOUR HEALTH SITUATION. I BELIEVE IT STATED THAT YOU HAVE A KIDNEY CONDITION, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A.     YES.
Q.     HOW LONG HAS THIS CONDITION BEEN DIAGNOSED?
A.     IT'S BEEN DIAGNOSED FOR ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN YEARS.
Q.     AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO DO HOME DIALYSIS?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THREE TIMES WEEKLY?
A.     YES.
Q.     HAS THIS CAUSED YOU ANY TYPE OF PROBLEMS IN TRAVEL WHILE SERVING ON THE BENCH?
A.     NO. I THINK DR. KEANE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT TRAVEL IN THERE, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING WHEN I SAW HIS LETTER, THAT IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO I HAVE BEEN TO LONDON, TORONTO, SAN FRANCISCO, DENVER, AND NEW YORK A COUPLE OF TIMES. I SIMPLY HAVE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS IF I AM GOING TO BE AWAY FROM COLUMBIA FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME, TO HAVE THE TREATMENT AT THE PLACE I AM VISITING.
Q.     YOU ARE STILL UNDER THE CARE OF DR. KEANE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN RELATION TO YOUR HEALTH STATUS THAT IS NOT COVERED BY DR. KEANE THAT THE COMMITTEE OUGHT TO BE AWARE OF?
A.     I THINK NOT. I HAVE HAD A RECENT EXAM WITH MY DOCTOR AND HE TOLD ME THAT FOR A PERSON WITH KIDNEY FAILURE I AM IN EXCELLENT HEALTH.
Q.     THE COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION TO BE ON THE COURT OF APPEALS. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS BY THE COMMITTEE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WISH TO ASK JUDGE BELL ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     JUDGE BELL JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING WITH YOUR NUMBER OF CASES, CURRENT?
A.     WE ARE REASONABLY CURRENT. MY OWN IMPRESSION, I DON'T HAVE STATISTICS AT HAND, BUT MY OWN IMPRESSION IS THAT THE CASELOAD HAS PICKED UP A LITTLE BIT. WE ARE HEARING A FEW MORE CASES EACH TEAM NOW THAN WHAT WE WERE SEEING, SAY, SIX MONTHS AGO, SO THE JUDGES ARE VERY BUSY, BUT I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY AS CURRENT AS WE HAVE EVER BEEN. ABOUT I GUESS A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS AGO WE FINALLY CAME EVEN ON THE BACKLOG AND WE HAVE STAYED CURRENT SINCE THEN. FILINGS HAVE REMAINED ABOUT LEVEL FOR OUR COURT.

SENATOR LOURIE: THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE: ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: AS A MATTER OF COURSE, JUDGE BELL, WE WILL MAKE THE QUESTIONNAIRE A PART OF OUR RECORD AND WILL INCLUDE IT IN OUR REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
A.     THANK YOU.

1.     Randall Theron Bell

Home Address:     Business Address:

2421 Owl Circle     P.O. Box 11629

West Cola., SC 29169     Columbia, SC 29211

2.     He was boron in Shelbyville, Kentucky on January 11, 1945.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Pamela Eddins on May 17, 1987. He was previously divorced from Linda A. Bell on October 21, 1986 on the ground of one year's separation. He has one daughter, Esther Hart Bell, who is 19 years old and two stepchildren, Thomas Neil Eddins, age 13, and Phillip Mark Eddins, age 12.

5.     Military Service: He was a Captain in the U. S. Army Reserve from 1967-1976 (SN 05 251 830 - Honorable Discharge)

6.     He attended the College of William & Mary, 1963-1967, A.B., Summa Cum Laude; Oxford University from 1967-1969, B.A., (Juris.) II, Class Honours, M.A.; and Harvard Law School from 1969-1971, J.D., Cum Laude.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

September, 1971 - June, 1972, Special Counsel to S. C. Attorney General; June, 1972 - August, 1973, Assistant S. C. Attorney General; Aught, 1973 - January, 1980, Law Professor at USC School of Law, private consulting on trial and appellate litigation; January, 1980 - August, 1983, McNair, Glenn, Konduros, Corley, Singletary, Porter & Dibble, P.A., head of appellate litigation section; September, 1983 - present, Judge, S. C. Court of Appeals.

15.     Judicial office: Judge, S. C. Court of Appeals.

Elected by the General Assembly of South Carolina on July 27, 1983; qualified September 1, 1983; serving to the present. General appellate jurisdiction with the exception of cases exempted by Section 14-8-200(b), Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. Acting Associate Justice, S.C. Supreme Court, by appointment of the Chief Justice of that Court.

16.     Public office: None

25.     Health is good.

28.     He is currently under the care of Dr. William R. Keane, 3321 Medical Park Road, Suite 201, Columbia, SC 29201 (see attached letter).

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:

Westminster Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC; South Carolina Wildlife Federation; Columbia Museum of Art; Riverbanks Zoological Society; Summit Club; Columbia Music Festival Association; South Caroliniana Society; South Carolina Historical Society; and Harvard Club of South Carolina.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Peter S. Prioleau, Vice President

NCNB, P. O. Box 448, Columbia, SC 29202

(b) David L. Freeman, Esquire

P. O. Box 10207, Greenville, SC 29603

(c) The Honorable Robert E. McNair

P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211

(d) The Honorable Matthew J. Perry

U. S. District Court, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) Dana G. Sinkler, Esquire

P. O. Box 340, Charleston, SC 29402

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE GOOLSBY. THE HONORABLE C. TOLBERT GOOLSBY, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     JUDGE, YOU ALSO FILLED OUT A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE COMMITTEE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     I DID, AND SUGGESTED SOME CORRECTIONS WHICH I UNDERSTAND WERE MADE.
Q.     DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION NECESSARY?
A.     NO, SIR, NOT THAT I COULD SEE.
Q.     AS WITH JUDGE BELL, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE, AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OR REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. WE CHECKED YOU IN RICHLAND COUNTY AND LEXINGTON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF COLUMBIA AND THE CITY OF LEXINGTON, THEIR SHERIFF'S AND POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND FOUND NO RECORDS. ALSO SLED AND THE F.B.I. WERE CHECKED WITH, AND YOUR RECORDS WERE CLEAR THERE ALSO. YOUR NAME DID NOT APPEAR ON THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY OR THE FEDERAL COURTS. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS FROM YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST. YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS GOOD. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN YOUR STATUS THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF SINCE YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1986?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU IN YOUR REAPPLICATION TO YOUR SEAT. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE GOOLSBY?

Q.     JUDGE GOOLSBY, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ROOMED WITH ERNEST HINNANT DURING YOUR LAW SCHOOL YEARS?
A.     NO. ERNEST HINNANT WAS NOT MARRIED AT THAT TIME. I WAS. THAT IS NOT TRUE. HE IS A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE.
Q.     I WONDER IF THAT IS WHERE YOU OBTAINED YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF ADMIRALTY LAW?
A.     INDEED, AT HIS FEET.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE GOOLSBY, AS YOU MAY KNOW, I ROOMED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME WITH ERNEST HINNANT AND I AM STILL SUFFERING FROM THAT EXPERIENCE.
A.     I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL MAKE THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY A PART OF THE SUMMARY WITHOUT OBJECTION.

1.     C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

558 Woodland Hills West     P. O. Box 11629

Columbia, SC 29210     Columbia, SC 29211

2.     He was born in Montgomery, Alabama on July 11, 1935.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Mary Ellen ("Prue") Fraser on January 13, 1956. He has one son, Philip Lane, M.D., age 33 (Major, United States Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida).

5.     Military Service: From July, 1954 until June, 1956 he was in the U.S. Army, P.F.C., U.S. ***-**-***; obligation completed; honorable discharge.

6.     He attended the University of Alabama, 1953-1954 (no degree, drafted into military service); The Citadel, 1956-1959, B.A. (departmental and general honors); and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1959-1962, LL.B (cum laude).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Assistant Attorney General, 1962-1972; Deputy Attorney General, 1972; Partner in Bogoslow Goolsby, 1972-1973; Deputy Attorney General, 1973-1983; Chief Deputy Attorney General, 1983 to August 31, 1983; Associate Judge of South Carolina Court of Appeals, September 1, 1983 to present; and Chairman, Judicial Continuing Legal Education Commission, March 15, 1985 to date.

15.     Judicial Office: From September 1, 1983 to date he has served as Associate Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The General Assembly elects the Chief Judge and Judges of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals is a court of general appellate jurisdiction in South Carolina. However, it does not entertain cases involving the election laws, bond issues, the death penalty, appeals from the Public Service Commission, and disputes involving a substantial constitutional issue. In 1983, he has served by appointment from the Chief Justice on three occasions as an Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court which has general appellate jurisdiction in all cases in this State. In 1987, he served by appointment from the Chief Justice on one occasion as an Acting Circuit Judge of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, a court which has general jurisdiction in all civil cases in this state except cases involving domestic and probate matters.

16.     Public Office: He has served in the appointive positions of Assistant Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Chief Deputy Attorney General. He served with the Attorney General's office for approximately 20 years, from 1962-1972 and from 1973 to August 31, 1983. He was in private practice from June, 1972 until March, 1973.

25.     Health is excellent.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Westminster Presbyterian Church; Honorary Bencher, The Citadel Inn of Court; The Association of Citadel Men; The Brigadier Club of The Citadel; The University of South Carolina Alumni Association; Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity: John Belton O'NEILL Inn of Court; Phi Beta Kappa; and the Woodland Hills Civic Club

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Ms. Lois Snipes, Vice-President

First Citizens Bank, PO Box 29, Cola., SC 29202

(b) Edward E. Poliakoff, Esquire

P. O. Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211

(c) Michael W. Tighe, Esquire

P. O. Box 1209, Columbia, SC 29202

(d) William L. Pope, Esquire

P. O. Box 944, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) The Reverend Todd B. Jones

1716 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29210

THE HONORABLE TOM J. ERVlN, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     JUDGE, YOU ALSO RECEIVED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE COMMITTEE?
A.     YES.
Q.     YOU FILLED THAT OUT I BELIEVE AND RETURNED IT BACK TO US. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE SUMMARY OF THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     YES, SIR, I HAVE, AND IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE IN ALL RESPECTS.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES WHILE YOU PRACTICED LAW. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION MADE NO REPRIMANDS WHILE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS GOOD, AND WE HAVE CHECKED WITH THE ANDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AS WELL AS THE HONEA PATH CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION AND FOUND YOUR RECORD CLEAR, AS WELL AS WITH THE F.B.I., YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD. WE HAVE ALSO CHECKED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE IN ANDERSON COUNTY AND FOUND NO RECORDS THERE OF ANY JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF ANDERSON COUNTY?
A.     ALL MY LIFE.
Q.     IN REVIEWING YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST WE FOUND NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS LISTED THERE, AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS GOOD. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO TWO LAWSUITS THAT WERE FILED AGAINST YOU AS DEFENDANT IN 1987 BELIEVE, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS CAPTIONED JAMES T. ADAMS AND JOHN F. MCCRARY V. JUDGE TOM ERVIN. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LAWSUIT?
A.     YES. I WAS SUED IN MY JUDICIAL CAPACITY BY TWO ANDERSON COUNTY RESIDENTS IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ALONG WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE ANDERSON COUNTY COUNCIL. THE ANDERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS ALSO NAMED AS A PARTY. THIS ANSWER WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED BY JUDGE CATOE. THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON JUNE 27, 1988. THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THEY FILED AN APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AND ALSO PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, WHICH WAS RETURNED AND DENIED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ALL COURT REMEDIES. THEY THEN FILED A BRIEF WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SINCE AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT'S GROUND OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. I NEVER MADE AN APPEARANCE. THIS MATTER WAS HANDLED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
Q.     SINCE YOU HAVE FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE THEN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HAS
A.     THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED.
Q.     THE OTHER CASE, ALSO 1987, WAS CAPTIONED EARL NASH V. JUDGE TOM ERVIN. THAT WAS ALSO FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH CAROLINA. DO YOU CARE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT CASE?
A.     AGAIN, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING NASH'S COMPLAINT. HE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL ON MARCH 31ST, 1988 TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT, AND ULTIMATELY PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING HIS CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DENIED HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON OCTOBER 11, 1988. THIS WAS, AGAIN, AN ACTION WHERE I WAS SUED IN MY OFFICIAL JUDICIAL CAPACITY BY A DISGRUNTLED LITIGANT WHO ALLEGED THAT HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THE FACTS, I CAN GIVE YOU THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND. ESSENTIALLY, HIS CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL DURING A ROUTINE TERM OF COMMON PLEAS IN ANDERSON COUNTY AND A SETTLEMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE RECORD BY HIS ATTORNEY ENDING THE CASE, AND HE APPARENTLY WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS ATTORNEY AND WITH THE SETTLEMENT AND ALLEGED THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED A JURY TRIAL. AS I SAY, THIS CLAIM WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU WERE SCREENED ORIGINALLY FOR YOUR SEAT ON THE 10TH CIRCUIT BENCH IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER LAWSUITS IN WHICH YOU WERE A LITIGANT SINCE THAT TIME?
A.     NO, SIR. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO TIMES I HAVE EVER BEEN SUED.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER CHANGES SINCE THAT SCREENING?
A.     NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF. I HAVE HAD TWO CHILDREN I BELIEVE SINCE THAT TIME OTHER THAN THAT, NO.
Q.     THE COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO WITNESSES TO APPEAR HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR APPLICATION TO A SEAT ON THE 10TH CIRCUIT BENCH. I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN AT THIS TIME.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE ERVIN?

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: WE WILL MAKE THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION.

1.     Thomas Jonathan Ervin

Home Address:     Business Address:

21 Oak Drive, PO Box E     2nd Floor, Courthouse

Honea Path, SC 29654     P. O. Box 4046

Anderson, SC 29622

2.     He was born in Greenville, South Carolina on May 14, 1952.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Barbara C. Mickelsen on June 3, 1978. They have 2 children: Graham, age 5 years and Matthew, age 27 months.

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     He attended Erskine College, graduate cum laude, A.B., 1974 and the University of South Carolina Law School, J.D., 1977.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of law, including domestic and civil litigation; Assistant Solicitor, for the Tenth Judicial Circuit (1978-79); Town Attorney for Honea Path, S.C.; Special Prosecutor for Solicitor William T. Jones, Eighth Judicial Circuit (1981). Trial experience in State and Federal Courts in both civil and criminal litigation: appeared before the full South Carolina Industrial Commission, the South Carolina Employment Security Commission, the United States Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals; Magistrate's Court; Master-in-Equity and Family Court appearances on numerous occasions. South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Speaker (1984). Administrative Law Judge appointed July 2, 1984, to South Carolina Industrial Commission; Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit (Anderson/Oconee Counties), qualified February 1, 1985, serving continuously since that date.

15.     Judicial office: Tenth Judicial Circuit, Anderson, SC, elected January 23, 1985, qualified February 1, 1985; appointed Administrative Law Judge for the South Carolina Industrial Commission, term: July 2, 1984 to January 30, 1985

16.     Public office: Previous service in the South Carolina House of Representatives, 1981-1984, Anderson-Abbeville Counties. Committee Assignments: House Judiciary Committee; Joint Crime Study Committee. Resigned to accept Governor's Appointment to unexpired term on the South Carolina Industrial Commission.

23.     Sued: Yes

Sept. 1987: James T. Adams and John F. McCrarv v. Judge Tom Ervin. et al, 87-2569. On September 21, 1987, two Anderson County residents, appearing pro se, filed a complaint naming Judge Tom J. Ervin and the "Anderson County Administrator and Councils" as defendants in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. The complaint arose from allegations that two residents made before two separate Anderson County Grand Juries that the county road maintenance department illegally paved roads in Anderson County.

The complaint alleged conspiracy, due process and equal protection violations of the United States and South Carolina Constitutions. On January 20, 1988, Judge William H. Catoe, Jr. recommended that the action be summarily dismissed. A Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on June 27, 1988, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, appellants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which was returned for failure to exhaust lower court remedies. Appellants then filed an Informal Brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Sept. 1987: Earl Nash v. Judge Tom Ervin, 87-2205

Earl Nash filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina, on September 12, 1987. Nash alleged violation of 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 1986, conspiracy, deprivation of right to a jury trial and right to counsel of his own choice. Nash also filed a "Motion for jury to have copies of the Constitution of the United States and this State during trial and deliberation."

On September 21, 1987, an Order and Recommendation of the Court recommending summary dismissal was filed by the United States Magistrate to whom the matter was referred. On December 2, 1987, Judge Joe F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge, entered an Order granting Summary Judgment and dismissing Earl Nash's complaint. Notice of Appeal was riled on December 7, 1987. Nash then filed a Notice of Appeal on March 31, 1988, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and petitioned the United States Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari and a writ of supervisory control. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 11, 1988.

25.     Health is good.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Trinity United Methodist Church, Chairman of Administrative Board and Erskine College Board of Counselors

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) James R. Fowler, Vice Chairman

Southern National, PO Box 8, Belton, SC 29627

(b) Jack F. McIntosh, Esquire

P. O. Box 197, Anderson, SC 29622

(c) Dr. William Bruce Ezell, Jr., President

Erskine College, Due West, SC 29639

(d) John C. Ginn, President and Publisher

Anderson Independent-Mail

P. O. Box 2507, Anderson, SC 29622

(e) Harold P. Threlkeld, Esquire

P. O. Box 917, Anderson, SC 29622

THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. FIELDS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     JUDGE FIELDS, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY. YOU RECEIVED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THIS COMMITTEE I BELIEVE BACK IN 1988, THE LATTER PART?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU SUBMITTED THAT QUESTIONNAIRE TO US AND WE RETURNED BACK TO YOU A SUMMARY OF YOUR ANSWERS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
Q.     HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS SUMMARY
A.     YES, SIR. I HAVE, SIR.
Q.     HAVE YOU FOUND IT TO YOUR SATISFACTION AS FAR AS ACCURACY?
A.     I ATTEST TO ITS CORRECTNESS.
Q.     IS THERE ANY CLARIFICATION NECESSARY FOR ANY OF THOSE ANSWERS IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE FOUND NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU WERE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AS WELL REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS TO YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS SLED HAVE BEEN CHECKED, WITH YOUR RECORD ALSO BEING CLEAR WITH THEM, AS WELL AS WITH THE F.B.I. ON YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD. WE CHECKED WITH THE JUDGEMENT ROLL BOOKS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY AND WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS AND FOUND THOSE TO BE CLEAR AS WELL. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHARLESTON COUNTY?
A.     ALL MY LIFE.
Q.     IN REVIEWING YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, THERE APPEARED NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT AS WELL WAS FOUND TO BE GOOD. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING IN 1983?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS FILED OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR APPLICATION TO YOUR SEAT ON THE 9TH CIRCUIT BENCH. I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE FIELDS?

JUDGE FIELDS, I WANT TO COMMEND YOU, THESE OTHER JUDGES I FIND HAVE GOOD HEALTH BUT YOURS ISN'T GOOD, YOURS IS VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES?

Q.     JUDGE FIELDS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ARNIE GOODSTEIN?
A.     HE IS PRACTICING LAW IN SUMMERVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. HE IS MAKING A LOT OF MONEY.
Q.     THAT IS WHY HE WON'T COME BACK TO THE SENATE?
A.     HIS WIFE IS WORKING VERY HARD.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE FIELDS.

1.     Richard E. Fields

Home Address:     Business Address:

1707 Heritage Park Rd.     P. O. Box 428

Charleston, SC 29407     Charleston, SC 29402

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on October 1, 1920.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Myrtle Evans on March 3, 1951 They have 2 children: Mary Diane, age 37 (Consultant) and Richard Earl, Jr., age 33 (TMS Systems Analysis).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended West Virginia State College, Institute, West Virginia where he received a BS in Business Administration (1940-1944) and Howard University in Washington, D.C., LLB, (1944-1947) Bachelor of Law.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

General Practice of Law, 1949-1974; Municipal Court Judge, 1969-1974; Family Court, Charleston County, Judge, 1974-1977; Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Judge, 1977-1980: Circuit Court Judge, 1980-present

15.     Judicial Office: Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, 1980-present; The Family Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, 1977-1980; The Family Court, Charleston County, 1974-1977; The Municipal Court, City of Charleston, 1969-1974

25.     His health is very good.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:

Member of the General Conference United Methodist Church; United Methodist Church; local, District, State, General

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Patricia Bozard

Assistant Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 700, Charleston, SC 29402

(b) Hon. Robert J. Harte

Solicitor, Second Judicial Circuit

P. O. Box 2327, Aiken, SC 29802

(c) Thomas H. Pope, Esquire

P. O. Box 190, Newberry, SC 29108

(d) William T. Jones, III, Esquire

P. O. Box 186, Greenwood, SC 29648-01186

(e) Hon. William L. Ferguson

Solicitor, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit

P. O. Box 726, York, SC 29745

(f) Robert A. Patterson, Esquire

P. O. Dr. H, Charleston, SC 29402-0197

THE HONORABLE J. ERNEST KINARD, JR., BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     JUDGE KINARD, I BELIEVE YOU ALSO SUBMITTED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE COMMITTEE AND A SUMMARY WAS RETURNED TO YOU SUMMARIZING YOUR ANSWERS. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THOSE ANSWERS?
A.     I FOUND IT TO BE CORRECT.

Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OF CHARGES AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU PRACTICED LAW AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPRIMANDS ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION SINCE YOU TOOK THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR AS WELL AS RECORDS OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CAMDEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. YOU HAVE LIVED IN CAMDEN, KERSHAW COUNTY FOR HOW LONG?
A.     FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.
Q.     THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF KERSHAW COUNTY AND THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE CLEAR AS WELL. IT APPEARS FROM YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT YOU HAVE NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS REPORTED AS GOOD. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR OTHERWISE IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION TO YOUR SEAT AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. I BELIEVE YOU TOOK OVER THE SEAT ON THE 5TH CIRCUIT BENCH JUST LAST YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES AT ALL THAT THE COMMITTEE OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IN THOSE FEW MONTHS?
A.     I DON'T THINK SO.

MR. BATES: I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE KINARD.

THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL ENTER THE SUMMARY IN THE RECORD.

1.     J. Ernest Kinard, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

1900 Lyttleton St.     Room 105

Camden, SC 29020     Kershaw County Court House

Camden, SC 29020

2.     He was born in Newberry, South Carolina on October 18, 1939.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Kay Livingston Davis on July 21, 1963. They have 3 children: Kay Marie, age 23 (The Book Dispensary, Columbia, SC); Audrey Roberts, age 21 (Senior/Clemson University); and John E., III, age 18 (Freshman/Appalachian State).

5.     Military Service: None

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

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

In law school he clerked for the old McKay Firm. Upon his graduation from law school in January of 1964 he moved to Camden and clerked for Henry Savage, Jr. and Ed Royall until his admission to the Bar in April of 1964 and then became an associate. He became a partner in 1966. Since 1968 he has been managing partner in charge of personnel and procedure, delegating and assigning various cases and functions to firm members.

15.     Judicial Office: He is Resident Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, sworn in on May 3, 1988.

16.     Public Offfce: He was President of the Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce in 1983; President of the Camden Country Club, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983; Vice-Chairman of Wateree Community Actions 1969-1972; served on the Board of the Kershaw County Commission on Drug Abuse from 1970-1975

17.     Unsuccessful Candidate: He did announce and ran against Judge Owens Cobb for his present seat in 1983 but withdrew prior to the election.

25.     Health is good.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce (President); St. Timothy's Lutheran Church; Camden Sertoma Club, Camden Assembly; Camden Cotillion; Carousel Dance Club; Kershaw County Lodge 29 AFM: SNIPE Club; Kershaw County Fine arts Center; Louise C. Proctor Trust (Trustee); USC Alumni; Wateree Valley Clemson Club (Director); Camden Bulldog Club (Executive Member); Alston Wilkes Society; CamBand Club; and various school related parent groups, also small contributing member to numerous charities, such as the Cancer Society, not itemized, as he has taken no role in those organizations

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Robert A. Carswell, CPA

P. O. Box 862, Camden, SC 29020

(b) J. Kennedy DuBose, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Drawer 39, Camden, SC 29020

(c) H. Davis Green, Jr., Chairman of the Board

First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of Camden

416 Chestnut Street, Camden, SC 29020

(d) James B. Park, Pastor

St. Timothy's Lutheran Church

1301 Mill Street, Camden, SC 29020

(e) Terry M. Hancock, CPA

P. O. Drawer 428, Camden, SC 29020

THE HONORABLE JONATHAN Z. MCKOWN, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q.     IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY. HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE COMMITTEE?
A.     YES. SO FAR AS I KNOW, IT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AS WITH THE OTHER JUDGES, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTED THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU WERE PRACTICING LAW. AS FAR AS THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, I BELIEVE THERE IS A NOTE OF TWO COMPLAINTS THAT WERE FILED, ONE IN 1984 AND ONE IN 1987, BOTH OF WHICH WERE DISMISSED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     I REMEMBERED ONE. I DIDN'T REMEMBER ONE OF THEM.
Q.     IN MAY OF 1984 A FELLOW BY THE NAME OF CARL WARD. I BELIEVE IT WAS A PAIN AND SUFFERING ACTION, ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS.
A.     OH, YES, ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS, I REMEMBER THAT ONE WROTE IN.
Q.     A COMPLAINT WAS FILED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND YOU ANSWERED?
A.     I ANSWERED THAT COMPLAINT.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT?
A.     THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT I WAS PREJUDICED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE ACTION AND SHOWED IT ON THE BENCH.
Q.     YOU RESPONDED TO THAT COMPLAINT?
A.     I RESPONDED TO IT.
Q.     WAS THERE A HEARING OF ANY TYPE?
A.     NO. I JUST WROTE A LETTER. I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THE THING WAS SO WILD. I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED I HAD TO ANSWER IT, BUT THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO ANSWER IT, SO I ANSWERED IT. IT WAS EXTREMELY SLANDEROUS OR LIBELOUS, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO PUT IT, I WILL PUT IT TO YOU THAT WAY. AMONG OTHER THINGS, I WAS ACCUSED OF BEING A CROOK ALL OF MY LIFE, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF THING, AND I KNOW NONE OF YOU ALL EVER HAD ANYTHING LIKE THAT SAID ABOUT YOU.
Q.     I ALSO NOTE HERE THAT IN 1987 AN INMATE, DAVID G. SMITH, WROTE CLAIMING THAT HE HAD BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND YOU HAD BEEN UNFAIR AND DERELICT IN YOUR DUTIES. HE APPEARED BEFORE YOU IN A POST-CONVICTION HEARING I BELIEVE, DOES THAT RING A BELL?
A.     IT DOESN'T RING A BELL. THE TRUTH IS, VERY FEW GET ANY RELIEF FROM ME ON POST-CONVICTION, SO I PROBABLY DENIED IT. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT ONE AT ALL.
Q.     THE RECORDS THAT WE HAVE INDICATE THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DID NOT REQUIRE YOU TO ANSWER THAT COMPLAINT.
A.     WELL, THAT IS THE REASON I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. ONE OF THEM WROTE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT ME BECAUSE I WOULDN'T APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THEM TO SUE SOMEBODY. I AM SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T GET THAT COMPLAINT.
Q.     WE HAD ALSO CHECKED YOUR DRIVING RECORD AND IT'S FINE, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND GAFFNEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. I ASSUME YOU HAVE LIVED IN CHEROKEE COUNTY MOST OF YOUR LIFE?
A.     ALL OF IT EXCEPT WHEN I WAS IN THE ARMY OR SOME SUCH THING.
Q.     SLED AND F.B.I. CHECKS AS WELL WERE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWING ANY TYPE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS ALSO GOOD. I NOTICE ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE YOU STATED THAT YOU UNDERWENT SURGERY IN 1987, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE THING, BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE PROSTATE AND I CALL IT A ROTO-ROOTER OPERATION. WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT, MR. CHAIRMAN? IF I KNEW THE RIGHT WORD, I WOULD SAY IT BUT I CAN'T SAY IT.
Q.     IS YOUR RECOVERY COMPLETE FROM THAT SURGERY?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     ARE YOU STILL UNDER ANY DOCTOR'S CARE?
A.     NO, I AM NOT UNDER ANY NOW.
Q.     THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC IN REGARDS TO YOUR REAPPLICATION TO YOUR SEAT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO WITNESSES TO SHOW HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY. I BELIEVE YOU WERE SCREENED LAST IN 1983, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     IT'S BEEN SIX YEARS, YES.
Q.     THIS TERM WOULD GO FROM 1989 TO 1995.
A.     I HAVE FULL INTENTIONS IN RETIRING WHEN I REACH THE AGE OF 72.
Q.     THAT IS MAY 7, 1990 I BELIEVE?
A.     YES, SIR. I DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH LONGER.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: JUDGE MCKOWN, I NOTE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE FIND NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU AND THE INFORMATION THAT STEVE ASKED YOU ABOUT APPARENTLY WAS VOLUNTEERED BY YOU, OR AT LEAST CAME FROM INFORMATION YOU VOLUNTEERED, AND I COMMEND YOU ON THAT.THOSE WERE OBVIOUSLY FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS WITHOUT MERIT AND WE SEE THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT. I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR IN MAKING THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE. I THINK YOU HAVE GONE THE LAST MILE IN THAT REGARD AND I THANK YOU. ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q.     JUDGE, I NOTICE THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FIXED POSITION ON POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY?
A.     I GRANT IT OCCASIONALLY. MOST OF THEM ARE FRIVOLOUS. THESE FELLOWS HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, I RECKON, EXCEPT TO THINK UP SOME--LOT OF TIMES I THINK THEY JUST WANT TO GET OUT FOR A WHILE AND SEE PEOPLE AND COME BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTY. MOST OF THEM ARE FRIVOLOUS.
Q.     BUT THERE ARE SOME WITH MERIT?
A.     OCCASIONALLY, YES. OCCASIONALLY YOU RUN INTO THEM, BUT I THINK THE PERCENTAGE, AND I DON'T THINK I AM ALONE AMONG CIRCUIT JUDGES, THERE ARE VERY FEW OF THEM THAT ARE GRANTED--I AM TALKING ABOUT THE RELIEF, BECAUSE GENERALLY THEY ARE FRIVOLOUS A LOT OF THEM--AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME, BUT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THESE WRIT WRITERS, YOU KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I DO, YOU HAVE THESE WRIT WRITERS IN THE PENITENTIARY AND THEY GET FIVE OR TEN DOLLARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR DRAWING THESE THINGS, AND MOST OF THEM ARE JUST EXACTLY ALIKE, AND A LOT OF THEM FOR YEARS HAD THE IDEA THAT IF THEY GOT IN FRONT OF A CIRCUIT JUDGE AGAIN, THE CIRCUIT JUDGE COULD CUT HIS TIME, WHICH OF COURSE WE CAN'T CUT IT. A LOT OF TIMES THEY WOULD JUST WITHDRAW IT WHEN THEY FOUND OUT THAT IS IT. IT'S THAT SORT OF THING WE WOULD RUN INTO.
Q.     WHENEVER A CASE COMES BEFORE YOU FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, THIS PREMISE IS IN EXISTENCE IN YOUR MIND PRIOR TO HEARING THE CASE?
A.     THAT IS A NICE WAY OF ASKING ME AM I BAD PREJUDICED. I DON'T THINK I AM PREJUDICED IN THAT SENSE, NO, SIR. IF A MAN HAS A LEGITIMATE CAUSE, I LISTEN TO HIM. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO HIM. I HEAR HIM. I NOT ONLY LISTEN BUT I DO HEAR.
Q.     I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE?

THANK YOU, JUDGE MCKOWN. WE WILL MAKE THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD.
A.     THANK YOU, SIR.

1.     Jonathan Z. McKown

Home Address:     Business Address:

112 Ridgeway Road     Baker Boulevard

Gaffney, SC 29340     Gaffney, SC 29340

2.     He was born in Gaffney, South Carolina on May 7, 1918.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Patricia Campbell Winesett on January 1, 1984. He was previously divorced on July 26, 1979 on the ground of one year's separation (Family Court, Cherokee County). He has 3 children: Ann, age 38, attorney in Durham, North Carolina; J. Z., Jr., age 35, architect, New York; and Mark, age 31, assistant basketball coach, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida.

5.     Military Service: July 13, 1942 - January 10, 1946, United States Army, T/Sgt, Serial #34 127 784, Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended Elon College, 1935-1936 (transferred); the University of South Carolina, 1936-1941, AB (LLB); and Duke University Law School, 1946-1947, LLM.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He began practicing law in 1947. He served as Superintendent of Education for Cherokee County from 1951 to 1954, and thereafter he continued in the general practice of law in Cherokee County.

15.     Judicial Office: He was elected Circuit Judge on May 27, 1981 to fill the unexpired portion of the term ending on June 30, 1983. He was reelected on April 21, 1983 with a term ending June 30, 1989.

16.     Public Office: He was Superintendent of Education, appointed, 1951-1954; County Attorney, appointed, 1954-1956; County Attorney, appointed, 1974-1981; and South Carolina Highway Commission, appointed, July 21, 1960-April, 1964.

17.     Unsuccessful candidate: He was defeated in the Democratic Primary for the House of Representatives in 1968 and 1976.

24.     Complaints: In May, 1984, in a pain and suffering action, one of the daughters of the decedent, Carl Ward, wrote that he had been unfair in the proceedings. He answered the complaint and the matter was ended.

In 1987, an inmate of the prison system, David G. Smith, wrote claiming that he had been unfair and derelict in his duties in a post conviction hearing. The Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards did not require him to answer.

25.     Health is good.

26.     He was hospitalized February 4, 1987 through February 9, 1987 for prostate surgery. He recuperated for approximately one month.

27. He has no central vision in his left eye.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Limestone Presbyterian Church

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) James R. Thompson, President

First Piedmont Federal Savings & Loan Assn.

P. O. Box 1900, Gaffney, SC 29342

(b) Hon. Katie W. Baines

Clerk of Court, Cherokee County

P. O. Box 1226, Gaffney, SC 29342

(c) W. R. Douglas

Box 22, Gaffney, SC 29340

(d) Richard C. Thomson

614 Lyman Street, Gaffney, SC 29340

(e) Lamar G. Hammett, Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 640, Gaffney, SC 29342

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THE COMMITTEE WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THE COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THESE JUDGES?

SENATOR LOURIE: SO MOVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: SENATOR LOURIE MOVES THAT THE FINDING OF QUALIFIED BE MADE ON THE SIX JUDGES WHO APPLIED AND APPEARED BEFORE US TODAY. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR WILL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED NO.

THE AYES HAVE IT.

SENATOR LOURIE: I MOVE WE ADJOURN, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS: THERE IS A MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE ADJOURN TO MEET ON THE NEXT SCREENING MARCH 9TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THE AYES HAVE IT.
(WHEREUPON, THE TAKING OF THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 10:03 A.M.)

REP. ROGERS: I'M GOING TO CALL THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER. THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL MATTERS THAT THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO TAKE UP BUT SINCE ALL THE COMMITTEE IS NOT HERE YET, WE WILL AT A LATER TIME DURING THE MORNING HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION JUST FOR THE COMMITTEE.

ON THE RECORD, JUST TO OUTLINE THE PROCEDURE WE WILL GO THROUGH THE JUDGES WHO HAVE FILED THEIR APPLICATIONS AND WHO HAVE HAD THE INVESTIGATIONS AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION ARE HERE. WE HAVE NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS, NO REQUESTS TO BE HEARD ON ANY OF THE APPLICANTS TODAY, SO WE'LL JUST MOVE IT PRETTY QUICKLY.

I'M GOING TO VARY THE ORDER SLIGHTLY. JUDGE GREER WILL BE FIRST AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE OTHER JUDGES IN ORDER BASED UPON THE CIRCUIT NUMBERS AS OUTLINED IN OUR LETTER.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DEATH IN THE FAMILY OF JUDGE GREER'S DAUGHTER'S HUSBAND, I BELIEVE; AND, SO, WE WILL MOVE THAT RIGHT ALONG.

WE WILL ENTER INTO THE RECORD, AND TO SAVE TIME I WILL JUST STATE THIS NOW, THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO EACH APPLICANT. IF THERE ARE ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES, WOULD YOU PLEASE OUTLINE THAT WHEN YOU ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY; OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WITHOUT OBJECTION AND IT WILL BE IN THE REPORT THAT IS PRINTED IN THE JOURNALS OF THE SENATE AND OF THE HOUSE.

WE HAVE CHANGED THE PROCEDURE SLIGHTLY. STEVE BATES WHO IS ACTING AS COUNSEL FOR THE COMMITTEE WILL DO THE INITIAL QUESTIONING OF THE APPLICANTS RATHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. FOLLOWING THE ROUTINE QUESTIONING THAT HE WILL MAKE, IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS, THEY WILL THEN ADDRESS THEM TO THE APPLICANTS.

SENATOR LOURIE: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: YES, SENATOR LOURIE.

SENATOR LOURIE: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE AT 9:30, IF ]T'S ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE THE SENATE HAS A CAUCUS MEETING THIS MORNING.

REP. ROGERS: WELL, WE HAVE A HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS MEETING AND IF SENATOR POPE GETS HERE, I MAY SLIP OUT FOR SOME BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S ONE REASON I WANTED TO MOVE ALONG AS PROMPTLY AS WE CAN AND I SEE NO REASON THAT WE CAN'T SINCE WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION AND NO CONTROVERSIES AND NO REQUESTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE HEARD. JUDGE GREER.

JUDGE: GREER: YES, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: IF YOU WILL COME FORWARD AND BE SWORN, PLEASE.

(HONORABLE BENNY R. GREER, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Benny Ray Greer

Home Address:     Business Address:

106 Min-Lou Circle     P. O. Box 1770

Darlington, SC 29532     Darlington, SC 29532

2.     He was born in Greer, South Carolina on August 28, 1925.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Iris Jeannyne Allsbrook on June 4, 1947. They have 4 children: Ray, Jr., age 40 (public school teacher/coach); Rebecca G. Moss, age 37 (housewife/inactive music teacher); Katherine G. Robinson, age 36 (housewife/inactive teacher of hearing impaired children); Thomas B., age 34 (Guidance Counselor, Airport High).

5.     Military Service: He was a S/Sgt. in the U.S. Army from 1943-1946 (SN 34-896-888 - Honorable Discharge).

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, where he received a B.A. Degree in Political Science and English (1946-1951) and an L.L.B., converted to Juris Doctor in 1970.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He was an associate in the law offices of James P. Mozingo, III, in Darlington from 1951-1961. He was a partner in Greer and Chandler, 1962-1976 and in Greer and Milling, 1976-1988. He served on the South Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, appointed by the Chief Justice.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, July 1, 1988 to present.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Board of Trustees, South Carolina Ministries for the Aging - South Carolina Baptist Convention, Board member 1978-1982, Board Chairman 1980-1982; Deacon, Chairman of Personnel Committee, Member of Finance Committee, Darlington First Baptist Church; Darlington; Chamber of Commerce; American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) W. B. McCown, III, President

Darlington County Bank

P. O. Box 502

Darlington, SC 29532

(b) Albert L. James, Esquire

P. O. Box 507

Darlington, SC 29532

(c) Jimmy H. Newsom, Deputy Superintendent

Darlington County School District

P. O. Box 493 Darlington, SC 29532

(d) Horace Haws, Jr., Administrator

Bethel Baptist Home, P. O. Box 4000

Darlington, SC 29532

(e) Anthony Dildo, Manager

Darlington Downtown Revitalization Association

135 Cashua Street Darlington, SC 29532

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT, SIR, MR. BATES.

Q.     JUDGE, YOU WERE SENT BACK A SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FILL OUT. HAVE YOU TAKEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND DOES EVERYTHING LOOK SATISFACTORY TO YOUR
A.     YES, SIR, IT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE HAVE RECEIVED WORD FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW; AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVER'S RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL, AS THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR DARLINGTON COUNTY AND THE DARLINGTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED'S CRIMINAL RECORDS INVESTIGATION CAME UP NEGATIVE AS WELL AS THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS IN DARLINGTON COUNTY WERE SEARCHED AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL JUDGMENT ROLLS HERE IN COLUMBIA AND THERE WERE NO JUDGMENTS FOUND IN YOUR NAME. EXAMINATION OF YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU HAVE. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY, ALSO. I BELIEVE YOU WERE ELECTED TO THIS SEAT IN 1988, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR, EVERYTHING REMAINS PRACTICALLY THE SAME.
Q.     THE COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS AND NO WITNESSES HAVE CONTACTED US ABOUT TESTIFYING HERE TODAY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER THING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD BEFORE I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN?
A.     NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE GREER, HOW DO YOU LIKE BEING A FAMILY COURT JUDGE?
A.     IT'S GRATIFYING. I LIKE MY WORK.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE WATSON. BEFORE YOU LEAVE, BEN, LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT WE WILL JUST VOTE ALL JUDGES AT THE SAME TIME BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED BE NERVOUS AS YOU LEAVE.

JUDGE GREER: THANK YOU, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE WATSON, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

(HONORABLE MAXEY G. WATSON, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Maxey G. Watson

Home Address:     Business Address:

637 Broughton Street     P. O. Drawer 1000

Orangeburg, SC 29115     Orangeburg, SC 29115

2.     He was born in Union, South Carolina on January 31, 1938.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Sarah Frances Rowell on October 20, 1962. They have 3 children: Maxey G., Jr., age 17; Susan Ashley, age 13; and Brenda Gayle, age 13.

5.     Military Service: August, 1968 to May, 1962, United States Air Force, E-4, AF14682161, Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, August, 1956 to May, 1958 + September, 1962 to August, 1964, Bachelor of Arts (left the University May, 1958 to enter U. S. Air Force and returned to finish September, 1962) and the University of South Carolina Law School, September, 1964 to May, 1967, Juris Doctor Degree awarded June 3, 1967.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

September, 1967 to October, 1970 - Partnership with Charles N. Mayfield, Columbia; October, 1970 to January, 1974 - Partnership with Norman E. Fogle, Orangeburg; January, 1974 to March, 1975 - Private practice, Orangeburg; July, 1973 to March, 1975 - Part-time Judge, Family Court, Orangeburg; March, 1975 to July, 1977 - Full-time Judge, Family Court, Orangeburg; July, 1977 to present - Judge, Seat #1, Family Court, First Judicial Circuit

13.     Judicial Office: July, 1973 to July, 1977, Family Court Judge for Orangeburg County (appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of the Legislative Delegation); July, 1977 to present, Family Court Judge, First Judicial Circuit (elected by Legislature).

21.     Sued: He has never been sued personally nor professionally, however, a declaratory action was brought July 10, 1985, by the Orangeburg County Council requesting an Order setting forth Orangeburg County's responsibility for funds found missing in the Office of the Clerk of Court's Child Support Office. The action requested direction in identifying possible claimants and the amounts of the claims and an order directing that the claims be paid from collected bond funds if the County were unauthorized to pay the claims out of public funds. The action was dismissed December 19, 1985.

23.     Health is good.

24.     He was operated on January, 1980, and a kidney stone blocking the tube was removed.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Woodmen of the World, Fort Jackson Masonic Lodge; Member, Crest View Baptist Church; Indian Waters Council Boy Scouts of America Executive Committee; Boy Scout Troup N98, Assistant Scout Master

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) H. M. Wolfe, Jr., Vice President

First Union National Bank of S. C.

P. O. Box 1127, Orangeburg, SC 29116

(b) William A. Horger, Esquire

P. O. Box 518, Orangeburg, SC 29116

(c) Hon. Joseph Mizzell, Solicitor

Orangeburg County

P. O. Drawer 1000, Orangeburg, SC 29116

(d) James R. Bethune

Horne Motors

P. O. Box 513, Orangeburg, SC 29115

(e) I. S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire

P. O. Box 1825, Orangeburg, SC 29116

Q.     JUDGE WATSON, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OVERLOOK--NOT OVERLOOK, BUT LOOK OVER YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     HAVE YOU FOUND THAT THERE IS ANY NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?
A.     EVERYTHING IS CORRECT.
Q.     AS FOR JUDGE GREER, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORT THAT THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OR REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE A JUDGE OR WHILE PRACTICING LAW. AND YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS CLEAR AS WERE THE RECORDS IN YOUR NAME IN THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ORANGEBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK CAME UP NEGATIVE AS WELL AS THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD. WE CHECKED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ORANGEBURG COUNTY AND IN THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE AND FOUND NO JUDGMENTS IN YOUR NAME. A REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT YOU TURNED IN REVEALED NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. ALSO, YOUR CREDIT REPORTS HAVE COME BACK SATISFACTORY. BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     IS THERE ANY CHANGE IN YOUR STATUS SINCE 1985 IN ANY WAY THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO CHANGE.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR APPLICATION TO BE REELECTED TO YOUR SEAT IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT. BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS TO JUDGE WATSON?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.

JUDGE WATSON: MAY I LEAVE? I NEED TO GO BACK TO ANDERSON TO HOLD COURT UP THERE.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE WATSON, CERTAINLY. AND I WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME ASSURANCE THAT I GAVE JUDGE GREER.

JUDGE WATSON: THANK YOU, SIR.

(HONORABLE G. LARRY INABINET, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     George Lawrence Inabinet

Home Address:     Business Address:

501 Springfield St.     P. O. Box 615

Williston, SC 29853     Barnwell, SC 29812

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on December 20, 1944.     Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Judith Bolen on June 15, 1968. They have 2 children: George Lawrence, Jr., age 15 and Rachel Lee, age 11.

5.     Military Service: Commissioned June, 1967; Honorable Discharge as Captain USA Reserves, 1975, Armor Branch Serial Number ***-**-*****.

6.     He attended The Citadel, 1963-1967 (Bachelor of Arts Degree, Political Science); and University of South Carolina, School of Law, 1967-1970 (Degree of Juris Doctor).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Commenced practice of law, December, 1970, as an associate in Barnwell, South Carolina, becoming a partner in 1971. February, 1974, became an associate with firm of Brown, Jefferies & Boulware and a general partner in February, 1975. Practice of law has been torts, property matters, domestic matters, small corporations, small businesses, banking, criminal, estate planning and probating of estates. Family Court Judge from July, 1983 to date.

13.     Judicial Office: Special Referee as to non jury matters and Family Court Judge, from July, 1983 to present

14.     Public Office: Barnwell County Council; elected November, 1972; took office January, 1973; resigned July, 1983 to assume Family Court position.

16.     Officer or Director: He is Director and Officer of Main Street Auto Parts, Incorporated in Williston, South Carolina. (He does not participate in the daily operations of the business.)

21.     Sued: In February of 1976 a suit was filed in Federal Court, State of New York, against his law firm, Barnwell County, American Bank & Trust, General Bond Counsel and a CPA firm in reference to a Barnwell County Industrial Revenue Bond issued to Anchorage Carolina during the year 1973. The industry went defunct and several of the bond holders filed suit. The end result was that the action was dismissed.

23.     Health is excellent.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: First Baptist Church of Williston; American Legion Post #75; Hope Lodge #126; Aiken Lodge of Perfection; Williston-Elko Athletic Booster Club; Association of Citadel Men, and USC Alumni Association

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) John J. Sanders, Vice President

C & S National Bank of SC

P. O. Box 1347, Barnwell, SC 29812

(b) L. Keith Whittle, Esquire

P. O. Box 249, Williston, SC 29853

(c) Mrs. Eddith P. Yelton

22 Main Street, Williston, SC 29853

(d) A. W. Flynn

121 Green Drive, Williston, SC 29853

(e) Thomas R. Rivers

106 Main Street, Williston, SC 29853

Q.     JUDGE, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTION OR ELABORATION?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS OR REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW OR SERVING ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR. AND EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN BARNWELL COUNTY AND THE CITY OF WILLISTON HAVE COME BACK NEGATIVE AS WELL AS WITH SLED AND FROM THE F.B.I. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BARNWELL COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL JUDGMENT ROLLS DO NOT SHOW ANY JUDGMENTS IN YOUR NAME. ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THE ONLY THING THAT APPEARS WOULD BE IN SECTION 15 WHERE YOU REPORT THAT AS AN OFFICER/STOCKHOLDER IN MAIN STREET AUTO PARTS THERE WAS A TRANSACTION MADE, THE PURCHASE OF SALE OF GOODS OR SERVICES FROM OR TO SOME PUBLIC AGENCIES IN BARNWELL COUNTY. WOULD YOU JUST MIND BRIEFLY EXPLAINING THAT ON YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST?
A.     WELL, I HAVE BEEN IN THAT BUSINESS I THINK SINCE '75 OR '76 AND I'M NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER WE SELL TO ANY OF THE AGENCIES OR NOT AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I WAS--IN THE PAST WHEN I WAS IN PUBLIC OFFICE I ALWAYS SHOWED THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I DO NOT PARTICIPATE AS FAR AS IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE BUSINESS.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. EXAMINATION OF YOUR CREDIT RECORD REPORT SHOWED THAT IT WAS SATISFACTORY. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985 WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED TO THIS SEAT. HAS ANYTHING HAPPENED SINCE THEN THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY HERE AGAINST YOU. PLEASE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE INABINET?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.

JUDGE INABINET: THANK YOU, SIR. LIKEWISE, MAY I BE EXCUSED, MR. CHAIRMAN?

REP. ROGERS: CERTAINLY.

JUDGE INABINET: THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE MYERS.

(HONORABLE MARION D. MYERS, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS)

1.     Marion Dunbar Myers

Home Address:     Business Address:

Route 3, Box 149-D-4     P. O. Box 1816

Sumter, SC 29150     108 North Magnolia Street

Sumter, SC 29151

2.     He was born in Sumter, South Carolina on January 17, 1939.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Mary Louise Patterson on June 27, 1964. They have 3 children: Marion Parker, age 21 (college); Leigh Dunbar, age 20 (college); and Louise Patterson, age 19 (college).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Wofford College, 1956-1960, A.B. and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1960-1963, LL.B.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He was an associate in the law firm of Lee and Moise from 1963 through 1966. He became a partner in 1967 and thereafter the firm name was changed to Lee, Moise and Myers. He entered private practice in 1980. He was appointed as Master In Equity for Sumter County in September, 1983, and served in that capacity until shortly before he assumed his duties as a Family Court Judge.

13.     Judicial Office: He was appointed Master In Equity for Sumter County on September 26, 1983, and served in that capacity until April, 1984. He was elected as a Family Court Judge on February 1, 1984 and assumed his duties on June 15, 1984.

14.     Public Office: He served by appointment on the City of Sumter Planning Commission from December, 1964 to December, 1971. He was appointed as a member of the Sumter County Commission for Higher Education on March 23, 1982 and served until just prior to his assuming the duties of Family Court Judge in June, 1984.

23.     Health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Palmetto Rotary Club Easter Seals Society; Sumter County Community Concert Band; First Presbyterian Church of Sumter; Board of Directors of U.S.C. Educational Foundation (Sumter Partnerships)

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) H. Leon McDonald

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 1678, Sumter, SC 29151

(b) Ruben L. Gray, Esquire

P. O. Box 2636, Sumter, SC 21950

(c) Richard C. Jones, Esquire

P. O. Box 1268, Sumter, SC 29151-1268

(d) T. H. Davis, III, Esquire

P. O. Box 1665, Sumter, SC 29151

(e) Dr. Jefferson K. Aiken, Jr.

#9 West Calhoun Street, Sumter, SC 29150

Q.     JUDGE MYERS, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS ELABORATION?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. REVIEW OF THE SLED RECORDS AND OF THE F.B.I. BY SENDING YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD HAVE COME BACK NEGATIVE. AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. REVIEW OF YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE CREDIT REPORT CAME BACK SATISFACTORY. THERE ALSO HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY IN YOUR BID FOR REELECTION FOR THIRD CIRCUIT. IS THERE ANYTHING SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING REVIEW IN '85 THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE.

REP. ROGERS: DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE MYERS?

MR. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. A. THANK YOU. MAY I ALSO BE EXCUSED?

REP. ROGERS: YES, SIR. A. THANK YOU, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE BELSER.

(HONORABLE S. H. BELSER, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Septimus Harvin Belser

Home Address:     Business Address:

183 Duke St., N.     P. O. Box 696

Summerton, SC 29148     Manning, SC 29102

2.     He was born in Sumter, South Carolina on March 7, 1925.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Susan Elizabeth Plowden on July 1, 1957. They have 2 children: Elizabeth Harvin, age 29 (attorney at law) and Florence Plowden, age 27 (attorney at law).

5.     Military Service: July, 1943 to April, 1946; U. S. Army Air Corps; Sgt.; Serial #34841060; Honorable Discharge

6.     He attended The Citadel, 1942-1943 (left to enter service); University of Massachusetts, 1943-1944 (military education program); University of South Carolina, 1946-1949, B.S. Business Administration; University of South Carolina Law School, 1950-1952, L.L.B.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Sole practitioner, 1952-1977; Family Court Judge, 1977 to present; Chief Family Court Judge, Third Judicial Circuit, 1981-1987; Family Court Judge, 1987 to present.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, 1977 to present (elected by Legislature)

14.     Public Office: Town Councilman, Town of Summerton, 1968-1975; Mayor, Town of Summerton, 1975-1977

15.     Unsuccessful candidate: South Carolina House of Representatives, 1962

21.     Sued: He was sued as a result of his wife's auto accident. The case was settled out of court.

22.     Disciplined: There were several complaints made to the Judicial Standards Commission. The complaints were dismissed or no action was taken.

23.     Health is good.

24.     In 1979 and 1988 he was out of work for 3 weeks due to hernia operations.

26.     He is currently under treatment for his heart by Dr. J. Michael Grayson, 68 Gadsden Street, Charleston, SC 29401.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: St. Matthias Episcopal Church; Summerton Lions Club; Sons of High Hills of Santee; S.C. Historical Society; Clarendon County Historical Society; American Preservation Society; and University of South Carolina Alumni Association

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Eddie Paul, Cashier,

National Bank of S. C.

P. O. Drawer 308, Summerton, SC 29148

(b) The Honorable John C. Land, III

P. O. Drawer G, Manning, SC 29102

(c) Ralph F. Cothran, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 700, Manning, SC 29102

(d) Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Esquire

#8 S. Brooks Street, Manning, SC 29102

(e) Joseph O. Rogers, Jr., Esquire

27 W. Boyce Street, Manning, SC 29102

Q.     JUDGE BELSER, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER YOUR SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     IS THERE ANY CHANGE OR ELABORATION NECESSARY?
A.     NO CHANGE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THAT THERE WERE NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE A JUDGE AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU WERE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS REPORTED AS CLEAR. AND THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CLARENDON COUNTY AND THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN MANNING ARE NEGATIVE. REVIEW OF THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION AND OF THE FEDERAL RECORDS THROUGH THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD SYSTEM WERE ALSO NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF MANNING COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS --
A.     EXCUSE ME. CLARENDON COUNTY.
Q.     I GUESS THERE IS NO MANNING COUNTY, IS THERE. --CLARENDON COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NEGATIVE ALSO IN YOUR NAME. REVIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWED THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS LIKEWISE CLEAR. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS 1985, ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE '85 THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO.
Q.     I SEE THE LAST YEAR THAT YOU WERE OUT A FEW WEEKS FOR A HERNIA OPERATION. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLICATIONS SINCE THEN?
A.     NO COMPLICATIONS. I ALSO HAD AN ANGIOPLASTY PROCEDURE THAT SEEMS TO BE HOLDING WELL.
Q.     THAT WAS ALSO LAST YEAR, IN '88
A.     YES.
Q.     YOU ARE CURRENTLY UNDER DOCTOR'S CARE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU IN YOUR BID FOR REELECTION IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT THERE. MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE, I SEE THAT APPARENTLY THE ONLY SERIOUS MISTAKE OF JUDGMENT THAT YOU EVER MADE WAS WHEN YOU RAN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 1962.
A.     WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS A MISTAKE. I ENJOYED THE CAMPAIGN ANYWAY.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES?

SPEAKER: THE JUDGE PROBABLY THINKS THE MISTAKE WAS ON THE PART OF THE ELECTORATE.
A.     THE BEST MAN DOESN'T ALWAYS WIN.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
A.     MAY I BE EXCUSED?

REP. ROGERS: CERTAINLY, JUDGE.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE WILSON.

(HONORABLE JOSEPH A. WILSON, II, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Joseph A. Wilson, II

Home Address:     Business Address:

15 Sunturf Circle     Richland Co. Judicial Center

Columbia, SC 29223     P. O. Box 192

Columbia, SC 29202

2.     He was born in Bishopville, South Carolina on September 20, 1947.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Sharon Burch on October 21, 1972. They have 3 children: Kali, age 13; Kiva, age 13; and Joseph, III, age 2.

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     He attended Clark College, Atlanta, Georgia, where he received a B.A. Degree in Business Administration in 1969. He received his J.D. from Yale University Law School, New Haven, Connecticut in 1973.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Associate with Sachs, Sachs, and Sachs, Attorneys, New Haven, Connecticut, 1973-1974; Assistant Attorney General, State of South Carolina, 1975-1976; Private practice of law, 1976-1979, Wilson and Washington (employed in law offices of E. W. Cromartie, October - December, 1976); Assistant Solicitor, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Florence, South Carolina (part-time); Assistant United States Attorney, District of South Carolina, 1980-1982; Partner, Brown, Stanley and Wilson, Attorneys at law, Columbia, South Carolina, 1982-1983.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, elected to fill unexpired term commencing July 1, 1988 and expiring June 30, 1989. Jurisdiction includes divorce and related matters, support, juvenile, abuse and neglect matters.

14.     Public Office: Richland County Council member, March 1977 to June 1978 - appointed by the Governor to fill unexpired term; Chief Deputy Attorney General, January 1983 to June 1988.

15.     Unsuccessful Candidate: Defeated in a run off election for the South Carolina House of Representatives, 1978.

25.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Richland Lexington Economic Development Commission; Board Chairman, Columbia Urban League; Board of Trustees and Men's Choir, Francis Burns United Methodist Church, Image Campaign Steering Committee; Columbia Chamber of Commerce; Omega Psi Phi Fraternity; Columbia Action Council.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Tom Felder, Vice President

C & S National Bank

P. O. Box 22779

Columbia, SC 29222

(b) I.S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire

P. O. Box 1431 Columbia, SC 29202

(c) Thomas P. Simpson, Esquire

P. O. Box 7667 Columbia, SC 29202

(d) Hardwick Stuart, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 394 Columbia, SC 29202

(e) T. Kenneth Summerford, Esquire

P. O. Box 282 Florence, SC 29501

Q.     JUDGE WILSON, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THIS COMMITTEE?
A.     YES, I HAVE.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?
A.     NO, I DO NOT.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU WERE PRACTICING LAW. AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION CHECK ALSO CAME UP NEGATIVE AS WELL AS THE CHECK WITH THE F.B.I. AND TURNING IN YOUR FINGERPRINT CARD. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA SHOW THAT YOUR NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF RICHLAND COUNTY?
A.     OH, ABOUT 16 YEARS.
Q.     THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS SATISFACTORY. I BELIEVE YOU WERE ELECTED LAST YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     IN 1988?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAS ANYTHING CHANGED AT THIS POINT WHICH THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF IN THE PAST YEAR?
A.     NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Q.     I BELIEVE WHEN YOU INITIALLY SENT IN YOUR APPLICATION WE WERE--THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF MIXUP, MISSING A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION AND WE GOT THAT IN YESTERDAY.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     I JUST WANTED TO REASSURE YOU OF THAT.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY AGAINST YOUR REELECTION BID FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 2, FAMILY COURT SEAT.
A.     THANK YOU.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE WILSON?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU. MAY I BE EXCUSED?

REP. ROGERS: CERTAINLY. JUDGE MOBLEY.

(HONORABLE BERRY L. MOBLEY, CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Berry L. Mobley

Home Address:     Business Address:

505 Shamrock Drive     P. O. Box 279

Lancaster, SC 29720     Lancaster, SC 29720

2.     He was born in Heath Springs, South Carolina on November 6, 1932.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Elizabeth Enecks on February 8, 1963. They have 2 children: Berry, age 25 (employed U.S.C.) and Robert, age 22 (Employed Baron's Inc.)

5.     Military Service: U. S. Army, September 1954-September 1956, SP4 U.S. 53247341, Honorable Discharge; S.C. State Guard, Lt. Col JAG, October 1983 to present.

6.     He attended Clemson College September 1950 - June 1953. He transferred to the University of South Carolina, attending from September 1953 - June 1954 and from September 1956 - June 1958 (interrupted by military service), and received a B.S. Degree in Business Administration. He received his LLB (J.D.) from USC School of Law (September 1961 - June 1964).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He was in general practice as a sole practitioner in Lancaster, South Carolina from 1964-1982.

13.     Judicial Office: Elected to unexpired term, Family Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, June 1982; reelected June 1985.

14.     Public Office: Member Lancaster County Council for 8 years (1972-1980); Secretary of Directors for the South Carolina Association of Counties in 1974 and elected President thereof and served 1978-1979; National Association of Counties Board of Directors, 1978-1980; City Attorney, 1967-1972 and 1981-1982; appointed by Governor to Local Government Study Committee, 1978-1982.

15.     Unsuccessful Candidate: South Carolina House of Representatives, 1968; Solicitor, Sixth Judicial Circuit, 1970.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: United Methodist Church of Good Shepherd, Chairman - Board of Trustees, Trier of Appeals, Administrative Board, Coordinator of Family Ministries, Sunday School Teacher; two 4 year terms on Board of Trustees for South Carolina Methodist Conference; Lancaster Rotary Club, Treasurer, President; Lancaster County Chamber of Commerce, Member Board of Directors; Lancaster Chapter Of Ducks Unlimited, Area Chairman; Civil Air Patrol; Jackson Masonic Lodge; Jackson Shrine Club; Lancaster Moose Club; American Legion.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Fred W. Adams, Assistant Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 340

Lancaster, SC 29720

(b) George W. Speedy, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 100

Camden, SC 29020

(c) Charles A. Bundy

P. O. Drawer 460

Lancaster, SC 29720

(d) William C. Tindal, Esquire

P. O. Box 867 Lancaster, SC 29720

(e) Brooks P. Goldsmith, Esquire

P. O. Box 947

Lancaster, SC 29720-0947

Q.     JUDGE MOBLEY, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT BACK TO YOU, THE SUMMARY?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU FIND EVERYTHING COMPLETE IN THERE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. AS WITH THE OTHER CANDIDATES TODAY, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND NO REPRIMANDS ISSUED WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS RECORDED AS CLEAR AND, LIKEWISE, THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE LANCASTER SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE ALSO CLEAR. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION AND THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD CHECKS ALSO CAME UP NEGATIVE. THERE WAS AN EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LANCASTER COUNTY AND ALSO THE COURT RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL COURT HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND THERE WERE TWO CIVIL CASES THAT APPEARED IN WHICH YOU WERE A DEFENDANT. ONE OF THOSE WAS ENTITLED JONES VERSUS THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER, AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE INCLUDED AS A DEFENDANT IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND THE SUIT WAS SETTLED IN 1981, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THAT ENTAILED?
A.     YES, SIR. THAT WAS A JAIL FIRE AND THE JAIL IN LANCASTER BURNED AND EIGHT PEOPLE WERE ASPHYXIATED AS A RESULT OF THE FIRE AND THERE WERE SEVERAL LAWSUITS THAT RESULTED AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. I WAS A MEMBER OF LANCASTER COUNTY COUNCIL AND AS SUCH WE WERE ALL NAMED AS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. ALL CASES WERE SETTLED OUT OF COURT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THEN THERE WAS ONE OTHER CASE IN WHICH YOU WERE A DEFENDANT. SOME INDIANS WERE MAD AT YOU, I BELIEVE.
A.     I BELIEVE THAT CASE IS STILL PENDING.
Q.     THAT IS THE CATAWBA INDIAN CASE THAT AN OPINION WAS JUST HANDED DOWN IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT?
A.     YES, I DID NOT EVEN KNOW UNTIL RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION THAT I WAS A NAMED PARTY TO THAT LAWSUIT.
Q.     I THINK THAT THE CAPTION ON IT IS ABOUT FOUR PAGES. SO YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS OF THAT IS?
A.     ONLY FROM THE NEWS MEDIA AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S STILL ONGOING.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, AN EXAMINATION OF YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. I BELIEVE YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY OTHER CHANGES OR ANYTHING THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY AGAINST YOU FOR REELECTION FOR YOUR SEAT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE, PLEASE, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE MOBLEY, I GUESS YOU REALIZE THAT WHEN YOUR NAME APPEARED ON THE COMPUTER THAT THERE WERE THESE TWO LAWSUITS, IT SENT EVERYBODY INTO A TIZZY. I THINK WE HAD TO SEND THE SLED AGENT TO RICHLAND OR ATLANTA TO GET THE RECORDS BUT WE GOT THEM.
A.     WELL, THAT'S GOOD. I HAD NOT REPORTED THOSE BEFORE BECAUSE I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE SUITS WERE REALLY AGAINST ME.

REP. ROGERS: WELL, CLEARLY THEY WERE NOT AGAINST YOU PERSONALLY.
A.     I UNDERSTAND THAT.

REP. ROGERS: THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS ANYTHING WHICH WOULD GIVE THE COMMITTEE ANY CONCERN. DO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAY I BE EXCUSED?

REP. ROGERS: CERTAINLY.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE LANEY.

(HONORABLE CLYDE K. LANEY, JR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Clyde Kershaw Laney, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

5145 Highway 215     Family Court

Pauline, SC 29374     Spartanburg County Courthouse

Spartanburg, SC 29301

2.     He was born in Cheraw, South Carolina on July 30, 1937.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Julia Ann Deal on June 24, 1962. They have 2 children: Rachael Deal, age 21 (secretary) and Clyde Kershaw, III, age 16.

5.     Military Service: He served 9 months in the South Carolina National Guard, Cheraw, SC, and received an honorable discharge to attend college.

6.     He attended Wingate Junior College, where he received an Associate of Arts Degree (1959-1960); the University of South Carolina, A.B. (1960-1963) and Mercer University - Walter F. George School of Law, L.L.B. (1963-1966)

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of law with Odom, Nolen and Foster from 1966-1968; General practice of law with Moore, Swofford, Rollins and Laney from 1968-1971. Entered partnership with Paul E. Rollins in Rollins and Laney, 1971; Assistant Public Defender while maintaining private practice 1972; formed firm of Laney and Overcash in 1977 while continuing to serve as Assistant Public Defender. Elected by the General Assembly as Family Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 in July, 1981; was sworn in September, 1981 and has served continuously since.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, 1981-present.

14.     Public Office: Elected by Public Defender Board of Spartanburg County to be Assistant Public Defender for Spartanburg County, serving 1972-1981.

20.     Tax Lien: Sixteen years ago the South Carolina Tax Commission filed a lien due to a controversy over a penalty for late filing of South Carolina Income Tax Return. The penalty was satisfied in the same year.

22.     Complaints: Complaints have been filed, but all were dismissed, having been deemed unfounded.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations: Finance Committee - Walnut Grove Methodist Church, Mason, Scottish Rite, Shriner, former Board member - Spartanburg County Boys Home and Spartanburg County Girls Home, Vice President - Piedmont Paso Fino Horse Association.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) William R. Sinclair, Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 5707

Spartanburg, SC 29304

(b) H. Carlisle Bean, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 81, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) John H. Nolen, Esquire

P. O. Box 5504, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Bobby M. Pruitt, Esquire

P. O. Box 222, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) T. Louis Cox, Esquire, Public Defender

P. O. Box 1463, Spartanburg SC 29304

Q.     JUDGE, DOES YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY REQUIRE ANY ELABORATION OR CHANGES TO BE MADE IN IT?
A.     I DON'T THINK SO.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS REPORTED AS CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OF THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SPARTANBURG AND PAULINE. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION INVESTIGATION AND F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD CHECK ALSO CAME BACK NEGATIVE ON YOU. WE CHECKED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND HAVE COME UP WITH A FEW THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO COMMENT ON IN JUST A SECOND.
A.     OKAY.
Q.     LET ME GO AHEAD AND FINISH UP WITH THE OTHER THINGS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS CLEAR. AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1985, ALSO.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. FIRST OF ALL, IN OUR CHECK IT CAME UP IN 1974, I BELIEVE, THAT A SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX LIEN WAS FILED AGAINST YOU.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, AND THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SATISFIED?
A.     ABOUT TWO DAYS LATER, YES, SIR.
Q.     WOULD YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON THAT?
A.     WELL, I KIND OF HAD A RUNNING FIGHT WITH THE TAX COMMISSION OVER A PENALTY THAT THEY IMPOSED UPON ME AND DURING THE FIGHT, THE NEXT THING I KNEW, SOMEBODY WAS CHECKING A TITLE AND SAID "DID YOU KNOW YOU HAD A JUDGMENT ROLL AGAINST YOU?" AND I SAID, NO. I WENT AND LOOKED AND I PAID IT. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 200 AND SOMETHING DOLLARS.
Q.     WHAT WAS THE PENALTY FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE? DO YOU RECALL?
A.     IT'S BEEN SO FAR BACK, I CAN'T REMEMBER. I THINK MAYBE IT WAS A LATE FILING OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I'M NOT SURE.
Q.     IN 1984 THERE WAS A CASE FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CIVIL SUIT CAPTIONED HARRIS VERSUS LANEY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS A CIVIL SUIT CHARGING A CIVIL RIGHT VIOLATION FILED BY AN INCARCERATED PRISONER. THAT CASE WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE SIMONS, I BELIEVE, IN DISTRICT COURT.
A.     I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL I RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION. I CHECKED ON THAT, THAT AND THE NEXT CASE, AND THESE--I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH IT. THEY SERVED THESE ACTIONS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THEY PROCEED WITH THEM AND I DIDN'T KNOW IT. IT DIDN'T COME UP AT MY LAST SCREENING.
Q.     OKAY.
A.     SO I DID CHECK ON IT AND I FOUND OUT WHAT IT WAS AND IT WAS SOMEBODY I PROBABLY PUT IN JAIL.
Q.     SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE OTHER CASE WAS MILLER VERSUS FAMILY COURT IN 1986.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU SAY YOU NEVER RECEIVED SERVICE ON THAT?
A.     I DON'T RECALL IT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU BY THE COMMITTEE AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU. I TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN FOR ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE LANEY?

REP. MARTIN: I HAVE ONE.

Q.     IN THIS HARRIS VERSUS LANEY I NOTICE THAT THE CHARGE WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CIVIL RIGHT WAS NAMED?
A.     NO, SIR, LIKE I SAID, WHEN I RECEIVED MY PACKET THAT IS THE FIRST KNOWLEDGE I HAD OF THESE TWO CASES AND I CALLED DOWN AND AFTER GOING THROUGH ABOUT FOUR OFFICES OVER AT THE FEDERAL UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE, I FINALLY GOT A CLERK TO LOOK IT UP AND THEY SAID THEY SERVED THESE PAPERS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE; SO, I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF IT AT ALL. THEY WERE NEVER--
Q.     YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT?
A.     NO, SIR, I SURE DON'T. AND ALL THEY HAD WAS WHAT YOU HAVE THERE. THE OTHER RECORDS, THEY TELL ME, THE ONE IN 1984 HAD BEEN--ALL THE RECORDS ON THAT HAD BEEN MAILED TO RICHMOND AND THE SECOND ONE THAT WAS IN '86, MYSELF AND ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE OTHERS WERE SUED AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, NEVER RECEIVED A COMPLAINT OR A PETITION OR ANYTHING. IT WAS DISMISSED BEFORE IT GOT TO ME.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE LANEY.
A.     THANK YOU. MAY I, LIKEWISE, MR. CHAIRMAN, BE EXCUSED?

REP. ROGERS: YES, SIR. JUDGE FOSTER.

(HONORABLE THOMAS E. FOSTER, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1. Thomas Earl Foster

Home Address:     Business Address:

236 East Georgia St.     Spartanburg County Ct.

Wooduff, SC 29388     House

180 Magnolia street

Spartanburg, SC 29301

2.     He was born in Woodruff, South Carolina on August 19, 1940.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He was married to Mary Jane Holmes on July 20, 1963. They have 3 children: William Richard, age 22 (student, University of South Carolina); Lauren Nicole, age 19 (student, Piedmont Beauty School); and Jason Thomas, age 12 (schools.

5.     Military Service: April 16, 1959 to April 6, 1961, U.S. Army Specialist, 4th Class; October 16, 1961 to August 9, 1962, U.S. Army Specialist, 4th Class; US 53318881; Honorably Discharged, March 31, 1965

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina (one semester) in 1958 (left to enter U.S. Army); Wofford College (summer school only) in 1961 University of South Carolina (112 semester) in 1961 (He was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves which was activated on October 15, 1961); University of South Carolina (one semester) in 1962 returned to Woodruff, SC and worked full time while attending Spartanburg Junior College); Spartanburg Junior College (now Spartanburg Methodist College) in 1963; the University of South Carolina from 1963-1965 (received a BS in Business Administration); and University of South Carolina Law School from 1970-1973 (received JD).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school

Graduated in May, 1973; opened practice in Spartanburg, SC in November, 1973 and was associated with Roy McBee Smith until August, 1977; associated with Rembert D. Parler in 1977 but maintained his own practice; formed partnership with Rembert D. Parler January 1, 1979; dissolved partnership July 1, 1980; continued to be associated with Rembert D. Parler from July, 1980 until July 1, 1983. Family Court Judge from July 1, 1983 to present.

13.     Judicial Office: ale was City Recorder, Town of Woodruff, November 25, 1974 through September 1, 1977, appointed position by Town Council, jurisdiction was same as Magistrate's Court; and Family Court Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit, July 1, 1983 to present.

14.     Public Office: Spartanburg County, Assistant County Attorney, November 28, 1973 through August 26, 1977, the office was appointed by Spartanburg County Council; and City Attorney, Town of Woodruff, July 21, 1977 to June, 1983.

15.     Unsuccessful candidate: He offered as a candidate for Probate Court Judge - This was to be an interim appointment by the Governor; The Governor recommended Raymond C. Eubanks, Jr. who was one of three candidates submitted, and the Senate confirmed the appointment. In 1981 he was a candidate for Family Court Judgeship, Seventh Judicial Circuit - lost to Clyde K. Laney, Jr., current Family Court Judge (vote 90-62).

16.     Officer or Director: He owns 25% stock for Shoe Mart, a South Carolina Corporation and a new business. It is not opened for business at this time.

23.     Health is excellent.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Mason and 32 Degree Shriner; First Baptist Church, Woodruff, SC; Director and past president, Woodruff-Enoree Sertoma Club (through 1985); Board of Directors, F.A.C.T. (Spartanburg County Cancer Association); Board of Directors, Boys Home of Spartanburg, 1981-1983: and Board of Visitors, Medical University of South Carolina, 1983.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Perry Ouzts, Banking Officer

NCNB

P. O. Box 558, Woodruff, SC 29388

(b) Robert L. Wynn, III, Esquire

Drawer 1897, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) Ben C. Harrison, Esquire

P. O. Box 3408, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Roy McBee Smith, Esquire

P. O. Box 5306, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) Fletcher D. Thompson, Esquire

P. O. Box 1853, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q.     JUDGE FOSTER, HAVE YOU ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU FIND THAT THERE IS ANY NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?
A.     NONE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND THAT THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS FILED NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS REPORTED AS CLEAR, AS ARE THE RECORDS IN THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE WOODRUFF CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT A SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK AND A CHECK WITH THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD ALSO WAS NEGATIVE. A CHECK OF THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA HAVE ALSO BEEN NEGATIVE. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY?
A.     I WAS BORN IN WOODRUFF AND I STILL LIVE THERE; EXCEPT FOR MILITARY AND SCHOOL, I HAVE BEEN THERE MOST OF MY LIFE.
Q.     YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST REVEALS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS OF ANY SORT. YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS SATISFACTORY. WE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS AGAINST YOU AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY EITHER. I BELIEVE YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND FIRST ELECTED IN 1983?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN YOUR STATUS IN ANY WAY SINCE '85 THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR, EVERYTHING IS GOING VERY WELL.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q.     JUDGE FOSTER, I NOTICE THAT YOU SERVED FOR A BRIEF TIME AS PROBATE JUDGE. WHEN WAS THAT?
A.     NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. I RAN. RAY EUBANKS AND I RAN FOR A VACANCY. RAY WAS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR AT THAT TIME.
Q.     THE SUMMARY INDICATES ON ITEM 15 "UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE TO THE PROBATE COURT JUDGE INTERIM APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR." I THINK WE NEED TO CORRECT THAT TO SHOW THAT YOU DID NOT SERVE AT PROBATE.
A.     IT WAS AN ATTEMPT AT AN INTERIM APPOINTMENT WITH JUDGE EUBANKS AND MYSELF. JUDGE EUBANKS GOT IT. I NEVER WAS APPOINTED.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE FOSTER?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THE APPLICANTS. MR. OVERCASH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?

MR. OVERCASH: I WAS ASKED TO BE HERE BY YOUR LETTER.

REP. ROGERS: LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, I HAD RECEIVED OR WE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT YOU DESIRED AN APPLICATION TO FILE OR POSSIBLY FILE FOR CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED YOUR APPLICATION BACK OR ANY OF YOUR DOCUMENTS; SO, THAT'S WHERE WE STAND. WE HAVE DONE NO INVESTIGATION, NO SLED BACKGROUND CHECK, NOTHING OF THAT NATURE.

MR. OVERCASH: WELL, I WAS ASKED TO RETURN THE PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET AND ALSO THE RELEASE FOR RECORDS FROM THE BOARD OF GRIEVANCES AND I RETURNED THOSE, I BELIEVE, TUESDAY; AND I WAS ASKED TO RETURN THE REST OF THE INFORMATION BY---

MS. KINARD: WE GOT THAT HAND-DELIVERED YESTERDAY BUT WE DIDN'T GET AN APPLICATION. WE HAD ASKED FOR THE APPLICATION BEFORE.

MR. OVERCASH: IT SAYS IN THE LETTER THAT I GOT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED BY MARCH 14TH.

REP. ROGERS: THAT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED?

MR. OVERCASH: THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING BE SUBMITTED BY MARCH 14TH.

REP. ROGERS: TELL US, IF YOU WILL, WHAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN.

MR. OVERCASH: WELL, MAY I SHOW YOU THE LETTER?

REP. ROGERS: WHAT JUDGESHIP ARE YOU INTERESTED IN FILING FOR?

MR. OVERCASH: FAMILY COURT IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

REP. ROGERS: WHICH SEAT?

MR. OVERCASH: DOES THAT HAVE TO BE SPECIFIED AT THIS TIME?

REP. ROGERS: WELL, WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY WHO WISHES TO FILE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, BUT WHAT WE DID WAS WE ADVERTISED THESE POSITIONS, A SCHEDULE WAS DULY PUBLISHED. WHEN WE HEARD INFORMALLY THAT YOU DESIRED THESE FORMS, THEY WERE DISPATCHED TO YOU EVEN THOUGH THE TIME WAS RUNNING OUT. AND WHEN WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING BACK BUT A COUPLE OF LETTERS YESTERDAY HAND-DELIVERED, OF COURSE, WE WERE UNABLE TO SCHEDULE THE SLED BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS AND CREDIT CHECKS OR ANYTHING OF THOSE MATTERS. IF YOU WISH TO APPLY, YOU CAN STATE THAT FOR THE COMMITTEE AND I WILL TAKE IT--GET THEM TO TAKE IT UP AND CONSIDER YOUR REQUEST TO BE PERMITTED TO APPLY.

MR. OVERCASH: YES, I DO. THE LETTER I HAVE HERE SAYS, "PLEASE, RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS TO THIS OFFICE BY MARCH 14TH.

REP. ROGERS: WELL, LET ME SEE THE LETTER. (MR. OVERCASH HANDED DOCUMENT TO REP. ROGERS.)

MS. KINARD: THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LETTER THAT WAS PICKED UP ON THE JUDGES COMING UP APRIL 6TH, BUT I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER TELLING YOUR OFFICE THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE THAT IN IF POSSIBLE THE EARLIEST PART OF THIS WEEK AND HAVE A COURIER BRING IT DOWN IF POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE WERE SCREENING ON THURSDAY. WE GOT MATERIAL IN FROM EVERYONE ELSE.

MR. OVERCASH: WELL, I WAS RELYING ON THIS LETTER.

MS. KINARD: DID YOU GET THAT MESSAGE?

MR. OVERCASH: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT WAS FOR THE TWO ITEMS REQUESTED IMMEDIATELY, THE ONE SHEET, THE PERSONAL DATA FORM AND THE RELEASE.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR. LET ME PRESENT THIS TO THE COMMITTEE AND WE'LL TAKE IT UNDER CONSIDERATION. LET'S TAKE ABOUT A THREE OR FOUR, FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE'LL--WHILE WE COPY THIS LETTER. I WANT THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE EVERYTHING BEFORE IT.

JUDGE FOSTER: MAY I BE EXCUSED, MR. CHAIRMAN?

REP. ROGERS: CERTAINLY, JUDGE FOSTER.

JUDGE FOSTER: THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: MR. OVERCASH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST BEAR WITH US A FEW MINUTES WHILE WE GET COPIES OF EVERYTHING SO THE COMMITTEE CAN CONSIDER IT.

MR. OVERCASH: YES, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: AND I WOULD ASK THAT, THERE ARE TWO OR THREE OR FOUR MATTERS THAT ARE PROCEDURAL MATTERS WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COVERED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE ROOM BE CLEARED EXCEPT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

REP. ROGERS: THE COMMITTEE IS BACK IN SESSION. MR. OVERCASH, WE HAVE REVIEWED THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT FROM MY OFFICE REQUESTING THAT YOU HAVE YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION APPLICATION, ET CETERA, IN BY MARCH 14TH. THAT IS WHAT WAS IN THE LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED. THE NOTICES REGARDING THE JUDGESHIPS IN YOUR CIRCUIT SET THE DEADLINES EARLIER. HOWEVER, WE HAD SLIPPED THAT DATE BECAUSE OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS OF THIS COMMITTEE. APPARENTLY I MADE A MISTAKE IN ENTERING THE DATE MARCH 14TH IN THE LETTER TO YOU; BUT IN ANY EVENT, I'M SURE THAT YOU ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND RELIED UPON THE LETTER YOU RECEIVED FROM ME. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF WE ARE TO PROPERLY SCREEN AN APPLICANT, WE NEED AN APPLICATION. WE NEED THE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE NEED EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUESTED IN THAT LETTER AND WE WOULD NEED IT NO LATER THAN MARCH 14TH. IT IS THE POSITION OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT EVERY APPLICANT MUST RUN FOR A SPECIFIED OFFICE AND YOU EXPRESSED A FEW MOMENTS AGO A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER YOU NEEDED TO DECLARE. YOU WILL NEED TO DECLARE WHAT OFFICE YOU SEEK ON THAT APPLICATION ON MARCH 14TH. DO I HEAR ANY MOTIONS?

REP. MARTIN: I MOVE THAT MR. OVERCASH BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR JUDGESHIP.

REP. ROGERS: THE MOTION IS THAT MR. OVERCASH BE PERMITTED TO APPLY AND BE SCREENED FOR A DESIGNATED OFFICE FROM YOUR CIRCUIT THROUGH MARCH 14TH. I WILL INTERPRET THE MOTION TO BE THAT'S NO LATER THAN MARCH 14TH .

REP. MARTIN: NO LATER THAN MARCH THE 14TH AS PER THE PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION.

REP. ROGERS: ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

REP. MARTIN: ALL IN FAVOR WILL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ("AYE" SAID IN UNISON BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.) REP. MARTIN: OPPOSED, NO.

REP. ROGERS: THE AYE'S HAVE IT.

REP. GENTRY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT ALL THE OTHER GENTLEMEN THAT WE SCREENED THIS MORNING BE APPROVED.

REP. ROGERS: THE MOTION IS BY MR. MARTIN THAT ALL OF THE JUDGES WHO WERE--BY MR. GENTRY--I'M SORRY--THAT ALL OF THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE SCREENED THIS MORNING BE FOUND QUALIFIED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?

REP. ROGERS: ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ("AYES SAID IN UNISON BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS.)

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?

MR. GENTRY: I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED. (WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 10:00 A.M.)

REP. ROGERS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU'LL - TAKE A SEAT, WE WILL GET STARTED. I THE HOUSE MEETS AT 10:00 O'CLOCK ON AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LEGISLATION WHICH IS OF INTEREST TO ALL OF US AND IS AT A RIGHT CRITICAL STAGE, SO WE ARE GOING TO MOVE RATHER QUICKLY THROUGH THE SCREENING. WE WILL TAKE THE APPLICANTS FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT AT LARGE SEAT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE FAMILY COURT SEATS. JUDY, I BELIEVE YOU'VE ARRANGED THOSE BEGINNING WITH THE LOWEST NUMBERED CIRCUITS, WORKING UP. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT SEEN OUR SCREENING PROCESS THIS YEAR, YOU WILL NOT BE BOTHERED WITH MANY QUESTIONS FROM THE SCREENING PANEL. THE FIRST QUESTIONS WILL BE GIVEN BY OUR COUNSEL, STEVE BATES, WHO IS SEATED ON MY RIGHT AND THEN IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL HAVE QUESTIONS, THEY WILL FOLLOW UP. STEVE HAS DONE THIS NOW THREE TIMES AND I THINK HE'S GOT IT DOWN TO AN ART. THE FIRST PERSON TO BE SCREENED WILL BE JAMES EDWARD LOCKEMY. IF YOU WILL COME AROUND, JIM.

REP. ROGERS: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

(MR. JAMES EDWARD LOCKEMY, CANDIDATE FOR CIRCUIT COURT, AT LARGE, SEAT 6, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     James Edward Lockemy

Home Address:     Business Address:

110 Ellen Lane     112 N. MacArthur Avenue

Dillon, SC 29536     Dillon, SC 29536

2.     He was born in Dillon, South Carolina on September 23, 1949.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Ellen Bullard on August 7, 1968. They have 2 children: James Michael, age 19 (Citadel student) and William Travis, age 12 (student).

5.     Military Service: US Army, November 1974-December 1977; Captain, Judge Advocate General's Corps; SS# ***-**-*****; Honorable Discharge; presently Major, SC Army National Guard.

6.     He attended The Citadel, 1967-1968; Coastal Carolina, fall of 1968; Pembroke State University, 1969-1971, (B.A. History); University of South Carolina Law School, 1971-1974 (JD Degree); Georgetown University, 1977, Masters Degree Program.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school: US Army 1974-1977 Associate, Law Offices, A. Glenn Greene, Jr. 1977-1978 Legislative Aide, Senator Strom Thurmond Jan. 1978-Aug. 1979 Greene, Lockemy and Bailey Aug. 1979 to present

9.     Frequency of appearances in court:

Federal - twice a year

State - once a week

Other - twice a month

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 80% Criminal: 10% Domestic: 10%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 70%     Non-Jury: 30%

80% chief counsel

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Matloob Khan, individually and as Director of the Matloob A. Khan M.D., P.A., defined benefit plan, vs. Greentree Securities & Rizwan Haider United States District Court - Case No: 4:87-1779-15 In this case a doctor had been misled by a security broker and had lost almost $200,000.00 The broker and firm were located in New Jersey and the doctor was in South Carolina. To avoid court action the doctor had first sought assistance from the Security Exchange Commission who had not indicated that they could assist.

Mr. Locke my filed suit in Federal Court and associated the NcNair Law Firm. The broker defaulted and was judgment proof. They sought to recover from the securities firm who maintained they were not responsible for the Broker, an independent operator. They attempted to be removed from the case, arguing before Judge Clyde Hamilton, as well as a motion of Defendant that Plaintiff was required to arbitrate before court.

This case involved a detailed and complicated argument dealing with the securities laws, requiring much study and making sure the judge was informed of the unusual case as well. The motion on arbitration was based on the fact that the client had signed, even after the law suit had been instituted, a new agreement with this securities firm stating that any arguments made in the future or in the past would be arbitrated. Client stated that he did not realize this would affect the previous case. His argument was that this was a matter which did not apply since it was done after filing suit, but also the securities and exchange laws did not require arbitration even if it was in the contract in such a case. They also argued that Greentree Securities was responsible for the actions of its broker.

The judge ruled favorable on both arguments. Just before trial the Defendant settled, resulting in the physician being entitled to recover, not only for his losses, but that of his wife, about to be the subject of another suit. Of particular significance was the decision precluding arbitration.

(b) State of South Carolina vs. James Cain He was appointed counsel. The Defendant had an extensive criminal record for minor offenses, public drunkenness, petty larceny, assault and battery, etc. He was well known in the area with the little home town only interested in getting him to move away. He refused, saying he loved his home and was loyal to his community. In this case he was charged with attempted breaking and entering. Allegations were that he attempted to break into the trunk of a person's car. His defense was that he was not trying to break in, although he admitted to being there with a tool in his hand, but that he was hiding from the police who were looking for him. Counsel had to convince a jury that he was not breaking the law, but hiding from the law because of previous violations.

He declined to plea bargain, emphatically stating he was innocent of this crime, even if guaranteed no jail time with him expressing a desire to the local authority he would leave the area.

This was a General Sessions case which the Solicitor was anxious to dispose of. The jury was drawn; the alleged victim testified. Counsel attempted to show the jury that he saw no action by the Defendant which would tend to prove he was attempting to break into his vehicle. There was evidence about scratches around the latch of the trunk; however, the car was 16 years old and counsel attempted to sway the jury that in that length of time many scratches would be on a car.

The client testified and admitted to every crime he had committed in his entire life. He agreed he was a problem to society. He promised the jury that if they would believe him this time, he would be a better person. He admitted that he had already confessed to the crimes the police were looking for him on the day of this incident and had received several months in the county jail. The jury stayed out about an hour, came back and found client not guilty.

To counsel's knowledge, Defendant has lived up to his promise to the jury and maybe his faith in the system of not convicting him at the one time he was charged falsely changed his life. The court system seldom takes time to realize the significant effect some things have on the lives of other people.

(c) Stanley Ammons vs. Bobby Hood, d/b/a Bobby Hoods' Used Cars & Parts South Carolina supreme Court - Case No: 84-306 341 S.E.2d 816, 288 S.C. 278 (1986) He began handling this case after judgment was rendered against the Defendant for $16,000.00 Defendant appealed the judgment stating that it was acquired by default, he had a reason to excuse the delay in answering and the case should be reopened. It went to the Appellate Court where counsel won. It was appealed to the Supreme Court who issued an opinion in counsel's favor.

The Defendant was attempting to gain time to gather his debts. After loss of the Supreme Court appeal he filed bankruptcy and counsel had to take the case through Bankruptcy Court with many other claimants. The defendant particularly did not want to pay counsel's client, attempting Chapter 11 bankruptcy with the client listed as an unsecured creditor. One case indicated that a judgment may not be a secured creditor in bankruptcy; counsel was prepared to argue otherwise. Defendant did not properly submit his plan and eventually was dismissed from Chapter 11. They then tried to proceed through supplemental proceeding to collect on the judgment along with other creditors.

Defendant delayed until the six months statutory period of time passed which permitted him to file another Chapter 11. This failed again and he then tried Chapter 7. Both times counsel was required to argue once again the issue of his client being a secured creditor. With the association of other claimant attorneys, they were able to persuade bankruptcy court to dismiss all of his real estate, quite extensive, and proceed with supplemental proceedings. After five years in the Courts, his property was sold and counsel was able to persuade the other creditors that his client's judgment being first would come ahead of their mortgages or any other secured credit. They agreed and the $16,000.00 judgment was rendered with interest, totally over $30,000,00.

This case was significant because it involved the Circuit and Appellate Court system, the Master-In Equity system, and the Bankruptcy Court system as well. It gave him extensive training in these areas and was one of his most exhaustive cases.

(d) Arthur Z. Law vs. Department of Health & Human Services (Social Security Administration) United States District Court - Case No.: 4:87-304-8J This client had retired and counsel drafted an agreement where he would turn over his 1/2 partnership of a welding company to his wife. He began to collect social security, since he was past 65. He received a letter that his social security benefits were to stop because he was not really retired, his retirement being in essence a sham. He admitted that on occasion he went to the shop, but that he was not working and that his wife was running the business with his partner.

Counsel appealed the decision and eventually appeared at a hearing before an administrative law judge. Testimony of the Social security administration was that they had driven by the shop, seeing a person with a welding hat on who they thought to be the client. They also insinuated that a woman could not run a welding shop because she was not experienced and therefore they assumed client had not retired. Counsel attempted to prove that positive identification of someone with a welding hat covering his face was impossible. Further, even if it were him, his presence on that one day did not indicate that he had not retired. Further, his wife was experienced in running the business, having been the bookkeeper there for 15 years or more. He had also been the president of the local Chamber of Commerce and had been involved in business for many years. The administrative law judge ruled against them and they had to appeal the case. Eventually the case was remanded and a decision was reached in their favor.

The significance of the case is that an assumption by a Federal Agency that a woman was incapable of operating a business was proven wrong and the clients who had always tried to obey the law were vindicated.

(e) Margaret Page & Mable Rising vs. Mohasco Corporation, et al State of South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No.: 22737 Hearing May 6, 1987 - Filed June 8, 1987 357 S.E.2d 456, 292 S.C. 489 (1987) This was a workers' compensation case in which clients were claiming total disability due to obstructive lung disease. Both had worked at the Defendant's business at very similar jobs for about thirty years. One smoked and one did not. Both came down with lung disease and applied for disability through the Social Security Administration and were approved. On someone's advice that the disease may have been caused by their work environment, they filed for workers' comp. Neither had an attorney at the time. The company denied it and just before the hearing, they asked counsel to represent them. He associated Kenneth Suggs on the case.

The main problem was proving what caused their lung disease. The company of course said smoking contributed to the disease of one client and the other must have gotten the problem from some source other than the work environment.

Pursuant to the Defendant's request, the Commissioner visited the plant. At the time there was a slow down with many workers laid off and the plant was not as heavily inhabited as during the years of clients' employment. Walking into the plant it seemed to be a very clean environment and one in which no one could become infected with dust or any chemicals. Review of where the clients worked was done and there was no dust flying. As the Commissioner left, counsel happened to touch a piece of carpet, and lint flew everywhere. He called Commissioner back who was significantly affected when he realized what it would be like with hundreds of people working in that environment with dust flying everywhere.

The company introduced evidence that the lint from the carpet was not cotton any longer since the early 1960's and that the dust from their synthetic fibers could not cause obstructive lung disease. The Commissioner ruled in counsel's favor and the company appealed to the full Commission.

The basis of the appeal was failure to prove what caused the obstructive lung disease as it was only conjecture that it was caused by the work environment.

At the full Commission hearing the room was so full of industry leaders that the two elderly lady clients could not get a seat in the hearing room until counsel requested that two of the industry people leave so that the clients could be seated. Ken Suggs did the initial argument which was opposed by an attorney out of an Atlanta, Georgia law firm. Counsel then did the reply to the South Carolina attorney for Mohasco, Robert McNair, who argued the danger sustaining the ruling would have on industry in South Carolina. Counsel opposed tile ruling and attempted to show it would not have any detrimental effect on industry and that industry in fact did cause the damage to the clients. The Commission in a very tight split decision ruled in his favor. The case was then appealed to Circuit Court, where they were sustained, then to Appellate Court where they were initially remanded to the Commission. Eventually, they were sustained by the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court.

This case is very significant in that it is the first case in the history of the United States to his knowledge where obstructive lung disease resulting in total disability to individuals was sustained by the courts, although the injured parties could not prove exactly what chemicals or substances in the work area caused their impairment.

15.     Judicial Office: Summary Court Officer in the SC National Guard on several occasions; similar to Magistrate in civil court system.

16.     Public Office: 1982-present, South Carolina House of Representatives, District 55.

18.     He was a History Professor at Campbell College, 1976-1977; Chief Legislative Aide to Senator Strom Thurmond, 1978-1979.

19.     Business Enterprises: He is partner in Westside Properties, rental property; corporate officer in Lockemy's Grocery, Inc.; owner of several rental properties.

25.     His health is good.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Disaster Preparedness Agency, Dillon; Kiwanis Club, Dillon, Past President; Kiwanis Rangers Baseball Team, Coach; University of South Caroliniana Society, sustaining member; Dillon County Chamber of Commerce; East Dillon Baptist Church, Trustee; Dillon County Veterans Monument Committee; American Legion Post No. 32, Vice Commander; Board of Visitors, Medical University of South Carolina, 1986; Greater University of South Carolina Alumni Board, 1986; Boy Scouts of America, district chairman, 1980-1981; Selected one of the Outstanding Men in America, 1980; Dillon County Theatre, Inc, Board Member.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Charles S. McLaurin, III, Senior V. President

First Citizens Bank

P.O. Box 1049

Dillon, SC 29536

(b) John D. McInnis, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Drawer 1188

Dillon, SC 29536-1188

(c) Rev. H. Fred Gough

St. Barnabas' Episcopal Church

P.O. Box 330

Dillon, SC 29536

(d) Dr. Susanne G. Black

110 W. Harrison Street

Dillon, SC 29536

(e) Jakie L. Parr Ott, R. ph.

304 Richard Street

Dillon, SC 29536

Q.     MR. LOCKEMY.
A.     GOOD MORNING.
Q.     GOOD MORNING. YOU FILED FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT SEAT, AT LARGE, NUMBER 6, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU SUBMITTED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE; HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     YES, I HAVE.
Q.     HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED OR ANY ELABORATION?
A.     THE ONLY THING IS MINOR. THEY LISTED MY OLDEST SON AS 18. UNFORTUNATELY I'M OLDER AND SO IS HE. HE IS 19. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE I ATTENDED THAT MANY COLLEGES. I AMAZED MYSELF.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE INFORMS US THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS RECORDS WITH THE DILLON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE DILLON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK CAME BACK CLEAR, ALSO. ALSO, CHECKED WITH THE F.B.I. ON FINGERPRINT CARD AND IT WAS ALSO CLEAR, AS WERE THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DILLON COUNTY AND WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS. IN REVIEWING YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST, WE FIND THERE ARE NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SITTING ON THE BENCH. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS ADEQUATE. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE BEEN SCREENED BY THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, THE FIRST TIME.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION TO THE SEAT ON THE BENCH, NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. I BELIEVE YOU ARE CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, I AM; ELECTED NOVEMBER OF '82 AND HAVE BEEN A MEMBER SINCE.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO INFORM THE COMMITTEE OF THAT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ON YOUR APPLICATION OR COVERED HERE TODAY?
A.     NOTHING.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: JAMES, ONE LAST CHANCE TO RECONSIDER.
A.     MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE IN MY HOME TOWN CALL ME ALSO ABOUT THAT WHEN Y'ALL SENT OUT THE NOTICES AND IT APPEARED IN THE LOCAL PAPER. I'VE MADE MY DECISION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO IT IF I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS A CAREER CHOICE THAT I WANT TO MAKE IF I AM ELECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF MR. LOCKEMY?

REP. ROGERS: NONE. THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: AS A MATTER OF COURSE WE WILL ENTER THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WE REVIEWED A MOMENT AGO AS PART OF THE RECORD IN EACH CASE UNLESS WE NOTE OTHERWISE. VIC RAWL.

REP. ROGERS: WE WILL COME BACK TO VIC THEN. BARBARA OHANESIAN.

(MRS. BARBARA OHANESIAN, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Barbara Ann Pearce Ohanesian

Home Address:     Business Address:

105 Matheson St.     106 S. Marlboro St.

Bennettsville, SC 29169     P.O. Box 1373

Bennettsville, SC 29072

2.     She was born in Hepzibah, Georgia on May 21, 1948.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     She married Gregory Heath Ohanesian on September 2, 1967. They have 1 child.: Glenn Victor, age 20 (law student - USC).

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     She attended The University of South Carolina September, 1965 - May 1969, earning a B.A. Degree and from September 1970 - May 1972 and June 1976 - July 1976, earning an M.A.T. Degree. She received her Juris Doctor Degree in 1980 from George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia, attending there from September 1974 - December 1976. She also attended USC School of Law (January 1977 - July 1977) and Campbell University School of Law (September 1979 - June 1980) with all credits transferred to George Mason University School of Law.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of Law, Ohanesian & Ohanesian, Bennettsville, from May 14, 1981 to present.

9.     Frequency of appearances in court:

State - regularly

Other - regularly

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Domestic: 60% Civil: 35%     Criminal: 5%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 30%     Non-Jury: 70%

(sole counsel)

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Barbara Deal. In 1983 she represented Ms. Deal in a Family Court matter in Marlboro County. She was a nineteen year old unwed, pregnant Caucasian who had previously given birth to a black man's child. Her parental rights to a third child had already been terminated. That child and the baby born during her representation of Ms. Deal were removed to foster care. She was refused visitation due to her no job, no home, no family situation, and because the father preferred his two children to be raised with a black family. Ms. Deal, though not retarded, was illiterate, poor and had only worked sporadically, primarily due to three pregnancies, not to a lack of desire.

After she was aided by counsel in obtaining subsidized housing and in obtaining training for her in parenting skills and after several Family Court hearings, the Department of Social Services consented, and by treatment plan, allowed Ms. Deal weekend visitation with the older child and physical custody of the newborn.

This case was significant because failure to visit or support for more than six (6) months is grounds for termination of parental rights. DSS by Order was precluding the possibility of visitation and setting the stage for termination of rights, said preclusion based not on unfitness of the mother, but rather based upon factors of race and income.

The State was represented by solicitor Dupre Miller.

(b) Douglas Shaw vs. Phil Shaw In 1984 she represented the Petitioner/Mother in a Family Court matter in Marlboro County. She sought custody of a minor nine year old daughter who had been in the temporary custody of the Respondent/Father for two years at the time of Petitioner's Petition and subsequent to a divorce of the parties. Petitioner had suffered a mental breakdown and had been hospitalized for depression and anxiety five times between the years 1979 - 1982; however, she was a certified elementary school teacher who had held down a full-time teaching position.

This case required expert testimony by a psychiatrist and psychologist, as well as numerous witnesses to show that, although the Petitioner suffered from a major depressive illness in remission, the success of her Lithium therapy indicated "a familial predisposition to a chemical imbalance" rather than a debilitating mental illness which would preclude Petitioner from properly caring for the minor.

The Honorable S. Norwood Gasque issued his Order awarding joint custody with physical custody of the minor being awarded to Petitioner/Mother. The Respondent was represented by James Saleeby, Esquire, of the Darlington County Bar.

(c) The State vs. Robert Jeffrey Garris In 1987, Ohanesian Ohanefiian was retained by the family of the defendant to represent him in the Court of General Sessions, Marlboro County. Mr. Garris was indicted for two counts of murder and the State sought the death penalty. The accused allegedly murdered a young mother and two year old child by repeated (more than 47) stabs to the mother and one fatal stab to the child. There were no eyewitnesses, no apparent robbery or motive, no murder weapon found and the home had not been broken into. The defendant adamantly maintained his innocence until the evening prior to the date set for the trial, when he confessed.

He was a former high school football star, married, the mother of a small child, and without any major previous offenses. The defendant was high on alcohol and drugs when the crime was committed.

Motions (in excess of fifty) and Court appearances (including bond hearings, a preliminary hearing, hearings on the motions, including a change of venue which was granted, and competency hearing ) were required from the date of defendant's arrest in May, 1987, until the date set for trial on November 9, 1987. He was held without bond.

A plea was negotiated and the defendant was sentenced to two life sentences to run concurrently.

The State was represented by Solicitor Dupre Miller, and Assistant solicitors Douglas Jennings, Jr. of the Marlboro County Bar, David Watson of the Dillon County Bar, and Lee Youngblood of the Chesterfield County Bar. The plea was heard in Dillon County, Judge Edward Cottingham presiding.

(d) Nancy B. Allen vs. David Ray Huckabee, Jr. In 1986 she represented the Petitioner/Mother in a Marlboro County Family Court child support paternity matter. The Respondent, after a previous 1978 divorce decree which ordered him to pay child support to Petitioner, his former wife, for a minor born May 5, 1977, made payments for seven years, and then ceased making payments in 1985.

Respondent's Answer and Counterclaim to Petitioner's Petition for support denied paternity of the minor on the basis of sterility and non-access at the date of conception of the minor. Respondent argued that a default divorce was not res judicata nor was collateral estoppel applicable because paternity was not a direct issue before the Court in the divorce action of 1978; Respondent further alleged Petitioner admitted to him the child was the product of an adulterous relationship.

Petitioner/Mother argued that the language of the divorce decree, i.e., "there was one minor child born as a result of the union between the parties," naming the child, adjudicated the paternity issue and raised the defenses of res judicata, laches, estoppel, unclean hands and the legal presumption that the minor child was Respondent's child as it was conceived and born while the parties were married. Petitioner also introduced evidence showing Respondent prevented her from aborting the child as the military doctor, her treating physician, required the father's written consent and he refused to consent. Petitioner/Mother successfully argued that the Respondent could only seek relief from the divorce decree for one year after notice of the Order, excepting fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect and that Respondent had not met that burden.

This case is significant because the best interests of the child, including the nine years he had visited with Respondent and looked on him as his father, and the legal arguments overrode the "fact that the minor is not the Respondent's child."

Douglas Jennings, Jr. represented the Respondent and Family court Judge S. Norwood Gasque issued the Order.

(e) Jennie Lynn Jordan vs. F. Nelson Jordan. In 1984 she represented the 18 year old high school senior Petitioner/Daughter in an action for support and for aid in payment of future college expenses against the Respondent/Father in the Marlboro County Family Court. An Order awarded her continued support until graduation from high school despite an earlier divorce decree specifically ending Respondent's obligation for support when the daughter reached age 18. The issue of college support was held in abeyance pending her acceptance at an accredited college or university.

In 1985, she again represented the daughter in an action in Family Court for support to aid her in payment of college expenses. Respondent/Father denied the daughter's entitlement to support and set up a novel defense that the daughter's "disrespectful conduct toward her father" should bar any entitlement.

An Order dated January 3, 1986 was issued after a hearing, which required Respondent to pay support, a portion of the college expenses, and a portion of Petitioner's attorney's fees.

Respondent/Father appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court contesting the payment of support to an adult child to attend college, the amount of the support, the requirement to pay for a prior college semester, and the granting attorney's fees.

The parties, through their attorneys, resolved their differences to each's satisfaction and the Supreme Court appeal was dismissed August 15, 1986, by Order of Chief Justice J. B. Ness. John I. Rogers, III, represented the Respondent.

This case is significant because of the lower court's holding: the payment of child support for a child over the age of majority through her reasonable completion of high school is in the best interests of the child despite a divorce Order stipulating age 18 as the cutoff date. Secondarily, lack of cordiality in visitation between child and parent is not sufficient grounds to deny payment of support for college expenses when other Supreme Court tests in this regard are met.

16.     She co-manages rental property owned jointly with her husband.

17.     Other professions: She taught English 101 and 102 as a graduate assistant at USC, 1970-1971; Editor of McColl Messinger, June 1977 - August, 1977; Public School Teacher: Cyril Busbee Middle School, 1969-1970; Bennettsville High School 1972-1974; Matheson Street School for the Handicapped, 1977-1979; Blenheim High School, 1979-1981.

23.     Her health is excellent.

24.     Her vision is corrected to 20/20 by eyeglasses.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Chesterfield-Marlboro Economic Opportunity Council; Marlboro County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission; Marlboro County Citizens Advisory Committee (Grassroots); Marlboro County Commission on Child Abuse and Neglect; Marlboro County and south Carolina Historical Societies; Bennettsville Garden Club; Sixth Congressional District Task Force; St. Paul's Episcopal Church, ECW Palmetto Book Club; Marlboro County Arts Council.

31.     She has provided home placement for minors on an emergency basis. She served as pro bono counsel and/or Guardian Ad Litem for minors for six years in cases where Departments of Social Services cited child abuse and/or neglect.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Dot Thompson, Branch Manager

First Union National Bank

311 East Main Street

P.O. Box 1015

Bennettsville, SC 29512

(b) Eugene Huggins, Esquire

209 West Main Street

Bennettsville, SC 29512

(c) Gordon McBride, Solicitor, Fourth Judicial Circuit

Darlington County Courthouse, Room 411

P.O. Box 2555

Darlington, SC 29550

(d) William A. Rogers, Esquire

President, Marlboro County Bar Association

P. O. Box 974

Bennettsville, SC 29512-0974

(e) J. Harold Modlin, Mayor

Town of McColl

Gibson Avenue

McColl, SC 29570

Q.     MRS. OHANESIAN, I BELIEVE YOU FILED AS A CANDIDATE FOR A SEAT ON THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 3, IN FAMILY COURT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS SENT TO YOU?
A.     YES.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTION OR ELABORATION?
A.     JUST THE BIRTH DATE AND I CONTACTED MS. KINARD ON THAT.
Q.     HAVE YOU LET SOMEONE KNOW THAT?
A.     YES, I HAVE.
Q.     WE'VE CHECKED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE AND FIND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS IN YOUR NAME WITH THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN MARLBORO COUNTY AND THE BENNETTSVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK AND THE F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CHECK BOTH CAME BACK NEGATIVE ON YOU, AS DID THE CHECK ON THE JUDGMENT ROLLS FOR MARLBORO COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL JUDGMENT ROLLS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. I BELIEVE THIS IS ALSO YOUR FIRST SCREENING, IS IT NOT?
A.     YES, IT IS.
Q.     YOU ARE CURRENTLY IN PRACTICE IN BENNETTSVILLE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU LISTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OF THE LITIGATION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OR ARE PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN IS DOMESTIC IN NATURE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE, YOU THINK, SINCE 1981 WHEN YOU WERE HERE?
A.     YES.
Q.     JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, I WAS IMPRESSED TO SEE THAT YOUR SON GLENN WAS ACCEPTED TO THE LAW SCHOOL AT CAROLINA AT THE AGE OF 20 AND THAT KIND OF HUMBLED ME.
A.     WE ARE VERY PROUD OF HIM. I'M REAL PLEASED WITH MY SON.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED, NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION TO THE SEAT. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME?
A.     NO, SIR.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR BARBARA?

REP. ROGERS: I WOULD AT THIS TIME FOR THE RECORD NOTE THAT I WILL EXCUSE MYSELF FROM ACTING ON BARBARA'S APPLICATION OR THE APPLICATION OF MR. SPRUILL BECAUSE THEY ARE IN MY CIRCUIT AND I WILL, THEREFORE, NOT PARTICIPATE. BARBARA IS A CONSTITUENT OF MINE. NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BARBARA. THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: VIC, VIC RAWL.

MR. RAWL: YES, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: YOU ARE NEXT.

MR. ALFRED VICTOR RAWL, CANDIDATE FOR CIRCUIT COURT, AT LARGE, SEAT 6, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Alfred Victor Rawl

Home Address:     Business Address:

32 Beverly Road     1612 Marion Street

Charleston, SC 29407     Columbia, SC 29202

2.     He was born in Norfolk, Virginia on January 5, 1946.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Laura Hamilton on November 2, 1968. They have 2 children: Alfred Victor, Jr., age 18 and Michael Hamilton, age 13.

5.     Military Service: South Carolina National Guard (Army); July 7, 1968 to present; LTC (247740376) Active Reserves.

6.     He received a B.S. Degree in History from The College of Charleston (1964-1968). He attended the University of Texas School of Law from June 1968 to August 1968 and left because of his military obligation. He received his Law Degree from the USC School of Law (1970-1973).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of law; small firm and sole practitioner 1973-1986 Assist. Solicitor, 9th Judicial Circuit Mar.1976-Dec. 1976 Workers' Compensation Commission 1986-present Reserve Judge Advocate Generals Corp. 1975-present

9.     Frequency of appearances in court:

Federal - one to two per year

State - ten per year

Other - Family Boards and Commissions 20 per year

(Since July, 1986, full time Workers' Compensation Commissioner -- this data represents appearances prior to July 1, 1986).

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 46% Criminal: 35% Domestic: 20%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 50% Non-Jury: 50%

mostly sole counsel

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) The Charleston After Hours. Inc. vs. Charleston County Police Department The issues involved were: 1) whether or not a corporation has a right to privacy; 2) the scope of administrative search, 3) damages. The facts were: The Charleston County Police Department, its agents and employees, entered into a course of action which included continuous nightly searches of the entire premise of the Plaintiff under the authority of the SC Alcohol Beverage Control Statutes. The course of action included the use of police dogs, harassing management and customers and searches of bathrooms, private offices, brief cases and dressing rooms. The result of this activity effectively closed Plaintiff's business. He tried it before Judge Don Rushing without a jury and received a verdict for the Plaintiff for intentional interference with on-going business and violation of constitutional right to privacy. Attorney fees and costs were also awarded.

(b) Ken Dougherty vs. W.H. Burhalter The issues involved were: 1) does the failure of a landlord to accept rent tendered on time and thereafter attempting to evict in Magistrate Court, twice, unsuccessfully, constitute the tort of abuse of process and if so, 2) what are the damages. The facts were: The Defendant, landlord, attempted on two separate occasions to evict the Plaintiff, tenant, for failure to pay rent. On both occasions, the Plaintiff proved in Magistrate Court that the rent had been paid on time or tendered on time and refused by the Defendant.

Thereafter Plaintiff proved to Judge Clyde Elzroth that the abusive use of the Magistrate Court to evict the Plaintiff without cause constitutes abuse of process. Damages were awarded to Plaintiff for actual costs of defending Magistrate actions, lost time and punitive damages.

(c) State of South Carolina vs. William Foster The issue was: What constitutes a Legend Drug. The facts were: William Foster was arrested in an undercover drug bust. At that time he possessed 30 caffeine tablets and two Sinaquine tablets. He had no prescription for the Sinaquine. The charges were possession and sale of Legend Drugs. At trial before Judge Clyde Robinson, a directed verdict for the Defendant resulted after the SLED chemist could not show that the components of Sinaquine were listed in the Legend Drug Statute.

(d) The City of Hanahan vs. Martha Phillips The issue was: the constitutionality of the city's disorderly conduct statute. Mrs. Phillips' daughter was wanted by the police for drug violations. The daughter did not live in Mrs. Phillips' home. The police were having the home watched and when the daughter showed up, they, without any warrant, stormed the home. Mrs. Phillips resisted and was arrested for disorderly conduct for resisting the search, and using abusive language. The City of Hanahan's ordinance was exactly the same as the State statute, except it did not distinguish between publicly and privately owned property. The City Magistrate dismissed the charges and found the City ordinance unconstitutional as being overly broad and violative of ones right to privacy and free speech.

(e) United States vs. Robinson The issue was: proof of Defendant's involvement in a cocaine transaction. The facts were: Defendant was found with a gun near the place, a motel room, where Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant B bought and sold two kilos of cocaine. The Federal Prosecutor proved to the jury's satisfaction that Defendant was the body guard of Defendant A. and he was convicted before Judge Falcon B. Hawkins.

15.     Judicial Office: since July 1, 1986, he has been South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commissioner, similar to Administrative Law Judge; appointed position with Senate confirmation. Jurisdiction set by Title 42 of the south Carolina Code of Laws and includes all matters dealing with on-the-job injuries, employment relationships, damage, insurance coverage, an, in some instances, crime victim compensation.

16.     Public Office: SC House of Representatives, District 119, June 1977-November 1978: SC Reorganization Commission, 1978-1980 (appointed); SC House of Representatives, District 119, November 1980-July 1, 1986; SC Workers' Compensation Commission, July 1986-present; Assistant Solicitor's Office 9th Judicial Circuit, March 1976-December 1976.

17.     Unsuccessful Candidate: Charleston County Legislative Delegation - 1973 (lost); SC House of Representative, District 119 - 1978 (lost); At Large Circuit Court Seat #4 - 1982 (withdrew).

19.     He manages his own small real estate holdings.

21.     Investigation: In 1986 the Charleston County police investigated him with regard to a client dispute with one Terry Hess, who claimed he had committed forgery. The matter was resolved completely without charges filed.

23.     His health is excellent.

27.     His eyesight is corrected to 20/20 by contact lens.

32.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: College of Charleston Foundation; SC Lions Club; SC Heart Fund; Charleston County Fraternal Order of Police; John Wesley Methodist Church.

33.     Other Information: He has participated in many conferences and CL programs to better qualify himself as a Workers' Compensation Commissioner and to keep abreast of current legal developments. These include: SC Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, 1985-1988; US Army Reserve Judge Advocate Generals On-Site Conference, 1986-1988: SC Workers' Compensation Claimant's Association Conference, 1985-1987; SC Workers' Compensation Educational Conference, 1986-1988; southern Association of Workers' Compensation Administrators, 1987, 1988; US National Guard Judge Advocate Generals Conference, 1986: SC Defense Trial Lawyers Association Annual Conference, 1988; SC Workers' Compensation Workshops, 1987,1988; SC Reorganization Commission Prison Overcrowding and Sentencing Guidelines Project, 1984, 1985.

34.     Five letters of reference:

(a) T. Stannard Hurteau, Vice President

Southern National Bank of South Carolina

P.O. Box 935

Charleston, SC 29402

(b) W. N. Epps, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Box 2167

Anderson, SC 29622

(c) Charles B. Barn well, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Drawer 329

Orangeburg, SC 29116-0329

(d) Wallace C. Holland

P.O. Box 993

Charleston, SC 29402

(e) D. Michael Kelly

P.O. Box 8113

Columbia, SC 29202

Q.     COMMISSIONER RAWL, I BELIEVE YOU'VE FILED AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT BEAT, AT LARGE, SEAT NUMBER SIX; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT; HAVE YOU LOOKED OVER THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT WAS SENT BACK TO YOU?
A.     YES, I HAVE. THERE WAS ONE ERROR. I WAS BORN IN NORFOLK, VIRGINIA; NOT CHARLESTON COUNTY.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. AND YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. AND WE FOUND THE RECORDS OF THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE CLEAR, ALSO; AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. FOUND NO RECORDS IN YOUR NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY OR IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST THAT WAS FILED WITH US SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION, NOR WERE ANY COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED. YOU HAVEN'T UNDERGONE ANY OTHER SCREENING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, HAVE YOU?
A.     YES, I HAVE. I WAS SCREENED IN 1982.
Q.     WHAT SEAT WAS THAT FOR?
A.     I WAS SCREENED FOR THE AT LARGE CIRCUIT COURT POSITION PRESENTLY HELD BY FRANK MCGOWAN.
Q.     AND YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION SINCE 1986?
A.     JUNE OF 1986, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, THE ONLY OTHER MATTER THAT'S ON YOUR APPLICATION THAT NEEDS ANY ATTENTION IS IN 1986 I BELIEVE YOU REPORTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN INVESTIGATION, I BELIEVE, BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REGARDING A CLIENT DISPUTE WITH ONE TERRY HESS BUT THAT MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OR THE CHARLESTON COUNTY BAR REVIEW OR THE STATE GRIEVANCES. IT WAS A CLIENT DISPUTE. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT, SUFFICE IT TO SAY, IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED FULLY. TRIED TO TURN A CLIENT DISPUTE INTO A CRIMINAL MATTER INCORRECTLY AND IT WAS RESOLVED.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU FEEL YOU SHOULD BRING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME IN REGARDS TO YOUR APPLICATION?
A.     YOU HAVE MY APPLICATION AND I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL LETTERS SENT ON MY BEHALF THAT I'M AWARE OF AND, QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULD BE GLAD TO GIVE ANY COMMENTS THAT I COULD, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT BEING A JUDGE IS TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF THE STATE WHICH HAS BEEN HELD EXTREMELY HIGH IN THE PAST AND I HOPE, IF ELECTED, THAT I WILL MAINTAIN THOSE STANDARDS.

MR. BATES: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

REP. ROGERS: COMMISSIONER, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE VOLUMINOUS RECORDS OF LETTERS OF ENDORSEMENT, NOT FROM FIVE INDIVIDUALS BUT FROM MANY, MANY OTHERS AND WE APPRECIATE THOSE AND THEY ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF MR. RAWL?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JIM SPRUILL.

(MR. JIM SPRUILL, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     James A. Spruill, III

Home Address:     Business Address:

230 Third Street     P.O. Box 511

Cheraw, SC 29520     Cheraw, SC 29520

2.     He was born in Wadesboro, North Carolina on May 31, 1944.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Sarah Patrick Cain on July 17, 1971. They have 2 children: Sarah Patrick, age 13; Eleanor Calder, age 11.

5.     Military Service: U.S. Naval Reserve - Active Duty 1965-1967, Active Reserve 1967-1970; Lieutenant; SN 698156/1105. Chose to be in standby status at end of his reserve obligation, but is unsure of present status.

6.     He attended The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning a B.A. Degree (1961-1965) and a JD Degree, cum Laude, from the School of Law (1967-1970).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Clerk to Honorable Robert W. Hemphill, U.S. District Judge 1970-1971; Associate to Frank L. Taylor in the General Practice of Law in Richland County 1971-December, 1973; Partner in the firm of Griggs, Spruill and Harris in the General Practice of Law in Cheraw, January 1974-present.

9.     Frequency of appearances in court:

Federal - one per year

State ß Average of 3 hearings a week

Other - various administrative agencies

10.     Percentage of litigation:

Civil: 50% Domestic: 49%     Criminal: 1%

11.     Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury: 25%     Non-Jury: 75%

sole counsel in overwhelming majority

12.     Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Avers vs. Patent. et al. CA#4-85-2153. Difficult products matter with substantial medical. Co-counsel for Plaintiff. Case was settled in trial for far largest figure with which he has been involved.

(b) Curry vs. Byrd, 344 SE 2d 384, 289 S.C. 15, (SC App 1986). represented Defendant in accident caused by removal of stop sign. Plaintiff's medical was substantial and defense verdict constituted nice victory as there had been settlement offer.

(c) Ellerbe vs. Town of Cheraw, CA#79-66-0. Represented Defendant (lead counsels) in Civil Rights action for death of a young child. Tried at length before Judge Perry without a jury. The case had serious political and financial ramifications for the Town. Judge Perry decided in his favor.

(d) McLean. et al. vs. Carolina Canners. Inc., CA#79-815. Tried before Judge Houck without a jury. Successfully represented Plaintiffs in claim under statute for pension benefits accrued but not vested before Plaintiffs were terminated by Defendant.

(e) Chaps Fords. Inc., vs. Ford Motor Company, CA#76-257. He represented Plaintiff in claim under SC Dealers Act against Ford. Jury gave large verdict, later settled while appeal pending. He felt that it was a successful "David" against "Goliath".

16.     He is the Commissioner of Cheraw Housing Authority which owns and operates 270 units of public housing.

21.     Sued: As Director of McLeod Regional Medical Center, he was sued by a podiatrist about hospital privileges. He believes the dispute was resolved.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Cheraw Rotary Club Cheraw Country Club; St. David's Episcopal Church: St. David's Society; Cheraw Chamber of Commerce; UNC and USC Alumni Associations.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) C. Larry Haynes, Vice President/City Executive

First Citizens Bank P.O. Box 847

Cheraw, SC 29520

(b) T. Belk Ingram, Esquire

204 Front Street

Cheraw, SC 29520

(c) C.H. McBride, Mayor, Town of Cheraw

P.O. Box 111 Cheraw, SC 29520

(d) James I. Redfearn, Esquire

300 East Main Street

Chesterfield, SC 29709

(e) H.F. Bell, Esquire

P.O. Box 189

Chesterfield, SC 29709

Q.     MR. SPRUILL, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE FILED TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE FAMILY COURT IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 3; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS SENT BACK TO YOU?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTION OR ELABORATION IN THERE?
A.     IT'S ACCURATE. THERE WAS A DATE INCORRECT THAT I REPORTED EARLIER.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND THOSE OF THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN CHESTERFIELD AND CHERAW. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK, AS WELL AS THE F.B.I. BOTH WERE ALSO CLEAR, AS WERE THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SITTING ON THE BENCH. YOUR CREDIT RECORD WAS EXCELLENT. WE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS OR WITNESSES CONTACTING US TO TESTIFY. I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP ONE THING. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY FOUR CASES, I BELIEVE THEY WERE FEDERAL CASES, THAT APPEARED IN THE SLED CHECK BUT IF I'M MISTAKEN, PLEASE, LET ME KNOW, THAT THEY WERE ALL HAVING TO DO WITH YOUR FATHER?
A.     NO, ONE OF THEM--AND I MENTIONED AT MY CALL ABOUT THE WRONG DATE ON MY ANNIVERSARY--ONE OF THEM WAS--DID INVOLVE ME. IT WAS A CASE, THE CASE THAT IS SHOWN AS WALTER SUBER VERSUS MCLEOD"S AND THE BOARD MEMBERS OF MCLEOD'S HOSPITAL. THAT WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT A PODIATRIST'S PRIVILEGES IN THE HOSPITAL.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, AND THAT WAS DISMISSED OR RESOLVED?
A.     IT WAS RESOLVED SOMEHOW. IT WAS CERTAINLY NEVER TRIED.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU NOTED THAT.
A.     I NOTED IT IN MY APPLICATION WHERE I HAD BEEN MADE A DEFENDANT, AND I WAS JUST INCORRECTLY NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT AS IT WAS TYPED. IT WAS SERVED ON ME AND IT WAS ME.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU NOTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 49 PERCENT OF YOUR CURRENT CASE LOAD IS DOMESTIC TYPE CASES.
A.     YES, AND WHEN I DID THAT, I MEANT IN NUMBER. I WOULD NOT PROBABLY SPEND AS MUCH AS 49 PERCENT OF MY PRACTICE TIME ON THAT BUT I THINK THAT'S A FAIR GUESS.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. JUST AS A SIDE NOTE TO YOU, I USED TO PRACTICE LAW WITH YOUR BROTHER DUDEY.
A.     IS THAT RIGHT?
Q.     I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF HIM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY OFFICE WAS RIGHT NEXT TO HIS AND I THINK A GREAT DEAL OF HIM.
A.     THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU THINK YOU NEED TO BRING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THIS TIME THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SHOWN UP IN THE APPLICATION OR ANY STATEMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A.     NO, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JIM.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE CRAINE.

(HONORABLE WILLIAM JENNINGS CRAINE, JR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Williams Jennings Craine, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

103 Leftbank Court     P.O. Box 325

Laurens, SC 29360     Laurens, SC 29360

2.     He was born in Laurens, South Carolina on June 1, 1944.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Patricia Cook on June 25, 1966. They have 2 children: Kristin Ashley, age 17 years and Kylie Jennings, age 8 years.

5.     Military Service: He was a Lieutenant in the U. S. Navy, serving active duty from 1968-1972 (SN ***-**-***** - Honorable Discharge).

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, where he received an A.B. Degree in History (1962-1967) and a Juris Doctor (1965-1968).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He entered the Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy in 1968 and served until September of 1972. He was a sole practitioner in Laurens from 1972 to 1977. He was appointed acting County Judge in February of 1977. He was elected Family Court Judge in July 1977 and has served continuously since.

13.     Judicial Office: Acting Family Court Judge from February 1977 to July 1977. This Judgeship was appointed by county council and had jurisdiction in Family Court matters and Circuit matters up to $20,000. Elected Family Court Judge in July, 1977. Jurisdiction in Family Court is limited by statute to family matters.

15.     Unsuccessful candidate: He was an unsuccessful candidate for the SC House of Representatives in 1976. He also solicited pledges for the unexpired term of Circuit Judge Francis Nicholson, but did not file.

22.     Complaints: He has had several complaints made against him, all summarily dismissed without the necessity of a hearing. One complaint, recently made, is still pending before the Grievance Committee.

(a) This complaint involved a lady who felt she did not receive enough alimony.

(b)     The second complaint involved a matter occurring while he was practicing law, but was filed after he became a judge. The client, a widow, settled a partition suit brought against her by her husband's children of a former marriage. The law required a 1/3 - 2/3 division and they made a settlement in kind. The trial court approved the settlement as reasonable and fair. Eight years later, the complaint was made.

(c) A third complaint arose out of a domestic litigation between as elderly couple (92 and 89 years old). Since the wife was in need of constant care and was already living in one of her daughter's home, he granted possession of the marital home to the husband who was able to live alone. The parties' children had taken sides, and those siding with their mother were dissatisfied with the ruling and complained to the Grievance Committee.

(d) Another complaint involved a litigant held in contempt for wearing a tee shirt with obscene words on it into the courtroom.

(e) Another complaint involved a paternity suit. The defendant took an HLA blood test which showed a high degree of probability that he was the father of the child. He was dissatisfied with the ruling and made a complaint.

(f) The pending complaint involved his review of another judge's decision holding that the defendant had abused his wife. The defendant was dissatisfied with both the original ruling and with the review and made a complaint. Not enough time has elapsed for a ruling by the Grievance Committee.

23.     His health is excellent.

24.     He takes dyazide for mild hypertension, under the care of Dr. H. Bryon Parker of Laurens.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: First Presbyterian Church; Masons; Laurens Y.M.C.A.; American Legion; Laurens County Arts Council; Laurens County Community Theatre; Abbeville Community Theatre.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) L. Leon Patterson

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

The Palmetto Bank

P. O. Box 49

Laurens, SC 29360

(b) Ms. Bobbie D. Wilson

Judge of Probate

P. O. Box 194

Laurens, SC 29360-0194

(c) G. William Thomason, Esquire

President, Greenwood Co. Bar Assoc.

P. O. Box 1115

Greenwood, SC 29648

(d) Marvin R. Watson, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 799

Greenwood, SC 29648-0799

(e) Ms. Lynn M. Jones

Director, Community Programs

Department of Youth Services

Greenwood County Courthouse, Room 202

Greenwood, SC 29646

Q.     JUDGE CRAINE, I BELIEVE YOU'RE CURRENTLY THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE, SEAT NUMBER 1, IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     AND YOU WERE ELECTED IN 1977?
A.     RIGHT.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS FOUND NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. LET ME BACK UP ONE STEP, PLEASE. DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDED CORRECTION IN THAT?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. I BELIEVE YOU DID NOTE IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INFORMAL COMPLAINTS BUT THERE HAVE BEEN NO FORMAL CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING WAS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THERE IS CURRENTLY PENDING AN INFORMAL COMPLAINT INVOLVING YOUR REVIEW OF ANOTHER JUDGE'S DECISION IN A DOMESTIC CASE AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NOT YET ACTED ON THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE INSIGHT AS TO WHAT THAT'S ABOUT?
A.     WELL, IT WAS A CHARLESTON COUNTY CASE AND ANOTHER--IT WAS ONE OF THESE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES AND ANOTHER JUDGE REQUIRED THE MAN TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE HOME AND HE DIDN'T. I REVIEWED THE CASE AND REQUIRED HIM TO REMOVE HIMSELF AGAIN AND THEN THE MAN MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST BOTH OF US, BOTH JUDGES.
Q.     WILL YOU INFORM THE COMMITTEE OF WHATEVER DECISION IS MADE BY THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE LAURENS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND LAURENS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. CHECKING WITH SLED AND WITH THE F.B.I., THE RECORDS WERE ALSO CLEAR THERE, AS WERE THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LAURENS COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS GOOD. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN YOUR STATUS SINCE THEN THAT YOU NEED TO BRING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY EITHER. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE CRAINE.
A.     THANK YOU, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE CHARLES.

(HONORABLE WILLIAM K. CHARLES, JR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     William K. Charles, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

Abbeville Highway     P. O. Box 3244

Greenwood, SC 29649     Greenwood, SC 29648

2.     He was born in McCormick, South Carolina on March 15, 1925.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Elisabeth Gray Scurry on January 25, 1947. They have 3 children: William K., III, age 41 (attorney); Lila Catherine Heard, age 38 (school teacher); Carroll Scurry, age 34 (real estate agent).

5.     Military Service: He was in the U. S. Marine Corp from 1944-1946 (SN 847581 - Honorable Discharge).

6.     He attended the Citadel from 1942 through 1943, leaving to join the Marine Corp. He attended the University of South Carolina and the Law School there, earning a LL. B. and J.D in 1949.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He was a member of the firm of Charles and Charles in Greenwood, engaged in the general practice of law, particularly tort and criminal, 1949-1971. He was City Attorney for the City of Greenwood from 1961 to 1983. During 1971-1975, he was sole practitioner, engaging in tort, criminal and family law and from 1975-1983 he was the senior member of the firm of Charles, Charles & Scurry in Greenwood. Pursuant to the appointment by the Governor on August as, 1983, he became Family Court Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3 on September 1, 1983. He was elected to the position by the General Assembly on February 1, 1984 and has served continuously since.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, September 1, 1983 to present.

21.     Sued: Yes

Nelson Brown vs. Wm. K Charles. Jr.. et al, C/A #84-CP-24-31. Suit for reimbursement of expenses paid by the City of Greenwood to Wm. K. Charles, Jr., as City Attorney for attending meetings of the SC Municipal Assoc. and other city related activities. The suit was dismissed with prejudice; Court admonished him on record for bringing frivolous actions.

22.     A complaint was made pursuant to the case of Cheek v. Cheek, where a Supplemental Order was issued at the request of the parties' attorneys which amended the original Order in the method of paying support and tax exemptions. Mrs. Cheek's complaint was dismissed on May 28, 1987.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Main Street United Methodist Church; Kiwanis Club.

33. Five letters of reference:

(a) Lynn W. Hodge, President

United Savings & Loan Assoc.

P. O. Box 3029

Greenwood, SC 29648

(b) R. Thornwell Dunlap, III

Vice President, The County Bank

P.O. Box 3129

Greenwood, SC 29648

(c) Eston W. Page, Esquire

P. O. Box 909

Laurens, SC 29360

(d) J. P. Anderson, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Drawer 1268

Greenwood, SC 29648

(e) Thomas E. Hite, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 805

Asheville. SC 29620

Q.     JUDGE CHARLES, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     YES, SIR, THERE WAS ONE ERROR WHICH I NOTIFIED MS. KINARD OF.
Q.     ALL RIGHT.
A.     IT WAS 1941 AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN 1949.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE INFORMS US THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS ISSUED NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN GREENWOOD AND THE GREENWOOD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I., YOUR RECORDS ARE ALSO CLEAR THERE, AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS IN GREENWOOD COUNTY AND WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART. YOUR CREDIT RECORD WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE FINE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION TO THE SEAT AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. THE ONLY SUIT THAT WAS FOUND IN YOUR NAME, AND I BELIEVE YOU DIVULGED THIS, WAS BACK IN 1984, BROWN VERSUS CHARLES. ET AL; THAT WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE WITH ADMONISHMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS SUIT, IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT ACCURATE?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THEN THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NO, SIR.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR. JUDGE ROBERT MALLARD.

(HONORABLE ROBERT R. MALLARD, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Robert R. Mallard

Home Address:     Business Address:

1300 Lenevar Dr. S.     P. O. Box 1252

Charleston, SC 29407     Charleston, SC 29402

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on January 8, 1933.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Ruth Louise Hills on July 19, 1958. They have 5 children: Robert R., Jr., age 29 (residential construction superintendent); Timothy S., age 27 (advertising salesman); Christopher S., age 26 (prospective law students; Rose Elizabeth M. Alexander, age 23 (employed by SCE&G): Patrick J., age 20 (restaurant worker).

5.     Military Service: U. S. Army active duty from June 1953 - May 1956 (PFC US 53-185-326) - Honorable Discharge); six years inactive reserve.

6.     He attended the Citadel, where he received a B.S. Degree in Commerce (1955-1959) and the University of South Carolina School of Law where he earned the L.L.B Degree (1959-1962).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He engaged in the private general practice of law in Charleston from August, 1962 (when admitted to the Bar), until July 1970. He as elected as Associate Judge of Charleston County Family Court on July 1, 1970 and has served continuously since.

13.     Judicial Office: Associate Judge of Family Court of Charleston Count from July 1, 1970 to July 1, 1977 -- elected by Charleston County legislative delegation and appointed by the Governor; elected as Family Court Judge by General Assembly to Seat #2, Ninth Judicial Circuit, July 1, 1977 - to present)

15.     Unsuccessful Candidate: In 1982 he offered for resident Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, but lost the election in the General Assembly.

21.     Sued: Yes, he was involved in a mortgage foreclosure action as the agent/lawyer of the mortgagor in 1971; the case was settled.

23.     His health is excellent.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Director, James F. Byrnes Foundation.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) John M. Settle, President

Home Federal Savings Bank

P. O. Box 1036

Charleston, SC 29402

(b) Benjamin Goldberg, Esquire

President, Charleston County Bar

42 Broad Street

Charleston, SC 29401

(c) Joseph P. Riley, Jr.

Mayor of Charleston

P. O. Box 652

Charleston, SC 29402

(d) Rev. Robert J. Kelly

Pastor, Blessed Sacrament Church

5 St. Teresa Drive

Charleston, SC 29407

(e) Carl E. Renken

Renken Boat Manufacturing Company, Inc.

1750 Signal Point Road

Charleston, SC 29412

Q.     JUDGE MALLARD.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOU'VE FILED, REFILED FOR THE FAMILY COURT SEAT IN THE NINTH - CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 2; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU HAVE BEEN SERVING SINCE 1970 AND SINCE 1977 IN THE UNIFIED SYSTEM, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES.
Q.     IS EVERYTHING ACCURATE ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW?
A.     YES.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS LIKEWISE. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN CHARLESTON AND WITH THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN CHARLESTON. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I, YOUR RECORD IS ALSO CLEAR, AS WELL AS ON THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS FINE. THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT THREE LAWSUITS, I BELIEVE ALL IN FEDERAL COURT, IN WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY; ONE IN 1973, WOODRUFF VERSUS MALLARD, ET AL. I BELIEVE THAT WAS A HABEAS CORPUS ACTION AND THAT IT WAS DISMISSED. DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?
A.     NO, SIR, I--I THINK IT'S A BOBBY R. MALLARD.
Q.     YES, SIR.
A.     THAT'S NOT ME.
Q.     THAT'S NOT YOU, OKAY.
A.     I THINK IT WAS OUT OF GEORGETOWN IF I'M NOT INCORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THERE WAS A CASE IN 1979, JOHNSON VERSUS MCLEOD, ET AL; AND IN 1986, U.S.A. VERSUS --WELL, THE 1986 CASE IS BOBBY R. MALLARD. I BELIEVE THE '73 CASE--(PAUSE; VIEWING DOCUMENT)--THE 1973 CASE WAS NELLO HOYLE WOODRUFF VERSUS JUDGE MALLARD, CHARLESTON COUNTY COURT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. THAT WAS THE HABEAS CORPUS ACTION.
A.     I DON'T RECALL THAT.
Q.     WELL, IN ANY EVENT, OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT IT WAS DISMISSED.
A.     THE MCLEOD CASE WAS ALL THE JUDGES IN THE FAMILY COURT WERE SUED ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NOT APPOINTING ATTORNEYS IN CONTEMPT MATTERS FOR NON-SUPPORT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL ASSISTANCE FUND, AND THAT WAS DISMISSED IN THE PRELIMINARY MOTION BEFORE JUDGE HAWKINS IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
Q.     THE ONE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE BOBBY MALLARD YOU AIN'T.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     THAT WAS IN 1985 AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS A FORECLOSURE ACTION.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.     YES, SIR, '85, '82, '81, AND '77.
Q.     YOU HAVE BEEN WELL-SCREENED THEN.
A.     I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
Q.     WE HAVE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE 1985, YOUR LAST SCREENING, THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NO, SIR.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q.     JUDGE MALLARD, THERE HAVE BEEN NO DISCIPLINARY MATTERS SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING INVOLVING YOU, HAVE THERE?
A.     NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE MALLARD?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE MALLARD.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE CREECH.

(HONORABLE WAYNE M. CREECH, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 4, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Wayne M. Creech

Home Address:     Business Address:

115 Birch street     P.O. Box 1637

Moncks Corner, SC 29461     Moncks Corner, SC 29461

2.     He was born in Moncks Corner, South Carolina on July 31, 1951.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Annette Lewis Cook on June 23, 1979. A previous marriage ended in divorce November 11, 1976 on grounds of desertion, with himself as moving party. He has 4 children: Wayne Morris, Jr., age 18 (students; Andrew Wade, age 7 years; Alex Scott, age 4 years: Kelly Elizabeth, age 8 months.

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     He attended the University of South Carolina, where he received a B.S. Degree in Business Administration (1969-1973) and a Juris Doctor in 1976.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Law Offices of N.H. West - Associate - August 1976-July 1977

Dennis & Dennis - Associate - July 1977-January 1978

Dennis, Dennis, & Watson - Associate - January 1978-1981;

Watson & Creech - Partner - November 1981-July 1983

Watson, Creech & Tiencken - Partner - July 1983-January 1987

Watson, Creech, Tiencken & West - Partner - January 1987-March 1987

Wayne M. Creech - Sole Practitioner - March 1987-September 1988

Family Court Judge - October 1988-Present.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4, elected by the General Assembly April 27, 1988 to complete the unexpired term of the Honorable Warren H. Jolly, from October 1, 1988 June 30, 1989.

14.     Public Office: Moncks Corner Town Attorney, elected by council, November 1980 to March 1987

17. Title Insurance Agent:

Investors Title Insurance Company: July 1978 to September 1988.

Lawyers Title Insurance Company: May 1982 to September 1988.

22.     Disciplined: He was the subject of three complaints to the S.C. Bar Board of Grievances and Discipline as follows:

1) 1982 Donald Johnson, dismissed.

2) 1986 Leon Ramsey, dismissed.

3) 1988 Raymond J. Miller, dismissed.

23.     His health is good.

27.     In early 1986 he was treated for temporary depressed mood; the condition was temporary and is completely resolved.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Moncks Corner United Methodist Church, member from March 1961 - January 1985; First Baptist Church of Moncks Corner, member from January 1985 - present.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Sam Parker, Assistant Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 1214

Moncks Corner, SC 29461

(b) Rev. Harold N. West, Jr.

112 East Main Street

Moncks Corner, SC 29461

(c) Gedney M. Howe, III, Esquire

P. O. Box 1440

Charleston, SC 29402

(d) Morris D. Rosen, Esquire

P. O. Box 893

Charleston, SC 29402

(e) Russell W. Harter, Jr., Esquire

P.O. Box 10224 F.S.

Greenville, SC 29603.

Q.     JUDGE, I BELIEVE YOU ARE CURRENTLY SITTING ON SEAT NUMBER 4 IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR; HAVE YOU LOOKED OVER THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY AND PERSONAL DATA?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANY NEED FOR ANY CHANGES OR ELABORATION?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTED THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION LIKEWISE REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND WITH THE MONCKS CORNER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK AS WELL AS THE F.B.I. CHECK ALSO CAME BACK NEGATIVE. THE JUDGEMENT ROLLS OF BERKELEY COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS, LIKEWISE, WERE NEGATIVE. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS, AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS EXCELLENT. I BELIEVE YOU WERE ELECTED TO THIS SEAT IN 1988, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THE PAST YEAR THAT THE COMMITTEE OUGHT TO BE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU TODAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q.     JUDGE CREECH, YOU VERY PROPERLY INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT YOU'VE HAD THREE INFORMAL COMPLAINTS WITH JUDICIAL STANDARDS BUT ALL OF THOSE WERE FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT AND WERE DISMISSED. THERE ARE NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS?
A.     YES, SIR. THAT WAS WITH THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND NOT JUDICIAL STANDARDS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
Q.     BUT THOSE WERE ALL DISMISSED AS HAVING NO MERIT?
A.     YES, SIR. YES.
Q.     THANK YOU FOR COMMENTING ON THOSE IN YOUR APPLICATION.
A.     YES, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE MCCLAIN.

(HONORABLE J. FRANKLIN MCCLAIN, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1. J. Franklin McClain

Home Address:     Business Address:

606 Sherry Drive     P. O. Box 4046

Anderson, SC 29621     Anderson, SC 29622

2.     He was born in Anderson, South Carolina on October 30, 1946.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Marlene Thompson on February 25, 1978. They have 2 children: James Thompson, age 3 and Mary-Catherine Elizabeth, age 3.

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He earned a B.A. Degree at Wake Forest University (1964-1968) and a Juris Doctor at the University of South Carolina Law School (1970-1973).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

From 1973 to 1979 he engaged in the general practice of law; from 1974 to 1979 he was the City Recorder for the City of Anderson. He has served as Family Court Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit from 1979 to the present.

13.     Judicial Office: July 1974 - April 1979, appointed by City Council as Anderson City Recorder, criminal jurisdiction with maximum penalty of a $100 fine or 30 days in jail.1979 - present, elected by the General Assembly as Family Court Judge, Tenth Circuit.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate for the SC House of Representatives in 1972.

16.     Previously he taught school at Pickens Junior High School from 1968-1970.

18.     A DUI arrest in August 1973 was dismissed.

22.     A grievance concerning representation in a civil suit was determined unfounded by the Grievance Committee.

23.     His health is excellent

24.     His eyesight is somewhat impaired due to a weak cornea. Laser surgery has been done on one eye.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Anderson Youth Treatment Center; Anderson Chamber of Commerce; Governor's Committee for Children at Risk.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Robert W. Wilkes, Jr.

Senior Vice President, C&S National Bank

P.O. Box 319

Anderson, SC 29621

(b) Michael D. Glenn, Esquire

P. O. Box 917

Anderson, SC 29622-0917

(c) Barry W. Knobel, Esquire

P.O. Box 22

Anderson, SC 29622

(d) W. N. Epps, Jr., Esquire

230 West Whitner Street,

P. O. Box 2167

Anderson, SC 29622

(e) V. Laniel Chapman, Esquire

P.O. Box 2506

Anderson, SC 29622

Q.     JUDGE MCCLAIN, YOU ARE CURRENTLY HOLDING SEAT NUMBER 1 OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU WERE ELECTED IN 1979?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU FOUND ANY CORRECTIONS OR ELABORATION NEEDED ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     NO.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU WERE PRACTICING LAW AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE ANDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. ON CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. WE FOUND NO RECORDS IN YOUR NAME, AS WELL AS WITH THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ANDERSON COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART, AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     I HAVE HAD TWINS SINCE THEN.
Q.     CONGRATULATIONS.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE DEAN HALL.

(HONORABLE H. DEAN HALL, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     H. Dean Hall

Home Address:     Business Address:

110 Carter Hall Drive     P. O. Box 4046

Anderson, SC 29621     Anderson, SC 29622

2.     He was born in Anderson, South Carolina on May 20, 1943.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Lily-Roland Ebert on August 30, 1969. They have no children.

5.     Military Service: He served in the Army National Guard of South Carolina, HHB 2dBn (AW) (SP) 263dADA, from December 12, 1968 to December 11, 1974, (SN ***-**-***** - Honorable Discharge).

6.     He attended Clemson University from September, 1961 - September, 1962; transferred to Anderson College from January, 1963 - August, 1963; transferred to the University of South Carolina from September, 1963 August, 1966, receiving a B.S. in Business Administration. He received a Juris Doctor Degree from the University of South Carolina, June 6, 1971.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Family Court Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, March 1986 - present

Hall Law Firm (Anderson) 1979-1986

Hall and McClain Anderson) 1973 - 1979

Anderson, Kenyon and Epps (Anderson) 1971 - 1973

Anderson and Chapman (Anderson) 1969 - 1971

Berry, Lightsey, Gibbes and Bowers (Columbia) 1967 - 1968

Concurrent--

Assistant Solicitor, Tenth Judicial Circuit, 1976 - 1980

City Recorder, Anderson, South Carolina, 1974 - 1976

13.     Judicial Office: March, 1986 - present, Family Court of South Carolina, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, elected by South Carolina Legislature, jurisdiction over juvenile and domestic matters; July, 1974 - July, 1976, City of Anderson Municipal Court, Appointed by City Council, jurisdiction over all city ordinances, state statutes where penalty does not exceed fine of $200 or 30 days incarceration.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: former member, Board of Directors, Salvation Army Electric City Sertoma Club (inactive); Anderson County Art Council; Anderson County Historical Society; First Baptist Church, Anderson

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Robert W. Wilkes, Jr., Senior Vice President

Citizens & Southern National Bank of SC

P.O. Box 319

Anderson, SC 29621

(b) V. Laniel Chapman, Esquire

117 West Benson Street

Anderson, SC 29621

(c) W.N. Epps, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 2167

Anderson, SC 29622

(d) Stephen K. Haigler, Esquire

121 West Benson Street

Anderson, SC 29624

(e) George Hugh Durham, Jr.

1008 North Main Street

Anderson, SC 29621

Q.     JUDGE HALL, YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 3 ON THE TENTH CIRCUIT OF FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     DO YOU FIND THAT ANYTHING ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE NEEDS CORRECTION OR ELABORATION?
A.     YES, I BELIEVE IT SHOWS THAT I STILL SERVE ON THE LOCAL BOARD OF THE SALVATION ARMY AND I NO LONGER SERVE ON THAT BOARD.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, THAT CORRECTION WILL BE NOTED. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THERE WERE NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE ANDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK, AS WELL AS THE F.B.I. CHECK CAME BACK NEGATIVE, AND THERE ARE NO RECORDS IN YOUR NAME ON THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ANDERSON COUNTY OR THE FEDERAL COURTS. THERE WAS ONE LAWSUIT, I BELIEVE, IN WHICH YOU SERVED AS ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ESTATE IN A FEDERAL CASE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     BUT THAT WAS AS A PLAINTIFF AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS?
A.     YES, WE HAD A STUDENT AT ANDERSON COLLEGE WHO WAS FROM PAKISTAN; AND HE WAS KILLED IN AN AUTO CRASH AND I SERVED AS HIS ADMINISTRATOR IN A SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS. THAT CASE HAS BEEN TRIED AND IS OVER.
Q.     THE ONLY REASON I ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT IS THAT WHEN SLED DID THEIR CHECK OF THE RECORDS THAT SHOWED UP AND I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING TO THAT. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS REPORTED AS FAIR. YOUR EARLIER SCREENING, I BELIEVE WAS IN 1985?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THAT'S WHEN YOU WENT ON THE BENCH?
A.     YES.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THEN THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NO.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY AGAINST YOU IN YOUR REAPPLICATION. MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE GRIFFITH.

(HONORABLE JEFF D. GRIFFITH, JR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Jeff D. Griffith, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

P.O. Box 387     Lex. County Courthouse

Saluda, SC 29138     Lexington, SC 29072

2.     He was born in Saluda, South Carolina on October 28, 1927.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Margaret Mitchell on July 22, 1950. They have 4 children: Lynn G. Todd, age 37 (teacher); Jeff D., III, age 33 (attorney); Julia G. White, age 32 (registered nurse); E. Mitchell, age 30 (attorney).

5.     Military Service: He served in the U. S. Navy, February 1946 - October 1947, (Seaman First Class; 582-49-71; - Honorable Discharge).

6.     He attended Wofford College from September 1945 to February 1946 and February 1948 to June 1950. He completed 3 years without receiving a degree, electing to enter Law School at USC, where he received an LL.B. Degree in 1952.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

From 1953 to 1977 he was in the general practice of law in Saluda in the law firm of Griffith and Coleman. He was appointed Judge of Family Court for Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda Counties, serving on a part time basis while continuing his law practice from 1972 to July l, 1977 when he was elected Family Court Judge, Seat #2, Eleventh Judicial Circuit. He has served continuously since

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge for Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda Counties, January 1972-July 1977. Family Court Judge, 11th Judicial Circuit, July 1977 to present.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: St. Paul United Methodist Church, Saluda.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Frank E. Addy, Jr., President

Saluda County Bank

P. O. Box 247 Saluda, SC 29138

(b) Kathryne P. Butler

Clerk of Court

McCormick, SC 29835

(c) Edith C. Padget

Clerk of Court, Retired

P. O. Box 553

Saluda, SC 29138

(d) George S. Nicholson, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 489

Lexington, SC 29072

(e) Archie L. Harman, General Counsel

Mid Carolina Electric Cooperative

P.O. Drawer 669

Lexington, SC 29072

Q.     JUDGE GRIFFITH, I BELIEVE YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 2 ON THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND YOU FIRST STARTED SERVING IN 1972 AND THEN IN 1977 UNDER THE UNIFIED SYSTEM?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRES
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     DO YOU FIND EVERYTHING TO BE IN ORDER?
A.     IT IS IN ORDER.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES WHILE PRACTICING LAW AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS RECORDS WITH THE SALUDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE SALUDA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. YOUR RECORDS WERE FOUND TO BE NEGATIVE. THAT MEANS WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING.
A.     I UNDERSTAND.
Q.     THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SALUDA COUNTY AND AT THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE, LIKEWISE, FOUND TO BE CLEAR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART, AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, I BELIEVE.
A.     THAT'S TRUE.
Q.     HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING SINCE THAT TIME THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: MARC WESTBROOK. JUDGE WESTBROOK.

JUDGE WESTBROOK: STILL MARC, I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY NAME.

(HONORABLE MARC H. WESTBROOK, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Marc Herbert Westbrook

Home Address:     Business Address:

115 Cedar Lane Parkway     Lex. County Courthouse

West Columbia, SC 29169     Lexington, SC 29072

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on October 3, 1946.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Linda Louise Lawhon on August 23, 1969. They have 2 children: Thadeous Herbert, III, age 14 and Richard Neal, age 11.

5.     Military Service: None.

6.     He attended Anderson Junior College, 1964-1966 (A.A. Degree); University of South Carolina, 1966-1968 (B.A. Degrees; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1968-1970: University of South Carolina Law School, 1970-1973 (J.D. Degree).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1973-1979 Bryan, Crosby & Bates - Associate

1979-1980 Turnipseed, Dew & Westbrook - Partner

1980-1983 Marc H. Westbrook - Sole Practitioner

1983 Westbrook & Dolce - Partner

1983-present Family Court Judge, Eleventh Circuit

13.     Judicial Office: He was Deputy Recorder for the Town of Springdale, 1975-1976, appointed by Springdale Town Council, with jurisdiction limited to the Town of Springdale. He has been an Eleventh Circuit Family Court Judge from November 1983 to the present.

14.     Public Office: He was elected to Lexington County Council, serving as Chairman, 1977-1978, and was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, serving 1978-1983.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1974 for the South Carolina House of Representatives.

20.     Tax Lien: A South Carolina tax lien was filed in error in November, 1983, but was withdrawn.

21.     He has been sued in his capacity as Chairman of Lexington County Council, named in suits filed against Lexington County.

22.     In 1979 a Mr. R.C. Mason filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee; it was dismissed without a hearing.

23.     His health is excellent

24.     He wears glasses to correct slight nearsightedness.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Springdale Baptist Church; Anderson College, Board of Trustees; Springdale Elementary P.T.A., President; Woodmen of the World; Masons; Dilate Youth Baseball, President and Coach; Recreation League Football, President; Recreation League Basketball.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Patrick H. Riddick, Vice President

N.C.N.B.

131 State Street

West Columbia, SC 29169

(b) H. Hugh Rogers, Esquire

P. O. Box 396

Lexington, SC 29072

(c) Rev. Ronald E. Pelfrey

101 Pine Ridge Drive

West Columbia, SC 29169

(d) Preston H. Callison, Esquire

1208 Washington Street,

P. O. Box 6009

Columbia, SC 29171-6009

(e) Raymond S. Caughman, President

Lexington State Bank

P.O. Box 8

Lexington, SC 29072-0008

Q.     JUDGE, I BELIEVE YOU ARE CURRENTLY HOLDING SEAT NUMBER 3 ON THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OF THE FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     YOU WERE ELECTED TO THAT POSITION IN 1985?
A.     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q.     HAVE YOU FOUND ANYTHING ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT NEEDS CORRECTION?
A.     THERE WAS ONE CHANGE; I CALLED GAIL THE OTHER DAY AND NOTIFIED HER. THE DATE OF BIRTH WAS SHOWN AS OCTOBER 23, 1969, AND WHILE THAT'S FLATTERING, IT'S NOT TRUE. ACTUALLY IT'S OCTOBER 3, 1946.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR.

REP. GENTRY: WE KNEW BETTER.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTED THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS RECORDS WITH THE LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE WEST COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I., THE RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY WERE ALSO CHECKED AND FOUND TO BE CLEAR. ON THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS WERE FOUND TWO CASES IN WHICH YOU WERE A NAMED DEFENDANT; ONE WHICH WAS IN 1977, TAYLOR VERSUS LEXINGTON COUNTY COUNCIL AND I BELIEVE THAT HAD TO DO WITH HOME RULE?
A.     I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     AND THAT CASE WAS RESOLVED, I ASSUME.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THE OTHER CASE WAS IN 1980 WHERE ANNIE MARY TIMMONS BASICALLY SUED EVERYBODY IN THE LEGISLATURE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     SHE SUED ALL OF US, VINDICATING MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE).
Q.     THAT CASE WAS DISMISSED ALSO, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     TO BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASE. I THINK IT WAS DISMISSED.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWED NO CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE EXCELLENT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION, AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985 WHEN YOU WERE REELECTED, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NONE.

MR. BATES: MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE WESTBROOK?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT JUDGE DAVID BAROODY WOULD BE SCREENED AT THIS TIME BUT BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL CONFLICT, THE COMMITTEE HAS WAIVED HIS APPEARANCE. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE SCREENING WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR ON JUDGE BAROODY.

1.     David Samuel Baroody

Home Address:     Business Address:

11 Pine Lake Road     101 West Court Street

Marion, SC 29571     P. O. Box 6

Marion, SC 29571

2.     He was born in Florence County, South Carolina on February 21, 1938.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Haroldene Sims on November 12, 1983. He was formerly married for 1 1/2 years and was granted a no fault divorce on grounds of incompatibility in 1962 in the Superior Court of Georgia. He has no children.

5.     Military Service: He received a 2nd Lt. Commission at The Citadel but was not allowed to serve due to a leg injury received while in the military program.).

6.     He attended The Citadel, graduating in 1960 was a B.A. Degree and Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, graduating in 1965 with a Juris Doctor Degree.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Practicing Attorney

City Attorney     - Sellers SC

City Recorder     - Sellers SC

Public Defender     Marion County

Family Court Judge     12 Judicial Circuit

13.     Judicial Office: City Recorder, Sellers, SC, appointed 1974, served approximately 2 years; Family Court Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, elected, July 1, 1977 to present.

17.     He was a school teacher for one year, from 1960 to 1961.

23.     His health is good.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Baptist Church; Delta Theta Phi Law Fraternity; Patron: Boy Scouts of America; The Citadel Alumni Association; Ducks Unlimited; Wild Life Action.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Richard M. Lane, Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 980

Marion, SC 29571

(b) Allen C. Pate, Esquire

P. O. Box 424

Florence, SC 29503-0424

(c) Mary E. Buchan, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 653

Mullins, SC 29574

(d) James E. Brogdon, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 1041

Marion, SC 29571-1041

(e) Michael Ballenger, Esquire

P.O. Box 107

Florence, SC 29503

REP. ROGERS: NEXT, JUDGE MOREHEAD.

(HONORABLE ARTHUR EUGENE MOREHEAD, III, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Arthur Eugene Morehead, III

Home Address:     Business Address:

1504 Cherokee Road     Box C, City-County Complex

Florence, SC 29501     Florence, SC 29501

2.     He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on September 6, 1946.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Elaine Dempsey on March 1, 1969. They have 2 children: Arthur Eugene, IV, age 17 and Anne Meree, age 13.

5.     Military Service: He served two years active duty in the U.S. Army, (First Lieutenant 1968-70; SN ***-**-*****). After active duty, he spent 4 years in Standby Reserves and received his Honorable Discharge on June 20, 1974.

6.     He earned a B.A. Degree in Political Science from The Citadel (1964-1968) and a Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina school of Law (1970-1973).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

From 1973-1976, associate in Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough, Columbia, SC. From 1976 - June 1985, partner in Swearingen & Morehead, Florence, SC. On April 10, 1985, elected Family Court Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, beginning service June 19, 1985.

13.     Judicial Office: Appointed in November, 1983 to serve as Commissioner of Elections for the City of Florence; resigned in 1985 on becoming Judge.

16.     He is an officer and director in the Page Nelson Kessee Memorial Scholarship Fund, Inc., a tax-exempt eleemosynary corporation to receive donations and award scholarships to participants in Palmetto Boys State Program.

23.     His health is excellent.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, rind fraternal organizations: American Legion, 1970-present, on local, district and state committees; Palmetto Boys State, on staff for over 25 years, Chairman of State Boys State Committee, 1974-1982, currently serving as Director of the Boys State Program since 1983; Instructor of Business Law at Francis Marion College 1976-1983; Pee Dee Area Citadel Club, President 1978; St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church, serving on St. Anthony's School Board, 1979-present and Chairman, 1982. Served on the St. Anthony's Parish Council in 1982. Florence Kiwanis Club, Board of Directors, 1980-1983 and Presidents 1983 -- Kiwanian of the Year, 1980; American Cancer Society County Board of Directors, 1980-1985; Florence Little Theatre Board of Directors, 1983-1988; USC Law School Association, receiving Certificate of Merit, 1983, as class Chairperson during Fund Drive Campaign. Florence Country Club, Board of Directors 1980-1982, President, 1981; Florence City Election Commission, 1983-1985; Pee Dee Regional Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, Board of Directors and Vice-Chairman, 1984-1985; Board of Directors, Pro Bono Program, SC Bar, 1987-present; Board of Directors, SC Athletic Hall of Fame, 1988-present.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Joseph D. Carson, President

Investors Savings Bank of SC., PO Drawer 71

Florence, SC 29532

(b) James T. McBratney, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 1251

Florence, SC 29503-1251

(c) George E. Terry, Clerk of Court

Florence City-County Complex Drawer E

Florence, SC 29501

(d) Evander G. Jeffords, Esquire

P. O. Box 1770

Florence, SC 29503

(e) James M. Saleeby, Esquire

P.O. Box 72

Florence, SC 29532

Q.     JUDGE, YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 2 ON THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT NEEDED CORRECTION OR ELABORATION?
A.     I DID NOT.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE INFORMS US THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN FLORENCE COUNTY AND THE FLORENCE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I., YOUR RECORD WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF FLORENCE COUNTY AND WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST WAS FOUND TO SHOW NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART. YOUR CREDIT IS REPORTED GOOD. AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. YOUR FIRST AND ONLY SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THEN THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

MR. BATES: I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE PATTERSON.

(HONORABLE LARRY R. PATTERSON, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Larry Ronald Patterson

Home Address:     Business Address:

9 Lake Forest Drive     P.O. Box 757

Greenville, SC 29609     Greenville, SC 29602

2.     He was born in Piedmont, South Carolina on September 2, 1940.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Susan Bowie on August 19, 1962. They have 3 children: Leora, age 23 (student), Ronald, age 20 (student), and Mark, age 19 (student).

5.     Military Service: March 4, 1966 through June 26, 1968; active duty - US Army, Artillery - Officer, rank: Captain; 1963 to present US Army Reserves (except for active duty) Rank: Lieutenant Colonel; Serial Number: ***-**-*****.

6.     He attended Clemson University, receiving a BS Degree in 1963 and the University of South Carolina Law School, receiving a J.D. Degree in 1966.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

July 1968 to Dec. 1968, associate with Howard Ballenger, Attorney in Walhalla, SC

Jan 1969 to May 1972, associate and partner with Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason Law firm, Greenville, SC

May 1972 to May 1976, partner with Cheros and Patterson Law Firm, Greenville, SC

May 1976 to Dec. 1980, sole practitioner in Greenville, SC

Dec. 1980 to present Family Court Judge, Thirteenth Circuit

13.     Judicial Office: 1968 - Municipal Court Judge in Walhalla, South Carolina; 1980 - 1985, Family Court Judge

14.     Public Office: 1970 - 1971, elected to SC House of Representatives.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1971 for reelection to the South Carolina House of Representatives and failed in bid for election as Solicitor, Thirteenth Circuit in 1974.

21.     Sued: 1975 - Personally by Attorney Hal Warlick as the result of a lawsuit in which they opposed each other. This was amicably resolved upon service of pleadings. They have since handled matters together and are friends.

22.     Disciplined: Three complaints were filed With the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards in a period of four years and three months. No disciplinary action was taken. No complaints have been filed during his current term, March 1985 to present.

23.     His health is excellent

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Buncomb Street United Methodist Church, Sunday School Teacher.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Thomas M. Creech

First Federal Of South Carolina

P.O. Box 408 Greenville, SC 29602

(b) C. Ben Bowen, Esquire

P. O. Box 2547

Greenville, SC 29602

(c) Henry F. Floyd, Esquire

P.O. Box 978

Pickens, SC 29671

(d) Kermit S. King, Esquire

P. O. Box 7667

Columbia, SC 29202

(e) V. Laniel Chapman, Esquire

P.O. Box 2506

Anderson SC 29622

Q.     JUDGE, YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER ON THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT; DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THE SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT NEEDS CORRECTION?
A.     NO, I DID NOT.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, LIKEWISE, REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND F.B.I. REPORT YOUR RECORD CLEAR WITH THEM. AND WE ALSO CHECKED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY AND OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. WE DID FIND THAT THERE WAS A TAX LIEN BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION FILED IN 1982 FOR THE YEAR--EXCUSE ME--FOR THE YEAR 1980 AND I BELIEVE AND I COULDN'T QUITE READ THE PRINTOUT BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN SATISFIED.
A.     THAT WAS FOR $83 INTEREST. IT WAS NOT FOR TAXES. AND I DON'T DO MY TAXES AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AND I GAVE IT TO THEM AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN. THEY EITHER PAID THE $83, OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT. IT INDICATES THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.
Q.     AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER CASE THAT CAME UP, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WERE THE SAME LARRY PATTERSON BUT IF YOU COULD INFORM US; THE FEDERAL COURT IN GREENVILLE IN 1983, THE CAPTION IS REED VERSUS LARRY AND CAROLYN PATTERSON.
A.     THAT WAS NOT ME.
Q.     THAT AIN'T YOU, HUH?
A.     THAT'S NOT ME.
Q.     YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT IN 1975 YOU WERE SUED BY HAL WARLICK BUT THAT WAS AMICABLY RESOLVED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS, AND YOUR CREDIT WAS REPORTED AS GOOD. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS ALSO IN 1985, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THEN THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE AWARE OF?
A.     NONE THAT I KNOW OF.
Q.     THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU IN YOUR REAPPLICATION. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE PATTERSON, FOR THE RECORD LET ME STATE THAT THE SLED AGENT WHO DID THIS INVESTIGATION MADE IT CLEAR IN THIS REPORT THAT THAT TAX LIEN WAS OBVIOUSLY AN ERROR AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED.
A.     IT WAS, YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE JOHNSON.

(HONORABLE R. KINARD JOHNSON, JR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     R. Kinard Johnson, Jr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

2 Thornwood Lane     P. O. Box 757

Greenville, SC 29605     Greenville, SC 29602

2.     He was born in Greenville, South Carolina on February 20, 1944.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Carol Ann McKinney on December 10, 1966. They have 2 children: Matthew Kinard, age 20 (college student) and Margaret Carol, age 16 (high school student).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended Georgetown University from September 1962 - June 1966, receiving a B.S. degree and the University of South Carolina School of Law from September 1966 - June 1969, receiving a Juris Doctor Degree.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He was in the general practice of law in Greenville from September 1969 through May 1982; he has been the Family Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 from May 1982 till the present time.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2, elected by the Legislature on May 12, 1982, serving continuously since, Jurisdiction set forth in the Family Court Act.

22.     While serving as Family Court Judge, he has had two complaints filed against him by disgruntled litigants with the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards. Both complaints were dismissed with a finding that there was no indication of any violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

23.     His health is excellent.

25.     He wears prescription eyeglasses.

26.     He is under treatment for hypertension.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Ordained Elder of Westminster Presbyterian Church, Greenville; Greenville Rotary Club; Georgetown University Alumni Club of South Carolina.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) W. H. "Bard" Parks, President

Branch Banking & Trust Company of South Carolina

P.O. Box 6807

Greenville, SC 29606-6807

(b) B.O. Thomason, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 10045

Greenville, SC 29603

(c) Solicitor Joseph J. Watson

Courthouse Annex, Suite 113

Greenville, SC 29601-2192

(d) Honorable Caroline W. Mattos

Clerk of Court

Greenville County Courthouse

Greenville, SC 29601

(e) Honorable Rex L. Carter

P.O. Box 10828

Greenville, SC 29603

Q.     JUDGE JOHNSON, I BELIEVE YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 2 ON THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU WERE ELECTED IN 1982?
A.     '82 AND '85.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTION ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU?
A.     NO, SIR.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS RECORDS OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I., THOSE RECORDS WERE FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS RECORDS OF THE JUDGMENT ROLLS WITH GREENVILLE COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR BEHALF. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS EXCELLENT. THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING IN 1985 THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NO, SIR.

MR. BATES: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE JOHNSON.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: JUDGE FANNING.

(HONORABLE DONALD ALTON FANNING, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Donald Alton Fanning

Home Address:     Business Address:

Blue Heron Bluff, Ladys Isl.     P. O. Box 1124

P. O. Box 1366     Beaufort, SC 29901

Beaufort, SC 29901

2.     He was born in Rochester, New York on October 2, 1935.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Leola Long on June 30, 1962. They have 3 children: Donald Alton, age 23, Laura Elizabeth, age 21 and Lorick Vrooman, age 19.

5.     Military Service: 1961-1964, U.S. Air Force JAG, Captain - AO 31 173 58; Civilian - Honorable Discharge.

6.     He attended Wittenberg University from September 1953 to June 1957 (A.B.) and the University of Chicago Law School from October 1957 to June 1960 (J.D.).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

April 1961 to April 1964, USAF, Judge Advocate, Hunter AFB, Georgia; April 1964 to September 1968, Dowling, Sanders & Dukes; September 1968 to August 1970, Hendricks & Fanning; August 1970 to July 1975, Donald A. Fanning, Attorney at Law; July 1975 to July 1977, Judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and Judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County; July 1977 to present, Family Court Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit; Since January 1976 he has served numerous terms as Special Circuit Court Judge, by appointment of Chief Justice, in Allendale, Beaufort, Colleton, Berkeley, Greenville, Lexington, Anderson, Pickens, Kershaw, Richland, Charleston, Florence, Lancaster, Chester and Fairfield Counties.

13.     Judicial Office: Judge, Civil & Criminal Courts of Beaufort County, July 7, 1975 to June 30, 1977: Judge, Family Court of Beaufort County, June 30, 1977 to present; Appointed by Governor John West as Special Presiding Judge, Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, January 19, 1976 to February 6, 1976 and September 27, 1976 to October 1, 1976. He served as Special Circuit Judge for numerous terms.

14.     Public Office: Member, South Carolina Commission on Aging, Executive Committee Member, 1972 to 1975, appointed; Member, South Carolina Judicial Grievance & Discipline Commission, 1976, appointed; Associate, Government Appeals Agent, Local Board #7, Selective Service, October 6, 1967, appointed.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate for Circuit Court Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, 1980 - withdrew prior to vote of the General Assembly. He ran for Beaufort County Council in 1968 and in the Democratic Primary for a South Carolina House Seat in 1970, but was not elected.

21.     Sued: Mary D. S. Peters vs. Richard Riley, Governor, Daniel McLeod, Attorney General, John T. Campbell. Secretary of State, et al. The list of defendants includes several Circuit and Family Court Judges, the former Deputy Clerk of the SC Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of SC, the Clerk of Court of Beaufort County, the Sheriff of Beaufort County, the Auditor of Beaufort County, the Treasurer and the County Attorney, as well as several individuals. The suit was filed in the Federal District Court in 1983. He was represented in this suit by the SC Attorney General. Mrs. Peters has apparently been involved in litigation before Courts in this State, has been unsatisfied with her outcome, and wishes the judicial system and county government to stop harassing her by enforcing their judgements, taxes, rules and regulations. Mr. Peters appeared before the Family Court of Beaufort County in an action for a legal separation and separate maintenance from her husband, Fred Peters. She was unsatisfied with the decision made by the Court and is unwilling to accept rulings by the appropriate Judge who was not in total agreement with her thinking. Other allegations concerning tapes and interference with the Grand Jury are totally untrue and products of her imagination. She did appear before the Legislative Screening Committee. To clarify the record concerning her appearance and its effect, he admitted to no wrong doing before the committee; he was found fully qualified by the full Committee to hold a Circuit Court Judgeship and her appearance had no connection with his ultimate withdrawal from the race.

22.     Disciplined: He was subject of a complaint to the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline by Donald Knepp. This Complaint was summarily dismissed as not a matter of legal ethics. The issue involved the clarification of Title, a Cloud of Title and the procrastination of another attorney. Also John C. Moore, Sr., filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards as a result of his dissatisfaction with His Family Court proceedings. The Board ruled his complaint was a legal matter which should have been handled by the Courts (appeal). Jo Ann Poland filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards as a result of her dissatisfaction with her Family Court proceedings. The Board ruled her complaint was a legal matter which should have been handled by the Courts (appeals).

23.     His health is excellent.

24.     He was hospitalized in October, 1978 for routine rectal fissure surgery.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: St. Johns Lutheran Church; United States Power Squadron; Beaufort Rotary Club; SC Lutheran Synod; Low Country Retired Officers Association.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Grady D. Thames, Asst. Vice President

South Carolina National Bank

P. O. Box 1047

Beaufort, SC 29901

(b) James H. Moss, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 507

Beaufort, SC 29901-0507

(c) The Reverend Ralph Riddle, Pastor

St. John's Lutheran Church

P. O. Box 358

Beaufort, SC 29902

(d) Fred S. Washington, Jr.

County Director, DSS

P. O. Box 1065

Beaufort, SC 29901-1065

(e) Wyatt B. Pringle

Kinghorn Insurance Agency

P.O. Drawer 1088

Beaufort, SC 29901

Q.     JUDGE, YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 3 ON THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     AND YOU WERE ELECTED FIRST IN 1977?
A.     THAT'S RIGHT.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN YOUR SUMMARY QUESTIONNAIRE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED OR ELABORATED ON?
A.     THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS. MY DAUGHTER HAD A BIRTHDAY SINCE I FILED THE PAPERS. SHE IS 21 YEARS OLD. AND I NOTED THAT THERE ARE SOME ORGANIZATIONS HERE THAT I'M NO LONGER A MEMBER OF: THE SOCIAL MINISTRY COMMITTEE, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA LUTHERAN SYNOD AND I'M NO LONGER A MEMBER OF BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, COMMITTEE MEMBER, TROOP I, IN BEAUFORT. BOTH MY SONS ARE EAGLE SCOUTS AND I'M NO LONGER INVOLVED WITH BOY SCOUTS.
Q.     THANK YOU FOR THOSE CORRECTIONS. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS THAT THERE WERE NO REPRIMANDS. I WILL NOTE THAT YOU DID DIVULGE IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THERE HAD BEEN THREE INFORMAL COMPLAINTS; ONE AS A LAWYER AND TWO AS A JUDGE; BUT IN ALL THREE INSTANCES THEY WERE RULED TO BE MATTERS OF LAW RATHER THAN ETHICAL MATTERS AND WERE DISMISSED. DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT ANY?
A.     WELL, THE ONE COMPLAINT TO THE LAWYERS--TO THE WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT?
Q.     BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES.
A.     BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS INVOLVED A TITLE AND BASED ON ANOTHER--THERE WAS AN OPEN ESTATE AND THE TIME FOR FILING CLAIMS AND EVERYTHING HAD EXPIRED AND BASED ON THE LAWYER WHO WAS HANDLING THE ESTATE'S REPRESENTATION THAT HE WOULD CLOSE THE ESTATE SHORTLY AND THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM, I WENT AHEAD AND CLOSED A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION AND THEN THE OTHER LAWYER NEVER CARRIED THROUGH WHAT HE HAD PROMISED TO DO FOR ME AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT WAS FILED AND WITH THAT, THE OTHER LAWYER GOT BUSY AND DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED. THE OTHER TWO MATTERS WERE BASICALLY, THE ONE COMPLAINT BY MR. MOORE WAS A VERY PROBLEMATIC INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULDN'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND WHEN HE WAS INCARCERATED BECAME INSENSED AND FILED A GRIEVANCE. AND THE OTHER WAS A LADY WHO HAD BEEN FILING SUITS AGAINST HER HUSBAND FOR ABOUT 18 YEARS SINCE THEY HAD BEEN DIVORCED AND THE YOUNGEST SON REACHED THE AGE OF 18 AND SHE TRIED TO REOPEN THE CASE AND OBTAIN ALIMONY AND REFUSED TO GRANT ALIMONY IN MY PROCESS; THAT--WHEN THE SUPREME COURT DENIED HER APPEAL, SHE THEN FILED THAT COMPLAINT AGAINST ME AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS SUMMARILY DISMISSED AS HAVING NO MERIT.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE BEAUFORT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. RECORDS WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE CLEAR. IN CHECKING THE JUDGEMENT ROLLS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, NOTHING WAS FOUND IN YOUR NAME. IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THERE WAS ONE CASE THAT WAS FOUND, PETERS VERSUS RILEY. LOOKS LIKE SHE SUED THE GOVERNOR AND EVERYBODY ELSE SHE COULD THINK OF. THAT WAS DISMISSED THOUGH, ALSO.
A.     SHE ALSO SPENT ABOUT THREE HOURS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE BACK WHEN I RAN FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE. HEYWARD MCDONALD WAS THE CHAIRMAN AND THAT, OF COURSE, THE COMMITTEE FOUND ME QUALIFIED AT THAT TIME.
Q.     THANK YOU, SIR. THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS THAT APPEAR FROM YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE GOOD. THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY. YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO ADD?
A.     I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
Q.     OKAY, THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, JUDGE FANNING.
A.     THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: AND PERHAPS THE BEST FOR THE LAST. JUDGE MENDENHALL.

(HONORABLE: SAMUEL B. MENDENHALL, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 2, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     Samuel B. Mendenhall

Home Address:     Business Address:

1756 Ebenezer Road     1070 Heckle Boulevard

Rock Hill, SC 29732     Suite 202, Box 16

Rock Hill, SC 29732

2.     He was born in Rock Hill, South Carolina on January 1, 1936.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Carolyn lying on March 10, 1962. They have 2 children: Robert Bratton, age 26 (postal employee) and Mary Margaret, age 24 (teacher).

5.     Military Service: None

6.     He attended USC, where he received a B.A. Degree in 1958 and an L.L.B. in 1962.

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

He practiced law in Rock Hill, SC from 1962 to 1977, when he was elected Family Court Judge.

13.     Judicial Office: Family Court Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, 1977 to present.

14.     He was a member of the House of Representatives, representing York County, from 1964-1972 and a state Senator from 1972-1977.

19.     Investigation: In 1976 an unsuccessful candidate against him for the Senate requested the Grand Jury investigate the use or expenditure of county money on his farm. SLED was also involved. The result of the investigation was that no violation of the law was found.

23.     His health is excellent.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Ebenezer Presbyterian Church, Rock Hill Elks Club and South Caroliniana Society.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) James A. Keiger, Executive Vice President

Rock Hill National Bank

P. O. Drawer 112

Rock Hill, SC 29731

(b) Samuel B. Fewell, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 10587

Rock Hill, SC 29731-0587

(c) Forrest C. Wilkerson, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 560

Rock Hill, SC 29731-6560

(d) James R. Honeycutt, Esquire

P. O. Box 212

Fort Mill, SC 29715

(e) Michael L. Brown

P.O. Box 10586

Rock Hill, SC 29731

Q.     I'M GLAD YOU ARE THE LAST ONE. I'M STARTING TO FEEL LIKE AN AUCTIONEER UP HERE. JUDGE MENDENHALL, YOU CURRENTLY HOLD SEAT NUMBER 2 ON THE SIXTEENTH CIRCUIT OF FAMILY COURT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     DO YOU FIND ANYTHING ON THE SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED OR ELABORATED ON?
A.     NO, IT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS WITH THE YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE ROCK HILL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I., WE, LIKEWISE, FOUND THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF YORK COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE CHECKED AND WE FOUND THAT YOU HAD BEEN A PARTY IN FOUR DIFFERENT SUITS--I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALL IN FEDERAL COURT--EACH OF WHICH WAS DISMISSED. PRICE VERSUS BOARD IN 1981; PRICE VERSUS ROPER IN 1979; ROHLFING VERSUS U.S.A., IN WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ACTED AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE IN COLLECTING LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS; AND HELMS VERSUS BOWMAN IN 1970 WHICH WAS A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CLAIM WHICH WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ALL THOSE WERE DISMISSED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     AS BEST I REMEMBER. THEY WERE RESOLVED AT SOME TIME.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND, ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT YOU DIVULGED IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT IN 1976 THAT YOU WERE UNDER INVESTIGATION AT ONE TIME BUT NO VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW WERE FOUND AT ALL IN CONNECTION WITH A COMPLAINT BY AN ELECTION OPPONENT MADE TO THE GRAND JURY.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     BUT NO ACTION WHATSOEVER WAS TAKEN?
A.     NONE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS GOOD. NO COMPLAINTS, NO STATEMENTS RECEIVED AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY AGAINST YOU. AND YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, I BELIEVE.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED SINCE THEN THAT YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE?
A.     NOTHING THAT I KNOW OF.
Q.     JUDGE, THANK YOU.

REP. ROGERS: SAM, I WILL EXERCISE RESTRAINT AND ASK NO QUESTIONS.

A.     I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME YOU COULD ASK THAT MIGHT BE EMBARRASSING.

REP. ROGERS: DID ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WANT TO ASK JUDGE MENDENHALL ANYTHING?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: WE WILL CONCLUDE THE SCREENINGS. I WOULD, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEDIA, TELL YOU THAT WE WILL RECONVENE AT 9:00 O'CLOCK TUESDAY MORNING FOR THE REMAINING THREE JUDGES' SCREENING. THANK YOU. WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE BEING SCREENED TODAY, SO THAT PERHAPS YOU WILL BE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE IN A FEW MINUTES.

(OFF THE RECORD AT 9:50 A.M; EXECUTIVE SESSION; BACK ON THE RECORD AT 9:55 A.M.)

REP. ROGERS: FOR THE RECORD, ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND APPLICATIONS FOR JUDGES THAT WE HAVE SCREENED TODAY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE QUALIFIED AND THAT WILL BE OUR REPORT WHICH WILL BE SHORTLY FILED WITH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 9:56 A.M.)

REP. ROGERS: I WILL CALL THIS SESSION OF THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE TO ORDER AND WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THIS MEETING. WE WILL MOVE INTO THE SCREENING VERY PROMPTLY. THE PROCESS, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE WAY WE DO THINGS, IS I WILL SWEAR THE APPLICANT OR THE JUDGE; STEVE BATES, OUR COUNSEL, WILL EXAMINE THE APPLICANT OR THE JUDGE AND THEN ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THEN WE WILL HEAR ANY FURTHER WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY OUR STATUTE. IF THERE IS A REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WHICH CAN BE JUSTIFIED, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF THAT REQUEST IS MADE PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF ANY OF THE TESTIMONY. AND WE WILL MOVE PROMPTLY, THE SENATE MEETS AT 11:00 AND THE HOUSE MEETS AT 12:00. WELL, THEN APPARENTLY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE MEET AT 12:00. I WOULD HOPE WE CAN CONCLUDE OUR BUSINESS BY THAT TIME. IF NOT, WE'LL FIND ADDITIONAL TIME TO DO SO. I'M GOING TO ARBITRARILY DECIDE THE ORDER, AND THAT ORDER AS I HAVE DECIDED IS JUDGE MARING WILL BE FIRST, JUDGE BLACK WILL BE SECOND, AND MR. TETTERTON WILL BE THIRD. JUDGE MARING, WILL YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

(HONORABLE DAVID HENRY MARING, SR., CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     David Henry Maring, Sr.

Home Address:     Business Address:

P.O. Box 806     P.O. Box 806

Georgetown, SC 29442     Georgetown, SC 29442

2.     He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on July 21, 1945.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Judy K. on June 23, 1973. He was divorced from his first wife, Vickie, on grounds of desertion on February 18, 1972 after two years separation. He has 3 children: Lorie Leigh Ann, age 22 (Law student, USC); David H, II, age 20, (Student, College of Charleston); Robert Wade, age 19, (Student at Citadel)

5.     Military Service: He was in the Marine Corp Reserves from 1971-1973 and a member of the SC National Guard from 1973-1976.

6.     He graduated from William Carey College in May, 1968 (received BA Degree) and the University of South Carolina School of Law in June, 1971 (received Juris Doctor Degree).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

Admitted to SC Bar, September 21, 1971; Andrews City Judge, 1972-1973; Georgetown City Judge, 1973-1975; Georgetown County Public Defender, 1975-1977; and Family Court Judge, 1977-present.

13.     Judicial Office: Andrews City Judge, 1972-1973; Georgetown Municipal Judge, 1973-1975; and Family Court Judge, 1977-present.

14.     Public Office: None.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1972 for Probate Judge, defeated at the polls.

21.     There is a suit pending in Federal Court in the case of Oliver H. Claypool, Jr., v. David H. Ma ring, Sr., et al. Federal Magistrate recommended that it be dismissed as a frivolous action.

22.     Disciplined: Complaint on May 23, 1988. Dismissed by Judicial Standards without a hearing because they found it was without merits.

23.     His health is excellent

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: None

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Carol R. Jayroe, Asst. Vice President

C & S Bank.

P.O. Drawer 439

Georgetown, SC 29442

(b) Thomas J. Rubillo, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 1956

Georgetown, SC 29442

(c) The Honorable Hugh E Bonnoitt, Jr.

Mayor, City of Georgetown

P.O. Box 436

Georgetown, SC 29442

(d) Robert H. O'Donnell

Georgetown City Judge,

P. O. Box 662

Georgetown, SC 29442

(e) Betty L. Williams

Clerk of Court

Georgetown County

Georgetown, SC 29442

Q.     JUDGE MARING, DID YOU RECEIVE BACK FROM THE COMMITTEE A SUMMARY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A.     I DID.
Q.     DID YOU REVIEW THAT AND MAKE SURE IT WAS ACCURATE?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDS ELABORATION OR CLARIFICATION?
A.     NOTHING.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE RECORDS THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU WHILE ON THE BENCH. YOUR DRIVING RECORD IS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE GEORGETOWN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND WITH THE F.B.I., YOUR RECORDS ARE ALSO CLEAR. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY WERE CHECKED AND FOUND NOTHING IN YOUR NAME. THE FEDERAL JUDGMENT ROLLS OR DOCKETS, WE DID COME ACROSS, I BELIEVE YOU REPORTED TWO OR THREE CASES IN WHICH YOU WERE A NAMED PARTY, AND IF WE COULD JUST RUN THROUGH THOSE, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS CLAYPOOL VERSUS FERGUSON. IT WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE ARISING OUT OF A CUSTODY BATTLE BEFORE JUDGE PERRY AND THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE HAS RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL AT THIS TIME ON THE BASIS THAT THE SUIT WAS FRIVOLOUS. I BELIEVE THAT WAS BACK IN '86. DO YOU KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT CASE NOW?
A.     IT'S STILL ON JUDGE PERRY'S DESK WAITING TO BE DISMISSED, I HOPE.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT?
A.     NO, I DON'T.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. BACK IN 1979 A CASE OF GARNETT VERSUS MCINVILLE. ET AL; ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE?
A.     VAGUELY.
Q.     ALL RIGHT; WOULD YOU INFORM US A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT?
A.     I REALLY DON'T RECALL THE FACTS. IT WAS DISMISSED, I THINK, ON THE MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT, WHICH IS WHAT MANY JUDGES GET NOWADAYS.
Q.     AND IT WAS A STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN 1981; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, AND THE LAST ONE, IN 1976 WOODBERRY VERSUS MARING, THAT WAS ALSO IN FEDERAL COURT. I BELIEVE VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
A.     I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS EVER SERVED NOTICE OF IT. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT CASE. BUT OBVIOUSLY, '76, IT'S BEEN DISMISSED.
Q.     YES, SIR, WE HAVE AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY JUDGE CHAPMAN IN THAT SAME YEAR. THOSE ARE THE ONLY RECORDS IN WHICH YOU WERE A NAMED DEFENDANT IN ANY CASES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART. YOUR CREDIT REPORT IS CLEAR. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     AND YOU WERE ORIGINALLY ELECTED TO THE SEAT IN 1977?
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     AND THAT IS THE FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 1, FAMILY COURT.
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. HAS ANYTHING HAPPENED SINCE YOUR LAST SCREENING IN 1985 THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF?
A.     NOTHING EXCEPT THE FEDERAL LAWSUIT WHICH YOU ARE AWARE OF.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THERE HAS BEEN ONE PERSON TO FILE A SWORN STATEMENT WITH US AND WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT. HAVE YOU BEEN PROVIDED WITH THAT STATEMENT?
A.     I HAVE.
Q.     AND I BELIEVE THAT THE LADY'S NAME WAS MRS. NANCY SINEATH OR SINEATH.
A.     CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, AND YOU, IN REPLY, SENT US BACK A LETTER AND SOME DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO HER STATEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     I HAVE.

MR. BATES: ALL RIGHT, SIR. I THINK AT THIS TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF NONE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF MRS. SINEATH AND THEN COME BACK TO JUDGE MARING.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE MARING?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU. MRS. NANCY SINEATH COME FORWARD, PLEASE, MA'AM.

(NANCY E. SINEATH, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

Q.     MRS. SINEATH, FIRST OF ALL I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH YOU ON THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT YOUR ROLL IS IN THEM. WE, THE COMMITTEE, ACT AS A SCREENING COMMITTEE TO JUDGE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDGESHIPS. WE ARE NOT HERE TO DECIDE ANY ISSUES OF LAW OR FACT. AND IN REVIEWING THE SWORN STATEMENT THAT YOU SENT TO THE COMMITTEE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET IN DETAIL INTO THE EMOTIONAL ISSUES OF THE FAMILY COURT CASE IN WHICH YOU WERE INVOLVED, THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH SPECIFICALLY ANY MISCONDUCT THAT YOU ALLEGE OF JUDGE MARING OR ANY UNETHICAL ACTIVITIES AND THAT TYPE THING. WE WILL ALLOW YOU TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
A.     OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR HERE. I'M ONLY HERE TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE AS TO WHY JUDGE MARING SHOULD NOT BE REAPPOINTED AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE BECAUSE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS WERE DENIED. AND I'M APPEARING HERE ON BEHALF OF MY SIX-YEAR OLD GRANDSON. BUT, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT PAST AND PRESENT POLITICAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JUDGE MARING AND THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY POSED A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHICH PROVIDED NO ROOM FOR A FAIR HEARING IN OUR CASE IN FAMILY COURT. JUDGE MARING, HIS CONDUCT IN THE COURTROOM WAS UNBECOMING TO A MAN OF HIS POSITION. HE APPEARED TO BE BORED IN THAT HE WAS CONSTANTLY MOVING ABOUT IN HIS CHAIR AND LOOKING OUT IN THE HALL, TAPPING HIS PEN OR PENCIL ON HIS DESK. THIS WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE HAD HAD A PRE-TRIAL BEFORE WE HAD ARRIVED AT THE COURTHOUSE AND DECIDED HE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THE CASE.
Q.     WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT STATEMENT ON?
A.     WHAT, THE PRE-TRIAL? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.
Q.     THE FACT THAT YOU SAID HE ALREADY HAD A PRE-TRIAL AND HAD--
A.     WELL, WE HAD HAD FIVE HEARINGS THAT WERE SCHEDULED, POSTPONED, AND CONTINUED AND WHEN WE FINALLY GOT A HEARING SCHEDULED AT THE FAMILY COURTHOUSE IN CHARLESTON, WHEN WE ARRIVED JUDGE MARING AND THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY WAS COMING OUT OF A ROOM NEAR THE RECEPTIONIST'S DESK AND WE WERE NOWHERE ON THE DOCKET TO BE HEARD THAT MORNING. BUT AFTER MY ATTORNEY ARRIVED, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT HE, JUDGE MARING, AND THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY HAD A PRE-TRIAL, WHERE ANOTHER JUDGE WAS TO PRESIDE OVER OUR CASE AND SINCE HE WANTED TO HEAR THE CASE HIMSELF, THAT WAS NOT TO BE.
Q.     WHO IS THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE? JOHN BRADLEY, I BELIEVE?
A.     JOHN BRADLEY, RIGHT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT; AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS A PRE-TRIAL WITH JUDGE MARING AND MR. BRADLEY WITHOUT YOUR ATTORNEY PRESENT?
A.     WHEN I ARRIVED--LIKE I SAID MY ATTORNEY WAS NOT THERE, BUT WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE COURTHOUSE MR. BRADLEY AND JUDGE MARING WERE ALREADY IN THE ROOM THAT THEY WERE TALKING OR WHATEVER. I SAW THEM COMING OUT AND WHEN I WENT UP TO CHECK WITH THE RECEPTIONIST TO FIND OUT ABOUT OUR CASE, SHE SAID WE WERE NOWHERE ON THE DOCKET AT ALL TO BE HEARD THAT MORNING.
Q.     HOW DID YOU KNOW TO BE THERE THAT MORNING?
A.     WE GOT A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT. AND THEN WHEN I ASKED HER IF SHE COULD CHECK ELSEWHERE, SHE DID SO AND SHE WENT OVER AND SPOKE TO JUDGE MARING AND THEN SHE CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE, WHO WAS JUDGE JOLLY AT THAT TIME, WAS NOT GOING TO HEAR THE CASE BECAUSE JUDGE MARING HAD DECIDED TO HEAR IT HIMSELF. AND, THEREFORE, WHEN OUR ATTORNEY ARRIVED I HAD LET HIM KNOW WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE AND HE WENT TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER, AND HE CAME BACK AND SAID AND HE TOLD US THAT JUDGE MARING HAD DECIDED IN THE PRE-TRIAL THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A HEARING, HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING IT, THAT HE HAD MADE A DECISION THAT THE CHILD WOULD BE RETURNED TO HIS MOTHER AND THAT WAS THAT. I INSISTED ON A HEARING.
Q.     YOUR ATTORNEY IS THE ONE WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
A.     THAT JUDGE MARING HAD MADE A DECISION IN A PRE-TRIAL THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO HEARING, YES.
Q.     HOW DID YOUR ATTORNEY KNOW THAT THERE WAS--THAT WAS HIS FEELINGS IN THE PRE-TRIAL IF HE WASN'T PRESENT?
A.     AFTER HIE GOT THERE AND I TOLD HIM THAT MR. BRADLEY--I HAD NOTICED JUDGE MARING AND MR. BRADLEY TALKING IN THE HALLWAY AFTER COMING OUT OF THIS ROOM AND MY ATTORNEY THEN WENT OVER, EXCUSED HIMSELF AND WENT OVER AND HE WENT IN THE ROOM WITH MR. BRADLEY AND JUDGE MARING, AND IT MUST HAVE BEEN 15 MINUTES LATER WHEN HE CAME BACK AND SAID THAT JUDGE MARING--HE AND JUDGE MARING AND JOHN BRADLEY, IT WAS DECIDED AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A HEARING, THAT THE CHILD WAS GOING TO BE RETURNED TO HIS MOTHER.
Q.     AND WHO WAS YOUR ATTORNEY IN THAT?
A.     JACK LANDIS.
Q.     JUST TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE, THE CASE INVOLVED, AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, A SITUATION WHERE YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND HAD CUSTODY OF YOUR FIVE OR SIX YEAR-OLD GRANDSON.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND THERE WAS A DIVORCE ACTION BETWEEN YOUR SON AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AT THAT TIME.
A.     YES.
Q.     AND BACK IN JULY OF 1987 THERE WAS A CONSENT ORDER SIGNED THAT GRANTED YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF YOUR GRANDSON.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     OR BOTH GRANDCHILDREN.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND THEN IN APRIL OF '88 THERE WAS AN ORDER APPOINTING A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE CHILDREN AND THE FOLLOWING MONTH IN MAY WAS THE HEARING AND DIVORCE.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     IS THAT THE TRIAL OR THE HEARING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT; IS THAT THE DAY IN QUESTION, MAY 6TH, 1988?
A.     YES, SIR, MAY 6TH, 1988, RIGHT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT; AND YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND WERE ATTEMPTING TO GAIN PERMANENT CUSTODY OF YOUR GRANDSON, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND JUDGE MARING, AFTER THE TRIAL, RULED THAT--THERE WAS A TRIAL, WAS THIS NOT, OR A HEARING?
A.     YES, SIR, BUT IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT IT FELL UPON DEAF EARS. JUDGE MARING HAD MADE THE REMARK WHEN WE GOT INTO THE COURTROOM THAT HE HAD ALREADY MADE HIS DECISION AND HE WAS NOT INTERESTED AND HE WAS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS DECISION, THEREFORE---
Q.     DID YOU MAKE--I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.
A.     ---THEREFORE, IGNORING ALL OTHER TESTIMONY. NONE OF OUR WITNESSES WERE HEARD.
Q.     WAS THERE ANY EXPLANATION AS TO THE LAW FOR THE BASIS OF HIS RULINGS?
A.     HE SAID THAT IT WAS TOTALLY FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF VIEW, AND THAT THE CHILD HAD A NATURAL MOTHER AND THAT IS WHERE THE CHILD WOULD BE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. SINCE THAT DAY I BELIEVE YOU, THROUGH YOUR ATTORNEY, MADE A MOTION FOR A REHEARING TO BE GRANTED CUSTODY OF YOUR GRANDSON AGAIN AND THAT WAS DENIED.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AS WELL AS, THERE WAS ALSO A WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS---
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     ---THAT WAS ALSO DENIED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, IT WAS.
Q.     HAS ANYTHING DEVELOPED IN THAT CASE SINCE THEN?
A.     WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE IN THE CASE BECAUSE AS A RESULT OF JUDGE MARING'S DENIAL OF THAT SUPERSEDEAS, WE WERE, (PAUSE).
Q.     DID YOU APPEAL?
A.     YES, SIR, AND EACH TIME WE HAD TRIED TO GO IN AND TAKE ACTIONS TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING STARTED BACK AGAIN--I REALIZE THESE MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WORDS.
Q.     YES, MA'AM, THAT'S FINE.
A.     WE WERE ALWAYS, SO TO SPEAK, SHOT DOWN BECAUSE WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION AND JUDGE MARING OR EITHER JOHN BRADLEY WOULD DECIDE THAT THIS WAS NOT WHAT WAS BEST FOR HIS CLIENT; NOT THE CHILD, BUT NOT WHAT WAS BEST FOR HIS CLIENT. AND I FEEL THAT JUDGE MARING, YOU KNOW, HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, YOU KNOW. WE COULD NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY--TO SEE THE GRANDCHILD WHO WAS NOT ACCESSED TO ANY VISITATION FROM HIS FATHER OR ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY OTHER THAN ONE WEEKEND A MONTH.
Q.     IS YOUR ATTORNEY JACK LANDIS HERE TODAY?
A.     NO, SIR, I'M HERE BY MYSELF.
Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE COMMITTEE?
A.     YES, IF YOU DON'T MIND. I WAS KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT HOW JUDGE MARING RULED ON THIS CASE SINCE HE HEARD NO TESTIMONY, HE WAS NOT WILLING TO HEAR ANY TESTIMONY.
Q.     HE HEARD TESTIMONY, THIS--
A.     FROM MYSELF AND MY HUSBAND BUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM OUR WITNESS. AND HE DISREGARDED THE GUARDIAN AD LIT EM'S RECOMMENDATION. WE HAD A COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO RECOMMENDED THAT THE CHILD REMAIN--THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO REMAIN WITH US.
Q.     SO, HE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF YOU, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN THE CASE; RIGHT?
A.     YES.
Q.     AND YOUR SON DECLINED TO TESTIFY IN THAT PORTION OF THE HEARING, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOUR ATTORNEY AGREED--I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING.
A.     OKAY.
Q.     ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOUR ATTORNEY AGREED THAT ANY OTHER WITNESSES THAT MIGHT TESTIFY WOULD ONLY PROVIDE REDUNDANT TESTIMONY, REPETITIVE TESTIMONY?
A.     YES, REPETITIVE TESTIMONY.

MR. BATES: ALL RIGHT; ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

Q.     WHAT BECAME OF THE APPEAL? DID YOU STOP THE APPEAL OR IS IT STILL PENDING?
A.     NO, SIR, WE COULD NOT GO AHEAD WITH THE APPEAL BECAUSE WE COULD NOT SEE THE CHILD, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS IN A TRAUMATIC STATE OF MIND, AND WHEN WE DID FILE FOR AN APPEAL--OR, EXCUSE ME--AS LONG AS OUR CASE WAS UNDER APPEAL WE COULD NOT GO BACK INTO COURT FOR EXTENDED VISITATION RIGHTS, AND WE HAD TO DROP THAT IN THAT CASE. BUT WHEN WE DID FILE FOR EXTENDED VISITATION RIGHTS, WE WERE STILL NOT ALLOWED THAT EITHER. WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT AT ALL EITHER. AND WE WERE TOLD THAT EVEN IF WE APPEALED THE CASE, OUR CHANCES WERE SLIM TO NOTHING THAT IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED.

REP. MCEACHIN: THANK YOU, MA'AM.

Q.     THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, DID THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM MAKE A REPORT TO THE COURT?
A.     YES, SI R.
Q.     AND HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE A FULL REPORT TO THE JUDGE?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     DID ANY OF THE GUARDIAN AD LIT EM'S FINDINGS FIND ANYBODY UNFIT? DO YOU RECALL?
A.     NO, SIR.

REP. MARTIN: I HAVE A QUESTION.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT.

Q.     MRS. SINEATH, IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT JUDGE MARING ACTED IN A RUDE AND ARROGANT MANNER.
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A.     YES, SIR. DURING THE TESTIMONY OF MYSELF, JUDGE MARING WAS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW OLD I WAS, HOW OLD MY HUSBAND WAS, AND WASN'T MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, WHO WAS 27 AT THAT TIME, MORE CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF THAT CHILD. THAT QUESTIONED MY CAPABILITY AS A MOTHER OF FIVE CHILDREN. HE WAS RUDE IN HIS ACTIONS THAT NO MATTER HOW HE SPOKE, IT WAS IN A RUDE AND ARROGANT MANNER. HE WAS NOT WILLING TO LISTEN TO ANY PART OF OUR TESTIMONY WITHOUT REFLECTING OVER TO MR. BRADLEY OR MR. BRADLEY'S CLIENT. WHATEVER HE CAME IN AGREEMENT WITH MR. BRADLEY, AND MR. BRADLEY, IN PARTICULAR, THAT WAS FINE. IT WAS A NODDING OF AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND HE WAS JUST--HE JUST WAS NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING OUR CASE. HE HAD MADE HIS DECISION PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS GOING TO STAND.
Q.     DID HE EVER TELL YOU ANYTHING SUCH AS "STOP TALKING?"
A.     WELL, HE WOULD INTERRUPT. YOU COULDN'T--YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO START A SENTENCE AND YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH IT BECAUSE HE WOULD SAY "ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT," YOU KNOW, AND THEN HE WOULD GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE; AND HE WOULD ASK THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY OR OTHER ATTORNEY IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
Q.     HE NEVER TOLD YOU TO STOP TALKING OR BE QUIET?
A.     NO, SIR. HE WOULD LIFT HIS HAND, (INDICATING), AND HE WOULD SAY, "ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE QUESTIONS?" AND SO ON. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY IT HE HAD IT IN A SIGN.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE OTHER QUESTION.

Q.     WE HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY ABOUT HAVING SEEN THEM COME OUT OF A ROOM. BEYOND WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT INDICATES TO YOU THAT THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF YOUR ATTORNEY?
A.     YES, SIR. WHEN JUDGE MARING AND JOHN BRADLEY HAD COME OUT OF THE ROOM AND THE RECEPTIONIST WENT OVER TO APPARENTLY ASK HIM, APPARENTLY ASK HIM A QUESTION, JOHN BRADLEY CAME BACK OVER TO WHERE MY DAUGHTER-IN- LAW AND HER FAMILY WERE SITTING AND HE LEANED OVER AND PATTED HER ON THE SHOULDER AND HE SAID, "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. EVERYTHING IS FINE. NO MORE PROBLEMS." AND I DID TURN AROUND AT THAT POINT AND I ASKED MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, I SAID, "WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT?" AND SHE SAID, "NO." AND THAT WAS IT. I MEAN, THEY KNEW APPARENTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE DID WAY DOWN THE LINE.

Q.     MRS. SINEATH, THE CHILD IS NOW WITH YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW?
A.     YES, SIR, HE IS. HE IS SHIFTED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER BUT HE IS IN HER CUSTODY.
Q.     DO YOU HAVE VISITATION WITH THAT CHILD?
A.     ONE WEEKEND A MONTH.
Q.     SO YOU HAVE COURT ORDERED VISITATION ONE WEEKEND A MONTH.
A.     YES, SIR, ONE WEEKEND A MONTH.
Q.     IN YOUR LETTER YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT JUDGE MARING ALSO DENIED THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM, YET FROM THE RECORD IT APPEARS THERE WAS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO WAS FRIENDLY TO YOU.
A.     YES, SIR, THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, RIGHT.
Q.     DID YOUR LAWYER OR DID JUDGE MARING EXPLAIN TO YOU THE GENERAL LAW OF THIS STATE AS TO PREFERENCE FOR NATURAL PARENTS RATHER THAN GRANDPARENTS OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS?
A.     YES, SIR, MY ATTORNEY DID.
Q.     WAS THERE AT ANY TIME ANY FINDINGS THAT YOUR DAUGHTER- IN-LAW WAS UNFIT?
A.     YES, SIR, BUT WE WERE NOT THERE TO PROVE HER UNFIT. WE WERE NOT, AND WE WERE NEVER--THAT NEVER EVEN ENTERED OUR MIND. WE WERE THERE TO TRY TO RETAIN CUSTODY OF OUR GRANDSON. WE WERE NEVER EVEN NOTIFIED THAT WE WERE GOING TO--THERE WAS A SUMMONS THAT WAS SENT OUT BY MR. BRADLEY THAT NEVER GOT TO US. WE WERE ALREADY--IT HAD ALREADY--I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TECHNICAL WORD IS BUT AFTER IT EXPIRED. (PAUSE.) WE WERE ALREADY IN DEFAULT. EXCUSE ME .
Q.     DID YOUR LAWYER PRIOR TO THAT HEARING EVER ADVISE YOU THAT IN ORDER TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN YOUR EFFORT TO GET CUSTODY THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE YOUR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TO BE UNFIT?
A.     YES, SIR, BUT ON--AGAIN, I HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED THE INTEGRITY OF MY ATTORNEY.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

Q.     IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE: YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL US?
A.     YES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND JUDGE MARING'S POSITION AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, AND I UNDERSTAND MY POSITION HERE TODAY AS A MOTHER AND A GRANDMOTHER. I'M NOT HERE TO TRY TO BE VINDICTIVE. IT APPEARS THAT WAY, I UNDERSTAND. BUT IF JUDGE MARING IS ALLOWED TO SORT OF LEAN IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY OR HIS CLIENT IN THE IDEA THAT IT MAY GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO BE REAPPOINTED TO THE SEAT TO THE BENCH OF A SOUTH CAROLINA FAMILY COURT JUDGE, THEN JUDGE MARING, THAT'S JUST NOT--THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT IN OUR COURT. WHY SHOULD HE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BY SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS LIKE THIS. YOU KNOW, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS. WE WERE DENIED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR HEARING. WE WERE NOT HEARD LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD. OUR JUDGES SHOULDN'T BE APPOINTED ANYWAY. THEY SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THEN MAYBE OUR CHILDREN WOULD BE SPARED A LITTLE MORE ABUSE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE COURTROOM. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY EXCEPT THAT WE WERE DENIED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND MY GRANDSON WAS USED AS A POLITICAL PAWN IN SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON COUNTY FAMILY COURT. AND TO REAPPOINT JUDGE MARING ONLY QUESTIONS THE ACCURACY AND INTELLIGENCE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND ALLOWS OUR CHILDREN TO BE USED AND ABUSED BY THOSE SUCH AS JUDGE MARING. I ASK THAT YOU SPARE OUR CHILDREN THIS HURT AND UNHAPPINESS AND POSSIBLE JUVENILE PUNISHMENT FORCED UPON THEM BY JUDGES SUCH AS THIS. AND AS A VOTER AND TAXPAYER OF SOUTH CAROLINA IT IS MY DUTY TO COME FORWARD TO PRESENT MY CASE AGAINST JUDGE MARING TO SHOW HOW THE CHILDREN OF SOUTH CAROLINA ARE BEING USED TO BENEFIT THE "GOOD OLD BOY" SYSTEM IN OUR FAMILY COURTS. IF THIS CONTINUES, WHERE LIES THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN? IF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM ALLOWS THE COURT APPOINTED--APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM, WHY THEN ARE OUR JUDGES ALLOWED TO DISREGARD HIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT? I MEAN, IF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM SAYS, "I RECOMMEND THAT THIS CHILD STAY WHERE HE IS BECAUSE IT IS IN HIS BEST INTEREST," AND THE JUDGE OVERRULES THAT DECISION, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SAY? OUR TRANSCRIPT, FOR INSTANCE, THAT'S NOT RIGHT; THERE ARE NUMEROUS ERRORS IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. I WAS QUESTIONED BASICALLY BY MR. BRADLEY, NOT BY JUDGE MARING. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WERE NOT--I WASN'T IN THE DIVORCE AT THE HEARING AT ALL. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WENT ON IN THE DIVORCE HEARING; HOWEVER, THERE WERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE IN THE BACK OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DIVORCE HEARING THAT WAS RIGHT AT THE CUSTODY HEARING AND THEY WERE MOVED ABOUT IN THAT TRANSCRIPT. I HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE EFFECT OF WHAT I'VE JUST SAID. BUT JUDGE MARING STATED THAT A CHILD HAS NO MIND OF HIS OWN AND HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WANTS. WELL, IF JUDGE MARING IS SO EASILY MISLED BY THOSE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST HIM, THEN IT IS HE AND NOT THE CHILDREN WHO AREN'T ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS OF SUCH IMPORTANT FACTORS. IF THE COURT SYSTEMS OF--IN THE COURT SYSTEMS OF SOUTH CAROLINA OUR CHILDREN ARE TREATED TO THE LOWEST LIFE FORM. WE OWE IT TO OUR CHILDREN TO PRESERVE THEIR GREATEST POTENTIAL BECAUSE THEY WILL NEED TO BE EMOTIONALLY STABLE AND PRODUCTIVE ADULTS TO HANDLE WHAT IS TO FACE THEM IN THE FUTURE. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW JUDGE MARING TO PRESIDE OVER OUR SOUTH CAROLINA FAMILY COURT BECAUSE HE DOES NOT TAKE THE CHILDREN IN FULL CONSIDERATION. I WITNESSED THE FACT THAT JUDGE MARING AND JOHN BRADLEY WERE EXCHANGING GLANCES, WERE NODDING IN AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT. WHATEVER WAS GOING ON BETWEEN THOSE TWO, I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT MY GRANDSON WAS USED AS A POLITICAL PAWN IN THAT COURTROOM. AND I REALIZE THAT YOU, THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE, CANNOT BE AWARE OF EVERY ACTION OF EACH APPOINTED JUDGE; HOWEVER, NOW THAT JUDGE MARING PROJECTED HIS TRUE SELF TO SOMEONE WHO WILL FIGHT BACK, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND DETRIMENTAL FOR YOU TO REAPPOINT HIM AS A SOUTH CAROLINA FAMILY COURT JUDGE. HE IS AND WAS WRONG IN THE WAY HE HANDLED THE CASE.

Q.     MISS. SINEATH, ARE YOU, IN ESSENCE, SAYING THAT JUDGE MARING MADE A FRIENDSHIP DECISION AS OPPOSED TO A JUDICIAL DECISIONS
A.     YES, SIR, IT WAS NOT--THERE WAS NO SECRET THAT THERE WAS PAST AND PRESENT PERSONAL AND POLITICAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JOHN BRADLEY AND JUDGE MARING. MR. BRADLEY MADE THAT CLEAR. HE NEVER HESITATED FOR ONE MOMENT. IN FACT, WHEN OUR HEARING WAS OVER AND JUDGE MARING WAS STILL SITTING ON THE BENCH AT THAT TIME, I WALKED OVER TO MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND I ASKED HER, "HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BUY AND SELL A CHILD ALL IN ONE DAY?" DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THAT; AND MR. BRADLEY HEARING MY COMMENT, STATED, "WELL, IT'S ALL IN WHO YOU KNOW." AND HE LOOKED AT JUDGE MARING AND HE NODDED HIS HEAD AND JUDGE MARING WINKED AND GOT UP AND HE EXITED THE COURTROOM. I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT IS PROPER IN ETHICS FOR A JUDGE OR SOMEBODY WHO WE ENTRUST TO OUR CHILDREN TO SIT UP ON THE BENCH AND PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM, ALL IN POLITICAL FAVORS. I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS DONE AS A POLITICAL MATTER. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST POLITICIANS. I KNOW QUITE A FEW POLITICIANS MYSELF; NOT PERSONALLY, BUT FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD OF THEM. BUT TO ALLOW JUDGE MARING TO CONTINUE THIS WOULD ONLY PROVE TO BE DETRIMENTAL. I MEAN, I'M SORRY BUT IT WOULD. WHO CAN WE TRUST IF WE CAN'T TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO APPOINT THE JUDGES IF WE CAN'T ELECT THEM OURSELVES?

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, MA'AM. JUDGE MARING, DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND?

JUDGE MARING: I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND BRIEFLY. YOU KNOW, CUSTODY CASES ARE SAD CASES TO TRY. THIS LADY LOVED THIS GRANDCHILD; NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT SO DID THE MAMA. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY AT THE TIME WHEN HE WROTE THE ROLAND DECISION, NOW OUR CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE COURT THAT UNLESS A PARENT IS UNFIT THAT THE CHILD SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PARENT OVER THIRD PARTIES. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW MUCH CLEARER THE LAW CAN BE. IN THIS CASE, AS I RECALL THE TESTIMONY--IT'S BEEN SOME TIME-BUT YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL. THE TESTIMONY FROM THE GRANDFATHER AND GRANDMOTHER WASN'T THAT THE MOTHER WAS NOT FIT. THEY SIMPLY WANTED THE GRANDCHILD. NOW THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN DIVIDE A CHILD. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO TESTIMONY ON THE MOTHER BEING UNFIT. EVEN THE HUSBAND OF THE MOTHER, WHO DID, IN FACT, TESTIFY, SAID THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS WIFE AS A MOTHER BUT HE WOULD LIKE HIS PEOPLE, THE GRANDPARENTS HERE, TO HAVE CUSTODY. IT WAS NOT A HARD DECISION ON THE LAW, AND I HAVE HAD A PRE-TRIAL WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR A JUDGE TO HAVE A PRE-TRIAL IF HE CAN'T INDICATE TO THE LAWYER, OR LAWYERS, WHAT HE THINKS THE LAW IS. AND MR. LANDIS CAME IN. MR. BRADLEY HANDED ME A TRIAL BRIEF. MR. LANDIS DID NOT. AND MR. LANDIS IS A GOOD LAWYER. I'M NOT HERE TO THROW OFF ON HIM. AND HE IS ALSO A FRIEND OF MINE. BUT I SAID, "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW THE MOTHER UNFIT?" HE SAYS, "WELL, JUDGE, WE'RE NOT SAYING SHE IS UNFIT." AND I SAID, "WELL, COUNSELOR, I THINK THE LAW IS CLEAR IN THIS STATE THAT IF THE MOTHER IS NOT UNFIT THEN SHE IS ENTITLED TO CUSTODY AGAINST A THIRD PARTY," IN THIS CASE THE GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDFATHER. AND I SUGGESTED THAT HE GO TALK TO HIS CLIENTS, THE GRANDPARENTS, AND LET'S WORK OUT SOME REASONABLE RIGHTS OF VISITATION. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING IMPROPER IN DOING THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW HE PRESENTED IT TO HIS CLIENTS WHEN HE WENT AND TOLD THEM. SO WHEN WE COMMENCED THE HEARING THE TRANSCRIPT WILL SHOW THAT I SAID ON THE RECORD WHAT I THOUGHT THE LAW WAS IN SOUTH CAROLINA. AND MR. LANDIS HAD NO CASES THAT WERE ADVERSE TO THE, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE ROLAND CASE. AND SHE SAYS THAT I DID NOT LET HER PEOPLE TESTIFY. WELL, NOW WHEN THE DEFENSE LAWYER OR HER LAWYER STOOD UP AND SAID, "JUDGE WE HAVE GOT SOME OTHER WITNESSES BUT THEY WOULD BE REPETITIVE," I DON'T KNOW THAT A TRIAL JUDGE WOULD SAY, "I WANT TO HEAR THEM ANYWAY." YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT OTHER CASES TO HEAR. AND HE AND MR. BRADLEY AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE CUMULATIVE, AND MR. BRADLEY AGREED THAT THE GRANDPARENTS WERE GOOD PEOPLE AND THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED TO, AND NEITHER LAWYER WANTED TO PUT THE WITNESSES UP, AND I CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT TO WASTE MY TIME ON REPETITIVE TESTIMONY. NOW THIS GRANDMOTHER, AND MY HEART GOES OUT TO HER BECAUSE SHE WANTED THIS CHILD. BUT MAYBE MR. BRADLEY DID GET THERE EARLY. IF MR. LANDIS WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THERE EARLY, I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT HAVE LOCKED MY DOOR I AM NOT RUDE TO LAWYERS. MOST LAWYERS ARE MY FRIENDS. MY HOME CIRCUIT AND ANY CIRCUIT I PRESIDE OVER IN A PERIOD OF TIME, I TRY TO KEEP A GOOD RAPPORT WITH THE BAR BUT MR. LANDIS WAS THERE AT THE PRE-TRIAL I, OF COURSE, NEVER DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH MR. BRADLEY PRIOR TO MR. LANDIS GETTING THERE. THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM TESTIFIED BUT HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS WEAK. HE SAID HIE MILDLY RECOMMENDED THE GRANDPARENTS. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAD AN EXTRA ROOM FOR THE CHILD; BUT I BELIEVE, AND I MAY BE INCORRECT ON THIS, I BELIEVE THE MOTHER'S TESTIMONY WAS THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MOVE SOON AND WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR HER CHILD. AS FAR AS BEING RUDE, THE TRANSCRIPT CERTAINLY SHOWS NO RUDENESS. I CERTAINLY WAS NOT RUDE TO THIS LITIGANT. AND ABOUT WINKING AT MR. BRADLEY CERTAINLY I WOULD NOT DO THAT. AS FAR AS REFUSING TO ALLOW ANYONE TO TESTIFY, I THINK THAT THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT I ASK VERY FEW QUESTIONS. I TRY TO NOT TRY THE CASE FOR THE LAWYERS. I LET THE LAWYERS TRY THE CASES. I LOOK AT THE JUDGE'S JOB AS BEING MORE OF REFEREE. SORT OF LIKE A FOOTBALL GAME; I DON'T CARRY THE BALL, I ONLY MAKE THE CALLS. AS FAR AS ME DENYING THE GRANDPARENTS VISITATION, I DON'T REMEMBER WORD-FOR-WORD THE ORDER BUT I'M CERTAIN I GAVE THEM ONE WEEKEND A MONTH, WHICH IS WHAT I NORMALLY GIVE GRANDPARENTS BECAUSE BY THE TIME DADDY SEES THE CHILD, MOTHER'S FREQUENTLY WORK DURING THE WEEK AND ONLY HAVE WEEKENDS OFF, AND THEY NEED TIME OFF WITH THE CHILD, TOO; AND I THINK ONE WEEKEND A MONTH IS GENERALLY REASONABLE FOR A GRANDPARENT. I BELIEVE THE ORDER, AND I MAY BE WRONG ON THIS, SAYS "AND SUCH OTHER REASONABLE VISITATION AS THE PARTIES CAN AGREE ON." POLITICS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. THIS WAS A MATTER OF FOLLOWING THE LAW AS SET OUT BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. IF MR. BRADLEY HAD BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, HE WOULD HAVE LOST THE CASE. NOW THIS GRANDMOTHER, WHO IS EMOTIONALLY DISTRAUGHT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, COULD HAVE APPEALED THE CASE IN WHICH CASE THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED MY ORDER, I FEEL SURE; BUT SHE DROPPED HER APPEAL. AT THE TIME I WROTE THE LETTER, I DID NOT REALIZE THAT, BUT SHE DROPPED THE APPEAL. AS FAR AS I KNOW, HER LAWYER NEVER MOVED TO STAY MY ORDER AFTER I DENIED THE STAY. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A WASTE OF TIME BUT CERTAINLY THEY HAD A RIGHT TO DO SO. MR. BRADLEY IS NOT HERE TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF BUT I HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN HIM TO BE AN ATTORNEY OF INTEGRITY. I, FRANKLY, JUST CAN'T BELIEVE HE WOULD HAVE MADE COMMENTS WHICH INDICATED THAT THE COURT WOULD RULE WITH HIM BECAUSE HE WAS FRIENDS WITH THE JUDGE. MAYBE MR. LANDIS, WHEN I TOLD HIM TO GO TALK TO HIS CLIENTS, SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED IT IN A BETTER MANNER THAN HE MAY HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE TOLD THEM. BUT MR. LANDIS HAS ALWAYS APPEARED TO ME TO ALSO BE AN ATTORNEY OF INTEGRITY, AND MY FRIEND. AS FAR AS THE GRANDMOTHER NOT BEING PRESENT DURING THE DIVORCE PART OF THE HEARING, WE DIVIDED THE CUSTODY FROM THE DIVORCE HEARING. WE BIFURCATED IT. WE TRIED ONES RIGHT BEHIND THE OTHER. AND I THINK THE TRANSCRIPT WILL REFLECT THAT THE GRANDMOTHER'S LAWYER ASKED TO BE EXCUSED WITH HIS CLIENTS. CERTAINLY, THEY COULD HAVE REMAINED. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO WHEN THEY LEFT IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF HER COUNSEL, AS I RECALL, AND I THINK THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BEAR ME OUT. THE GUARDIAN--ONCE AGAIN, THE GUARDIAN'S RECOMMENDATION WAS A MILD RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE GUARDIAN'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE GUARDIAN IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SUPPLANT THE JUDGE AS A DECISION-MAKER. THE GUARDIAN IS TO AID THE COURT. AND EVEN HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS A VERY MILD RECOMMENDATION. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT INDICATES THAT THIS MOTHER IS UNFIT. THE TESTIMONY VARIED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THE CHILD WAS WITH THE GRANDPARENTS, EITHER 75 PERCENT OR 60 PERCENT OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN. THE GRANDMOTHER WANTED TO INDICATE THAT THE CHILD HAD BEEN WITH HER; IN FACT, MAMA AND DADDY LIVED WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AT ONE TIME. AT ONE TIME THE CHILD WAS STRICTLY WITH MAMA AND DADDY. AT ONE TIME MAMA AND DADDY LIVED ACROSS THE STREET. AS I RECALL IT, MAMA AND DADDY LIVED DOWN THE STREET. SO, IT WASN'T A QUESTION OF A WOMAN COMING IN WHEN THE CHILD'S FIVE YEARS OLD AND SAYING, "I WANT MY CHILD BACK." THE CHILD CALLED HER MAMA. THE CHILD CALLED GRANDMAMA AND GRANDDADDY, GRANDMAMA AND GRANDDADDY. SO, THERE'S NO QUESTION OF THE CHILD NOT BEING BONDED TO MAMA. THAT'S JUST THE FACTS OF THE CASE, GENTLEMEN. I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

REP. ROGERS: ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE MARING?

REP. GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU.

JUDGE MARING: THANK YOU. MAY I BE EXCUSED, GENTLEMEN?

REP. ROGERS: ABSOLUTELY, JUDGE. WE WILL CONCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE TESTIMONY IN YOUR CASE.

JUDGE MARING: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: WOULD THE COMMITTEE LIKE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS TIME?

SENATOR LOURIE: SO MOVE.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT, WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND CALL ALL OF YOU BACK IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT, I CALL THE COMMITTEE BACK TO ORDER. JUDGE BLACK, WILL YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

(HONORABLE JOHN T. BLACK, CANDIDATE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WAS DULY SWORN BY REP. ROGERS.)

1.     John T. Black

Home Address:     Business Address:

1123 Wichman Street     P.O. Box 1685

Walterboro, SC 29488     Walterboro, SC 29072

2.     He was born in Beaufort, South Carolina on January 13, 1928.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4.     He married Betty Padgett on May 27, 1956. They have 4 children: Carol Padgett, age 31 (Attorney in Columbia); John T., Jr., age 29 (real estate appraiser, Charleston); Nancy Black Skardon, age 26; James B. II, age 22 (employed with C&S Bank, Charleston).

5.     Military Service: February 1951 - September 1953, US Air Force, Office of Special Investigations, 1st Lt., AO-1905622. Honorable Discharge.

6.     He attended The Citadel, 1945-1950 (B.S. in Commerce); University of South Carolina Law School, 1954-1956 (LLB Degree).

8.     Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1956 ...     Associate in law office of J.P. Harrelson, Walterboro

1956-1963     Partner in Padgett, Moorer and Black, Walterboro

1963-1968     Inactive - In private business, Black Chevrolet &

Olds, Walterboro

1968-1977     Judge, Family Court of Colleton County & The Civil and Criminal Court of Colleton County

1977-present     Family Court Judge, Fourteenth Circuit

13.     Judicial Office: 1968-1977 Judge, Family Court of Colleton County & The Civil and Criminal Court of Colleton County, appointed. The Family Court had all jurisdiction authorized by the Family Court Act of 1968 and the Civil and Criminal Court had jurisdiction to $26,000 and all criminal jurisdiction not prohibited by SC Constitution.; 1977-present, Judge, Family Court of South Carolina, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit.

14.     Public Office: He was elected to City Council, Walterboro, June 1, 1960-June l, 1964.

15.     He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1964 for reelection to City Council of Walterboro.

17.     Other Occupation: He was part owner of Black Chevrolet-Olds., Inc, August 1963-July 1968.

21.     Sued: He was sued in an auto accident in 1964. His insurance company settled with the other party. No driving infractions were charged to him.

22.     Disciplined: In 1978 there was an inquiry by the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards concerning his testifying in Federal Court for a former employee named John Thomas Hale, Sr. He wrote a letter explaining the circumstances and the explanation was considered as satisfactory.

23.     Health is excellent, with the exception of high cholesterol.

24.     In July 1988 he had two operations at Roper Hospital, right and left endarterectomy (cleaned out carotid arteries). Has no present problems from the operations.

25.     He has worn glasses since 1946.

30.     Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Walterboro Lions Club, Past President; Bethel Presbyterian Church, former Deacon; American Legion, Walterboro Post; Public Safety Committee, former Chairman, Lowcountry Regional Planning Council.

33.     Five letters of reference:

(a) Michael Davenport, Vice President

Citizens & Southern National Bank

P.O. Drawer 1188

Walterboro, SC 29488

(b) W. Brantley Harvey, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Drawer 1107

Beaufort, SC 29901-1107

(c) Peden B. McLeod, Esquire

P.O. Box 230

Walterboro, SC 29488

(d) Peter L. Fuse, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 1107

Beaufort, SC 29901-1107

(e) Jackson V. Gregory, Esquire

P.O. Box 1217

Walterboro, SC 29488

Q.     JUDGE, THANKS FOR BEING WITH US HERE TODAY. DID YOU RECEIVE A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY BACK FROM US?
A.     I DID.
Q.     DID YOU REVIEW THAT TO SEE IF IT NEEDED ANY CLARIFICATION OF ANYTHING?
A.     I DID.
Q.     DID YOU FIND EVERYTHING ACCURATE IN THAT SUMMARY?
A.     AS Y'ALL CORRECTED IT LATER, IT'S ACCURATE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. OKAY, JUDGE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW; NO PUBLIC REPRIMANDS REPORTED BY THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION. YOUR DRIVING WAS REPORTED AS CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS FROM THE COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE WALTERBORO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. IN CHECKING WITH SLED AND THE F.B.I. IN YOUR NAME, THE RECORDS WERE CLEAR. AND WE ALSO CHECKED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF COLLETON COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL JUDGMENT ROLLS. THE RECORDS OF COLLETON COUNTY, WE DID FIND TWO LAWSUITS ON WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY, BOTH BACK IN THE 60'S; ONE OF WHICH WAS HULL VERSUS BLACK AND BLACK CHEVROLET/OLDS IN 1964. I BELIEVE THAT AROSE OUT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN WHICH YOU WERE INVOLVED AND THAT THE ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE WAS FILED IN 1966; IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     THE OTHER ONE WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED BY YOU WAS ALSO IN 1966, LOW COUNTRY BROADCASTING VERSUS JOHN BLACK AND JOHN LUCAS, DOING BUSINESS AS WALTERBORO DRAG STRIP, WHICH WAS A CLAIM FOR UNPAID RADIO ADS. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
A.     I AM NOW, YES.
Q.     AND WHAT WAS THE RESOLUTION OF THAT DISPUTE?
A.     IT WAS SETTLED. WE PAID THEM SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY. I, FRANKLY, DON'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH BUT IT WAS SETTLED.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. BACK DURING THAT TIME YOU--FOR ABOUT A FOUR- OR FIVE-YEAR PERIOD YOU WERE NOT PRACTICING LAW, YOU WERE RUNNING A GAS STATION AND CHEVROLET/OLDSMOBILE DEALERSHIP AND--
A.     CHEVROLET/OLDSMOBILE DEALERSHIP.
Q.     I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED ON YOUR SUMMARY THAT IN 1978 THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION MADE INQUIRY REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY IN A FEDERAL COURT CASE IN WHICH YOU TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF FORMER EMPLOYEE AND THAT THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN IN THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     WELL, AT THAT TIME I GOT A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS ON YOUR PART. YOUR CREDIT WAS REPORTED AS GOOD. I BELIEVE YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     THAT'S TRUE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. DURING THE CHECK OF THE COUNTY RECORDS OF COLLETON COUNTY IT WAS REVEALED THAT SEVERAL TAX LIENS HAD BEEN FILED IN YOUR NAME, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, NONE OF WHICH WERE REPORTED ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU A SUMMARY OF THOSE AND A COPY OF THEM, THE TAX LIENS. ONE IN 1966, ONE IN '68, ONE IN '69, ONE IN '70, ONE IN '73, AND THE MOST RECENT BEING SEPTEMBER OF 1977. I GUESS THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT THEY WERE NOT LISTED ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS RETURNED TO US. DO YOU CARE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT AS TO THAT?
A.     YES, I WOULD. I APOLOGIZE. I DO THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED, AND I'M AS SURPRISED AS YOU ARE TO SEE THEM SHOW UP NOW. I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE TAX LIENS OR I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THEM AS BEING TAX LIENS. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW--I DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE FILED AT THE TAX OFFICE. THESE WERE SOME ADMISSIONS TAX RETURNS THAT, BACK WHEN I, ALONG WITH SOMEONE ELSE, WAS OPERATING THE DRAG STRIP, AND WE WOULD NOT SOMETIMES PAY THE ADMISSIONS TAXES ON TIME AND HE WOULD COME BY AND COLLECT. AND I, FRANKLY, DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD BEEN FILING SOMETHING UPSTAIRS. I CAN'T--I TRIED TO THINK BACK TO TRY TO RECONSTRUCT WHAT WAS RUNNING THROUGH MY MIND BACK IN '77 WHEN I FIRST FILLED OUT A QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEY WERE LEFT OFF THEN. I THINK I MAY HAVE BEEN SORT OF LULLED INTO THINKING THEY WEREN'T UP THERE BECAUSE EACH SLED CHECK HAS NEVER TURNED THEM UP UNTIL THIS TIME AND I'VE NEVER REPORTED THEM AND DIDN'T REALLY THINK THEY WERE LIENS UNTIL THEY SHOWED UP THIS TIME.
Q.     I BELIEVE THAT--
A.     I LOOKED AT ALL OF MY OLD SLED CHECKS FROM PRIOR SCREENINGS AND IT'S ALWAYS SHOWN UP NEGATIVE.
Q.     WE MUST HAVE A MORE INDUSTRIOUS SLED AGENT THIS YEAR.
A.     WELL, IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT DID THEM THE LAST TIME. I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT. I THINK THEY HAVE PUT EVERYTHING ON A COMPUTER IN OUR SMALL COUNTY NOW SO THAT THEY CAN KIND OF GO IN AND PUNCH A COMPUTER AND IT KIND OF GOES BACK AND GIVES A MORE ACCURATE CHECK. I REALLY TRIED TO EXPLAIN IT TO MYSELF, AND I APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE PUT THEM ON THERE.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN SATISFIED?
A.     OH, YES, THEY WERE SATISFIED A MONTH OR TWO AFTER THEY WERE FILED BACK IN THE 60'S. IN FACT, I'VE GOT THE DATES THESE WERE SATISFIED THAT I'VE COPIED DOWN JUST TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THEM.
Q.     OKAY, SIR. YOUR LAST SCREENING WAS IN 1985, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.     YES, SIR.
Q.     AND YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH SINCE '77?
A.     WELL, REALLY SINCE JULY OF 1968.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, AND UNDER THE UNIFIED SYSTEM IN '77?
A.     RIGHT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY--THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR REAPPLICATION TO YOUR BEAT, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS THE FOURTEENTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 1; IS THAT RIGHT?
A.     THAT'S CORRECT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU AND I HAVE TALKED EARLIER AND YOU DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS SOME OTHER MATTERS. IS THAT STILL YOUR WISH?
A.     YES, THAT IS.

MR. BATES: ALL RIGHT, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN.

REP. ROGERS: LET ME HAVE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

Q.     JUDGE BLACK, THE APPLICATION THAT YOU SIGNED THAT WAS DELIVERED TO THIS COMMITTEE REQUIRES YOU TO TELL US ABOUT ANY LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST YOU OR IN WHICH YOU ARE A PARTY AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO TELL US ABOUT ANY TAX LIENS, AND YET ON YOUR APPLICATION YOU FAILED TO REVEAL THESE TAX LIENS OR THESE LAWSUITS. YOU TYPED IN THE WORD "NO" ON THOSE QUESTIONS AND THAT APPLICATION, I BELIEVE, IS UNDER OATH, ISN'T IT?
A.     I THINK IT IS.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW AS A JUDGE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, DON'T YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN PROVIDING TO THIS COMMITTEE AND TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHICH ELECTS YOU, THE CORRECT AND ACCURATE INFORMATION?
A.     I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR, AND WHAT JUSTIFICATION DO YOU HAVE FOR GIVING US AN APPLICATION WHICH IS INACCURATE?
A.     I CAN EXPLAIN HOW IT HAPPENED, IF THAT IS ANY JUSTIFICATION.
Q.     YES, SIR, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN.
A.     OKAY.
Q.     BECAUSE I CONSIDER THIS A SERIOUS THING.
A.     I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU. I WAS IN COLUMBIA HAVING COURT WHEN Y'ALL SENT THIS APPLICATION TO MY OFFICE IN WALTERBORO. AS YOU ARE AWARE, I THINK ALL OF THE JUDGES FROM THE EIGHTH THROUGH THE SIXTEENTH CIRCUITS WERE WONDERING WHEN WE WOULD BE SCREENED. MY SECRETARY CALLED ME TO TELL ME THAT A PACKAGE HAD COME AND SHE HAD OPENED IT AND IT HAD TO HURRIEDLY BE SENT BACK. I THINK WE HAD ABOUT A WEEK-AND-A-HALF TO SEND IT BACK. I TOLD HER TO GET OUT MY OLD INFORMATION THAT I HAD FILLED OUT IN THE PRIOR YEARS. THE NEXT WEEK I WAS IN BEAUFORT HAVING COURT. I TOOK ALL OF THAT INFORMATION WITH ME. JUDGE FANNING'S SECRETARY WHO WAS TYPING HIS--HE HAD TO FILE HIS AT THE SAME TIME--SHE ASSISTED ME IN TYPING MINE. AND I CERTAINLY APOLOGIZE, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CAREFUL BUT WHEN I GAVE HER THE ONE FROM THE LAST TIME FROM MY SCREENING, IT HAD THIS INFORMATION AND IT REALLY JUST NEVER REGISTERED ON MY MIND THAT SOMETHING WAS INACCURATE AND THAT I SHOULD READ IT ALL, AND I LOOKED AT IT AND IT WAS THE SAME AS THE LAST ONE FROM FOUR YEARS AGO AND THE ONE FROM FOUR YEARS BEFORE THEN, AND THE ONE FROM FOUR YEARS BEFORE THEN, AND I JUST WAS MISTAKEN, I THINK, IN--IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME THAT THESE THINGS WERE UP THERE. AND I APOLOGIZE AGAIN.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. IN ALL OF THE YEARS SINCE THESE LIENS AND JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED, IT NEVER CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THEY HAD BEEN ENTERED IN THE CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE?
A.     I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN REALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW THAT I EVER HAD ANY OCCASION TO EVER KNOW ABOUT IT. I'M SURE I'VE MADE SOME LOANS SINCE THEN BUT THEY HAD BEEN CHECKED; IF THEY HAD BEEN SATISFIED, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN REPORTED. SO I JUST--
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A.     I DON'T RECALL THAT THEY--EVER REALLY KNOWING THEY WERE UP THERE, BUT COULD BE MISTAKEN.
Q.     THE TWO LAWSUITS, THE RECORDS CONTAIN APPARENTLY INFORMATION TO INDICATE THAT YOU KNEW OF THEIR EXISTENCE AND THAT YOU SATISFIED THEM.
A.     WELL, I REPORTED ONE.

MR. BATES: ONE OF THOSE WAS--
A.     THE REASON I REPORTED THAT, I WAS IN THAT WRECK AND I WAS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE WRECK I WAS IN AND I'VE ALWAYS REPORTED THAT ONE. THE OTHER WAS A COLLECTION SUIT THAT WAS FOR SOME ADVERTISING WITH A RADIO STATION IN CHARLESTON HAVING TO DO WITH THE DRAG STRIP WHERE WE ADVERTISED; AS I HAVE LOOKED BACK TO TRY TO RECONSTRUCT WHAT HAPPENED, APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT AUTHORIZING THIS COMPANY TO RUN AS MANY THINGS ON THE RADIO AS THEY HAD AND WE HAD A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT IT, APPARENTLY; AND THEY BROUGHT THIS ACTION AND WE GOT A LOCAL ATTORNEY TO FILE AN ANSWER AND THE MATTER WAS SETTLED, AND I DON'T--NOT HAVING BEEN PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THAT LIKE THE WRECK, I JUST NEGLECTED TO PUT IT DOWN.
Q.     ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE TAX LIENS, THE COPIES THAT I HAVE, ARE IN YOUR NAME ALONE, .JOHN T. BLACK, AND, WELL, THREE OF THEM ARE IN YOUR NAME. SEVERAL OF THEM ARE BETWEEN YOU WITH JOHN A. LUCAS. THEY CONTAIN A NUMBER OF PENALTIES. WHAT IS THAT, A LATE FILING?
A.     I THINK SEVERAL OF THEM WERE JUST FOR A PENALTY. I NOTICE ONE OF THEM APPEARED TO BE JUST A $500 PENALTY. I THINK THAT WAS SATISFIED. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE PAID THE $500 OR A LESSER AMOUNT.
Q.     WELL, I'M LOOKING AT ONE FOR $500 AND $27 COST, SATISFIED MARCH 19, 1971, BY J.D. STROMAN, WARRANT OFFICER.
A.     THOSE ARE THE ONES OF WALTERBORO DRAG STRIP. I HAVE THAT BEFORE ME.
Q.     DO YOU KNOW, WAS THAT JUST FAILING TO FILE THE RETURN THAT IS REQUIRED ON THE ADMISSIONS TAX OR DO YOU KNOW?
A.     I DON'T BELIEVE I REALLY KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO--(PAUSE).
Q.     JUDGE, YOU HAD SURGERY A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK. WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT SURGERY WAS FOR?
A.     ACTUALLY IT WAS LAST SUMMER.
Q.     ALL RIGHT. TELL US ABOUT IT.
A.     THE CAROTID ARTERIES OF MY LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES BECAME CLOGGED UP. I WAS IN CHARLESTON HAVING COURT AND I WENT TO A CARDIOLOGIST THERE IN CHARLESTON. HE RAN SOME TESTS AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS ABOUT A 90 TO 95 PERCENT BLOCKAGE IN EACH SIDE. THE DOCTOR SUGGESTED THAT I HAD ABOUT A DAY OR TWO TO PICK OUT A SURGEON TO HAVE SOME SURGERY, WHICH I DID. AND I WAS IN ROPER HOSPITAL LAST SUMMER, JULY, FOR THE LEFT SIDE; AND THE LATTER PART OF JULY THEY DID THE RIGHT SIDE. AND WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS EVERYTHING IS DOING ALL RIGHT. FOR AWHILE I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE NERVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THAT FURNISHES THE VOCAL CORD WAS PARALYZED, BUT THAT HAS COME BACK. THE SURGEON TOLD ME IT WOULD.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT, SIR. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS INFORMATION?

REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.

REP. ROGERS: ALL RIGHT, JUDGE BLACK, WE ARE GOING TO HONOR YOUR REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TAKE UP THE OTHER MATTER, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THOSE PRESENT, OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF AND THE COURT REPORTER, VACATE.

JUDGE BLACK: MY DAUGHTER IS PRESENT. SHE'S AN ATTORNEY HERE. COULD SHE STAY?

REP. ROGERS: WE WOULD GRANT YOUR REQUEST TO KEEP HER AS YOUR ATTORNEY.

JUDGE BLACK: WELL, SHE IS NOT APPEARING AS MY ATTORNEY.

REP. ROGERS: MR. MARKERT? GEORGE, WHERE ARE YOU? PLEASE, REMAIN. YOU WILL BE A WITNESS FOR THE COMMITTEE.

MR. MARKERT: I WILL BE OUTSIDE.

REP. ROGERS: NO, YOU STAY HERE.

REP. ROGERS: FOR THE RECORD, ONE LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING THAT I HAD NOT TAKEN CARE OF THIS MORNING, THE SUMMARIES THAT JUDGES HAVE RECEIVED WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD THAT WE ROUTINELY GO THROUGH AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH EXAMINATION.

The Judicial Screening Committee has investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and finds each to be qualified to seek election or reelection.

Hon. Randall T. Bell     Seat #3
Hon C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr.     Seat #4

Hon. J. Ernest Kinard, Jr.     5th Jud. Circuit
Hon. Jonathon Z. McKown     7th Jud. Circuit
Hon. Richard E. Fields     9th Jud. Circuit
Hon. Tom J. Ervin     10th Jud. Circuit
Hon. James M. Lockemy     At Large Seat #6
Alfred Victor Rawl     At Large Seat #6

Candidate     Seat     Jud. Circuit
Hon. Maxey G. Watson     #1     First
Hon. G. Larry Inabinet     #2     Second
Hon. Marion D. Myers     #2     Third
Hon. S.H. Belser     #3     Third
Hon. Benny R. Greer     #2     Fourth
Barbara Pearce Ohanesian     #3     Fourth
James A. Spruill, III     #3     Fourth
Hon. Joseph A. Wilson, II     #2     Fifth
Hon. Berry L. Mobley     #1     Sixth
Hon. Clyde K. Laney, Jr.     #1     Seventh
Hon. Thomas E. Foster     #2     Seventh
Hon. William J. Craine, Jr.     #1     Eighth
Hon. William K. Charles     #3     Eighth
Hon. Robert R. Mallard     #2     Ninth
Hon. Wayne M. Creech     #4     Ninth
Hon. J. Frank McClain     #1     Tenth
Hon. H. Dean Hall     #3     Tenth
Hon. Jeff D. Griffith, Jr.     #2     Eleventh
Hon. Marc H. Westbrook     #3     Eleventh
Hon. David G. Baroody     #1     Twelfth
Hon. A.E. Morehead, III     #2     Twelfth
Hon. Larry R. Patterson     #1     Thirteenth
Hon. R. Kinard Johnson, Jr.     #2     Thirteenth
Hon. Donald A. Fanning     #3     Fourteenth
Hon. Samuel B. Mendenhall     #2     Sixteenth

Judge David Ma ring's explanation of the handling of a child custody case which was the basis for the testimony of Nancy E. Sineath was found to be satisfactory, with no evidence of misconduct on his part. It is the unanimous opinion of the committee that Judge David H. Maring is qualified as a candidate for reelection.

The Committee received no complaints and no witnesses requested to testify in regard to Judge John T. Black's qualifications. Although Judge Black failed to report to the Committee six tax liens filed in his name between 1966 and 1977, all of which have been satisfied, and a lawsuit filed in 1966 in which he was a defendant, which was settled, the Committee finds that the omissions are the result of inadvertence rather than intentional nondisclosure. In executive session, the Committee questioned Judge Black regarding his procedures for filing monthly reports with Court Administration. While the Committee finds that Judge Black has failed to consistently make timely reports to Court Administration and his administrative skills and procedures leave room for improvement, his judicial ability and courtroom demeanor are not questioned. Accordingly, the Committee is of the unanimous opinion that Judge John T. Black is qualified as a candidate for reelection to his seat on the Family Court.

Respectfully submitted,

John I. Rogers, III, Chairman
/s/ Senator Thomas H. Pope, III
/s/ Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Senator John A. Martin
/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.

The following were received.

April 18, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C.     (Doc. No. 1077)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

The State of South Carolina Board of Education is hereby withdrawing and resubmitting Regulation 43-58.1, Reporting of Termination of Certain School District Employees (Document #1077). This regulation has been referred to the Education and Public Works Committee.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

April 20, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk Of the S.C.     (Doc. No. 1122)

House of Representatives

Dear Mrs. McKinney:

The State of South Carolina Residential Home Builders Commission hereby withdraws and simultaneously resubmits the regulation concerning license fees. This regulation has been referred to the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 20, 1989

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it requests the return of H. 3336:
H. 3336 -Reps. Hole, Winstead, Washington, J. Bailey, D. Martin, Kohn and Hallman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-31-210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF TWENTY THOUSAND OR LESS ACCORDING TO THE 1950 CENSUS MAY ELECT TWO ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERS AT ANY GENERAL ELECTION AFTER AUTHORIZING THEM BY ORDINANCE.
Very respectfully,
President

No. 010

On motion of Rep. HOLT the Bill was ordered returned to the Senate.

Rep. McLELLAN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3666 -- Rep. J. Harris: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-1220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JOBS TAX CREDIT, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS CREDIT AND FOR THE ENTITIES AND AREAS THAT QUALIFY FOR THIS CREDIT, PROVIDE THAT THE CREDIT ALSO APPLIES TO INSURANCE PREMIUM TAXES, AND PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS TO BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CREDIT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. HUFF, from the Aiken Delegation, submitted a favorable report, on:

S. 657 -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURY AREAS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE JURY AREAS IN AIKEN COUNTY CONFORM TO CERTAIN PRECINCT LINES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public find Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3689 -- Reps. Hearn, Wilder and Baxley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO CHAPTER 7, TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS ACT BY SETTING FORTH DEFINITIONS, MEMBERS AND REQUIREMENTS OF A STATE INTER-AGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL, RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL INCLUDING A COMPREHENSIVE INTERAGENCY SYSTEM, REQUIREMENTS OF AN INDIVIDUALIZED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN, CHARGES FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES, FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND EVALUATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3641 -- Reps. Wilkins, Huff and McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-650, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF LOCAL CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PETITION TO BE FILED WITH INSTEAD OF NOTICE TO THE FAMILY COURT WHEN AN AGENCY INITIATES PROTECTIVE SERVICES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3793 -- Reps. Hearn, Wilder and Baxley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 10-5-230 AND 10-5-240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD FOR BARRIER-FREE DESIGN, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS OF THE BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-260, RELATING TO BARRIER-FREE STANDARDS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OWNER OF A BUILDING REQUIRED TO HAVE BARRIER-FREE ELEMENTS OR COMPONENTS SHALL MAINTAIN THESE ELEMENTS OR COMPONENTS IN A SAFE AND USABLE CONDITION; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-270, RELATING TO THE WAIVER OR MODIFICATION OF BARRIER-FREE STANDARDS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT, MODIFICATION, AND WAIVER OF THESE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND TO REQUIRE LOCAL BUILDING BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT APPEALS TO HAVE CERTAIN MEMBERS; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-273, RELATING TO AN EXCEPTION TO THESE STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS OF A CERTAIN SIZE SO AS TO REVISE THIS EXCEPTION; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-290, RELATING TO ACTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING BARRIER-FREE PROVISIONS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATIONS WHICH GIVE RISE TO THESE ACTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-300, RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF BARRIER-FREE STANDARDS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-310, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH BARRIER-FREE STANDARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTS WHICH SUBJECT A PERSON PERFORMING OR FAILING TO PERFORM THEM TO THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-320, RELATING TO SUITS FOR INJUNCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH BARRIER-FREE STANDARDS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SEEK THIS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 414 -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Bryan, Courson, Drummond, Giese, Helmly, Hinds, Hinson, Holland, Leatherman, Long, Lourie, Macaulay, Moore, O'Dell, Pope, Saleeby, Setzler, Stilwell, Wilson, Rose, Horace C. Smith, Martschink, Mullinax, Leventis, McGill, Nell W. Smith and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 7 OF TITLE 32, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CHAPTER TO PRENEED FUNERAL CONTRACTS, TO DEFINE THE TERMS "SELLER", "PROVIDER", "PURCHASER", AND "BENEFICIARY", TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR MAUSOLEUM CRYPTS FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT PAYMENTS OF MONEY WHICH HAVE THE PURPOSE OF FURNISHING FUNERAL SERVICES MUST BE HELD IN TRUST FUNDS, TO REQUIRE THAT ALL TAXES ON THE TRUST ACCOUNT MUST BE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR A FUNERAL CONTRACT WHEN THE FULL CONTRACT PRICE AMOUNT IS PAID TO THE PROVIDER, TO REQUIRE THAT THE FUNDS HELD BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN TRUST FOR A BENEFICIARY MUST NOT BE PAID UNTIL A DEATH CERTIFICATE IS FURNISHED BY THE PROVIDER, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REFUND OF AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WITH THE PROVIDER WHEN THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE PAYMENT IN FULL, TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CONTRACTS CONTAIN THE NAME AND FUNERAL SERVICE LICENSE NUMBER OF THE PROVIDER AND SELLER, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A TRUST FOR THE PURCHASER OF A CONTRACT AND ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A TRUST ACCOUNT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE IF THE PURCHASER FAILS TO MAKE PAYMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT, TO PROVIDE THAT IF THE MERCHANDISE SELECTED IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF NEED THAT THE PROVIDER MUST MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PURCHASER MERCHANDISE OF EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE WHICH MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PURCHASER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, TO PROVIDE UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS CONTRACTS MAY BE MADE IRREVOCABLE, TO PROVIDE FOR A PROCEDURE FOR THE REFUND OF MONIES PAID FOES A CONTRACT, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PROVIDER OF A CONTRACT, TO DELETE PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH TRUST FUNDS MUST BE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED, TO PROVIDE FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF A PROVIDER GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO ESTABLISH AN AMOUNT RATHER THAN A TWO DOLLAR SERVICE CHARGE TO BE COLLECTED FROM EACH PURCHASER TO BE USED IN ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, TO DELETE PROVISIONS MAKING UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A FUNERAL DIRECTOR OR HOME TO FURNISH OR PERFORM FUNERAL SERVICES TO ACCEPT OR HOLD PAYMENTS ON A PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACT EXCEPT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMMISSIONS ALLOWED PERSONS ON TRUST FUNDS WHICH ARISE OUT OF A PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACT, TO DELETE: PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A LICENSEE WHO SELLS PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS TO SOLICIT OR PUBLICLY ADVERTISE THE AVAILABILITY OF THEM AND TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE SOLICITATION AND ADVERTISING OF PRENEED FUNERAL CONTRACTS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROHIBITION ON THE SOLICITATION OF THESE CONTRACTS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. McLELLAN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

S. 424 -- Senators McLeod, Waddell and Matthews: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 4-1-170 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTIES JOINTLY DEVELOPING AN INDUSTRIAL PARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, SHALL INCLUDE EXPENSE SHARING AND PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE IN THEIR WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND THAT ALLOCATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF LIMITATIONS ON BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND THE INDEX OF TAXPAYING ABILITY MUST BE IDENTICAL TO THE REVENUE PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. McLELLAN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, and Rep. KIRSH, for the minority, submitted an unfavorable report, on:

H. 3609 -- Reps. T. Rogers, Felder, J. Bailey, K. Bailey, Barber, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Burch, Chamblee, Elliott, Faber, Farr, Ferguson, Foster, Glover, Gordon, J. Harris, Harvin, Harwell, Huff, Keyserling, Lockemy, McAbee, McBride, McGinnis, Moss, Neilson, Nesbitt, Phillips, Rhoad, J. Rogers, Rudnick, Snow, Stoddard, Taylor, Tucker, Waites, Waldrop, Washington, White, Wilder, D. Williams, Winstead, Holt, D. Martin, Lanford, G. Bailey, Boan, McEachin, Littlejohn and Wilkes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1510, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AGE AND YEARS OF CREDIT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR RETIREMENT UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO CHANGE THE YEARS OF SERVICE REQUIREMENT FROM THIRTY TO TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FOR RETIREMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1550, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SERVICE RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MULTIPLIER FRACTION USED IN CALCULATING SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS IN THE CASE OF CLASS TWO MEMBERS FROM ONE AND SEVEN-TENTHS PERCENT TO TWO PERCENT; TO AMEND SECTION 59-1-400, RELATING TO SICK LEAVE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES MUST BE PAID ON RETIREMENT FOR THEIR UNUSED SICK LEAVE, NOT TO EXCEED FORTY-FIVE DAYS; TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-10, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES TO ELECT TO INCLUDE IN THEIR "AVERAGE FINAL COMPENSATION" PAYMENTS FOR UP TO FORTY-FIVE DAYS OF UNUSED SICK LEAVE AND ANY INCENTIVE PAY FUNDS AND OTHER COMPENSATION BEYOND CONTRACTED PAY; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 9-11-1135 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS MAY PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE CREDIT SERVICE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CREDITABLE IF THE SERVICE HAD BEEN PERFORMED IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. WILKINS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3098 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 27-37-170 SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR EJECTMENT OF MOBILE HOMES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:

H. 3791 -- Reps. J. Rogers and Huff: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-67-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS, SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERM "SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY" AND TO REVISE THE TERMS "SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST", "THE PRACTICE OF SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY", AND "THE PRACTICE OF AUDIOLOGY".

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Rep. MOSS, from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs, submitted a favorable report, with amendment, on:

H. 3130 -- Rep. McEachin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSING OR REGISTRATION OF DENTISTS, DENTAL HYGIENISTS, AND DENTAL TECHNICIANS, SO AS TO REVISE AND LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL LICENSE OR REGISTRATION FEE WHICH MAY BE CHARGED BY THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following was introduced:

H. 3965 -- Rep. Bruce: A HOUSE RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING CHAPMAN HIGH SCHOOL'S LADY PANTHERS BASKETBALL TEAM OF INMAN IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY UPON WINNING THE 1989 CLASS AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP.

The Resolution was adopted.

Rep. BRUCE, with unanimous consent, presented the Chapman High School's Lady Panthers 1989 Class AA State Championship basketball team and their coach.

The Senate sent to the House the following:

S. 707 -- Senator Russell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING JUNE L. WHITE OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY FOR BEING NAMED SMALL BUSINESSMAN OF THE YEAR FOR 1989 BY THE SPARTANBURG AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 3966 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-35-550, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS USED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, PURSUANT TO THE SALE OF THE BUSINESS, AND PROVIDE THAT THIS EXEMPTION ONLY APPLIES WHEN THE ENTIRE BUSINESS IS SOLD BY THE OWNER PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN CONTRACT AND THE PURCHASER CONTINUES THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS.

Without reference.

H. 3967 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1317, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FUNDS EARNED BY CLERKS OF COURT UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (CHILD SUPPORT), SO AS TO REQUIRE THE FUNDS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE USED FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE COLLECTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

S. 5 -- Senators Leatherman, Rose, Wilson, Leventis, McConnell and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-45 SO AS TO PROHIBIT ISSUING OF DRIVERS' LICENSES TO RESIDENTS UNDER SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE WHO ARE NOT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES OR WHO HAVE NOT EARNED A G.E.D. CERTIFICATE OR WHO DO NOT PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ENROLLED IN SCHOOL AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS, TO REQUIRE SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION UPON REQUEST TO PERSONS AT LEAST FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OF THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH ATTENDANCE POLICIES, TO REQUIRE SCHOOLS TO NOTIFY THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS WITHDRAWN FROM SCHOOL, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SUSPEND THE DRIVERS' LICENSES OF THOSE PERSONS UNLESS THEY FIRST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, TO DEFINE WITHDRAWAL AS MORE THAN TEN UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION UPON DETERMINATION BY A COURT THAT A PERSONAL OR FAMILY HARDSHIP EXISTS THAT REQUIRES THE PERSON TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR EMPLOYMENT OR MEDICALLY-RELATED PURPOSES.

Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.

S. 642 -- Senator Lindsay: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-19-95, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FEES OF BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CORPORATE LICENSE FEES PAID BY INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS MUST BE MEASURED IN THE SAME MANNER THAT CORPORATE LICENSE FEES FOR BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND SAVINGS AND LOAN HOLDING COMPANIES ARE MEASURED AND TO DEFINE "INSURER", "INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM", AND "SUBSIDIARY" OF AN INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Baker                  Barber
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Bennett                Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burriss, M.D.          Burriss, T.M.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Corbett
Cork                   Corning                Davenport
Derrick                Faber                  Fair
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Gentry                 Glover
Gordon                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harris, P.             Harvin
Harwell                Hawkins                Hayes
Hearn                  Hendricks              Hodges
Holt                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J. W.
Kay                    Keegan                 Keesley
Keyserling             Kirsh                  Klapman
Koon                   Littlejohn             Lockemy
Mappus                 Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McCain
McEachin               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McLeod                 McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Phillips               Rama
Rhoad                  Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Short                  Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Stoddard               Sturkie
Taylor                 Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Washington             Wells                  Whipper
White                  Wilder                 Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on April 25, 1989.

Rick Quinn                        Robert A. Kohn
Ken Bailey                        Joseph McElveen
Danny Martin                      Samuel R. Foster
James C. Johnson                  Thomas E. Huff
Steve Lanford                     Derham Cole
Dick Elliott

The SPEAKER granted Rep. MANLY a leave of absence for the day due to illness.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. COOPER a leave of absence for the day.

Announcement was made that Dr. James Givens of West Columbia is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.

The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 3964 -- Reps. Hole, J. Bailey, Barber, Hallman, Kohn, Mappus, D. Martin, Rama, Washington, Whipper and Winstead: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE TAX MILLAGE TO BE LEVIED IN CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 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 1989-90.

H. 3185 -- Rep. Waldrop: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-5-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONTINUING ACCOUNT UNDER THE STATE TREASURER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING STATE MATCHING DISASTER ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL ENTITY PROVIDING THE FUNDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DISASTER ASSISTANCE MATCHING FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNT MAY ALSO BE USED TO COVER THOSE INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY GRANT (IFG) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH EXCEED THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S (FEMA) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE ALLOWANCE.

H. 3341 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 55-5-5630, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS BY A SHERIFF OR CHIEF OF POLICE WHEN AN ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE NOTICE TO BE SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL IN ADDITION TO REGISTERED MAIL.

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. 269 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-11-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CANCELLATION OF NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS MAY BE CANCELLED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER BY THE PERSON WHO FILED THE ACTION.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Amendment No. 1, Rep. WILKINS having the floor.

H. 3456 -- Reps. M.D. Burriss and T. Rogers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-23-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR HOLVING, ADVERTISING, AND RETURNING A PISTOL TO THE PERSON WHO FOUND AND TURNED THE PISTOL IN TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Thursday, April 20, by the Committee on Judiciary.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3224 -- Reps. J. Brown, Washington, Felder, J. Bailey, White, D. Martin, Harvin, Glover, K. Bailey, Taylor, McBride, Davenport, Altman, Mattos, Gordon, Fant and G. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 31-17-45 SO AS TO REQUIRE A RETAIL DEALER IN MOBILE HOMES TO CERTIFY THAT THE PURCHASER'S LOT MEETS, APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICABLE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL REGULATION FOR WELLS AND SEPTIC TANKS AND TO PROVIDE THAT A CONTRACT OF SALE NOT CONTAINING THE CERTIFICATE IS VOIDABLE BY THE PURCHASER.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 3, which was proposed on Thursday, April 20, by Reps. HODGES and L. MARTIN.

Rep. HODGES explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3512 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-1-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEFORE A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION MAY ACCEPT A DEED TO A ROAD OR AGREE TO MAINTAIN A ROAD IT SHALL OBTAIN AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DONOR AND THE CONTRACTOR WHO CONSTRUCTED THE ROAD THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE BEEN PAID AND THAT THE ROAD IS FREE OF ALL ENCUMBRANCES.

The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 3647U), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding at the end of Section 57-1-110, as contained in SECTION 1:

/A donor or contractor who knowingly submits a false affidavit affirming that all construction costs have been paid for a road or that a road is free of all encumbrances, or both, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ALTMAN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

Rep. WAITES moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

H. 3646 -- Reps. Waites, Mattos, White, Washington, Harvin, Littlejohn, J. Bailey, Davenport, Elliott and Keegan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-21-770, COD OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF PROBATE FEES AN COSTS AND SCHEDULE OF FEES AND COSTS TO BE COLLECTED, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS OT THE SECTION, INCLUDING DELETING CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND INCREASING VARIOUS FEES AND COSTS.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 61 -- Senator Stilwell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE NOTICE OF DELINQUENT TAXES TO BE MAILED TO THE OWNER OF RECORD AT THE BEST ADDRESS AVAILABLE WHICH IS EITHER THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE DEED CONVEYING THE PROPERTY TO HIM OR THE PROPERTY ADDRESS.

Rep. KIRSH proposed the following amendment No. (Doc. No. 3909U).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 and inserting:

/SECTION 2. Section 12-3-140(17) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(17) Has the sole responsibility for the assessment, appraisal, and equalization of taxable values upon the property and franchises of street railway companies, mines, electric railways, telephone companies, water, heat, light and power companies, private car lines, and pipe line companies, sewer companies, and airlines, and must assess, appraise, and equalize all real and tangible personal property manufacturers, headquarters, corporate office facilities, distribution facilities, and all additions to establishments except as to inventory, only manufactured articles which have been offered for sale at retail or which have been available for sale at retail may be included in the inventory listed in the return. The commission must also assess to the owner all real or personal property leased to or used by the above-mentioned companies using the Unit Valuation Method or other accepted or recognized methods. When the total value of the utility is estimated and the value apportioned to this State, then the value will be distributed to the taxing jurisdiction in each county where the utility has property on a basis of investment in each jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of each county assessor to determine what portion of the total value in each district is to be assessed as real property. The owner of property leased to or used by the above-mentioned companies must make returns to the commission on forms prescribed by the commission. The Tax Commission shall appraise and assess property leased to any tax payer under its jurisdiction in the name of the lessee when the unit method of valuation is used or when the taxpayer is an airline or private carline if the property is under the control of the taxpayer and the taxpayer is required to pay the tax."

SECTION 3. The first paragraph of Section 12-3-145B. Or the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 64 Or 1987, is further amended to read:

"B. Any tax-exempt property owner or any property owner whose property may qualify for property exemption shall obtain an application for the exemption from the commission and shall file the application for exemption between January first and the last day of February of each year fifteenth day of April for all real property owned as of December thirty-first of the previous year, containing the information requested by the commission. The owners of exempt property, as stated in items (7) and (8) of subsection A and item (17) of subsection B of Section 12-37-220, shall file the application before the sixteenth day of the fourth month after the close of the accounting period regularly employed by the taxpayer for income tax purposes in accordance with Chapter 7 of Title 12. The owners of exempt property vehicles as provided for in items (26) and (27) of subsection B of Section 12-37-220 and churches which own motor vehicles shall file an application for exemption within sixty days before or within thirty days after the date on which the motor vehicle was registered or the registration renewal date."

SECTION 4. Section 12-43-290 of the 1976 Code, as amended by Act 381 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 12-43-290. The limitations set forth in Sections 12-43-270 and 12-43-280 do not prohibit any county, school district, municipality, or any other political subdivision from increasing the millage on all taxable property for the purpose of obtaining additional monies for increased or new services or for the increased cost of existing services provided for the taxpayers of the county, school district, municipality, or any other political subdivision. If there is an increase of this nature, the tax notice must include a separate itemization of each increased or new service or for the increased cost of existing services and the resulting millage change and must clearly distinguish between a mill age change made pursuant to Sections 12-43-270 or 12-43-280 and a mill age change made pursuant to this section.

This section does not affect any limitation provided by law on the taxing power of a school district."

SECTION 5. Section 12-47-70 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 12-47-70. An incorrect property tax assessment or collection by a county, municipality, or other political subdivision shall must be abated or refunded by such the county, municipality, or other political subdivision when a claim for the abatement or refund is made within one year or five years from the date of such the assessment or collection. This section shall does not apply to an abatement or refund claim that is based upon the property's valuation, it being specifically intended that the value of property for tax purposes be resolved by the assessors of real or personal property and the boards or commissions established therefor."

SECTION 6. Section 12-64-190 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end:

"The provisions of this chapter apply to returns filed with or assessments issued by the commission as they relate to property tax and forest renewal."

SECTION 7. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. KIRSH explained the amendment and moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

Rep. FELDER moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

H. 3704 -- Reps. Wilkins, Keesley, J. Rogers, McLellan, Huff, R. Brown, Moss, Bennett, Beasley, Gentry, Hayes, Clyborne, Hodges, Tucker, Wilder, Hendricks, Corning, Barber, Haskins, Rudnick, T.M. Burriss, Rama, Harvin, Jaskwhich, Davenport, Corbett, Vaughn, Hearn, Keegan, Wells, H. Brown, Wofford, Fair, J.W. Johnson, Littlejohn, P. Harris, M.O. Alexander, T. Rogers, Winstead, Mappus, Kay, Manly, Kohn, McAbee, Fant and L. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 26 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION AND PROVIDE FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THIS STATE.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

H. 3879 -- Rep. Sheheen: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, SO AS TO REQUIRE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE TO BE ELECTED FROM SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS, TO REQUIRE REAPPORTIONMENT OF THESE ELECTION DISTRICTS EVERY TEN YEARS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE AGE REQUIREMENTS OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AS CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION ARE AS OF THE TIME THEIR TERM OF OFFICE BEGINS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY AND ALLOWANCES AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND THAT ADDITIONAL SALARY AND ALLOWANCES MAY BE PROVIDED FOR SPECIAL SESSIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL NOT JUDGE THOSE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN MEMBERS WHICH ARE SET OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO REVISE THE IMMUNITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM CIVIL PROCESS OR CRIMINAL ARREST FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES DURING THEIR ATTENDANCE AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO AUTHORIZE EITHER HOUSE TO PROVIDE BY RULE FOR THE SECOND READING OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS "VIVA VOCE" OR BY DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED COPIES THEREOF TO EACH MEMBER, TO REQUIRE A ROLL CALL VOTE IN ALL ELECTIONS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR EITHER HOUSE THEREOF EXCEPT UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH THE ROLL CALL, TO REQUIRE THE PROCEEDINGS OF EACH HOUSE TO BE PUBLIC EXCEPT WHEN TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT IN EITHER HOUSE VOTE TO HAVE A CLOSED SESSION, TO PROVIDE THAT ANY VACANCY IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHERE THE UNEXPIRED TERM IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR MAY BE FILLED AS PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW, TO DELETE LANGUAGE PROHIBITING THE MARRIAGE OF PERSONS OF A CERTAIN RACE AND LANGUAGE RELATING TO UNMARRIED WOMEN UNDER A CERTAIN AGE CONSENTING TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE CODIFICATION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND FOR KEEPING THE CODIFICATION UP TO DATE.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. It is proposed that Article III of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1896, be amended to read:

Section 1. The legislative power of this State shall be is vested in two distinct branches, the one to be styled the 'Senate' and the other the 'House of Representatives,' and both together the 'General Assembly of the State of South Carolina' the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Section 1A 2. The General Assembly ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances and for making new laws, as the common good may require.

Section 2 3. The House of Representatives shall must be composed of members chosen by ballot every second year by citizens of this State, qualified as in this Constitution is provided one hundred twenty-four members who must be elected from single member election districts every two years by the qualified electors of their respective districts.

Section 4. The Senate must be composed of forty-six members who must be elected from single member election districts every four years by the qualified electors of their respective districts.

Section 3. The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and twenty-four members, to be apportioned among the several Counties according to the number of inhabitants contained in each. Each County shall constitute one election district. An enumeration of the inhabitants for this purpose shall be made in the year Nineteen hundred and One, and shall be made in the course of every tenth year thereafter, in such manner as shall be by law directed: Provided, That the General Assembly may at any time, in its discretion, adopt the immediately preceding Untied States Census as a true and correct enumeration of the inhabitants of the several Counties, and make the apportionment of Representatives among the several Counties, according to said enumeration: Provided, further, That until the apportionment which shall be made upon the next enumeration shall take effect, the representation of the several Counties as they now exist (including the County of Saluda established by ordinance) shall be as follows: Abbeville, 5; Aiken, 3; Anderson, 5; Barnwell, 5; Beaufort, 4; Berkeley, 4; Charleston, 9; Chester, 3; Chesterfield, 2; Florence, 3; Georgetown, 2; Greenville, 5; Hampton, 2; Horry, 2; Marlboro, 3; Newberry, 3; Oconee, 2; Orangeburg, 5; Pickens, 2; Richland, 4; Saluda, 2; Spartanburg, 6; Sumter, 5; Union, 3; Willaimsburg, 3; York, 4; Provided further, That in the event other Counties are hereafter established, then the General Assembly shall reapportion the Representatives between the Counties.

Section 4. In assigning Representatives to the several Counties, the General Assembly shall allow one Representative to every one hundred and twenty-fourth part of the whole number of inhabitants in the State: Provided, That if in the apportionment of Representatives any County shall appear not to be entitled, from its population, to a Representative, such County shall, nevertheless, send one Representative; and if there be still a deficiency in the number of Representatives required by Section third of this Article, such deficiency shall be supplied by assigning Representatives to those Counties having the largest surplus fractions.

Section 5. No apportionment of Representatives shall take effect until the general election which shall succeed such apportionment.

Section 6. The Senate shall be composed of one member from each County, to be elected for the term of four years by the qualified electors in each County, in the same manner in which members of the House of Representatives are chosen.

Section 5. The General Assembly shall apportion the House Election Districts and Senatorial Election Districts from which members of these bodies are elected based on each United States decennial census. The apportionment must be made following the official publication of each decennial census and is effective at the next general election at which these members are elected.

Section 7 6. No person shall be is eligible for a seat to serve in the Senate or House of Representatives who, at the time of his election, is not a duly qualified elector under this Constitution in the Senatorial of his respective Election District in regard to any particular seat as may be designated by the General Assembly, as to the Senate, and in the county, as to the House, in which he may be chosen. Senators shall must be at least twenty-five and Representatives at least twenty-one years of age at the time of their terms of office begin.

Section 8. The first election for members of the House of Representatives under this Constitution shall be held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November Eighteen Hundred and Ninety-six, and in every second year thereafter, in such manner and at such places as the General Assembly may prescribe.

Section 9. 7. The annual session of the General Assembly heretofore elected, fixed by the Constitution of the year Eighteen hundred and Sixty-eight to convene on the fourth Tuesday of November, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-five, is hereby postponed, and the same shall must be convened and held in the city of Columbia on the second Tuesday of January of each year , in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety six. The first session of the General Assembly elected under this Constitution shall convene in Columbia on the second Tuesday in January, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety- seven, and thereafter annually at the same time and place. Provided, that the House of Representatives shall meet on the first Tuesday following the certification of the election of its members for not more than three days following the general election in even-numbered years for the purpose of organizing. Should the casualties of war or contagious disease render it unsafe to meet at the seat of government, then the Governor may, by proclamation, appoint a more secure and convenient place of meeting. Members of the General Assembly shall not receive any compensation for more than forty days of any one session. Provided, That this limitation shall not affect the first four sessions of the General Assembly under this Constitution.

Section 8. The members of the General Assembly shall receive an annual salary and those mileage and subsistence allowances and other allowances as may be prescribed by law. Additional salary and allowances may be provided to special sessions of the General Assembly. No General Assembly shall have the power to increase the salary of its own members.

Section 10 9. The terms of office of the Senators and Representatives chosen at a general election shall begin on the Monday following such their election unless otherwise provided by law. The members of the General Assembly must be elected at the general election: provided, that members of the General Assembly may be elected at special elections to fill unexpired terms. The general election must be held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year in that manner and at those places as provided by law. The term of Representatives is two years and the term of Senators is four years.

Section 11 10. Each house shall judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members, except those qualifications which are prescribed in this Constitution. and a A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business; , but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members, in such that manner and under such those penalties as may be provided by law or rule.

Section 12 11. Each house shall choose its own officers, determine its rules of procedure, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same cause.

Section 13 12. Each house may punish by imprisonment during its sitting any person not a member who shall be is guilty of disrespect to the house by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence, or who, during the time of its sitting, shall threaten harm to the body or estate of any member for anything said or done in either house, or who shall assault any of them therefor, or who shall assault or arrest any witness or other person ordered to attend the house in his going thereto or returning therefrom, or who shall rescue any person arrested by order of the house:; Provided, That such provided, that the time of imprisonment shall may not in any case extend beyond the session of the General Assembly.

Section 14 12A. The members of both houses shall must be protected in their persons and estates during their attendance on, going to, and returning from the General Assembly, and ten days previous to the sitting and ten days after the adjournment thereof. But theses privileges shall not protect any member who shall be is charged with treason, felony, pr breach of the peace.

Section 15 13. Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but may be altered, amended, or rejected by the Senate; all other Bills may originate in either house, and may be amended, altered, or rejected by the other.

Section 16 14. The style of all laws shall must be: 'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of south Carolina.'

Section 17 15. Every Act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall must be expressed in the title.

Section 18 16. No Bill or Joint Resolution shall have the force of law until it shall have has been read three times and on three several different days in each house, has had the Great Seal of the State affixed to it, and has been signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives: Provided, That; provided, that either branch house of the General Assembly may provide by rule for a first and third reading of any Bill or Joint resolution by its title only; and provided, further, that either house may provide by rule for the second reading of any Bill or Joint Resolution 'viva voce' or by distribution of printed Copies thereof to each member.

Section 19. Each member of the General Assembly shall receive such mileage allowance for the ordinary route of travel in gong to and returning from the place where its sessions are held as the General Assembly may provide by law; no General Assembly shall have the power to increase the per diem of its own members; and members of the General Assembly when convened in extra session shall receive the same compensation as is fixed by law for the regular session.

Section 29 17. In all elections by the General Assembly or either House house thereof, the members shall vote 'viva voce', except by unanimous consent by roll call, and their votes thus given shall must be entered upon the Journal of the House house to which they respectively belong, unless unanimous consent is given to dispense with the roll call.

Section 21 18. Neither house, during the session of the General Assembly, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which it shall be is at the time sitting.

Section 22 19. Each house shall keep a journal of its own proceedings, and cause the same to be published immediately after its adjournment, excepting such those parts as, in its judgment, may require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house, on any question, shall must, at the desire of ten members of the House or five members of the Senate, respectively, be entered on the journal. Any member of either house shall have liberty to dissent from and protest against any act or resolution which he may think injurious to the public or to an individual, and have the reasons of his dissent entered on the journal.

Section 23 20. The doors proceedings of each house shall must be open public, except on such those occasions as in the opinion of the House may require secrecy when two-thirds of the members present in either house vote to have a closed session.

Section 24 21. No person is eligible to a seat in the General Assembly while he holds any office or position of profit or trust under this State, the United States of America, or any of them, or under any other power, except officers in the militia, members of lawfully and regularly organized fire departments, constables, and notaries public. If any member accepts or exercises any of the disqualifying offices or positions he shall vacate his seat.

Section 25 22. If any election district shall neglect to choose a member or members on the day of election, or if any person chosen a member of either house shall refuse to qualify and take his seat, or shall resign, die, depart the State, accept any disqualifying office or position, or become otherwise disqualified to hold his seat, a writ of election shall must be issued by the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, for the purpose of filling the vacancy thereby occasioned for the remainder of the term for which the person so refusing to qualify, resigning, dying, departing the State, or becoming disqualified, was elected to serve, or the defaulting election district ought to have chosen a member or members. The filling of any Vacancy where there is less than one year remaining in the term may be provided by law.

Section 26 23. Members of the General Assembly, and all officers, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take and subscribe the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected, (or appointed), and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect. and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God.'

Section 27 24. Officers shall may be removed for incapacity, misconduct, or neglect of duty, in such that manner as may be provided by law, when no mode of trial or removal is provided in this Constitution.

Section 28 25. The General Assembly shall enact such those laws as will exempt real and personal property of a debtor from attachment, levy, and sale under any mesne or final process issued by any court or bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 29 26. All taxes upon property, real and personal, shall must be laid upon the actual value of the property taxed, as the same shall be is ascertained by an assessment made for the purpose of laying such the tax.

Section 30 27. The General Assembly shall never grant extra compensation, fee, or allowance to any public officer, agent, servant, or contractor after service rendered, or contract made, nor authorize payment or part payment of any claim under any contract not authorized by law; but appropriations may be made for expenditures in repelling invasion, preventing or suppressing insurrection.

Section 31 28. Lands belonging to or under the control of the state shall must never be donated, directly or indirectly, to private corporations or individuals, or to railroad companies. Nor shall such this land be sold to corporations, or associations, for a less price than that for which it can be sold to individuals. This, however, shall does not prevent the General Assembly from granting a right-of-way, not exceeding one hundred and fifty feet in width, as a mere easement to railroads across state land, nor to interfere with the discretion of the General Assembly in confirming the title to lands claimed to belong to the State, but used or possessed by other parties under an adverse claim.

Section 33. The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto; or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. No unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years.

Section 34 29. The General Assembly this state shall not enact local or special laws concerning any of the following subjects or for any of the following purposes, to wit:

I.     To change the names of persons or places.

II.     To incorporate cities, towns or villages, or change, amend or extend charter thereof.

III.     To incorporate educational, religious, charitable, social, manufacturing, or banking Institutions not under the control of the State, or amend or extend the charters thereof.

IV.     To incorporate school districts.

V.     To authorize the adoption or legitimation of children.

VI.     To provide for the protection of game.

VII.     To summon and em panel grand or petit jurors; provided, that tales boxes may be eliminated by special act in York County.

VIII.     Eliminated . (1920) (31) 1700; 1921 (32) 191; 1934 (38) 1623; 1935 (39) 27.)

IX. VIII. In all other cases, where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall may be enacted: Provided, That the General Assembly may enact local or special laws fixing the amount and manner of compensation to be paid to the county officers of the several counties of the State, and may provide that the fees collected by any such officer, or officers, shall must be paid into the treasury of the respective counties.

X.IX. The General Assembly shall forthwith enact general laws concerning said these subjects for said these purposes, which shall must be uniform in their operations: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall prohibit prohibits the General Assembly from enacting special provisions in general laws.

XI.X. The provisions of this Section shall do not apply to charitable and educational corporations where, under the terms of a gift, devise, or will, special incorporation may be required.

Provided, That 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.

Provided, further, that the General Assembly is empowered to divide the State into as many districts as may appear practicable, and to enact legislation laws as may appear proper for the protection of forestry in the several districts.

Provided, there is hereby created a civil service commission in the City of Spartanburg for the benefit of the police department, including its chief, and fire department, including its chief, under such those terms and conditions as prescribed by the General Assembly.

Provided, that the City of Gaffney may establish a civil service commission for the benefit of such the municipal employees as may be designated by the Gaffney City Council, under such those terms and conditions as prescribed by the General Assembly.

Section 30. The General Assembly shall provide for the codification of the laws of this State and for keeping the codification up to date.

Section 35 31. It shall be is the duty of the General Assembly to enact laws limiting the number of acres of land which any alien or any corporation controlled by aliens may own within this State.

Section 36 32. (A) The General Assembly shall provide for a General Reserve Fund of three percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year. Funds may be withdrawn from the reserve only for the purpose of covering operating deficits of state government. The General Assembly must provide for the orderly restoration of funds withdrawn from the reserve from future revenues and out of funds accumulating in excess of annual operating expenditures.

(1) The General Assembly shall provide by law for a procedure to survey the progress of the collection of revenue and the expenditure of funds and to authorize and direct reduction of appropriations as may be necessary to prevent a deficit.

(2) In the event of a year-end operating deficit, so much of the reserve fund as may be necessary must be used to cover the deficit; and the amount must be restored to the reserve fund within three fiscal years out of future revenues until the three percent General Reserve Fund is again reached and maintained. Provided that a minimum of one percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year, if so much is necessary, must be restored to the reserve fund each year following the deficit until the three percent General Reserve Fund is restored.

(B) The General Assembly, in the annual general appropriations act, shall appropriate, out of the estimated revenue of the general fund for the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made, into a Capital Reserve Fund, which is separate and distinct from the General Reserve Fund, an amount equal to two percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year.

(1) The General Assembly must provide by law that if before March first the revenue forecast for the current fiscal year projects that revenues at the end of the fiscal year will be less than expenditures authorized by appropriation for that year, then the current year's appropriation to the Capital Reserve Fund first must be reduced to the extent necessary before mandating any reductions in operating appropriations.

(2) After March first of a fiscal year, monies from the Capital Reserve Fund may be appropriated by the General Assembly in separate legislation upon an affirmative vote in each branch of the General Assembly by two-thirds of the members present and voting, but not less than three-fifths of the total membership in each branch for the following purposes:

(a) to finance in cash previously authorized capital improvement bond projects;

(b) to retire interest or principal on bonds previously issued;

(c) for capital improvements or other nonrecurring purposes.

(3)(a) Any appropriation of monies from the Capital Reserve Fund as provided in this subsection must be ranked in priority of expenditure and is effective thirty days after completion of the fiscal year. If it is determined that the fiscal year has ended with an operating deficit, then the monies appropriated from the Capital Reserve Fund must be reduced based on the rank of priority, beginning with the lowest priority, to the extent necessary and applied to the year-end operating deficit before withdrawing monies from the General Reserve Fund.

(b) At the end of the fiscal year, any monies in the Capital Reserve Fund that are not appropriated as provided in this subsection or any appropriation for a particular project or item which has been reduced due to application of the monies to a year-end deficit must lapse and be credited to the General Fund."

SECTION 2. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots must be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written on the ballots:

"Shall Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to require members of the House and Senate to be elected from single-member election districts, to require reapportionment of these election districts every ten years, to provide that the age requirements of Senators and Representatives as contained in the Constitution are as of the time their term of office begins, to provide that the members of the General Assembly shall receive an annual salary and allowances as prescribed by law and that additional salary and allowances may be provided for special sessions, to provide that each house of the General Assembly shall not judge those qualifications of its own members which are set out in the Constitution, to revise the immunity of the members of the General Assembly from civil process or criminal arrest for certain offenses during their attendance at the General Assembly, to authorize either house to provide by rule for the second reading of bills and joint resolutions 'viva voce' or by distribution of printed copies thereof to each member, to require a roll call vote in all elections by the General Assembly or either house thereof except upon unanimous consent to dispense with the roll call, to require the proceedings of each house to be public except when two-thirds of the members present in either house vote to have a closed session, to provide that any vacancy in the General Assembly where the unexpired term is less than one year may be filled as provided by general law, to delete language prohibiting the marriages of persons of a certain race and language relating to unmarried women under a certain age consenting to sexual intercourse, and to provide that the General Assembly shall provide for the codification of the laws of this State and for keeping of the codification up to date?

Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes', and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No'."

Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution the yeas and nays were taken on the passage of the Joint Resolution, resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Baxley
Beasley                Bennett                Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Burriss, M.D.
Burriss, T.M.          Chamblee               Clyborne
Corbett                Cork                   Corning
Davenport              Derrick                Fair
Fant                   Farr                   Felder
Ferguson               Gentry                 Gordon
Hallman                Harris, J.             Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.W.          Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Klapman                Kohn                   Koon
Lanford                Littlejohn             Lockemy
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McCain                 McEachin
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
McLeod                 McTeer                 Moss
Neilson                Nesbitt                Nettles
Phillips               Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Townsend               Tucker
Vaughn                 Waites                 Waldrop
Washington             Wells                  Whipper
White                  Wilder                 Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams, J.           Winstead
Wofford                Wright

Those who voted in the negative are:

So, the Joint Resolution having received the necessary two-thirds vote was passed and ordered to third reading.

Rep. WILKINS moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

H. 3658 -- Rep. Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FUND TO ISSUE A WRITTEN DECISION REGARDING A CLAIM AND FURNISH THE CLAIMANT WITH A COPY; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1210, RELATING TO PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR AWARDS FROM THE FUND, SO AS TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF THIS STATE TO FILE FOR BENEFITS IF INJURED BY A CRIME COMMITTED OUT OF STATE AND TO REDUCE THE AWARD BY AMOUNTS PAID BY THE OTHER STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1220, RELATING TO PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR AWARDS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1230, RELATING TO CLAIMS FILED ON BEHALF OF MINORS OR INCOMPETENTS AND THE TIME LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CLAIMS, SO AS TO REVISE AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE TIME LIMITATIONS AND TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND TO THE STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM ASSISTANCE AND TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIME VICTIM'S ADVISORY BOARD TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA ADVISORY BOARD FOR VICTIM ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1989.

The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading

S. 224 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 8-3-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, WHICH REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL OATH FOR COUNTY OFFICERS WITH REGARD TO SHARING PROFITS.

S. 280 -- Senator J. Verne Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-583 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT, UP TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO CRIMESTOPPERS, INC., FOR MONEY PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO THE ARREST OF INDIVIDUALS AND SUBSEQUENT CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF MONIES IN NARCOTICS INVESTIGATIONS.

Rep. WILKINS explained the Bill.

Rep. KLAPMAN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 2, which was adopted.

S. 388 -- Senators Shealy, Setzler and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 6-7-740, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CREATION, MEMBERSHIP, AND POWERS OF BOARDS OF ZONING APPEALS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO NINE.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3452 -- Reps. Harvin, T. Rogers, McBride, Snow, Mappus, Rama, Hallman, Wilkes, Corning, Kohn, White, Keegan, McKay, Haskins, Farr, Phillips, Barfield and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-710, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM PURCHASING PROCEDURES UNDER THE PROCUREMENT CODE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT GOVERNMENTAL BODIES EXEMPTED FROM THE PURCHASING PROCEDURES SHALL PURCHASE SOUTH CAROLINA PRODUCED AND PROCESSED PRODUCTS WHENEVER FEASIBLE AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO USE BIDDING PROCEDURES GOVERNED BY THE PROCUREMENT CODE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11-35-1520(9) APPLY IF THERE ARE TIE BIDS OR BIDS BY SOUTH CAROLINA VENDORS WHICH ARE WITHIN PERCENTAGES OF THE HIGH BID.

Rep. WILKINS explained the Bill.

Rep. KLAPMAN moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3272 -- Reps. Rudnick, Harvin, Holt, G. Brown, Klapman and Burch: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 29-3-321 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN A MORTGAGEE OR ASSIGNEE OF A MORTGAGE IS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION OR CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE IT HOLDS.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Thursday, April 20, by the Committee on Judiciary.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. KLAPMAN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc. No. (3842U), which was adopted.

Amend the report of the Committee on Judiciary, as and if amended, in Section 29-3-321 of the 1976 Code, as contained in Section 1, by inserting immediately after /fee/ on line 34 of page [3272-1]: /of five to twenty-five dollars/.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. KLAPMAN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Reps. WILKINS and RUDNICK proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc. No. 3899U), which was adopted.

Amend the report of the Committee on Judiciary, as and if amended, by adding at the end of Section 29-3-321 of the 1976 Code, as contained in Section 1, the following:

/The provisions of this section do not apply to "open-end credit" plans as defined by federal law, or to mortgages containing future advance clauses even though they secure closed-end transactions.

The provisions of this section apply to mortgages, where the mortgagee or assignee is a financial institution, which are satisfied or cancelled on or after January 1, 1990./

Amend the report further, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 in its entirety.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3300 -- Reps. Rudnick, Harvin, Whipper, Keegan and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-45 SO AS TO REQUIRE COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMEN TO DESIGNATE A PUBLIC PLACE AND STAFF IT DURING REGULAR HOURS DURING THE FILING PERIOD IN GENERAL ELECTION YEARS FOR THE RECEIPT FOR FILINGS AND TO REQUIRE THE CHAIRMAN TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF THE DATES, TIME, AND PLACE WHERE CANDIDATES MAY FILE BY PLACING AN ADVERTISEMENT IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTY TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE FILING PERIOD.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Thursday, April 20, by the Committee on Judiciary.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Joint Resolution was taken up.

S. 328 -- Senator Lourie: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO RATIFY THE TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION AND INABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.

Rep. HAYES explained the Joint Resolution and, moved to adjourn debate upon the Joint Resolution until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

Rep. HAYES moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, April 26, which was adopted.

S. 245 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-23-110 AND 1-23-120, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE REGISTER, SO AS TO REQUIRE A STATE AGENCY TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ORAL HEARING AND TO REQUIRE A HEARING NO SOONER THAN THIRTY DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE IN THE STATE REGISTER IF REQUESTED BY TWENTY-FIVE PERSONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT A REGULATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS AFTER SUBMISSION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE IT IS NOT ENACTED WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 276 -- Senator Martin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-39-635 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL SALES OF REAL PROPERTY IN COUNTIES WHICH DO NOT HAVE A MASTER-IN-EQUITY.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 2977U), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 15-39-635 of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1, by adding a new paragraph at the end of Section 15-39-635 to read:

/Judicial sales of real property by referees prior to the effective date of this section, in those counties that did not have a master-in-equity and which sales a master had authority to perform, are confirmed, ratified, and declared valid./

When amended, Section 15-39-635 shall read:

/Section 15-39-635. In the counties which do not nave a master-in-equity, judicial sales of real property which a master has authority to perform may be performed by a referee in those matters referred to him by the presiding judge of the court of common pleas, or by a referee appointed by the presiding judge for this purpose.

The provisions of law governing these sales by masters also apply to referees acting pursuant to this section. These referees have the same powers and are entitled to the same fees as masters when performing these sales.

Judicial sales of real property by referees prior to the effective date of this section, in those counties that did not have a master-in-equity and which sales a master had authority to perform, are confirmed, ratified, and declared valid./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. HAYES explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. J. BROWN a temporary leave of absence.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3077 -- Reps. Kirsh and McLellan: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTIONS 12-27-430 AND 12-27-431, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAX AND TAX CREDITS ON FUEL ETHANOL BLENDS.

Reps. HOLT, BENNETT, KIRSH, CLYBORNE, WINSTEAD, TAYLOR, RHOAD and SMITH objected to the Bill.

Rep. WILKINS moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to.

Rep. L. MARTIN moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, May 2, which was adopted.

H. 3895 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE BY ADDING CHAPTER 70 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF "UTILIZATION REVIEWS" AND "PRIVATE REVIEW AGENTS" IN REGARD TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES GIVEN OR PROPOSED TO BE GIVEN TO A PATIENT OR A GROUP OF PATIENTS.

Rep. McTEER moved to waive Rule 6.1, which was agreed to.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

S. 396 -- Senators Hinds and Long: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES, SO AS TO DELETE "GOLF COURSE" FROM THE DEFINITION OF "MAJOR FACILITY".

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the Bill.

S. 526 -- Labor, Commerce and industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RELATING TO ELEVATOR SAFETY, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1064, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the Joint Resolution.

H. 3725 -- Rep. McLellan: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-19-55 SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE CERTAIN APPLICATIONS, EXAMINATIONS, SCORES, EXAMINATION REPORTS, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIAL OF THE COOPERATIVE INTERAGENCY MERIT SYSTEM AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT RESTRICT THE ABILITY OF THE MERIT SYSTEM COUNCIL TO DISCLOSE NECESSARY INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES.

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the Bill.

S. 253 -- Senators Leatherman, Land and Saleeby: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-17-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION, CONDUCT OF HEARING, AND AWARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS OF MEMBERS OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES, OR EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMISSION, EXCEPT CLAIMS INVOLVING MEDICAL BENEFITS ONLY.

Rep. HEARN explained the Bill.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3621 -- Reps. T.M. Burriss: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 41-25-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA PRIVATE PERSONNEL PLACEMENT SERVICES ACT, SO AS TO EXPAND THE DEFINITIONS OF "PRIVATE PERSONNEL PLACEMENT SERVICE" AND "PLACEMENT FEE" TO INCLUDE THE DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 25 OF TITLE 41 (PRIVATE PERSONNEL PLACEMENT SERVICES ACT).

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 6798k), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following appropriately numbered section:

SECTION _. Subsection (k) of Section 41-25-30 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

(k) No license may be issued if the applicant has had a previous application which was denied or a license which has been revoked, anywhere within the United States, its possessions or territories. No person shall own, either wholly or in part, nor manage a private personnel placement service who has previously been denied or had revoked his license to operate a private personnel placement service anywhere within the United States, its possessions or territories. The Secretary, depending upon the seriousness of the offense causing the denial or revocation of the license, may, after a suitable period of three months to one year, allow the person, upon full compliance, to reapply for a license.

Renumber sections to conform

Amend title to conform

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the amendment. The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3216 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO CREATE A HEALTH INSURANCE POOL TO INCLUDE ALL INSURERS PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE AND INSURANCES ARRANGEMENTS FOR HEALTH PLAN BENEFITS, TO EXEMPT THE POOL FROM TAXATION, AND TO ALLOW A TAX CREDIT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT PAID TO THE POOL BY A MEMBER INSURER, AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-770, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MANDATORY CONTINUATION AND CONVERSION PRIVILEGES OF GROUP HEALTH POLICIES, SO AS TO REVISE THESE CONTINUATION OR CONVERSION PRIVILEGES AND DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO MANDATORY CONVERSION OF GROUP HEALTH POLICIES.

Rep. McLELLAN moved to commit the Bill to the Committee on Ways and Means, which was agreed to.

The following Bill was taken up.

S. 4 -- Senator Fielding: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 21 TO TITLE 31 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA FAIR HOUSING LAW AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 3309U), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 31-21-70(B) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1, page 6, lines 8 through 44, and page 7, lines 1 through 9, and inserting:

/(B) Nothing in Section 31-21-40 or 31-21-60 applies to any single-family house sold or rented by an owner when:

(1) the private individual owner does not own more than three single-family houses at any one time; and

(2) in the sale of any single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in the house at the time of the sale or who was not the most recent resident of the house before the sale, the exemption granted by this subsection applies only with respect to one sale within a twenty-four month period; and

(3) a bona tide private individual owner does not own an interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or voluntary agreement, title to or a right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of more than three single-family houses at any one time.

After the effective date of this chapter, the sale or rental of a single-family house is excepted from the application of this subsection only if the house is sold or rented:

(a) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of a real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of the facilities or services of a person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of an employee or agent of a broker, agent, salesman, or person; and

(b) without publication posting or mailing, after notice, of an advertisement or written notice in violation of this chapter. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer this title./

Amend further in Section 31-21-130(C), page 17, line 24, by inserting before /If/ (1); and on by inserting immediately after line 30:

/(2) Either party may elect to have the claims asserted in the complaint decided in a civil action. The commissioner's notice must be sent to all parties and inform them of their right to take civil action. An election must be made within twenty days after receipt of the notice. A party making this election shall notify the commissioner and all other parties./

When amended Section 31-21-130(C) shall read:

/(C) (1) If the order is for a hearing, the commissioner shall attach to it a notice and a copy of the complaint and require the respondent to answer the complaint at a hearing at a time and place specified in the notice and shall serve upon the respondent a copy of the order, the complaint, and the notice.

(2) Either party may elect to have the claims asserted in the complaint decided in a civil action. The commissioner's notice must be sent to all parties and inform them of their right to take civil action. An election must be made within twenty days after receipt of the notice. A party making this election shall notify the commissioner and all other parties./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. R. BROWN explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following was introduced:

H. 3968 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO SET BY SPECIAL ORDER H. 3739, RELATING TO THE LEVY OF A SALES AND USE TAX IN A COUNTY AREA, FOR SECOND READING OR OTHER CONSIDERATION ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1989, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUING SPECIAL ORDER CONSIDERATION OF H. 3739 UNTIL THIRD READING OR OTHER DISPOSITION.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That H. 3739 is set by special order for second reading or other consideration on Wednesday, April 26, 1989, immediately following the call of the uncontested calendar and continuing each legislative day immediately following the call of the uncontested calendar until H. 3739 is given third reading or it is otherwise disposed of.

Rep. HUFF explained the Resolution.

Rep. KOON moved to table the Resolution.

Rep. J.W. JOHNSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Baxley                 Blackwell              Brown, H.
Burriss, M.D.          Corbett                Derrick
Gregory                Kirsh                  Koon
Lanford                Littlejohn             Moss
Neilson                Rudnick                Vaughn
Wofford

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Beasley
Bennett                Boan                   Brown, G.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Burriss, T.M.
Carnell                Chamblee               Clyborne
Cork                   Davenport              Faber
Fair                   Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Foster                 Gentry
Glover                 Gordon                 Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Hendricks              Hodges                 Holt
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Johnson, J.C.
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Klapman
Kohn                   Lockemy                Mappus
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             McAbee
McBride                McCain                 McEachin
McElveen               McGinnis               McLellan
McLeod                 McTeer                 Nesbitt
Nettles                Phillips               Quinn
Rama                   Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Sheheen                Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Stoddard               Sturkie
Taylor                 Townsend               Tucker
Waites                 Waldrop                Wells
Whipper                Wilder                 Wilkes
Wilkins                Williams, J.           Winstead
Wright

So, the House refused to table the Resolution.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the Resolution, which was agreed to.

Rep. J.W. JOHNSON moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 3957 -- Reps. Hayes, Foster, Kirsh, Nesbitt and Short: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE LATE CROOK G. STAFFORD OF ROCK HILL IN YORK COUNTY.

At 1:15 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. J.W. JOHNSON adjourned to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:22 P.M.