Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.

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

Almighty God, Heavenly Father, as we turn again to waiting tasks, may the confidence of those who believe in us, the spur of conscience to do our best and the commanding call to do Your will lead us on. Cause us to know that our most prized reward is the satisfaction of a good and clean conscience. Make us so transparently just and fair that all which is false and every lurking evil may be crushed by Your truths. Give us understanding minds, clean thoughts, and an unfaltering faith lest in foolish attempts we build on sinking sand instead of upon Him who is the eternal Rock of ages.

Thank You, Lord, for this privilege of prayer. Amen.

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

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

TO:     The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM:     Donald H. Holland, Chairman

Dept. of Social Services Screening Committee
DATE:     May 17, 1989

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Donald H. Holland
Chairman

Senator David L. Thomas     Rep. G. Ralph Davenport

Senator J.W. Matthews, Jr.     Rep. B.L. Hendricks, Jr.

Senator Douglas L. Hinds     Rep. James E. Lockemy

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1976, this committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to serve on the Department of Social Services Board.

The Department of Social Services Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the State Board. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Board, 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 to determine whether a candidate is qualified to serve and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

The following candidates were screened for election or reelection:

2nd Congressional District:

Mr. Gerald W. Beckham of Columbia, S.C.

Mr. Oscar P. Butler, Jr. of Orangeburg, S.C.

4th Congressional District:

Mr. John K. Earle of Greenville, S.C.

6th Congressional District:

Mr. Phillip P. Campbell of Darlington, S.C.

At-Large Seat:

The Reverend David E. Landholt of Columbia, S.C.

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 candidates were present at the screening and testified under oath.

SCREENING BEFORE THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE SCREENING COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE STATE BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES HELD IN ROOM 209, GRESSETTE STATE OFFICE BUILDING, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA ON THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989 COMMENCING AT THE HOUR OF 10:10 A.M.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
SENATOR DONALD H. HOLLAND, CHAIRMAN
SENATOR DAVID L. THOMAS
SENATOR JOHN W. MATTHEWS, JR.
SENATOR DOUGLAS L. HINDS
REPRESENTATIVE G. RALPH DAVENPORT, JR.
REPRESENTATIVE B. L. HENDRICKS, JR.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. LOCKEMY
REPRESENTATIVE DILL BLACKWELL

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IN ATTENDANCE:
SENATOR DONALD H. HOLLAND, CHAIRMAN
REPRESENTATIVE G. RALPH DAVENPORT, JR.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES E. LOCKEMY
REPRESENTATIVE DILL BLACKWELL
SENATOR HOLLAND: WE HAVE PRESENT TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE THIS MORNING AND WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED. THE HOUSE IS IN SESSION AND THE SENATE IS SOON TO GO IN SESSION AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS TIME OF THE YEAR WITH THE SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET ANYONE PRESENT AT ANY TIME BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MANY PRIOR COMMITMENTS. THIS IS A SCREENING PROCESS FOR THOSE SEEKING TO BE ELECTED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD FOR THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, AND ONE SEAT AT-LARGE.

EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO OPPOSITION, WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATUE--EVERYTHING HAS GOTTEN SO PURE IN RECENT YEARS THAT WE HAVE TO SCREEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO OPPOSITION. AS ONE OF THE SENATORS SAID THE OTHER DAY WHO IS ON THE JUDICIARY SCREENING BOARD, IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP ELECTING NOTHING BUT SAINTS TO ALL OF OUR BOARDS OVER HERE, AND IT SORT OF WORRIES ME, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS THE WAY WE ARE HEADED.

WE DO HAVE THE SCREENING PROCESS AND THERE ARE CERTAIN BASIC THINGS WE HAVE TO DO. I AM PROBABLY THE EXPERT RIGHT HERE ON THE SCREENING COMMITTEES. I HAVE THIS ONE AND SEVERAL OTHERS THAT WE GO THROUGH EACH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WE HAVE A MR. BECKHAM WHO IS SEEKING THAT SEAT AND ALSO MR. OSCAR P. BUTLER. IS MR. BUTLER HERE?

SENATOR HOLLAND: AND FOR THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, MR. JOHN K. EARLE, AND HE HAS NO OPPOSITION I BELIEVE. IN THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, MR. PHILLIP P. CAMPBELL, AND THERE WAS A LADY BY THE NAME OF MS. MARTHA S. HUNN WHO I UNDERSTAND HAS WITHDRAWN. MR. CAMPBELL YOU ARE HERE. REVEREND DAVID LANDHOLT FOR THE AT-LARGE SEAT. WOULD THOSE NAMES WHO I HAVE JUST READ HOLD UP YOUR RIGHT HAND AND LET ME GIVE YOU THE OATH? IT WILL SAVE US SOME TIME.

SENATOR HOLLAND: MS. SHEILA MCMILLAN HERE IS THE COUNSEL FOR THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE AND SEVERAL OTHER SCREENING COMMITTEES, AND ALSO COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE, AND WE ARE GOING TO START WITH THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK MR. BECKHAM TO COME FORWARD, AND I BELIEVE MR. BECKHAM YOU HAVE A STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR THE COMMITTEE?

MR. BECKHAM: I DO.

SENATOR HOLLAND: IF YOU WILL HAND THAT UP AND LET ONE OF THE PAGES PICK IT UP, WE WILL ENTER IT INTO. OUR RECORD. THERE ARE CERTAIN BASIC QUESTIONS THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THIS COMMITTEE WILL ASK YOU. LET ME SAY ONE THING NOW, THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO HAVE A SLED INVESTIGATION. WE HAVE THAT ON ALL APPLICANTS. ALSO IT REQUIRES US TO HAVE AN ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENT TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND I BELIEVE AS OF THIS MORNING WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOURS?

MR. BECKHAM: IT WAS MAILED.

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT.

MR. BECKHAM: I DON'T MIND FILLING ANOTHER ONE OUT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE WOULD WANT A COPY SOMETIME TODAY.

MR. BECKHAM: SURE.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THAT IS THE TWO BASIC THINGS WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE. NOW, THIS PROCEEDING IS BEING RECORDED BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER AND I APPRECIATE IF YOU SPEAK UP, AND IF THERE IS ANY GENTLEMEN ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT ASK ANY QUESTIONS, YOU WANT HIM TO GIVE HIS NAME WHEN HE DOES IT SO SHE CAN GET IT INTO THE RECORD. WE ARE GOING TO LEAD OFF WITH YOU, MR. BECKHAM, AND MS. MCMILLAN WILL ASK YOU SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

STATEMENT BY MR. BECKHAM:
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT SEAT ON THE STATE BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

MY RESUME HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ANY CLARIFICATIONS YOU MAY REQUIRE. I BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE HELD POSITIONS IN THE UNITED WAY AND NOW WITH THE PALMETTO SAFETY COUNCIL WHICH ARE OCCUPATIONS TOTALLY INVOLVED IN SERVING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SHOULD AND MUST DO, SERVE OUR STATE'S NEEDIEST CITIZENS AND PROTECT THOSE WHO CANNOT PROTECT THEMSELVES.

I HAVE WATCHED WITH INTEREST OVER THE YEARS AS THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES HAS RUN REPEATEDLY INTO TROUBLE. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT THE PROBLEMS WITHIN D.S.S. CAN BE REMEDIED WITH EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP. I BELIEVE THAT THIS LEADERSHIP MUST BEGIN WITH THE STATE BOARD AND I BELIEVE THAT I CAN SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THAT GOAL.

I BELIEVE THAT THE STATE BOARD SHOULD BE THE POLICY-MAKING BODY OF THE AGENCY. THE BOARD SHOULD ALLOW ADMINISTRATORS TO CARRY OUT THOSE POLICIES WITHOUT INTERFERING IN THE DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT OF THE AGENCY. POLICY DECISIONS SHOULD UTILIZE THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM OF THE COUNTY BOARDS THROUGH THE REGULAR, MEANINGFUL AND MUTUAL COMMUNICATION. THERE IS NO HAND LARGE ENOUGH TO DRIVE THIS AGENCY WITH AN "IRON FIST," BUT IT CAN BE LED. AS THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS EXIST TO SERVE CLIENTS, SO MUST THE STATE DEPARTMENT EXIST TO SUPPORT THOSE CLIENT SERVICES. STAFFING AND RESOURCES MUST GO FIRST TO THE SERVICE DELIVERY LEVEL. UNNECESSARY LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY MUST BE ELIMINATED TO MAKE THE AGENCY RESPONSIVE TO CLIENT NEEDS AND COST-EFFECTIVE. IN CLOSING, IT IS READILY APPARENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES MUST IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS. OVER THE LAST EIGHTEEN MONTHS I HAVE READ ABOUT THE COUNTY-STATE FRICTION WITHIN THE AGENCY. I HAVE READ HOW THOUSANDS OF SINGLE PARENTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO RECEIVE THEIR BADLY NEEDED CHILD SUPPORT MONEY. I HAVE SEEN WHERE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN REPAID TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR MISHANDLED CONTRACTS AND WHERE OUR STATE IS FACING A FORTY-SIX MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY FOR ERROR RATES. FRAGMENTATION AND FINGER-POINTING WILL ONLY MAKE THESE PROBLEMS WORSE. LEADERSHIP ON THE STATE BOARD AND A SENSE OF TRUST THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM WILL DO A GREAT DEAL TO DISPEL THESE CLOUDS THAT HANG OVER THIS VERY IMPORTANT AGENCY. I BELIEVE THAT I CAN PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP AND FOR THAT REASON I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR FAVORABLE FINDING OF MY INTENT AND QUALIFICATIONS.

EXAMINATION OF GERALD W. BECKHAM BY MS. McMILLAN:

Q. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE. WHERE DO YOU NOW RESIDE?

A. I RESIDE IN COLUMBIA.

Q. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU BEEN HOSPITALIZED OR HAD ANY SERIOUS ILLNESS OR MEDICAL PROBLEM IN THE PAST YEAR?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE YOU ARE SEEKING?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS, BE IT EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER COMMITMENTS, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM ATTENDING THE MEETINGS AND PUTTING IN THE TIME NEEDED TO SERVE IN THIS OFFICE?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE ETHICS LAW THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, PLEASE, SIR. DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY HAVE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR HOLDING THIS POSITION?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY RELATED TO ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCHARGED FROM ANY EMPLOYMENT?

A. NO, MA'AM.

MS. McMILLAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. ONE BRIEF QUESTION, WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS ARE YOU ENGAGED IN?

A. I AM THE STATE DIRECTOR FOR THE PALMETTO SAFETY COUNCIL. IT IS A STATEWIDE, NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY ORGANIZATION WHICH IS PART- OF THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL.

Q. THAT IS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. YOUR OFFICE IS IN COLUMBIA?

A. IT'S IN COLUMBIA UP OFF OF I-26.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PRESENT THIS MORNING ARE REPRESENTATIVES HENDRICKS AND DAVENPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BECKHAM, MR. HENDRICKS, YOU ARE UP FIRST.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS:

Q. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I BELIEVE THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT I AM B.L. HENDRICKS. THE ONLY QUESTION- I HAVE, MR. BECKHAM, IS WHAT PERPETUATES YOUR INTEREST IN BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE D.S.S. BOARD?

A. REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS, I, THROUGH MY PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT FOR 11 YEARS, I WAS WITH UNITED WAY AND MOST RECENTLY SERVED AS THE STATE DIRECTOR FOR UNITED WAY AND HAD OCCASION TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN VARIOUS NOT ONLY COUNTY OFFICES BUT AT THE STATE LEVEL. I HAVE HAD AN INTEREST IN THAT DEPARTMENT AND I HAVE AN INTEREST IN SERVING THIS STATE IN THAT CAPACITY. I BELIEVE I CAN BRING LEADERSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM AND THE SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEM TO BEAR.

Q. THEY COULD STAND A LITTLE HELP I THINK AND SO I AM GLAD YOU ARE TAKING A STAND ON THIS.

A. ALL I CAN DO IS HELP.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

SENATOR HOLLAND: REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. I AM RALPH DAVENPORT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE ARE HAVING WITH D.S.S. NOW?

A. ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER.

Q. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOUR EXPERTISE COULD HELP CORRECT SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS?

A. I THINK, AS YOU CAN SEE IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT I PROVIDED YOU, I THINK THE PROBLEM IS LEADERSHIP AND I THINK THAT I CAN HELP PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE IN THAT AREA, YES, SIR.

Q. WE HAVE TROUBLE WITH OUR--I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TROUBLE OR NOT--BUT I HEAR WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS AT OUR LOCAL LEVEL. DO YOU FEEL THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TYPE OF MECHANISM WHERE A COUNTY AGENCY MAY HAVE PROBLEMS, IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE PROBLEMS ARE SOMEHOW TURNED INTO A STATE PROBLEM, WOULD YOU WORK TOWARDS SOME TYPE OF MECHANISM TO WHERE THE STATE MIGHT BE ABLE TO STEP INTO THOSE COUNTY SITUATIONS THAT ARE NOT BEING RUN PROPERLY AND TAKE OVER THOSE OPERATIONS UNTIL THOSE PROBLEMS ARE CORRECTED? WOULD YOU WORK IN THAT DIRECTION OR DO YOU FEEL THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR THE STATE TO BE DOING?

A. I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY EMPHASIS, BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND, WHEN I RAN THE STATE UNITED WAY, I BELIEVE THE RUBBER HITS THE PAVEMENT IN THOSE 46 COUNTIES AND I BELIEVE THAT WHAT HAPPENS AT THE STATE LEVEL NEEDS TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CLIENT SERVICES AS HAPPENING ALL ACROSS THE STATE IN ALL 46 COUNTIES, AND I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF PUTTING IN PLACE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE UNIFORMLY CARRIED OUT IN ALL 46 COUNTIES, BUT THAT WERE CLIENT ORIENTED--IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I CAN'T BE ANY MORE DETAILED THAN THAT NOT KNOWING THE FACTS AND NOT KNOWING PARTICULARS OF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, THE ISSUES.

Q. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BOARDS THAT TOTALLY BACK COMMISSIONERS AND AGENCY DIRECTORS AND THIS SORT OF THING. DO YOU FEEL THAT YOUR EXPERTISE OR YOUR POSITION ON THIS BOARD MIGHT BE ONE OF NOT NECESSARILY WORKING WITH A DIRECTOR WHEN HE IS WRONG OR IF HE IS OFF ON SOME TANGENT OR THE AGENCY IS OFF ON SOME TANGENT, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE BOARD SHOULD WORK TO PROMOTE THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICIES TOWARDS PEOPLE AS OPPOSED TO PROTECTING OFFICIALS IN THE AGENCY?

A. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING OFFICIALS PERIOD, AND I THINK THE BOARD HAS AN OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THE WELFARE ACT AS IT IS WRITTEN AND PUT IN PLACE, AGAIN, POLICIES AND PROCEDURE THAT CARRY OUT THE WELFARE ACT AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

Q. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH POLICY THAT MAY BE IN PLACE NOW, CHANGING THAT POLICY TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSE OF THE AGENCY?

A. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT: THAT IS ALL.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: THANK YOU, MR. BECKHAM. LET ME MENTION THIS TO THOSE PRESENT. WE HAVE WITH US REPRESENTATIVE MOSS WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE 3-M COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE AND EVEN THOUGH WE CANNOT PERMIT YOU TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, MS. MOSS, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT US TO ASK ANY OF THESE APPLICANTS, YOU LET US KNOW AND WE WILL DO IT. IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE CORONER PROCESS. NOBODY CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS EXCEPT THE CORONER AND WE HAVE TO TELL THE CORONER WHAT TO ASK. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT US TO INQUIRE OF, WE KNOW WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS AND WE KNOW THE EFFORTS YOU ARE MAKING IN THIS REGARD AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING PRESENT. IF WE CAN HELP YOU IN ANY MANNER WITH THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE, YOU LET US KNOW AND WE WILL ASK THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS.

MS. MOSS: I APPRECIATE THAT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THANK YOU, MR. BECKHAM.

MR. BECKHAM: IS IT NOT NECESSARY THAT I READ MY OPENING STATEMENT SINCE YOU HAVE COPIES?

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE HAVE GOT IT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO READ IT, THAT'S VERY FINE.

MR. BECKHAM: I DON'T HAVE TO READ IT. I AM ASKING YOU IF YOU FEEL LIKE--I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME JUST READING THE STATEMENT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE HAVE IT IN THE RECORD. THE PROBLEM IS, IF YOU READ IT TO US NOW, THERE WOULD BE ABOUT SEVEN OTHER MEMBERS WHO WOULDN'T HEAR IT. WE WILL LET THEM LOOK AT IT. THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO MEET AND WE WILL ALL GO OVER THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDIDNESS.

MR. BECKHAM: THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SENATOR HOLLAND- THE NEXT APPLICANT--I GUESS YOU COULD SAY APPLICANT--IS MR. OSCAR P. BUTLER, AND I AM GOING TO TELL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WE TOLD HIM TO BE PRESENT AND I DON'T KNOW JUST WHAT THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT PRESENT IS GOING TO DO, BUT WE HAD THAT PROBLEM ONLY ONCE BEFORE THAT APPLICANTS DO NOT COME BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, AND I AM GOING TO LEAVE IT TO THE FULL COMMITTEE TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS, UNLESS HE CAN GIVE US A GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR NOT BEING HERE I SEE SOME OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PRESENT BOARD THAT ARE HERE, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE TO RELAY THAT MESSAGE TO HIM OR WE ARE GOING TO RELAY IT TO HIM THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOME GOOD JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR HIM NOT BEING HERE, THE RECORD IS GOING TO REFLECT THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD SCREEN HIM OUT. WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO LET THE RECORD AND REPORT INDICATE THAT. THE NEXT DISTRICT IS THE FOURTH, MR. JOHN EARLE. REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT: I MOVE THAT WE RECESS OR RECEDE ON THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY MEET WITH MR. BUTLER. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM AND I WOULD PRESENT MAYBE A NON-FAVORABLE REPORT UNTIL HE APPEARS BEFORE THIS BOARD.

SENATOR HOLLAND: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO FIND OUT IS WHETHER THE FAILURE TO APPEAR IS GOING TO DISQUALIFY HIM AS FAR AS THIS COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED. WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO LOOK AT THAT. WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM HIM OR GIVE HIM A FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. I HOPE HE DOESN'T TREAT IT LIGHTLY TO THE EXTENT THAT HE THINKS HE CAN EVADE THE COMMITTEE, THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WORRIES ME BECAUSE WE HAVE CERTAIN STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THINGS WE HAVE TO DO.

REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL: YOU SAID THIS HAD HAPPENED ONE OTHER TIME. HOW DID YOU HANDLE THAT?

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE FINALLY TOLD THE LADY SHE HAD TO BE HERE, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, AND SHE CAME. SHE CANCELED A TRIP AND WE FINALLY GOT HER HERE.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: A NO-SHOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS HAPPENED?

SENATOR HOLLAND: THUS FAR IT IS. WE HAVE HAD SOME RIGHT ROUGH SCREENING PROCESSES OVER THE YEARS BUT THEY ARE USUALLY HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT LIGHTLY, I AM GOING TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT. IF YOU TELL US THAT HE WAS TOLD AND HE WAS ADVISED TO BE HERE, THAT IS SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER AND DEAL WITH.

EXAMINATION OF JOHN K. EARLE BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. MR. EARLE, YOU ARE PRESENTLY SERVING ON THE D.S.S. BOARD AND YOU ARE ONE OF MY LONG-TIME FRIENDS HAVING SERVED WITH YOU IN THE HOUSE.

A. I APPRECIATE THAT.

Q. I APPRECIATE YOU LEAVING US AND GOING TO SERVE ON THE D.S.S. BOARD.

A. I APPRECIATE BEING REFERRED TO AS YOUR FRIEND, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. AND YOU HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE OATH. WE ARE GOING TO ASK MS. MCMILLAN NOW TO ASK YOU WHAT WE CALL THE REQUIRED QUESTIONS, AND AFTER THAT, OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY MS. McMILLAN:

Q. SIR, WHERE DO YOU NOW RESIDE?

A. I LIVE IN GREENVILLE, 7 PARKSON GROVE.

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN HOSPITALIZED OR HAD ANY SERIOUS ILLNESS OR MEDICAL PROBLEM IN THE PAST YEAR?

A. NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. NO.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS, BE IT EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER COMMITMENTS, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM ATTENDING THE MEETINGS AND PUTTING IN THE NECESSARY TIME?

A. I HAVE NONE.

Q. DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY HAVE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR HOLDING THIS POSITION?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY RELATED TO ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH D.S.S.?

A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCHARGED FROM ANY EMPLOYMENT?

A. NO, MA'AM.

MS. MCMILLAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

SENATOR HOLLAND: DO WE HAVE HIS ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENT?

MS. McMILLAN: YES, SIR.

SENATOR HOLLAND: WE HAVE OTHER REQUIRED THINGS, THE SLED INVESTIGATION?

MS. McMILLAN: WE HAVE EVERYTHING ON HIM.

SENATOR HOLLAND: DID YOU HAVE A STATEMENT FROM HIM?

MS. McMILLAN: NO.

MR. EARLE: I DID NOT SEND A STATEMENT BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, IF YOU INTENDED TO PRESENT A STATEMENT, YOU SEND IT IN WRITING, OTHERWISE NOT, SO I DID NOT SEND ONE.

SENATOR HOLLAND: VERY GOOD.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. EARLE?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS:

Q. MY NAME IS B. L. HENDRICKS. MORE OF A COMMENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE, I HAVE KNOWN JOHN A LONG TIME, LIKE YOU, SENATOR, AND I KNOW HIS MORAL CHARACTER AND I APPRECIATE PEOPLE OF HIS CALIBER SERVING ON THE D.S.S. BOARD.

A. THANK YOU.

SENATOR HOLLAND: REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. MR. EARLE, I HAVE NOT REALLY HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY GET INTO SOME OF THE PROBLEMS OVER AT D.S.S. I READ A LITTLE BIT IN THE PAPER ABOUT CHECKS THAT HAVE BEEN LOOT OR MISPLACED AND THAT SORT OF THING. WHAT TYPE OF STEPS HAS THE BOARD TAKEN TO CORRECT THOSE ERRORS, AND I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE $140,000 IRREGULARITIES IN PROCUREMENT AND THIS SORT OF THING, WHAT TYPES OF STEPS HAS THE BOARD TAKEN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS?

A. OF COURSE, THE FIRST STEP IS TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO STRAIGHTEN IT UP AND THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THEY DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE PROBLEM AS OF TODAY HAS BASICALLY BEEN CORRECTED. OF COURSE, IT WAS CORRECTED BY BRINGING IN PEOPLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THAT ONE PROBLEM TO GET IT DONE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME DEMOTIONS. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME REPRIMANDS, SHUFFLING AROUND IN THE STAFF, AND AS OF NOW THOSE PROBLEMS HAVE BASICALLY BEEN CORRECTED AND WE INTEND TO SEE THEY DON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT MOST OF THOSE THINGS CAME UP AS A RESULT OF OUR OWN INTERNAL AUDITS. WE FOUND THEM, DIDN'T TRY TO HIDE THEM. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. WE ARE NOT APOLOGIZING. WE ARE JUST SAYING WE ARE SORRY THAT THEY DID HAPPEN. WE HAVE STRAIGHTENED THEM OUT AND WE INTEND TO SEE THAT THEY DON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

Q. DO YOU FEEL IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD TO OVERSEE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF D.S.S.?

A. SAY THAT AGAIN, I DIDN'T QUITE GET IT.

Q. DO YOU FEEL IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD TO OVERSEE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES OF D.S.S.?

A. THE BOARD SETS POLICY AND IT'S OVERSEEING DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION, SO, NO, THAT IS NOT THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY. THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SEE THAT THEIR POLICY IS FOLLOWED. THAT IS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY.

Q. IT APPEARS TO ME FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT, AND I HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO TOUCH ON IT, IS THAT SOMEWHERE AT THE TOP END OF D.S.S. WE HAVE REALLY GOT A MANAGEMENT CRISIS OVER THERE AND WE HAVE PEOPLE PROTECTING PEOPLE AT THE TOP, AND THAT IS FUN AND GAMES TO DO THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM AND THE PEOPLE BEING SERVED BY D.S.S. ARE BEING HURT. IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME--AND I REALIZE GOVERNMENT MOVES IN A SLOW WAY AND MAYBE THAT IS THE BEST--BUT IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE PROBLEMS AND I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY MAJOR CORRECTIONS OR ANY MAJOR ACTIONS BEING TAKEN TO CORRECT THOSE. I AM SURE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT MAKE MISTAKES AND THIS SORT OF THING, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY DOING THIS AND I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THE BOARD NEEDS TO STEP IN AND DO A LITTLE MORE AND MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PAST, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESENT. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT?

A. YOU MENTIONED PEOPLE HIDING AND, COVERING UP FOR OTHERS, I AM NOT SURE WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYBODY HIDING OR COVERING UP FOR OTHERS. IF THEY WERE, I WOULD CERTAINLY DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT THAT MATTER. WE ARE COMMITTED, THE BOARD IS PRESENTLY COMMITTED TO DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO STRAIGHTEN OUT ANY PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE, AND I AM NOT SAYING WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS, WE DO. IN FACT, THAT IS THE REASON I AM RUNNING AGAIN, MR. DAVENPORT I FELT LIKE I WAS A COWARD IF I HAD NOT RUN THIS TIME AND STEPPED OUT AND LEFT IT. I WOULD HAVE FELT I WAS REMISS IN MY DUTY.

Q. THAT IS WHAT I WANT IN A DIRECTOR, SOMEBODY WHO IS GOING TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND THAT IS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR YOU TO DO.

A. WE WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.

SENATOR HOLLAND: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL:

Q. MR. EARLE, I KNOW THAT YOU SERVED IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR SOME 11 YEARS?

A. TEN.

Q. TEN YEARS AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND YOU WERE MY REPRESENTATIVE FOR MANY YEARS AND I KNOW YOUR ABILITIES AND I AM GLAD TO SEE YOU ARE OFFERING AGAIN. LET ME ASK YOU, THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IS SET UP IN A DIFFERENT MANNER FROM DHEC AND SOME OTHER AGENCIES IN THAT YOU HAVE A STATE ORGANIZATION BUT YOU ALSO HAVE LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH LOCAL BOARDS, AND APPARENTLY THERE IS NOT ANY DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM THE TOP ALL THE WAY TO THE PERSON ON THE FRONT LINE IN THE LOCAL COUNTY D.S.S. OFFICE, IS THAT ANY PROBLEM IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT?

A. YES, SIR. IT DOES PRESENT PROBLEMS, NO QUESTION. YOU PRESENTED THE PROBLEM RATHER ADEQUATELY. WE HAVE GOT THE STATE SYSTEM, YOU HAVE GOT 40 COUNTY BOARDS WHO HIRE THEIR OWN DIRECTORS, SO YOU HAVE GOT A CORPORATION RUNNING WITH 46 LITTLE CORPORATIONS UNDER IT WHERE THERE IS SOME GRAY AREAS IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

Q. BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT AS A FORMER LEGISLATOR, SHOULD THERE BE SOME CHANGE MADE OF COURSE, YOU AND I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD TAKE SOME ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BUT IN YOUR OPINION WOULD THE ORGANIZATION WORK BETTER IF THERE WERE DIRECT SUPERVISION SUCH AS IN THE DHEC?

A. LET ME EVADE THAT SLIGHTLY, AND NOT EVADING IT EITHER, BUT PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. YOU HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND WHERE THE ACCOUNTABILITY IS PUT, BE IT BY THE LEGISLATURE, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE TOP OR BOTTOM, THEN THAT IS WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE IN MY OPINION. I THINK THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD RUN TOGETHER, IF THAT TENDS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

Q. IN OTHER WORDS, IF I HEAR YOU SAYING IT POLITELY, WE PERHAPS SHOULD NOT HOLD THE ADMINISTRATION NECESSARILY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ERRORS THAT ARE NOW BEING MADE IN THE LOCAL OFFICES?

A. I AM NOT GOING TO SAY THAT ENTIRELY. YOU PROBABLY HIT ON IT PARTLY. I AM NOT GOING TO SAY THAT ENTIRELY. IF THE STATE OFFICE IS GOING TO BE HELD ENTIRELY ACCOUNTABLE, THEN PROBABLY THEY SHOULD BE ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE.

Q. MR. EARLE, I WOULD JUST SAY TO YOU THAT WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE IN YOU AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL DO ALL YOU CAN TO HELP STRAIGHTEN OUT THE D.S.S. SITUATION.

A. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIDENCE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. MR. EARLE, WE HAVE A SITUATION UNDER E.I.A. WHERE SCHOOL SYSTEMS ARE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN ECONOMY AND THE STATE REALLY DOESN'T GET INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THEIR FUNCTIONS, BUT IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA OR FAILS IN SOME WAY, THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO GO IN AND TAKE THAT DISTRICT OVER AND OPERATE IT UNTIL IT GETS BACK ON ITS FEET. WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO THAT TYPE OF LEGISLATION IF WE COULD GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT DONE WHERE IF AN AGENCY OUT THERE IN THE COUNTY, LET'S SAY SPARTANBURG, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW SPARTANBURG IS RUN, BUT WE HAVE A BOARD THERE THAT APPOINTS OUR PEOPLE AND WE COULD APPOINT SOMEBODY VERY SORRY, AND ERRORS THAT ARE MADE THERE, AS DILL SAID, THEY'LL REFLECT BACK ON THE STATE, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO WORKING WITH US IN DEVELOPING SOME TYPE OF POLICY LIKE THAT?

A. I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO IT AT ALL, CERTAINLY WOULDN'T.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY:

Q. THIS QUESTION MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED, BUT IT IS ONE THAT I HAVE ASKED D.S.S. OFFICIALS SINCE WE FIRST HEARD THE NEWS OF THE POTENTIAL PAYBACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. D.S.S. HAS TOLD ME THAT THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN FIND OUT--AND TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT SAID--THEY TOLD ME THERE IS NO WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT PARTICULAR COUNTIES ARE CAUSING THE MAJOR ERRORS AND WHICH ARE DOING A GOOD JOB, WHICH SOUNDS TOTALLY CONFUSING TO ME WHY YOU CAN'T DETERMINE WHERE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS ARE AND ERROR PLACES IN THE COUNTY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? DO YOU THINK THERE IS A WAY WE CAN FIND WHAT COUNTIES AND WHAT PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES IN THE COUNTIES ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS?

A. I WOULD THINK WE CAN FIND OUT WHICH COUNTIES WHERE THE ERROR RATE IS UP. I THINK YOU CAN GET THE ERROR RATE BY COUNTY. I DON'T SEE WHY YOU COULDN'T.

Q. I WAS SO AMAZED WHEN THEY TOLD ME--I SAID WHY CAN'T WE FIND OUT WHAT COUNTIES ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS AND SEE WHO SHOULD BE REPLACED IN THOSE COUNTIES AND THEY SAID YOU CAN'T DETERMINE THAT.

A. WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE WHO IS CAUSING THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A FUNCTION OF THAT COUNTY DIRECTOR. THERE IS NO WAY IN THE STATE THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY WE COULDN'T FIND OUT WHICH COUNTIES WHERE THE ERROR RATES ARE RUNNING HIGHEST BECAUSE THEY DO PULL THE Q.C. REPORTS ON THOSE COUNTIES FROM TIME TO TIME. OF COURSE, I DO KNOW THAT THE COUNTIES OBJECT TO THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THEY SAY IF YOU PULL A SAMPLE OF ONE OR TWO CASES, YOU MAY FIND ALL OF THOSE BAD AND THEY SAY ALL THE REST OF THE 98 ARE OKAY.

Q. THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING, THEY WERE TELLING ME THAT. IS THERE ANY ACCURATE WAY WHERE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS IN CASE SOMETHING THAT REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT SAID IS ADOPTED, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT COUNTIES SHOULD BE TAKEN OVER? IF YOU DO IT ON SAMPLES, THEN YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET AN ACCURATE PICTURE, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT COUNTIES NEED TO HAVE MAYBE SOME MORE DIRECTION AND WHAT COUNTIES MAYBE NEED TO HAVE SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT ABOUT WHO IS RUNNING IT AND WHAT COUNTIES DO NOT---

A. JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I WOULD SAY IF YOU HAVE ONE COUNTY CONSISTENTLY DRAWING BAD SAMPLES IN THE QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES WHEN THEY GET THEM, THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY BAD, THEN I DON'T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO DRAW THE ONLY BAD ONES CONSISTENTLY. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE SOME INDICATION, IF IT HAPPENS MORE THAN ONCE, TWICE, THREE, FOUR TIMES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD INDICATION.

Q. WOULD IT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT NOW D.S.S. MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT TELLS THEM WHAT COUNTIES ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS?

A. I WOULDN'T SEE WHY THEY WOULDN'T.

Q. I HAVE ASKED FOR THAT REPEATEDLY AND REPEATEDLY AND NO ONE PROVIDED THAT TO ME AT ALL, SAYING, THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. IT'S AMAZING WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE.

A. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT WHY THEY CAN'T GET YOU THE INFORMATION AS TO WHICH COUNTIES ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS.

Q. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THIS GENTLEMAN IS REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY AND HE CAME IN LATE.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. EARLE?

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. EARLE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY:

Q. SENATOR, REVEREND DAVENPORT ALSO GAVE ME ONE QUESTION HERE THAT DEALS WITH MY COUNTY AND I WONDER IF I COULD ASK THAT?

SENATOR HOLLAND: YES, SIR.

Q. YOU DO REALIZE THAT NOW IN THE LAW THERE IS NO PROVISION REGARDING WHAT COUNTIES ARE PROVIDED D.S.S. AND THAT TYPE OF THING, IT'S SORT OF AN UP IN THE AIR TYPE OF THING?

A. I WOULD SAY THERE IS A LITTLE GRAY AREA THERE, GOING BY PRECEDENT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

Q. I THINK IN DOING THE RESEARCH BECAUSE IT HIT DILLON COUNTY THIS YEAR, WE ENDED UP WITH DOING SOME RESEARCH FINDING OUT IN 1937 THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT D.S.S. WOULD BE PROVIDED SPACE BY THE COUNTIES, AND THEN IN '38 THAT PROVISION WAS TAKEN OUT, SO NOW THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW WHATSOEVER REGARDING ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY. DILLON COUNTY RIGHT NOW IS GOING THROUGH A MAJOR PROBLEM AND I GUESS YOU MIGHT SAY IT'S NOT TOTALLY ONE PERSON'S FAULT OR THE OTHER, BUT THEY BUILT A BRAND NEW D.S.S. BUILDING AND WHEN D.S.S. STARTED TO MOVE INTO IT, THEY WERE ALERTED THAT KINGSTREE HAD A SYSTEM SET UP SO THAT KINGSTREE, WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY, WAS RECEIVING MONEY FOR RENT. THEY LOOKED AT A BUILDING IN CHARLESTON, THE AIMAR BUILDING WHERE RENT WAS BEING PAID, AND DILLON COUNTY AND THE EXPENDITURE OF SO MUCH FUNDS HAD ITS CITIZENS VERY CONCERNED SAYING "WHY ARE WE PAYING NOT ONLY FOR SPACE BUT ALSO PAYING ALL THE UTILITIES?" WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE FAIR SITUATION THERE SINCE D.S.S. IS AN INTERESTING INSTITUTION, IT'S IN A SEPARATE BUILDING AND NO CONTROL BY THE COUNTY OF THE UTILITIES THAT ARE USED?

A. THE FAIR THING WOULD BE IF THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM WOULD LIKE TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEY AND SAY THIS IS TO BE PAID FOR THE COUNTIES FOR UTILITIES, THAT WOULD BE FINE. IF THEY STATE AND THEIR BUDGET DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK ON PRECEDENT WHICH IS THE COUNTIES HAVE BEEN FURNISHING THAT, A MAJORITY OF THE COUNTIES, ALMOST ALL OF THEM. GREENVILLE COUNTY, REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL, YOU REMEMBER A FEW YEARS BACK, I THINK MAYBE BEFORE YOU CAME ON THE DELEGATION, THEY DECIDED THEY WOULDN'T PAY THE TELEPHONE BILL UP THERE AND DEMANDED--I WASN'T ON THE BOARD THEN EITHER--BUT THEY DEMANDED THAT D.S.S. PAY THE TELEPHONE BILL. D.S.S. DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THE TELEPHONE BILL, SO THERE FOR A SHORT TIME THERE WASN'T ANY TELEPHONE, BUT PANDEMONIUM REIGNED AND THE COUNTY--THEY DECIDED MAYBE THAT WAS IN THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CLIENTS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PEOPLE THAT WAS HURTING, THEY WERE HURTING THE CLIENTS. THAT IS THE SAME SITUATION YOU HAVE HERE.

Q. DILLON COUNTY IS IN A BAD SITUATION. THEY SAID THEY TOLD D.S.S. ON JULY 1ST ALL UTILITIES AS FAR AS DILLON COUNTY'S NAME, THEY ARE GOING TO END THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING THEM.

A. THEY DIDN'T TELL D.S.S. WHERE YOU GET THE MONEY TO PAY IT. SOME OF THESE CASES THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED, I HAVE HEARD THOSE THINGS, I AM NOT COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH THEM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT ALSO THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED SOME MONEY THAT COULD BE GIVEN TO THOSE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Q. THAT'S RIGHT, AND THAT IS ONE THING OTHER COUNTIES DON'T UNDERSTAND, SAY, KERSHAW COUNTY AND NOW GREENVILLE COUNTY AND DILLON COUNTY, HOW DO THEY UNDERSTAND HOW SOME COUNTIES, FOR EXAMPLE, CHARLESTON AIMAR BUILDING, OR KINGSTREE, HOW THEY CAN RECEIVE RENT AND FUNDS TO ASSIST AND OTHER COUNTIES CANNOT?

A. IF THE LEGISLATURE WOULD PROVIDE IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. I AM SURE GREENVILLE COUNTY WOULD BE TICKLED TO DEATH THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE WOULD APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE UTILITIES. THAT WOULD BE FINE.

Q. AS A LEADER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND BEING ON THE BOARD, DO YOU FEEL THEN THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE THOSE FUNDS?

A. I REALLY AM NOT SURE WHETHER THEY SHOULD OR NOT. I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH YOUR BUDGET RESTRAINTS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE WAY OF YOUR BUDGET RESTRAINTS. I KNOW YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IF IN THEIR WISDOM IF THE LEGISLATURE WOULD DO THAT, I WOULD BE AGREEABLE WITH IT. I WOULDN'T WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO DO THAT AND SUBTRACT THAT FROM OTHER FUNDS THAT ARE COMING OUR WAY. WE WOULD HAVE TO CURTAIL ON BENEFIT PROGRAMS OR SOMETHING ON THAT AND I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THAT IF IT WAS GOING TO SUBTRACT.

Q. YOU WOULD PUT IT AS A LOW PRIORITY?

A. IF IT WAS GOING TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE FUNDS, THEN, YES, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THANK YOU, MR. EARLE. MR. CAMPBELL.

EXAMINATION OF PHILLIP P. CAMPBELL BY MS. MCMILLAN:

Q. MR. CAMPBELL, PLEASE, SIR, WHERE DO YOU RESIDE?

A. 505 ANDERSON DRIVE, DARLINGTON.

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN HOSPITALIZED OR HAD ANY SERIOUS ILLNESS OR MEDICAL PROBLEM IN THE PAST YEAR?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT PREVENT YOUR PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS, BE IT EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER COMMITMENTS, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM ATTENDING THE MEETINGS AND PUTTING IN THE TIME NEEDED TO SERVE IN THIS OFFICE?

A. I DO NOT.

Q. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE ETHICS LAW, PLEASE, SIR. DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY HAVE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR HOLDING THIS POSITION?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY RELATED TO ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES?

A. NO, MA'AM.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCHARGED FROM ANY EMPLOYMENT?

A. NO, MA'AM.

MS. MCMILLAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. MR. CAMPBELL, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN DARLINGTON?

A. IN DARLINGTON COUNTY ALL MY LIFE. BORN AND RAISED IN DARLINGTON COUNTY.

Q. I GUESS YOU WONDER WHY I ASKED YOU THAT, BUT ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO WE HAD A GENTLEMAN RUNNING FOR THE D.S.S. BOARD AND HE HAD JUST DRUG A TRAILER IN THE DISTRICT OVERNIGHT ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE, SO WE WANT TO BE SURE YOU ARE RUNNING FOR THE RIGHT DISTRICT. ALSO HAD ANOTHER ONE ONE TIME THAT CHECKED HIM OUT AND FOUND OUT HE HAD MISAPPROPRIATED A LOT OF MONEY SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE. WE DON'T ASK ANY MORE THAN WE HAVE TO.

SENATOR HOLLAND: MR. HENDRICKS?

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I HAVE NO QUESTIONS AT THE PRESENT TIME. I MIGHT HAVE ONE LATER.

SENATOR HOLLAND: REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT: NOT AT THE PRESENT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: JUDGE LOCKEMY?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY:

Q. IT SAYS YOU ARE GOING TO BE REPRESENTING MY AREA, THE PEE DEE, AND I AM GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE, AND I KNOW YOU ARE TAKING ON A VERY DETERMINED CAUSE. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN D.S.S. BEFORE?

A. NOT WORKING IN ANY SENSE. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AND WORKED FOR D.S.S. AND THAT SORT OF THING.

Q. ANY OF THE COUNTY BOARDS IN DARLINGTON, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ON THE COUNTY BOARD, HAVE YOU?

A. NO, SIR. I HAVEN'T SERVED LOCALLY, NO, SIR.

Q. YOU BEING BRAND NEW IN YOUR THOUGHTS, ARE YOU AMAZED ABOUT THE SITUATION OF THE COUNTIES' RELATIONSHIP TO D.S.S. AS FAR AS PROVIDING FACILITIES, THE FACT THAT THE COUNTIES ARE TASKED TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE UTILITIES AND SPACE AND EVERYTHING ELSE?

A. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT AMAZED. IT'S MORE SHOCKED THAN ANYTHING THAT IT HASN'T BEEN WORKED OUT IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME IN THE PAST YEARS.

Q. I THINK WHAT I--AND OF COURSE, I WON'T BE AROUND TO LOOK AT IT LATER--BUT WHAT I AM NOW CONCERNED WITH IS SOMEONE ON THAT BOARD WHO IS WILLING TO TRY AND WORK OUT A SOLUTION INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT IS THE STATUS QUO AND WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT, SOMEONE WHO IS A LEADER WHO IS GOING TO TRY TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION THAT WILL PROVIDE THE PEOPLE, AS THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN SAID, THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO LOSE BUT YET SOMEBODY HAS TO PROVIDE SOME LEADERSHIP SAYING THIS IS WHAT D.S.S. THINKS SHOULD BE DONE INSTEAD OF SITTING BACK AND SAYING WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE SAYS IS FINE. THE LEGISLATURE LOOKS TO YOU ALL AS THE LEADERS OF THAT AGENCY TO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP THERE AS FAR AS WHAT THE STATE SHOULD DO?

A. WELL, I HATE TO BE REAL NAIVE AND SAY IT THIS WAY, BUT I THINK THERE'S MORE PROBLEMS THAN D.S.S. WITH THE COUNTY SITUATIONS. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO LOOK AT, FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTION COMMISSIONS AND REGISTRATION BOARDS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON THAT FALL IN THAT SAME CATEGORY AND SOMETHING BE DONE TO SOLVE IT IN ONE SITUATION. IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THE COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO COOPERATE WITH THE STATE AGENCIES.

Q. LET ME ASK YOU THIS, IF YOU BECOME A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, WILL YOU PLEDGE THAT YOU WILL DO ALL YOU CAN TO MAKE SURE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AS FAR AS FOR COUNTIES WHO HAVE D.S.S. BUILDINGS--EVERY COUNTY DOES--BUT THE COUNTIES THAT HAVE THE D.S.S. FACILITIES IS DONE FAIRLY STATEWIDE AND THAT NO COUNTY GETS ANY OTHER FUNDS THAN OTHER COUNTIES GET, AND WORK OUT SOME EQUITABLE SYSTEM THAT THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THAT AGENCY?

A. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT, SIR.

Q. I SEE ONE OTHER THING, YOU WERE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD FOR 12 YEARS?

A. YES, MANY YEARS AGO.

Q. I AM IN THE NATIONAL GUARD NOW. YOU ONLY HAVE 8 YEARS TO GO AND YOU VEST THAT RETIREMENT.

A. I DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST TO GET OUT AT THAT TIME.

Q. WERE YOU ON THE TUESDAY NIGHT TYPE CREW NATIONAL GUARD?

A. MONDAY NIGHTS.

Q. WE DO IT DIFFERENTLY NOW. WE MEET ALMOST EVERY WEEKEND. ALSO WOULD YOU PLEDGE TO SEE IF YOU CAN FIND OUT THE ERROR RATE WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS AND WHO HAS CAUSED THOSE PROBLEMS?

A. ABSOLUTELY.

REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL:

Q. ONLY ONE QUESTION. MR. CAMPBELL, IT'S GOOD TO SEE FOLKS GET INVOLVED. WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR MOTIVATION IS?

A. I WAS READING IN THE PAPER AND I WAS WONDERING MYSELF, BUT I THINK I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A BASIC-MY WHOLE INVOLVEMENT HAS BEEN FROM THE COMMON AVERAGE GUY APPROACH TO EVERYTHING I HAVE DONE IN MY LIFE AND I HAVE COME UP THROUGH CIVIC WORK AND SO FORTH. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A DESIRE TO HELP PEOPLE, AND TO BE VERY HONEST WITH YOU, I HAVE SOME VERY GOOD FRIENDS WHO HAVE BEEN WITH D.S.S. AND I HEARD A LOT OF PROBLEMS BEFORE THIS CAME OUT ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, AND I THINK THE COMMON APPROACH FROM THE AVERAGE VIEWPOINT THINKING MIGHT COULD HELP MORE IN THIS SITUATION THAN ANYTHING.

Q. AS YOU GO INTO THE JOB, ARE YOU ABLE TO GO INTO IT WITH AN OPEN MIND--

A. ABSOLUTELY.

Q. --TO TRY TO LEARN WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHAT IS HAPPENING?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SET THE POLICIES?

A. I THINK THAT IS THE KEY, SIR.

SENATOR HOLLAND: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD?

I DID NOT GET WHAT TYPE OF WORK YOU DO. WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?

A. VICE PRESIDENT OF CAROLINA BANK IN DARLINGTON.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. CAMPBELL. THE LAST APPLICANT IS REVEREND LANDHOLT. WE ALSO HAVE YOUR STATEMENT AND WE HAVE YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENT AND A SLED INVESTIGATION. I BELIEVE PRESENTLY--ARE YOU CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD?

REVEREND LANDHOLT: YES, SIR, I AM.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND DAVID E. LANDHOLT:
SINCE BEING APPOINTED TO THE D.S.S. STATE BOARD IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, FILLING THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE AT-LARGE MEMBER, I HAVE PRESIDED AT TWO REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS, ONE SPECIAL MEETING, AND ONE SESSION OF THE COUNTY BOARD/STATE BOARD WORK GROUP. IN ADDITION, I HAVE VISITED D.S.S. COUNTY OFFICES IN LEXINGTON AND SPARTANBURG, MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF SEVERAL COMMUNITY-BASED GROUPS, SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND MET WITH SEVERAL COUNTY DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY'S EXECUTIVE STAFF. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO WHAT IS BEING SAID ABOUT THE AGENCY, MUCH OF IT CRITICAL. I HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACROSS OUR STATE WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT D.S.S. BECOMING MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT IN DELIVERING QUALITY SERVICES TO ITS CLIENTS. IT WOULD SEEM THAT MUCH OF WHAT TROUBLES THIS AGENCY IS ITS INABILITY, THUS FAR, TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE COMPLEXITIES AND THE SUBTLETIES OF ITS STRUCTURE. ITS TWO-TIERS (STATE AND COUNTY) OF OFFICES, STAFFS, BOARDS, AND SERVICES MAKE D.S.S. DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, EXPLAIN, AND MANAGE. CONSEQUENTLY, EACH TIME A SERIOUS PROBLEM ARISES, THE TENDENCY IS TO BLAME THE STRUCTURE AND TO CALL FOR GREATER CENTRALIZATION OF AUTHORITY. WRITINGS LIKE "IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE" AND "RE-INVENTING THE CORPORATION," HOWEVER, TEACH US THAT WE MUST AVOID CENTRALIZATION AND AVOID OVERLY SIMPLISTIC ORGANIZATIONS IF WE ARE TO BE PROPERLY STRUCTURED FOR THE 1990'S. EVIDENTLY, CORPORATIONS THE WORLD OVER ARE FINDING THEY CAN DELIVER QUALITY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES MORE EFFECTIVELY AND ECONOMICALLY, PLUS PROVIDE POSITIVE WORK RESOURCES AT THE POINT OF CONTACT WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS/CLIENTS. TWO OTHER MATTERS WHICH NEED MORE ATTENTION BY THE D.S.S. STATE BOARD ARE THE MATTER OF WHO PAYS FOR THE D.S.S. COUNTY OFFICES BUILDINGS, AND THE MATTER OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS D.S.S. COUNTY BOARDS. I RESPECTFULLY OFFER MYSELF AS A CANDIDATE FOR A FULL-TERM AS THE AT LARGE MEMBER OF THE D.S.S. STATE BOARD.

HOW WE SERVE OUR POOR, HOW WE SERVE OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND CHILDREN IN NEED, DEFINES THE VERY STRENGTH OF OUR SOCIETY. WHERE WE FAIL IN THESE ENDEAVORS, WE HAVE FAILED AS A PEOPLE.

EXAMINATION OF REVEREND DAVID LANDHOLT BY MS. MCMILLAN:

Q. REVEREND LANDHOLT, WHERE DO YOU NOW RESIDE?

A. HERE IN COLUMBIA.

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN HOSPITALIZED OR HAD ANY SERIOUS ILLNESS OR MEDICAL PROBLEM IN THE PAST YEAR?

A. NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. I DO NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. I DO NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS, BE IT EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER COMMITMENTS, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM ATTENDING THE MEETINGS AND PUTTING IN THE NECESSARY TIME?

A. I DO NOT.

Q. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE ETHICS LAW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, SIR. DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY HAVE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR HOLDING THIS POSITION?

A. WE DO NOT.

Q. ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY RELATED TO ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES?

A. WE ARE NOT.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCHARGED FROM ANY EMPLOYMENT?

A. NO.

MS. MCMILLAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. REVEREND, FROM TIME TO TIME I HAVE TO LIMIT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE FROM ASKING QUESTIONS AND GO INTO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR ABILITY TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, BUT SOMETIMES I TAKE GREAT LATITUDE IN THAT BECAUSE OF RECENT PRESS IN REGARD TO D.S.S. PROBLEMS AND I AM GOING TO ENGAGE IN THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT MYSELF, BUT IT WILL ONLY BB TO THIS EXTENT, I DETECT, AND LET'S SEE IF THIS IS ABOUT RIGHT, THAT THERE IS A LOT OF INSUBORDINATION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT BY LOCAL D.S.S. DEPARTMENTS. I AM JUST WONDERING AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE ORDERS FROM THE GROUP THAT IS RESPONSIBLE OR THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE LOCALLY ELECTED BY A LOCAL D.S.S. BOARD AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT--AND WHEN THE HEAT GETS ON, THE STATE DEPARTMENT GETS IT BUT SOMETIMES YOUR LOCAL GROUPS CAUSE THE PROBLEMS FOR WHICH THE STATE ELEMENT IS RESPONSIBLE, AM I TOUCHING GROUND THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE SOME COMMENT ON?

A. YES, SIR, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE THAT IS HOLY GROUND. I BELIEVE THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER. IT IS MY FEELING AFTER JUST A FEW MONTH'S INVOLVEMENT AT THIS LEVEL THAT IT'S VERY EASY TO SPEAK IN TERMS OF CENTRALIZATION, GRABBING POWER INTO A CENTRAL PLACE SO AUTHORITY LINES CAN BE CLEAR. IT'S SO EASY TO THINK IN THOSE TERMS, BUT THAT BECOMES SO DIFFICULT BECAUSE I BELIEVE WITH ALL MY HEART, SENATOR, TO DO THAT WOULD BE THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR THE 1990'S. I BELIEVE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S COMPLEX AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S SUBTLE AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE SYSTEM THAT WE NOW HAVE, AND WHEN COUNTY DIRECTORS AND COUNTY OFFICES DO BALK AT TAKING ORDERS FROM COLUMBIA, I BELIEVE THEY ARE RIGHT IN DOING SO BECAUSE THEY FEEL PRESSURE TOO, BUT THEIR PRESSURE COMES FROM THEIR CONSTITUENCY WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE THEY LIVE WITH AND PEOPLE THEY SERVE AND PEOPLE THEY WORK WITH. WE DO HAVE PROBLEMS AND WE DO ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS BY GETTING AUTHORITY AND BLAME IN ONE PLACE, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE WRONG WAY TO APPROACH IT, SENATOR. I MAY CHANGE MY MIND LATER BUT AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE THIS IS WHERE I AM WITH IT. I BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO STRENGTHEN THE COUNTY BOARDS, NOT WEAKEN THEM. WE OUGHT TO STRENGTHEN THE COUNTY DIRECTORS, NOT WEAKEN THEM. WE OUGHT TO DIMINISH MIDDLE MANAGEMENT HERE IN COLUMBIA AND PUSH RESOURCES OUT FROM THE CENTRAL OFFICE TO THE POINT OF CONTACT WITH THE CLIENTS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. I BELIEVE CORPORATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE FINDING IN MOVING TOWARD THE CUSTOMER AND MOVING TOWARD THE CLIENT, THEY ARE FINDING BETTER QUALITY, HAPPIER EMPLOYEES, A BETTER WORLD ALL AROUND, BETTER PRODUCTS, BETTER SERVICES.

Q. WHAT YOU SAID IS YOU THINK THE PRESENT SYSTEM SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO EXIST A LITTLE LONGER TO SEE IF IT COULD BE DONE INTERNALLY?

A. YES, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE THE PRESENT SYSTEM AS IT'S PRESENTLY WORKING, I JUST BELIEVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEM WILL MAKE IT WORK BETTER.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS:

Q. REVEREND LANDHOLT, IN READING YOUR STATEMENT, EVEN THOUGH YOU JUST RESTATED, I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM IN YOUR SHORT TENURE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, AND THAT HAS BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. EVER SINCE THE DAYS OF R.C. ELLIS WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISSENT ABOUT WHERE THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE BECAUSE IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THE LOCAL D.S.S. BOARD HIRE THESE PEOPLE AND THEN SUDDENLY BECOME STATE EMPLOYEES OVERNIGHT AND IT IS HARD TO FIX IT, BUT THERE IS STILL AN AWFUL LOT OF RESERVATIONS AND RESENTMENT IN DOING AWAY WITH THESE LOCAL BOARDS AND THEIR AUTHORITY TO THAT DEGREE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THESE THINGS KIND OF GREW OUT OF ANOTHER ERA SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHERE YOU HAD A LOCAL WELFARE BOARD MORE OR LESS FUNDED BY THE COUNTY, MADE UP BY PEOPLE THAT KNEW THE PEOPLE AND SITUATION, SO I CAN BEE THERE IS A CARRY OVER FROM THAT AND I THINK THAT IS GOOD BECAUSE THEY DO KNOW THE SITUATION LOCALLY. WE HAVE SO MANY DIRECTIVES AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES TO YOU ALL FROM WASHINGTON AND IT IS A DIFFICULT AREA, BUT I AM GLAD TO HEAR YOU BAY YOU ARE WILLING TO WORK TO TRY TO RESOLVE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD EVER PASS ANYTHING THAT WOULD USURP THE POWER OF THE LOCAL BOARD AND HIRING THEIR ADMINISTRATORS. WE HAVE TRIED IT BEFORE. IT'S A DIFFICULT THING AND UNUSUAL IN THAT IT WORKS THAT WAY, BUT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THIS, THE AT LARGE APPOINTMENT IS BY THE GOVERNOR, IS THAT CORRECT?

A. NO, SIR. I AM FILLING THE UNEXPIRED TERM, THAT IS WHY THE APPOINTMENT.

MR. HENDRICKS: THANKS SO MUCH.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. REVEREND, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE BOARD?

A. TWO MONTHS.

Q. YOU HAVE NOT LOST YOUR RELIGION YET?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. HOW MANY YEARS HAS THE PRESENT COMMISSIONER BEEN GIVEN PERFECT RATINGS BY THE BOARD, DO YOU KNOW?

A. NO, SIR, I DO NOT.

Q. I UNDERSTAND AS LONG AS HE'S BEEN THERE HE HAS BEEN. HE IS ALSO THE THIRD HIGHEST PAID COMMISSIONER IN THE COUNTRY, IS THAT RIGHT?

A. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

Q. HE IS. I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT- YOU ARE FACING AT THE STATE LEVEL ARE GENERATED AT THE COUNTY LEVEL AND, AS I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL OTHERS, THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT WORKS, AND WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT WITH US IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND THERE ARE SOME COUNTY BOARDS OUT THERE THAT THEY HAVE HIRED SOME FOLKS THAT JUST AREN'T UP TO SNUFF, HIRED SOMEBODY THAT NEEDED FIVE OR SIX YEARS TO MEET THEIR STATE RETIREMENT AND THIS SORT OF THING. I PERSONALLY FEEL IT'S THE STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO GO INTO A BOARD OR INTO A COUNTY THAT IS NOT DOING ITS JOB, AND AS PEOPLE HAVE TOLD MR. LOCKEMY AND TOLD ME, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GO IN AND DETERMINE WHAT COUNTY IS NOT DOING ITS JOB. I DON'T THINK IT IS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AS CHAIRMAN OF THIS BOARD TAKE THE LEAD IN TRYING TO DEVELOP SOME MECHANISM THAT WE IN THE STATE--IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE HEAT FROM THE MISTAKES THAT ARE MADE OUT IN THE COUNTIES, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOME MECHANISM TO GO OUT THERE AND TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM.

A. FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T SEE WHAT PREVENTS US FROM DOING THAT NOW WITHIN THE PRESENT SYSTEM. IT SEEMS LIKE THE STRUCTURES ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THE PERSUASIVE POWERS OF THE COMMISSIONER, THE PERSUASIVE POWERS OF THE STATE BOARD TO COME INTO A COUNTY AND TALK WITH THE PEOPLE THERE LOCALLY ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS, I THINK THAT HAS TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T DO IT ALREADY.

Q. I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN DONE, HAS IT?

A. I AM NOT AWARE THAT IT HAS, BUT WHY CAN'T IT?

Q. THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. WHY CAN'T IT? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYONE ON THE BOARD TO TAKE THAT LEAD. MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT IT IN A STATUTE SO THERE IS NO MORE GRAY OUT THERE IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION?

A. I DON'T THINK IT'S GRAY RIGHT NOW. I THINK ANYONE IN THE STATE OFFICE CAN GET IN THE STATE CAR AND DRIVE TO A COUNTY AND SAY, "HERE I AM AND THESE ARE YOUR PROBLEMS," AND I THINK THE COUNTY BOARDS WOULD BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT AND TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE LOCKEMY:

Q. REVEREND, I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR STATEMENT. YOU ARE SAYING YOU DON'T SEE ANY GRAY AREAS, MAYBE YOU MIGHT MAKE SOME EFFORTS TO CLEAR SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS UP AND FIND OUT WHERE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE?

A. I HOPE SO, SIR.

Q. I WILL TAKE THAT AS YOUR WORD. THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL: WE HAVE STATEMENTS FROM THE REVEREND LANDHOLT AND ALSO FROM MR. BECKHAM. IF IT'S NECESSARY, I MOVE THOSE STATEMENTS BE PRINTED JUST AHEAD OF THE QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE TWO CANDIDATES, THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THAT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD AND IN THE JOURNAL. REVEREND, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THINK YOU ARE BREATHING SOME NEW THOUGHTS AND SOME NEW IDEAS AND I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR IT. I HAVE HEARD NOTHING BUT GOOD THINGS. I HATE TO SEE YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STRAIGHTEN IT OUT LIKE MR. EARLE SAID. l THINK YOU NEED THAT.

A. WE IN THE MINISTRY ARE USED TO THAT, SIR.

SENATOR HOLLAND: I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. BUTLER WHO WAS ADVISED TO BE HERE IS ON HIS WAY AND SHOULD BE HERE ANY MINUTE, AND THE REST OF YOU GENTLEMEN OR LADIES CAN BE EXCUSED IF YOU WANT TO. WE ARE GOING TO WAIT A FEW MINUTES AND TRY TO TALK TO HIM. HE GOT HIS DATE OF THE HEARING CROSSED UP I THINK IS WHAT HE SAYS. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED HE IS ON HIS WAY HERE AND THAT HAS BEEN ABOUT 35 MINUTES AGO SO HE SHOULD BE HERE. WE ARE GOING TO RECEDE FOR 15 MINUTES AND GIVE THE GENTLEMAN A CHANCE TO BE HERE. IF HE IS NOT HERE, WE ARE GOING TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.
(BRIEF RECESS.)

SENATOR HOLLAND: I AM GOING TO CALL THE COMMITTEE BACK TO ORDER. MR. BUTLER COME AROUND, PLEASE.

EXAMINATION OF OSCAR P. BUTLER BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. BUTLER, YOU DID NOT KNOW THE TIME OF THE MEETING?

A. NO, I REALLY DIDN'T, SENATOR. AT THE TIME I GOT THE CALL WE HAVE ABOUT 110 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON CAMPUS AND, OF COURSE, CAREER PLANNING AND PLACEMENT IS ONE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND I WAS THERE PLEASED TO SEE THEM BECAUSE IT APPEARS WE ARE GOING TO GET SOME STUDENTS HIRED IN TEACHER EDUCATION AND THAT IS WHAT RAN ME LATE AND I JUST WASN'T AWARE.

Q. DID YOU GET A LETTER?

A. THE LETTER THAT I RECEIVED EARLY ON WAS THE ONE, AND MAYBE I MISREAD IT, WAS WHEN I RESPONDED AND HAD THE REFERENCES TO RESPOND--IN FACT I EVEN BROUGHT MY ETHICS STATEMENT MYSELF.

Q. DID YOU GIVE US A STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OR YOU INTENDED TO APPEAR PERSONALLY?

A. I INTENDED TO APPEAR, YES.

Q. PERSONALLY?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. YOU DID NOT GET A LETTER LIKE MR. EARLE GOT?

A. THE ONLY ONE I GOT WAS THE ORIGINAL LETTER ASKING THAT I HAVE FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCES SENT, ONE OF WHICH WAS FROM A BANKER AND THE ETHICS LETTER THAT I RECEIVED, AND, OF COURSE, I RESPONDED BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY SENT ONE BUT THEY TOLD ME IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEND ANOTHER AND I BROUGHT IT.

Q. THE LETTER AS TO THE TIME OF THE HEARING YOU DID NOT GET?

A. NO, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THAT.

WHEREUPON, OSCAR P. BUTLER BEING DULY SWORN BY SENATOR HOLLAND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY MS. MCMILLAN:

Q. DR. BUTLER, WHERE DO YOU NOW RESIDE?

A. IN ORANGEBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA, ORANGEBURG COUNTY.

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE?

A. TWENTY-TWO YEARS.

Q. HAVE YOU BEEN HOSPITALIZED OR HAD ANY SERIOUS ILLNESS OR MEDICAL PROBLEMS IN THE PAST YEAR?

A. NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEM WHICH MIGHT HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE YOU ARE NOW SEEKING?

A. NO, I DO NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS THAT WOULD HINDER YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THIS OFFICE?

A. NO, I DO NOT.

Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS, BE IT EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER COMMITMENTS, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM ATTENDING THE MEETINGS AND PUTTING IN THE TIME NEEDED TO SERVE IN THIS POSITION?

A. NO, I DO NOT.

Q. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS UNDER THE ETHICS LAW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, SIR. DO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY HAVE ANY BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT WOULD PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN YOUR HOLDING THIS POSITION?

A. NO, WE DO NOT.

Q. DR. BUTLER, ARE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY RELATED TO ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES?

A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCHARGED FROM ANY EMPLOYMENT?

A. NO, I HAVE NOT.

MS. MCMILLAN: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR HOLLAND:

Q. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?

A. I'M VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS AT SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE IN ORANGEBURG.

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU HELD THAT PARTICULAR JOB?

A. EIGHTEEN YEARS.

Q. I BELIEVE YOU ARE PRESENTLY A MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES BOARD?

A. VICE CHAIRMAN.

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THERE?

A. FOUR YEARS.

SENATOR HOLLAND: MR. BLACKWELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

REPRESENTATIVE BLACKWELL: NO, SIR, I DO NOT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE HERE BUT THEY HAD TO LEAVE TO GO BACK ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. WE EXTENDED YOU THE COURTESY OF CALLING YOU AND WAITING ON YOU TO GET HERE. I MIGHT SAY THAT IS VERY, VERY UNUSUAL.

A. I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. DOCTOR, SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD WE HAVE HAD REPEATEDLY IN THE PAPERS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH CHILD FATALITIES, ERROR RATES, CHILD SUPPORT CHECKS AND PROCUREMENT IRREGULARITIES. WHAT HAVE YOU AND THE BOARD DONE TO CORRECT THESE PROBLEMS?

A. THE FIRST THING WE HAVE DONE IN EACH INSTANCE, AND I WILL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME, AS RELATES TO CHILD FATALITIES, AS YOU ARE AWARE, MOST OF THAT HAPPENS IN THE COUNTIES, AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE WITH THE AUTHORITY THAT WE HAVE IS TO TRY TO ASSIST THE COUNTIES IN DOING A BETTER JOB OF TRAINING AND WE EVEN RECOMMENDED AND SET FORTH A TASK FORCE TO LOOK AT IT WITH CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS AROUND THE STATE TO SEE IF WE COULD DO MORE FROM THE STATE OFFICE TO TRY TO SUPPORT THE COUNTIES IN THEIR ROLES. MOST OF THE COUNTIES HAVE THE PROBLEM OF BURNOUT, MOST OF THE COUNTIES HAVE THE PROBLEM OF NOT ENOUGH PERSONNEL IN THAT AREA, AND AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, WE HAVE HAD AN INCREASE IN GROWTH. WE HAVE HAD SPURTS IN CERTAIN SECTIONS OF OUR STATE AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO KEEP PACE IN SOME SECTIONS WITH THE STAFF THAT IS NEEDED IN THE AREA WHICH YOU HAVE REFERENCED. AS IT RELATES TO THE ERROR RATE FACTORS, THE ERROR RATE FACTORS ARE NOT NEW TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. THE PROBLEM OF GETTING A HANDLE ON IT IS THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THE STATE OFFICE HAS DIRECT CONTROL IN THOSE AREAS. THERE ARE MANY PERSONS THAT REALLY FEEL THAT WE HAVE A STATE DIRECTED SYSTEM. WE DON'T. WE DON'T HAVE A STATE DIRECTED SYSTEM AND WE DON'T HAVE A COUNTY SYSTEM. WE HAVE KIND OF A HYBRID, AND, OF COURSE, THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH BUSINESS, YOU REALLY CAN'T RUN A BUSINESS THAT WAY, BUT WE ARE TO THE POINT THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE AND WHY, AND WE ARE TAKING STEPS. THE ONE THING WE HAVE DONE TO TAKE STEPS TO TRY TO CORRECT THE ERROR RATE SITUATION IS TO TRY TO GET THE FEDERAL REGS STANDARDIZED BECAUSE WE WILL PASS IN GLOWING COLORS UNTIL WE GET TO THE FEDS AND THEN THE FEDS WILL CHANGE THE REGS ON US, AND THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU HEAR THAT A COUNTY IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, EVERYONE SAYS THE STATE OFFICE, CHILD FATALITIES AS ONE OF THE JUDGES DID, THEY JUMPED ON US AND WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE CHILD LIVED OR DIED, BUT THE PERCEPTION IS THAT ON CONFEDERATE AVENUE THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OF THE 46 COUNTIES. WE DON'T. I PERSONALLY FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BECAUSE I FEEL THAT WE OWE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT WE OWE THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE MORE THAN WE ARE ABLE TO GET THEM, BUT WE ARE IMPROVING OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COUNTY BOARDS AND TRYING TO GET THEM MORE INVOLVED IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES. AS RELATES TO THE RECENT PROBLEM AND THE SITUATION OF THE CHECKS. ALL OF US WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD. WE WERE SHOCKED. WE, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW SINCE ABOUT 1981 THAT COULD HAPPEN IF PEOPLE WERE REALLY DOING THEIR JOBS. THE PRESENT COMMISSIONER MET WITH THE BOARD, ADVISED THE BOARD, THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRECTION AND HE HAS MOVED FORTH AND WE HOPE THAT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. WE HAVE PUT THINGS IN PLACE THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRING THAT EVERY MONTH THAT WE KNOW HOW MANY CHECKS WERE REQUESTED, HOW MANY WERE SENT BACK FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE AND HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FROM THE TIME THAT THE TAPE GOT TO D.S.S. FOR IT TO BE IN THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. NOW, I THINK THAT WAY WE WILL HAVE A READY WARNING SYSTEM MONTH BY MONTH. THE LAST SITUATION THAT CAME UP WAS A MATTER OF WHERE PERSONS--AND IT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT ONLY AUDITORS CAN CATCH--AND THEY HAVE TO AUDIT EVERY ITEM BECAUSE IT REALLY WAS KIND OF LIKE A BOOKKEEPING SCHEME OF WHERE IF THEY GOT BEHIND IN THEIR WORK, IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF SPLITTING IT, GIVE 50 PERCENT TO THE STATE, 50 PERCENT TO THE FEDS, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACCOUNT BALANCE EVERYTHING WAS ALL RIGHT.

SENATOR HOLLAND: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE DAVENPORT:

Q. I HAD TO MAKE SOME NOTES. I AM TRYING TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THIS.

A. WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO, SIR, IF YOU HAVE THE TIME TO COME OVER AND VISIT WITH US AND LET US EXPLAIN IT TO YOU FIRSTHAND.

Q. I DO GET OVER THERE OCCASIONALLY.

A. OKAY.

Q. WE HAVE DISCUSSED AND WE KNOW PRETTY MUCH THE PROBLEMS, A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS ARE IN THE COUNTIES AND THE STATE GETS THE CREDIT FOR THOSE PROBLEMS. THE ACCOLADES END UP IN THE COUNTY AND THE STATE DOESN'T GET ANY OF THAT. AS WE HAVE TALKED WITH SEVERAL OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES, WE HAVE A SYSTEM UNDER THE E.I.A. PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO GO INTO A COUNTY THAT WE FIND DEFICIENT IN CERTAIN THINGS AND LITERALLY TAKE THAT COUNTY OR THAT BOARD OF EDUCATION OVER AND RUN THE SHOW UNTIL WE GET IT BACK UNDER CONTROL. DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE BOARD SHOULD BE INSTRUMENTAL IN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ESTABLISHING CRITERIA THAT WHEN THE COUNTY GETS IN TROUBLE, AS OPPOSED TO, SAY, THE STATE BOARD OF D.S.S. TAKING THE BLAME FOR A COUNTY PROBLEM, HAVE CONTROL IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU CAN GO INTO THE COUNTY, RESEARCH THE PROBLEM AND PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT SHOULD BE? SOME FOLKS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY NOW. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT USED AND WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS--I HAVE BEEN HERE FIVE YEARS AND THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW PROBLEMS--I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT DONE. DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THAT AND CREATE A-TAKE IT OUT OF THE GRAY AND PUT IT IN A BLACK AND WHITE SITUATION SO THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MISINTERPRETATION?

A. YES, SIR. YOU THE MEMBERS OF THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY DESERVE MORE AND THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE, THE TAXPAYERS DESERVE MORE. I REALLY FEEL THAT WAY. THERE IS A MISNOMER ABOUT WHAT THE LAW PERMITS THE STATE OFFICE TO DO. FORTUNATELY, OR UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS ON THE BOARD BACK WHEN WE HAD THE REDUCTION IN FORCE SITUATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND WHAT THE LAW PERMITS THE DEPARTMENT TO DO CREATES MORE ILL WILL THAN ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE I MEAN BEING ON THE BOARD APPEARED WITH THE COMMISSIONER AT THE TIME AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE COUNTY INVOLVED WILL EVER FORGIVE US FOR IT, BUT IT WAS THE ONLY AVENUE WE HAD. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY. THEY HAD TOO MANY PERSONNEL. WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING. WE COULDN'T LET THEM STAY THERE, AND THE COUNTY JUST SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT, BUT THE MANDATE FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS GET THE BUDGET IN LINE WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE PERSONNEL, AND THE WAY IT IS SET UP, THE PERSONNEL IN THE COUNTIES ARE STATE PERSONNEL, NOT COUNTY PERSONNEL. THEY BELONG TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES BUT THE LOCAL MANAGER IS UNDER AUSPICES OF THE LOCAL BOARDS WHICH MAKES IT KIND OF DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO HAVE A MANAGER THAT YOU CAN'T DIRECT TO KEEP THE AGENCY MOVING.

Q. DOES THE STATE BOARD MAKE ANY EFFORT TO SEE THAT THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS HAVE THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE THERE?

A. OH, YES, SIR, WE DO.

Q. DO YOU WORK WITH THE COUNTIES IN THAT DIRECTION?

A. WE ALL DO, BUT MYSELF EACH YEAR I WILL WRITE THE COUNTIES A LETTER ASKING FOR ANY DIRECTION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE OR FOR ANY INPUT THEY WOULD LIKE IN THEIR BUDGETS, AND ONCE UPON A TIME UNTIL I FOUND OUT IT WAS CREATING MORE PROBLEMS THAN HELPING ANYTHING, I WOULD ATTEND BOARD MEETINGS IN THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR, BUT BECAUSE OF MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT CAME UP WHERE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BEGIN TO ASK ME THINGS ABOUT THEIR AGENCY THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW, THEN I SAW MYSELF BEING MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN A PROBLEM SOLVER, SO I STOPPED.

Q. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FROM--I MET WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE OTHER DAY AND I DO NOT KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK IT. IT WAS A MATTER OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST HE FELT. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THIS OTHER THAN BEING POINT BLANK, ARE THERE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RIGHT NOW BEING--DID THE BOARD APPROVE A CONTRACT THAT HAD I THINK COMMISSIONER SOLOMON'S DAUGHTER INVOLVED IN AN--I THINK SHE IS A CONSULTANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IS SHE CONSULTING FOR D.S.S.?

A. NO. THE BOARD HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT AT ALL. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK HIS DAUGHTER WORKED FOR EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND THE PERSONS AT D.S.S. WERE USING HIS DAUGHTER TO DO SOME TRAINING, AND I THINK OUT OF THE TRAINING CAME SOME KIND OF SMALL GRANT, AND NO ONE AT D.S.S. EVEN KNEW THAT THE YOUNG LADY WAS MR. SOLOMON'S DAUGHTER UNTIL IT GOT TO JIM SOLOMON'S DESK FOR HIM TO SIGN AND HE REFUSED TO SIGN IT. HE HAD THE D.S.S. ATTORNEY AND THE PERSONNEL MANAGER IN AND SAID, "LOOK I- WANT TO BE SURE THAT THIS IS PROPER," AND THEY ADVISED HIM THAT AFTER LOOKING AT IT, THAT IT WAS. HE NEVER SIGNED IT.

Q. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ME, THIS WAS CONCERNING SOME TRIPS THAT SUPPOSEDLY D.S.S. EMPLOYEES ARE TAKING AT THE EXPENSE OF CERTAIN D.S.S. CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?

A. NO, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WAS RAISED AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HARRISON REARDON. HARRISON SERVES ON THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE LUPUS FOUNDATION, BUT THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THEY PAID FOR HIS TRAVEL AND LODGING ON EACH OF THE TRIPS THAT HE TOOK. NOW I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHERS.

Q. WAS HE ON LEAVE? DID HE TAKE LEAVE OR WAS HE STILL PAID? WAS HE STILL BEING PAID?

A. HE TOOK LEAVE ON SOME AND ON OTHERS HE DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE LEAVE, THE SAME AS I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE LEAVE WHEN I COME TO SERVE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

Q. THOSE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED TO ME BY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I THINK THOSE KIND OF THINGS WHEN YOU HAVE A GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE AGENCY, IT JUST DOESN'T SERVE TO PROMOTE THE POSITIVE THINGS WE WANT TO DO IN THE AGENCY. THESE ARE BASICALLY MY QUESTIONS.

SENATOR HOLLAND: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING, ALL OF YOU. THIS CONCLUDES OUR MEETING.

The Joint Committee to Review Candidates for the State Social Services Board has investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and finds each to be qualified to seek election:

Mr. Gerald W. Beckham, Mr. Oscar P. Butler, Jr., Mr. John K. Earle, Mr. Phillip P. Campbell and The Reverend David E. Landholt.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald H. Holland, Chairman     B.L. Hendricks, Jr.
David L. Thomas         James E. Lockemy
John W. Matthews, Jr.         G. Ralph Davenport, Jr.
Douglas L. Hinds         Dill Blackwell

On motion of Rep. DAVENPORT, the Report was ordered printed in the Journal.

The following was introduced:

H. 4092 -Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF TERRY C. SCARBOROUGH OF LEE COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 4093 -- Reps. Wright and Wilder: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE LATE MR. HORACE MCLAIN OF BLACKVILLE IN BARNWELL COUNTY.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

The following was introduced:

H. 4094 -- Reps. Lockemy, Harwell, J. Rogers, Beasley, Neilson and Baxley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME A PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 BYPASS IN DILLON COUNTY IN MEMORY OF GEORGE TILLMAN RADFORD, A TROOPER WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL WHO WAS TRAGICALLY KILLED ON OCTOBER 30, 1988.

The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.

Rep. FOSTER, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report, on:

H. 4087 -- Reps. Snow, Bennett, Rhoad, Moss and Koon: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES TO MONITOR THE THREAT OF LYME DISEASE IN THIS STATE AND REGION AND MAKE: A REPORT OF ITS FINDINGS AND APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL, MILITARY, PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND THE SENATE MEDICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 15, 1989.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:

H. 4095 -- Reps. R. Brown and Harwell: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 607 OF 1986, RELATING TO THE MARION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE ANNUAL MILLAGE WHICH MAY BE LEVIED BY THE BOARD.

On motion of Rep. R. BROWN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 4096 -- Aiken Delegation: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THE YEAR 1989 AND THEREAFTER, A TAX MILLAGE OF EIGHTY-FOUR MILLS IS AUTHORIZED TO BE LEVIED FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF AIKEN COUNTY.

On motion of Rep. SHARPE, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 4097 -- Rep. McTeer: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT ANY INCINERATOR WHICH HANDLES MORE THAN TEN TONS OF INFECTIOUS WASTE DAILY SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE ASH GENERATED AT THE INCINERATOR IN A LINED LANDFILL, AND TO PROVIDE THAT NO INCREASE IN FEES MAY BE CHARGED THOSE ENTITIES WHICH DISPOSE OF NONINFECTIOUS WASTE AS A RESULT OF THESE PROVISIONS.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

H. 4098 -- Rep. L. Martin: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF DACUSVILLE RECREATION ASSOCIATION IN PICKENS COUNTY.

On motion of Rep. L. MARTIN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 271 -- Senator Holland: A BILL TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO CLOSE AND REMOVE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM PORTIONS OF ROADS S 28-52 FROM S 28-185 AND ALL OF ROAD S 28-731 IN KERSHAW COUNTY.

On motion of the Kershaw Delegation, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Bailey, G.             Bailey, J.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Beasley
Bennett                Blackwell              Brown, H.
Brown, J.              Brown, R.              Bruce
Burch                  Burriss, M.D.          Carnell
Chamblee               Clyborne               Cooper
Corbett                Cork                   Davenport
Derrick                Elliott                Faber
Fair                   Fant                   Foster
Glover                 Gregory                Hallman
Harris, J.             Harvin                 Harwell
Haskins                Hearn                  Hendricks
Hodges                 Holt                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.W.          Kay                    Keegan
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Kohn                   Littlejohn             Manly
Mappus                 Martin, D.             Martin, L.
Mattos                 McAbee                 McBride
McEachin               McGinnis               McKay
McLellan               McTeer                 Moss
Nesbitt                Nettles                Rama
Rogers, J.             Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Snow                   Stoddard
Taylor                 Tucker                 Vaughn
Waites                 Waldrop                Washington
Wells                  Whipper                White
Wilder                 Wilkes                 Wilkins
Winstead               Wofford                Wright

I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on May 23, 1989.

Thomas Rhoad                      Jarvis Klapman
Pat Harris                        Larry Blanding
Ronald Townsend                   James E. Lockemy
William McCain                    Denny Neilson
B.J. Gordon                       Dewitt Williams
Ken Bailey                        Tom Limehouse
C. Lenoir Sturkie                 Olin R. Phillips
Robert Hayes, Jr.                 William D. Boan
Larry Gentry                      Tee Ferguson
E.B. McLeod                       J.C. Johnson
Richard Quinn                     John B. Williams
Roland S. Corning                 John G. Felder
Grady Brown                       Toney Farr
Larry Koon                        Derham Cole
Joseph McElveen                   Steve Lanford
Thomas E. Huff                    J. Michael Baxley
Tim Rogers

The SPEAKER granted Rep. BAXLEY a leave of absence to attend a Solid Waste Seminar.

The SPEAKER granted Reps. R. BROWN, J. BAILEY, MAPPUS, KLAPMAN, McLELLAN and J.W. JOHNSON, a leave of the House.

Rep. McELVEEN signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call of the House and was present for the Session on May 22, 1989.

Rep. BARFIELD moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 24, which was adopted.

H. 3916 -- Rep. Elliott, Corbett, Keegan and Barfield: A BILL TO RECONSTITUTE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE HORRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF THESE MEMBERS.

The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4048 -- Reps. Cooper, Chamblee, G. Bailey and MOSS: A BILL TO DESIGNATE HIGHWAY 57 WHERE IT JOINS HIGHWAY 9 EAST IN THE CITY OF DILLON UNTIL IT REACHES S.C. HIGHWAY 41 THE "J.E. LOCKEMY HIGHWAY", AND TO PROVIDE FOR A SUITABLE DEDICATION CEREMONY AND THE INSTALLATION OF APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ON THE HIGHWAY.

H. 4088 - Rep. Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 784 OF 1964, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LUGOFF WATER DISTRICT OF KERSHAW COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING THE BOARD MEMBERS FROM APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR TO ELECTION BY THE USERS OF THE DISTRICT.

H. 4089 -- Rep. Gentry: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-480, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE VOTING PRECINCTS IN SALUDA COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HOLLYWOOD AND PLEASANT GROVE PRECINCTS.

H. 4091 -- Reps. Lockemy and Harwell: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADVISORY REFERENDUM IN DILLON COUNTY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY FAVOR HAVING A SEVEN-MEMBER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION TO BE ELECTED IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS FROM THE SAME SEVEN SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE DILLON COUNTY COUNCIL ARE ELECTED.

S. 673 -- Senators Gilbert and Hinds: A BILL TO RECONSTITUTE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE HORRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF THESE MEMBERS.

The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.

S. 493 -- Senator Leatherman: 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).

S. 373 -- Senators Holland, Wilson, Matthews and Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-325, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NAME OF A CANDIDATE WHICH MAY APPEAR ON AN ELECTION BALLOT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF A DERIVATIVE NAME OR NICKNAME IS TO BE USED, THE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE BY LAW FOR CONDUCTING THE ELECTION MUST BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING.

S. 259 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-15-130, 7-15-320, AS AMENDED, AND 7-15-330, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ABSENTEE VOTING, SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE ALLOWING ABSENTEE VOTING BY A PERSON WHO IS ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL AS AN EMERGENCY PATIENT ON THE DAY OF AN ELECTION OR ON THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPLICATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM AN EXTENSION OFFICE OF THE REGISTRATION BOARD.

Rep. CORNING moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Wednesday, May 24, which was adopted.

S. 643 --- Senator Lindsey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 37-2-416 AND 37-3-408, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN TERMS OF REVOLVING CHARGE AND LOAN ACCOUNTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CONSUMER INCURS ADDITIONAL DEBT AFTER NOTIFICATION OF A CHANGE IN TERMS, AND REQUIRE THE WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF A CHANGE IN TERMS TO STATE THAT IF THE CONSUMER DOES NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THE REVOLVING ACCOUNT UNDER THE NEW TERMS THE CREDITOR WILL TERMINATE THE ACCOUNT AND PERMIT THE CONSUMER TO PAY THE EXISTING BALANCE UPON THE TERMS IN EFFECT BEFORE THE CHANGE IN TERMS ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE CONSUMER.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification.

S. 688 -- General Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, RELATING TO BOXING, KICK-BOXING, WRESTLING AND CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1121, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

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.

S. 289 -- Senator Courson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-780, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES INVOLVING JUVENILE RECORDS AND INFORMATION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING FINGERPRINTS OF A CHILD WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE FAMILY COURT.

The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 3443 -- Reps. Derrick, Cork, T.M. Burriss and Taylor: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-3-350, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REPORT OF THE EXAMINATION OF A BANK BY THE STATE BOARD OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM THIRTY TO NINETY DAYS THE TIME A BANK SHALL REVIEW THE REPORT.

H. 3931 -- Reps. Cole, Ferguson, Lanford, Littlejohn, Bruce and Wells: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 29-3-780, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENTRY OF RELEASE OF MORTGAGE ON LAND SOLD IN A FORECLOSURE SALE, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN LANGUAGE AND PROVISIONS AND TO REQUIRE THE OFFICER OF THE COURT MAKING THE SALE TO CAUSE TO BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE WHERE THE FORECLOSED MORTGAGE IS RECORDED A RELEASE, CANCELLATION, AND SATISFACTION OF THE LIEN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM; TO AMEND SECTION 29-3-790, RELATING TO MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST, FORECLOSURE, AND THE FORM OF RELEASE OF THE LIEN, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN LANGUAGE AND PROVISIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE RELEASE, CANCELLATION, AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 29-3-780 MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE OFFICER AND MUST BE SET FORTH IN A SPECIFIED FORM; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 45-97.1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1962, RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF LAW THAT SECTION 45-97 OF THE 1962 CODE THE MARKING OF SATISFACTION OF FORECLOSED MORTGAGES) DOES NOT APPLY IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY.

H. 3619 -- Reps. Wright, Hearn, Quinn, Lanford, Littlejohn, Wofford, Vaughn and Jaskwhich: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-430 AND 7-13-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF BALLOTS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED AT VOTING PRECINCTS IN GENERAL AND PRIMARY ELECTIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE POLL MANAGERS TO PROVIDE BALLOTS MADE AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE FORM OF OFFICIAL BALLOTS IF SUFFICIENT OFFICIAL BALLOTS ARE NOT PROVIDED AND TO MAKE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUCH BALLOTS WHEN NECESSARY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE AS WILFUL NEGLECTOR CORRUPT CONDUCT OF A POLL MANAGER.

The motion of Rep. J. ROGERS to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill, as amended, was given a second reading, was taken up.

S. 503 -- Senators Land, Moore, Lourie, McLeod, Lindsay, Thomas, Bryan, Mitchell, Patterson, Pope and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE EXPRESS WARRANTIES.

Rep. McEachin moved to adjourn debate upon the motion to reconsider, which was adopted.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Amendment No. 2, the ruling on the Point of Order.

S. 267 -- Senator McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 95 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INFECTIOUS WASTE; TO AMEND SECTION 51, PART 11 OF ACT 658 OF 1988, RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL OF INFECTIOUS WASTE BY INCINERATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TREATMENT OF INFECTIOUS WASTE INSTEAD OF COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL.

The SPEAKER, in ruling on a pending Point of Order from Monday, May as, 1989, sustained the Point of Order and ruled Amendment No. 2 out of order.

Rep. McEachin moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill.

Rep. McTEER moved to table the motion, which was agreed to by a division vote of 41 to 19.

Reps. McELVEEN, McLeod, G. BROWN, McEachin, HARVIN, BLANDING, CORBETT, HALLMAN, and WAITES proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc. No. 4903U), which was ruled out of order.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding appropriately numbered sections to read:

/SECTION_____. Section 44-56-60 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding an appropriately lettered subsection to read:

"(_) No land waste disposal facility or any facility used for the disposal or storage of infectious and hazardous waste or its AUTHORITY to operate may be expanded, enlarged, or increased until the Department of Health and Environmental Control establishes by regulation a site suitability criteria. Before a new permit, modified permit, or renewal of a permit to dispose by landfilling of infectious and hazardous waste may be issued, a site suitability study conforming to criteria as set forth by the department must be conducted either by the department or an independent party contracted by the department. In either event, the applicant must pay to the department all costs associated with the site suitability study.

The department is required to have a siting criteria established by March 15, 1990. An infectious or hazardous waste landfill established before approval of the site criteria or established after approval which does not comply with the site suitability criteria must be closed by March 15, 1992.

However, an interim permit issued before the promulgation of site suitability criteria by the department is contingent upon and subject to the site suitability criteria when promulgated and is not effective beyond December 31, 1992, or two years from the date of promulgation of the site suitability criteria, whichever date is earlier.

The Department of Health and Environmental Control may not grandfather any land disposal facilities permitted for the disposal of infectious or hazardous wastes in regulations it adopts which meets regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency or which are more stringent./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. McTEER spoke against the amendment.

Rep. McTEER raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 3 was out of order as it was not in compliance with Rule 9.3 in that the Amendment did not refer to the intent of the Bill and that Section 2, subsection 6 of the Bill actually stated that hazardous waste did not come under the Bill.

Rep. McELVEEN argued contra the Point in stating that the Amendment did deal with infectious waste and Section 2, subsection 6 was not applicable to hazardous waste, but limited to that section only. He further argued that there were parts of the Bill that dealt with hazardous waste disposal facilities.

The SPEAKER stated that there were sections of the Bill that dealt incidentally with hazardous waste and the Bill was designed to be a comprehensive regulation of infectious waste and infectious waste in South Carolina is only disposed of in permits issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. He further stated that there was no landfilling of infectious waste and if there was infectious waste treated in South Carolina, then it was changed from infectious waste to hazardous waste, which might be required to be disposed of in a landfill. He further stated that the Amendment attempted to marry the two together and deal with them in this Bill and that violated the rule of germaneness.

Rep. McELVEEN further argued contra the Point, citing a previous ruling from the Chair on May 10, 1989, which was a similar situation, in stating that the Amendment stated "or any facility used for the disposal or storage of infectious waste."

The SPEAKER further stated that the Amendment dealt with landfilling and site suitability criteria for landfilling and the Bill was not designed to control landfilling or storage of waste or disposal of waste by landfilling.

Rep. McELVEEN further argued contra the Point.

The SPEAKER stated that under Rule 9.3 he was required to determine the substantial regulatory effect or the substantial impact of the main piece of legislation and to determine what the substantial impact of the Amendment was, and they were not the same, and on that basis, he sustained the Point of Order and ruled the Amendment out of order.

The Bill, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The SPEAKER granted Rep. G. BAILEY a temporary leave of absence.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3567 -- Reps. Boan, McLellan, McElveen, Taylor and Kohn: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 31 TO TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF THE RENTAL OF PRIVATE PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES BY SETTING FORTH PURPOSES, DEFINITIONS, THE CONTENT OF RENTAL AGREEMENTS, THE LIMITATIONS ON THE ADVERTISING, QUOTING, AND CHARGING OF RENTAL RATES, AND PENALTIES.

Debate was resumed on Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Thursday, May 18, by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Rep. KOHN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc. No. 4749U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, as and if amended, by adding a new Section 56-31-50 immediately after Section 56-31-40 of the 1976 Code, as contained in Section 2, to read:

/Section 56-31-50. A rental company which owns or leases private passenger automobiles as defined in this chapter that are used primarily for rental purposes must register and license these automobiles in this State if they are principally operated or garaged in South Carolina. "Principally garaged" for this purpose means that fifty percent or more of the total days of use of the automobiles, including garage or maintenance time, was for the previous year or will be for the present year, if the automobiles are new, in this State. A day of use in this State includes the total days or portions thereof the automobiles were used by renters under rental agreements executed in this State regardless of whether or not the automobiles were used outside this State during the periods of those rental agreements and regardless of whether or not the automobiles were returned to points outside this State at the expiration of the rental agreements. "Principally operated" for this purpose means that fifty percent or more of the total mileage of the automobiles was for the previous year or will be for the present year, if the automobiles are new, in this State. The mileage of the automobiles attributable to this State is their total mileage put on by renters renting the automobiles in this State regardless of whether or not the renters went outside this State during the period of the rental agreements and regardless of whether or not the automobiles were returned at a point outside this State at the expiration of the rental agreements. Any rental company violating the provisions of this section is subject to the penalty provisions of Section 56-31-40 for each violation./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. KOHN proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc. No. 4752U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, as and if amended, by adding a new section to be appropriately numbered to read:

/SECTION . Section 38-77-280 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"(F) The collision coverage which must be made available by the provisions of this section must cover private passenger automobiles rented by the insured."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER explained the amendment.

Rep. L. MARTIN moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 31 to 18.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 3521 -- Reps. Waites, T. Rogers, Keyserling, Rudnick, McElveen, Huff, Hayes, Whipper, Washington, Lockemy and G. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 8-13-20 AND 8-13-620, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ETHICS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE" AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REPORT OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 8-13-640, 8-13-650, 8-13-660, 8-13-670, 8-13-680, 8-13-690, 8-13-700, 8-13-710, 8-13-720, AND 8-13-730 SO AS TO REGULATE CAMPAIGN PRACTICES.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4261U).

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 8-13-650, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking /hundred/ on line two and inserting /thousand/. When amended Section 8-13-650 shall read:

/Section 8-13-650. A candidate or committee which receives or expends more than one hundred thousand dollars to influence a nomination or election or ballot issue shall establish an account in a banking institution. All funds received must be deposited in the account and all expenditures made by check, except that a nominal petty cash fund not exceeding one hundred dollars may be maintained. No contributions or funds may be commingled with the personal funds of the candidate or a member or officer of a committee./

Amend further, Section 8-13-730, as contained in SECTION 12, by adding after /terminate/ on line 3 /the campaign account/. When amended Section 8-13-730 shall read:

/Section 8-13-730. At the time a final report is filed a candidate or committee deciding to terminate the campaign account and having surplus funds shall:

(1) deliver the surplus to the general fund of the State;

(2) contribute the surplus to a charitable organization;

(3) contribute the surplus to a local, state, or national committee or political party or to another candidate;

(4) return the surplus to the contributors on a pro-rata basis;

(5) contribute the surplus to a new campaign committee formed for the candidates next campaign; or

(6) transfer the surplus to an officeholder's account to defray ordinary and necessary expenses incurred with his duties as a public officeholder. The transfer may not be taxed as income to the officeholder./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. WILKINS explained the amendment.

Reps. SHARPE, McABEE, HOLT and SMITH objected to the Bill.

Rep. COOPER moved to reconsider the vote whereby debate was adjourned on the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.

S. 503 - Senators Land, Moore, Lourie, McLeod, Lindsay, Thomas, Bryan, Mitchell, Patterson, Pope and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE EXPRESS WARRANTIES.

The motion of Rep. J. ROGERS to reconsider the vote whereby the Bill was given a second reading was taken up and agreed to.

Rep. J. ROGERS proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc. No. 4978U).

Amend the report of the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, as and if amended, by adding a new Section 56-28-120 immediately following Section 56-28-110 to read:

/Section 56-28-120. (A) In addition to the other relief provided by this chapter, any person who sustains injuries other than personal injuries by reason of a nonconformity of a new motor vehicle to all applicable manufacturer's express warranties within the first twelve months of purchase or the first twelve thousand miles of operation, whichever occurs first, may bring an action for these injuries against the manufacturer in the court of common pleas and may be awarded double the actual damages sustained by him and the cost of action, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

(B) When the action is one of common or general interest to many persons or when the parties are numerous and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue for the benefit of the whole.

(C) In an action for money damages, if the jury finds that the manufacturer acted maliciously, the jury may award punitive damages not to exceed three times the actual damages.

(D) The person is permitted to bring this civil action even if he also participated in a consumer-industry appeals, arbitration, or mediation proceeding established by this chapter or by federal law, whether or not the proceeding was binding on the manufacturer, unless the person accepted the remedies granted him, if any, in the proceeding or unless the person agreed to have the proceeding be binding upon him.

(E) The civil action authorized by this section to the injured person is cumulative to all other civil actions authorized by law, except that the injured person is not permitted to bring more than one civil action arising out of the same cause of action./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. J. ROGERS explained the amendment.

Further proceedings were interrupted by expiration of time on the uncontested Calendar, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 2, Rep. J. ROGERS having the floor.

Rep. BEASLEY insisted upon the Special Orders of the day.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Section 2 of Amendment No. 1, the question having been divided on the Amendment.

S. 321 -- Senators Setzler, Nell W. Smith, Martschink, Rose, Mitchell, Macaulay, Giese, Lourie, Thomas, Mullinax and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-18-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCESS WHEREBY SCHOOLS CAN BE GIVEN THE FLEXIBILITY OF RECEIVING EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN STATE REGULATIONS AND BY AMENDING SECTION 59-18-20 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A COMPETITIVE SCHOOL WIDE INNOVATION GRANTS PROGRAM.

SECTION 2. Section 59-5-65(8) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(8) Develop and implement regulations requiring all school districts to provide providing at least one-half voluntary day early childhood development programs for four-year old children who have predicted significant readiness deficiencies and whose parents voluntarily allow participation. The regulations must require intensive and special efforts to recruit children whose participation is difficult to obtain. The school districts may contract with appropriate groups and agencies to provide part or all of the programs. These programs must be developed in consultation with the Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Childhood Development and Education. The Interagency Coordinating Council shall consult with the Advisory Committee for Early Childhood Education in developing proposals to submit for State Board of Education consideration. In the event that If a local advisory committee exists in a community to coordinate early childhood education and development, school districts shall consult with the committee in planning and developing services. The State Department of Education shall collect and analyze longitudinal data to determine the effects of child development programs on the later achievement of children in the 'high-risk' category by tracking four-year old child development program participants through kindergarten and the first three years of elementary school to examine their performance on the readiness test and the BSAP tests administered in grades 1, 2, and 3. The Governor shall initiate the development of a state plan on early childhood development and education to assist the state in providing appropriate services for preschool children. This plan must be completed by July 1, 1985.

School districts without an early childhood development program during the 1988-1989 school year may obtain a waiver from the regulation requiring provision of a program. The waiver may be granted by the State Board of Education for one year, if a school district is unable to implement a program because of unavailability of classroom space and other facilities, including appropriate facilities which may be rented by the school district at a reasonable fee. School districts which are unable to implement a program because of a lack of district facilities may use a portion of the district's allocation under this program to rent appropriate space for one year. The portion of the district's allocation which may be used for rent must be determined by the State Board of Education."

Rep. J. ROGERS explained the Section.

Rep. WASHINGTON spoke in favor of the Section.

Section 2 was adopted.

Rep. FAIR proposed the following Amendment No. 11 (Doc. No. 4764U), which was tabled.

Amend the report, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2, beginning on page 0321-1 and line 39 and inserting:

/SECTION 2. Section 59-5-65(8) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(8) Develop and implement regulations providing at least one half voluntary day early childhood development programs for four-year old children who have predicted significant readiness deficiencies and whose parents voluntarily allow participation. The school districts may contract with appropriate groups and agencies to provide part or all of the programs. These programs must be developed in consultation with the Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Childhood Development and Education. The Interagency Coordinating Council shall consult with the Advisory Committee for Early Childhood Education in developing proposals to submit for State Board of Education consideration. In the event that If a local advisory committee exists in a community to coordinate early childhood education and development, school districts shall consult with the committee in planning and developing services. The State Department of Education shall collect and analyze longitudinal data to determine the effects of child development programs on the later achievement of children in the 'high-risk' category by tracking four-year old child development program participants through kindergarten and the first three years of elementary school to examine their performance on the readiness test and the BSAP tests administered in grades 1, 2, and 3. The Governor shall initiate the development of a state plan on early childhood development and education to assist the State in providing appropriate services for preschool children. This plan must be completed by July 1, 1985.

School districts which are unable to implement an early childhood development program because of a lack of district facilities may use a portion of the district's allocation under this program to rent appropriate space for one year. The portion of the district's allocation which may be used for rent must be determined by the State Board of Education."/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. FAIR explained the amendment.

Rep. BEASLEY spoke against the amendment and moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 53 to 12.

Rep. FAIR proposed the following Amendment No. 12 (Doc. No. 4762U), which was tabled.

Amend the report, as and if amended, Section 59-5-65(8), as contained in SECTION 2, page 0321-2, by striking the sentence beginning on line 20 and inserting:

/The State Department of Education shall collect and analyze longitudinal data to determine the effects of child development programs on the later achievement of children in the 'high-risk' category by tracking four-year old child development program participants through kindergarten and the first three five years of elementary school to examine their performance on the readiness test and the BSAP tests administered in grades 1, 2, and 3 and the tests administered in grades four and five as part of the statewide testing program./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. FAIR explained the amendment.

Rep. WASHINGTON moved to table the amendment.

Rep. FAIR demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The amendment was then tabled by a division vote of 51 to 16.

Rep. KIRSH proposed the following Amendment No. 18, which was adopted.

Amend as and if amended:

Page 3629-3, line 6 add - in conjunction with the School Board of Trustees.

Rep. KIRSH explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Section 2, as amended, was adopted.

SECTION 3. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-1-450. Upon the appropriation of funds by the General Assembly for this purpose, the State Department of Education is directed to review programs which are effective in providing parents support in their role as the principal teachers of their preschool children. The purpose of the review is for the State Board of Education to select or adapt a program or programs, after consultation with the Select Committee, for implementation in South Carolina. The selected or adapted programs must provide parent education to parents and guardians who: (1) have children ages birth through three years who are at risk for school failure, and (2) who choose for their children to participate in the programs. The program or programs also should include developmental screening for children and offer parents of children from birth through three years opportunities to improve their education if the parents do not possess a high school diploma or equivalent certificate.

By regulation, the State Board of Education shall cause parent education programs to be implemented in all school districts. Implementation of the programs in the districts must be phased in over five years. At full implementation, the General Assembly shall provide funding in an amount which is sufficient to provide the programs to not less than sixty percent of those families with children who are ages birth through three years and who are at risk of school failure according to criteria established by the State Board of Education. From funds appropriated for the programs, each school district must be allocated an amount determined by computing the percentage of all families with at-risk children ages birth through three years served statewide as compared with those families who are served by the school district and multiplying this percentage by the total statewide appropriation for the program.

Regulations of the State Board of Education causing parent education programs to be implemented in the school districts must allow districts to develop or select an alternative program for implementation in the district, if the program meets criteria for initial approval by the Board. The Board's criteria for initial approval must include a requirement that school districts develop an evaluation component for the program which is acceptable to the Board or its designee. To continue to use an alternative program, a school district must demonstrate the success of the program in accordance with the approved evaluation component. A school district using an alternative program must receive an allocation from the appropriation by the General Assembly for this program which is equal to the allocation the district would receive if the district used the program or programs selected or adapted by the Board."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Rep. BEASLEY continued speaking.

Rep. BEASLEY continued speaking.

Reps. WHIPPER, HASKINS and FELDER spoke in favor of the Section.

Rep. CORNING spoke against the Section.

Rep. T. ROGERS spoke in favor of the Section.

Section 3 was adopted by a division vote of 77 to 2.

SECTION 4. Section 59-20-40(7) of the 1976 Code, last amended by Act 522 of 1988, is further amended read:

"(7} Annually in the General Appropriations Act General Assembly shall determine an appropriation level compensatory and remedial programs. The State Board Education shall promulgate regulations to implement a system so as to provide a pro rata matching of the weighted pupil units to the pupils in districts of the State who fail to meet the statewide minimum standards in reading, writing, and mathematics or who do not meet the first grade readiness test standard. To accommodate the level of the total appropriation for compensatory and remedial programs, the State Board of Education shall allocate the funding of weighted pupil unit increments according to the following order of priority:

(1) all students scoring below BSAP standard on any portion of the exit examination at a remedial weight of .114;

(2) grades 1-6 compensatory at a weight of .26;

grades 1-6, students scoring at or below the 25th percentile at a compensatory weight of .26;

(3) grades 2-6 remedial below BSAP standard but above the 25th percentile at a weight of .114; grades 1-6, students scoring above the 25th percentile but below BSAP standard at a remedial weight of .114;

(4) grades 7-10 remedial below the 25th percentile at a weight of .114;

grades 7-10, students scoring below the 25th percentile at a remedial weight of .114;

(5) after all students eligible under priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 above are funded, students classified as remedial below the BSAP standard but above the 25th percentile in grades 2-6 must be funded as compensatory students, at a weight of .26 starting progressively with the second grade and moving through the sixth grade as funds permit; scoring above the 25th percentile but below BSAP standard in grades 1-6 who are classified as remedial must be funded a compensatory students, at a compensatory weight of .26, starting progressively with the first grade and moving through the sixth grade as funds permit;

(6) after all students eligible under priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above are funded, students classified as remedial below BSAP standard but above the 25th percentile in grades 7-10 must be funded at a scoring above the 25th percentile but below BSAP standard in grades 7- 10 who are classified a remedial must be funded at a remedial weight of .114 starting progressively with the seventh grade and moving through the tenth grade as funds permit;

(7) after all students eligible under priorities l, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 above are funded, students classified as remedial in grades 7-12 must be funded as compensatory at a weight of .26 starting progressively with the seventh grade and moving through the twelfth grade as funds permit.

No student who scores at or above BSAP standard is eligible for either compensatory or remedial funding. The district's total number of students scoring at the compensatory or remedial level as defined in the priorities as provided in this section must be the number of students constituting one hundred percent to be served. Any district not serving one hundred percent of its eligible compensatory and remedial children funded as provided in this section must shall have its allocation reduced proportionately on a per pupil bests. When one hundred percent of the eligible students in one category are served, school districts may use uncommitted funds to serve eligible students in the other category according to the priorities cited above. The Board of Education shall promulgate regulations to insure maximum utilization of state and Chapter 1 funds to achieve the purpose of this proviso. By not later than the 1990-91 school Year. the General Assembly shall appropriate sufficient funds to provide programs to all eligible students in priority one through priority six. Nothing in this section prohibits the General Assembly from appropriating funds to the Department of Education for block grants to address basic skills remediation in early childhood development in the school districts of the State. Nothing in this section prohibits a school district from using funds appropriated pursuant hereto to this section for compensatory and remedial programs in summer school in the following fiscal year."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 4 was adopted.

Rep. McLELLAN proposed the following Amendment No. 6 (Doc. No. 4506U), which was adopted.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, in Section 59-20 40(7) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 4, by striking /By not later than the 1990-91 school year, the General Assembly shall appropriate sufficient funds to provide programs to all eligible students in priority one through priority six./ which begins on line 25 of page [321-6].

Amend title to conform.

Rep. McLELLAN explained the amendment

The amendment was then adopted.

Section 4, as amended, was adopted.

SECTION 5. Chapter 65 of Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 59-65-410. For purposes of this article, a 'dropout' is a pupil who leaves school for any reason, except death, before graduation or completion of a course of studies and without transferring to another school.

Section 59-65-420. The State Board of Education, acting in consultation with and assistance from the Select Committee, shall cause programs designed to reduce and recover dropouts to be developed and implemented statewide. Full funding for these programs must be provided by the General Assembly in the annual general appropriations act.

Section 59-65-430. (A) The funding and establishment of dropout prevention and retrieval programs in schools statewide must be phased-in over a five-year period. The General Assembly shall appropriate funds in fiscal year 1989-90 for planning, technical assistance, program development, and pilot testing components for a dropout prevention and retrieval program in approximately twenty percent of the schools designated by the State Board of Education upon the recommendation of the Select Committee. Pilot testing must be expanded to include approximately forty percent of the schools in school year 1990-91. During pilot testing, the following programs among others may be evaluated for their success in reducing or recovering dropouts:

(1) parent training programs adequate to address the types of home learning deficiencies experienced by most potential dropouts;

(2) parent contact and involvement programs and procedures designed to assure parent understanding of their children's learning problems and shortcomings and of individual class instructional objectives;

(3) individual student plans for those students of highest risk of dropping out;

(4) individually appropriate remediation of academic deficiencies predictive of dropping out;

(5) mentors, such as teachers, paraprofessionals, and community and business volunteers, for middle, junior, and senior high school students having difficulty with school;

(6) part-time employment opportunities through partnerships with businesses for students who have overcome failing grades or poor attendance, with the employment related and relevant to the student's education;

(7) high interest enriched programs that concentrate on academic skills, life skills, and preparation for work and which are supported by the employment of the most successful teachers and are provided through summer school, an extended school year, or an extended school day;

(8) alternatives to suspending students from attendance at school;

(9) opportunities and procedures for approving additional opportunities for students to remove a sufficient number of unlawful absences to attain the minimum number of days necessary to receive consideration for course credit;

(10) creation of an interagency team to assist potential dropouts at each middle, junior, and high school; and

(11) the relative effectiveness of various methods of teaching reading.

(B) At the conclusion of pilot testing, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the Select Committee, shall promulgate regulations requiring each school district receiving state funds under this section to develop or implement written plans detailing a comprehensive dropout prevention and retrieval program using programs or program components found to be effective during pilot testing. The regulations must allow districts to develop or select other programs for implementation in the district, including programs expanding or extending existing state or locally funded programs for students who are at risk of dropping out of school, if the programs meet criteria for initial approval by the Board. The Board's criteria for initial approval must include a requirement that school districts develop an evaluation component for the programs, which is acceptable to the Board or its designee. To continue to use the alternative programs developed or selected by the district, the school district must demonstrate the success of the programs in accordance with the approved evaluation component. The regulations must also require districts to give priority for the use of funds allocated under this article to dropout prevention programs in the lower grades.

(C) The State Board of Education shall approve district plans which meet the criteria established by regulation and shall waive those regulations as requested by the schools and district when waiver of the regulations bears a rational relationship to the success of the proposed program.

(D) In fiscal year 1993-1994, the General Assembly shall appropriate sufficient funds for the statewide operation of dropout prevention and retrieval programs. Funds must be allocated to the school districts on the basis of a formula that incorporates a base allocation in addition to each district's total weighted pupil units and its average attrition rate in grades 9 through 12 over the most recent five years.

Section 59-65-440. An adequate number of the schools and districts selected for pilot testing must be chosen for the purpose of serving as lead schools or school districts in a network of schools and districts which will cover all regions of the state. Beginning with the 1990-91 school year, lead schools and school districts shall initiate and provide for on-going discussions and work sessions among schools and districts within a network or networks on strategies for implementing programs which are successful in reducing and recovering dropouts. The State Board of Education shall assist lead schools and school districts in their function as lead schools and districts and shall facilitate the successful operation of the network by distributing funds to the networks in accordance with procedures approved by the State Board of Education in consultation with the Select Committee and Business-Education Subcommittee and in accordance with appropriations provided by the General Assembly.

Section 59-65-450. In consultation with the Select Committee, the State Board of Education shall establish minimum standards for evaluating school and district dropout prevention and retrieval programs. The minimum standards shall include, but not be limited to, reduction in dropout rates or maintenance of low dropout rates.

Section 59-65-460. Each year after the 1991-1992 school year, the State Department of Education shall apply the standards set pursuant to Section 59-65-450 to all schools and school districts which have received state funds to operate a dropout prevention and retrieval program for at least one year. When application of the standards indicates that a school's or district's dropout prevention and retrieval program is deficient, the State Board of Education shall direct the district board of trustees to:

(1) study the dropout prevention and retrieval program in the school or district,

(2) identify factors rendering the program deficient,

(3) by not later than March fifteenth, submit for approval to the State Board of Education a plan for corrective action. During the period that a school's or district's program is designated as deficient, the State Department of Education shall monitor and provide feedback on the program and the corrective action plan and continuously furnish advice and technical assistance. If a school or district fails to satisfactorily implement the corrective action plan within six months of approval of the plan, the failure must be indicated in the status of the school's or district's accreditation classification. Funds for monitoring and technical assistance under this provision must be provided by the General Assembly in the annual general appropriations act.

Section 59-65-470. To enable the Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School to inform dropouts of the school's academic and vocational training programs, the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation shall allow the Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School access at reasonable intervals to the names and addresses of students reported to the Department as dropouts by the school districts.

Rep. BEASLEY explained the amendment.

Rep. WASHINGTON spoke in favor of the Section.

Rep. WALDROP moved to reconsider the vote whereby H. 3567 was given a second reading and the motion was noted.

Rep. SIMPSON spoke upon the Section.

Section 5 was adopted.

SECTION 6. Sections 56-1-40, 56-1-50, and 56-1-180 of the 1976 Code are amended and Sections 56-1-45 and 56-1-46 are added to the 1976 Code to read:

"Section 56-1-40. The department shall not issue any motor vehicle driver's license under this article to any:

(1) Any person who is under sixteen eighteen years of age, except as provided under Section 56-1-50, 56-1-180, or 56-1-46 and Section 56-1-45 that the Department may issue a beginner's or instruction permit as provided in Sections 56-1-50 and 56-1-60 to any person who is at least fifteen years of age except that the Department may issue a special restricted driver's license to any person who is at least fifteen years old and less than sixteen years as provided in Section 56-1-80;

(2) Any person whose license has been suspended during such suspension or any person whose license has been revoked, except as otherwise provided for in this article;

(3) Any person who is an habitual drunkard, an habitual user of narcotic drugs or an habitual user of any other drug to a degree which renders him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle;

(4) Any person who previously has previously been adjudged to be afflicted with or suffering from any mental disability or mental disease and who has not at the time of application been restored to competency by methods provided by law;

(5) Any person who is required by this article to take an examination, unless such the person successfully shall have successfully passed such the examination;

(6) Any person who is required under the laws of this State to deposit proof of financial responsibility and who has not deposited such the proof; or

(7) Any other person who may not be issued a license as otherwise provided by the laws of this State.

Section 56-1-45. (A) The minimum age at which a person may be issued any driver's license or permit by the department is eighteen years, unless:

(1) the person has a high school diploma, state high school certificate, a General Education Development certificate, a local high school certificate; or

(2) the person is enrolled in an institution of higher education or in a school or program which meets the requirements of Section 59-65-10 or 59-65-40 and;

(a) the person has conformed to the attendance laws, regulations, and policies of his school, school district, and the State Board of Education, as applicable;

(b) the person is not expelled from school;

(c) the person in an elementary or secondary education program is making satisfactory progress toward high school graduation, and;

(d) the person in an elementary or secondary education program is not a dropout according to criteria established by the State Board of Education for purposes of this section and Sections 56-1-40, 56-1-46, 56-1-50, and 56-1-180.

(B) A person under the age of eighteen years applying for a driver's license shall provide to the department one of the following:

(1) proof of graduation from high school, a state high school certificate, or a local high school certificate;

(2) his General Education Development Certificate;

(3) documentation as provided in subsection (C) from his school of attendance stating that the applicant conforms to the requirements of item (2) of subsection (A) of this section.

(4) documentation of enrollment in an institution of higher education in a manner and upon a form prescribed and provided by the Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

(C) Upon request, the school superintendent or his designee shall provide any student at least fifteen years of age with documentation of enrollment status on a form prescribed and provided by the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. The documentation shall indicate if the student is currently properly enrolled and in compliance with the requirements of item (2) of subsection (A) of this section.

(D) The principal or his designee shall notify the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation whenever a student fifteen years of age or older drops out or is considered dropped out of school. For purposes of this provision, the State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations to define when a student is considered a dropout. If the person holds a driver's license, the department shall suspend the license. The suspension period shall last until the student's eighteenth birthday or until he is re-enrolled in school for a minimum of thirty school days, unless an exception is granted pursuant to subsection (E).

(E) If the family court determines that a personal or family hardship exists that requires a person to obtain a driver's license for employment or medically related purposes, the court may authorize the issuance of a license or permit for a person who was denied a license or permit or whose license or permit has been suspended pursuant to this section. The request must be made on a form approved and provided by the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

(F) A person whose license is suspended under this section is not required to file proof of financial responsibility as required under Section 56-9-500 prior to the reinstatement of the person's license.

Section 56-1-46. Any person who is at least sixteen years of age may apply to the department for a driver's license. After the applicant has successfully passed the examinations required by Section 56-1-130 and demonstrated compliance with Section 56-1-45, the department may issue the applicant a driver's license.

Section 56-1-50. Any person who is at least fifteen years of age may apply to the department for a beginner's permit. The department may, after the applicant has successfully passed all parts of the examination other than the driving test, and demonstrated compliance with Section 56-1-45, issue to the applicant a beginner's permit which shall entitle the applicant having such the permit in his immediate possession to drive a motor vehicle upon the public highways for a period of not more than six months. While so driving such the permittee must be accompanied by a licensed driver twenty-one years of age or older who has had at least one year of driving experience, and who is occupying a seat beside the driver, except in the event the permittee is operating a motorcycle. Any A beginner's permit may be renewed or a new permit issued for additional periods of six months, but the department may refuse to renew or issue a new permit where the examining officer has reason to believe that the applicant has not made a bona fide effort to pass the required driver's road test or does not appear to the examining officer to have the aptitude to pass such the road test. The fee for every beginner's or renewal permit shall be is two dollars and the permit shall bear thereon the full name, date of birth, residence address, and a brief description and color photograph of the permittee and either a facsimile of the signature of the permittee or a space upon which the permittee shall write his usual signature with pen and ink immediately upon receipt of the permit. No permit shall be is valid until it has been so signed by the permittee.

Any student regularly enrolled regularly in a high school of this State which conducts a driver's training course shall is not be required to obtain a beginner's permit to operate a motor vehicle while the student is participating in the driver training course and when accompanied by a qualified instructor of the driver training course.

Also exempted from the requirement of the beginner's permit are persons enrolled in driver training courses conducted by driver training schools licensed under Chapter 23 of this title. Provided, however, that such However, these persons shall must at all times be accompanied by an instructor of the school and drive only an automobile owned or leased by the school which is covered by liability insurance in an amount not less than the minimum required by law.

Section 56-1-180. The department may issue a special restricted driver's license to any person who is at least fifteen years old and less than sixteen years old, and has demonstrated compliance with Section 56-1-45, who has first acquired a beginner's permit or an instruction permit and who has successfully passed such the road tests or otherwise as the department may in in its discretion prescribe, which special restricted driver's license shall be is valid and lawful only under the following conditions:

(l) in the operation of all type vehicles, except that between the hours of six o'clock P.M. and six o'clock A.M. the holder of such the special restricted driver's license must be accompanied by a licensed adult, twenty-one years of age or more, or accompanied by the holder's parent or guardian; provided, that commencing on the day daylight-saving time goes into effect through August thirty-first the holder of such a license need not be so accompanied prior to before eight o'clock P.M.;

(2) in the operation of farm machinery and equipment, other than a passenger car, while engaged in agricultural pursuits; and

(3) in the operation of a motor scooter or light motor-driven cycle of five-brake horsepower or less.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the Section.

Reps. MANLY and WASHINGTON spoke in favor of the Section.

Rep. CORNING spoke against the Section.

Section 6 was adopted.

Rep. GORDON moved that the House recede until 2:30 P.M., which was adopted.

Further proceedings were interrupted by the House receding, the pending question being consideration of Section 6.

At 2:30 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

The question of a quorum was raised.

A quorum was later present.

On motion of Rep. WASHINGTON, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:

H. 4099 -. Reps. Washington, McBride, Faber, K. Bailey, Blanding, J. Brown, Fant, Ferguson, Foster, Glover, Gordon, D. Martin, Taylor, Whipper, White and D. Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION DECLARING THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1989, AS "DRUG ABUSE AWARENESS DAY" AND ENCOURAGING ALL SOUTH CAROLINIANS TO JOIN THE FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS.

Whereas, the problem with drug abuse among South Carolina's population is reaching serious epidemic proportions; and

Whereas, recent reports show that just within the past two years there has been a dramatic increase in crimes caused by or related to drugs; and

Whereas, drugs continue to destroy the minds and great potential of many of our citizens and has become the number one threat to the safety and health of our community; and

Whereas, in an effort to make all South Carolinians aware of the severity of drug abuse in this State and to encourage participation in the battle against drugs, the members of the General Assembly would like to designate May 25, 1989, as "Drug Abuse Awareness Day" and invite all citizens, community organizations, and local governments to observe the day with appropriate activities. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, declare Thursday, May 25, 1989, as "Drug Abuse Awareness Day" and encourage all South Carolinians to observe the day with appropriate activities.

The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.

On motion of Rep. TOWNSEND, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was introduced, read the first time, and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

H. 4100 -- Reps. Kay, Carnell and Townsend: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 753 OF 1988, RELATING TO MATERIAL FEES WHICH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ABBEVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 60 IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE MATERIAL FEES MAY BE INCREASED BY THE BOARD AND THE STUDENTS TO WHICH THESE FEES APPLY.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Section 6.

S. 321 -- Senators Setzler, Nell W. Smith, Martschink, Rose, Mitchell, Macaulay, Giese, Lourie, Thomas, Mullinax and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-18-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCESS WHEREBY SCHOOLS CAN BE GIVEN THE FLEXIBILITY OF RECEIVING EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN STATE REGULATIONS AND BY AMENDING SECTION 59-18-20 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A COMPETITIVE SCHOOL WIDE INNOVATION GRANTS PROGRAM.

Debate was resumed on Section 6.

Rep. CORNING proposed the following Amendment No. 9 (Doc. No. 4677U), which was adopted.

Amend the committee report, as and if amended, DIVISION IV, by deleting SECTION 6 on pages 0321-11, 0321-12, 0321-13, 0321-14, 0321-15, and 0321-16.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. CORNING explained the amendment.

Rep. KIRSH spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. SHEHEEN spoke in favor of the amendment

Rep. BEASLEY spoke against the amendment.

Rep. McEachin raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 9 was out of order as it was not germane to the Bill. He further stated that the main thrust of the Bill dealt with education, not with the Title of the Code that deals with the regulations of motor vehicles and their operation.

The ACTING SPEAKER McTEER stated that the Point of Order came too late, as the House had already adopted Section 6 and was now amending it, and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. BEASLEY continued speaking.

Rep. BEASLEY continued speaking.

Rep. BEASLEY moved to table the amendment.

Rep. CORNING demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Altman                 Baker
Barfield               Baxley                 Beasley
Chamblee               Clyborne               Davenport
Fair                   Fant                   Farr
Felder                 Haskins                Hendricks
Hodges                 Huff                   Jaskwhich
Johnson, J.C.          Keegan                 Littlejohn
Manly                  McGinnis               McTeer
Moss                   Nesbitt                Quinn
Rogers, T.             Taylor                 Townsend
Waldrop                Wilder                 Williams, D.
Wright

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, G.             Bailey, K.
Barber                 Bennett                Blackwell
Blanding               Brown, G.              Brown, J.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Carnell                Cole                   Cooper
Corbett                Cork                   Corning
Faber                  Ferguson               Foster
Gentry                 Glover                 Harris, J.
Harris, P.             Harvin                 Harwell
Hayes                  Hearn                  Kay
Keesley                Keyserling             Kirsh
Kohn                   Lanford                Martin, D.
Martin, L.             Mattos                 McAbee
McBride                McCain                 McEachin
McKay                  Neilson                Nettles
Rama                   Rudnick                Sharpe
Sheheen                Short                  Simpson
Smith                  Stoddard               Sturkie
Tucker                 Vaughn                 Whipper
White                  Wilkes                 Wilkins

So, the House refused to table the amendment.

Rep. TOWNSEND spoke against the amendment.

The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.

SECTION 7. Chapter 63 of Title 69 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-63-70. Through modifications to the appropriations formula for higher education, the Commission on Higher Education shall encourage colleges and universities to implement public service activities designed to inspire young people to consider post-secondary education or training as a viable and realistic objective and as a method of improving their opportunities in life. The public service activities shall encourage young people to be successful in school and persist to graduation as a first and necessary requirement for participation in post-secondary education. The Commission on Higher Education shall promulgate regulations to govern those public service activities which shall be encouraged through the formula."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 7 was adopted.

Rep. WRIGHT moved to reconsider the vote whereby Section 5 was adopted and amended and the motion was noted.

Rep. BEASLEY asked unanimous consent that Sections 8 through 18 be considered as a unit, which was agreed to.

SECTION 8. The 1976 Code of Laws is amended by adding:

"Section 59-29-179. The State Board of Education shall establish a committee, which includes but is not limited to personnel from the State Department of Education, school districts, and institutions of higher education. The purpose of the committee shall be to assist the State Board of Education in the identification of the dimensions of thinking which shall constitute 'higher order thinking and problem solving' for purposes of Sections 59-26-30(b)(3), 59-26-30(b)(7), 59-26-30(j), 59-29-179, 59-29-180, 59-29-181, 59-29-182, 59-29-183, and 59-30-110, 59-31-600."

SECTION 9. Section 59-26-20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding a new item appropriately numbered to read:

"( ) Adopt program approval standards so that beginning with the 1991-92 school year students, who are pursuing a program in a college or university in this State which leads to certification as instructional or administrative personnel, shall complete successfully training and teacher development experiences in teaching higher order thinking skills."

SECTION 10. Section 59-26-30(b)(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(b)(3) Develop an observational instrument to be used by the local school district to evaluate a teacher during his provisional year of teaching in such that form that the results of the evaluation can be used to inform a teacher of his strengths and weaknesses. The State Board of Education shall cause the instrument to be adapted by not later than the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year to require specific performance demonstrations of teaching higher order thinking skills in those subject areas and contexts where the use of these skills is determined to be appropriate. Demonstrations of teaching higher order thinking skills may not be excluded as inappropriate for a subject area or context only on the basis that the students with whom the demonstrations are to be made are at risk of school failure. The instrument, including the additional observation statements for teaching higher order thinking skills, shall must be validated in accordance with current legal requirements."

SECTION 11. Section 59-26-30(b)(7) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(b)(7) Develop an evaluation instrument to be used by colleges and universities to evaluate all student teachers. The instrument shall must be developed on the basis of acceptable criteria for teaching effectiveness. The instrument shall must be designed to provide feedback and assistance to the student teacher regarding any identified deficiencies. Not later than the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year, the State Board of Education shall adapt the instrument to include observation statements for teaching of higher order thinking skills in those subject areas and contexts where the use of these skills is determined to be appropriate. Demonstrations of teaching higher order thinking skills may not be excluded as inappropriate for a subject area or context only on the basis that the students with whom the demonstrations are to be made are at risk of school failure.

SECTION 12. Section 59-26-30(j) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(j) Establish procedures whereby each school district shall periodically evaluate periodically in the classroom all certified personnel whose duties include teaching in the classroom. The evaluation instrument to be used in the evaluations shall must be one that at least meets the criteria established by the State Board of Education as an acceptable instrument. By the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year, the State Board of Education shall include in its criteria for an acceptable instrument a requirement that the instrument evaluate teaching higher order thinking skills and problem solving in those subject areas and contexts where the use of these skills is determined to be appropriate. Demonstrations of teaching higher order thinking skills may not be excluded as inappropriate for a subject area or context only on the basis that the students with whom the demonstrations are to be made are at risk of school failure. School districts shall give the results of a teacher's evaluation in writing to the teacher and shall counsel him concerning his strengths and weaknesses as a teacher. School districts shall use deficiencies identified by guide to the establishment of individual or group staff development programs."

SECTION 13. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-31-600. When the State Board of Education determines that textbook adoptions are needed in a specific field, the board shall direct evaluating and rating committees to assess textbooks for the presentation of instructional materials which develop higher order thinking skills and problem solving. The results of each evaluating and rating committee's assessment must be included in its written report to the State Board of Education. Where otherwise satisfactory, the evaluating and rating committee shall recommend and the State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks which develop higher order thinking skills."

SECTION 14. Section 59-29-180 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-29-180. The State Department of Education and all school districts shall emphasize higher order problem solving skills in curricula at all levels. The State Department of Education shall assist the school districts by locating, developing. and advising the districts on the development of materials and other aids which may be used to teach higher order problem solving skills within existing subjects."

SECTION 15. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-29-181. When selecting nationally normed achievement tests for the statewide testing program, the State Board of Education shall endeavor to select tests with a sufficient number of items which may be utilized to evaluate student's higher order thinking skills. The items may be used for this purpose only if the test created from the items meets applicable criteria set forth in the American Psychological Association publication 'Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing'."

SECTION 16. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 59-30-110. When test items for the tests prescribed by this chapter are revised, the State Board of Education shall include test items which may be utilized to evaluate students' higher order thinking skills.

SECTION 17 The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-29-182. The State Board of Education shall review the use of procedures to assess student achievement in higher order thinking and problem solving skills which are different from traditional achievement tests."

SECTION 18. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-29-183. The State Department of Education shall develop or select in-service training programs for teachers and staff in teaching higher order thinking and problem solving as part of the existing curriculum. Upon funding for district implementation of the program by the General Assembly, the State Department of Education shall ensure that each school district implements teacher in-service training in higher order thinking and problem solving on a schedule to train all teachers and staff within five years."

Rep. JASKWHICH explained Sections 8 through 18.

Sections 8 through 18 were adopted by a division vote of 73 to 9.

Rep. KOHN proposed the following Amendment No. 22 (Doc. No. 5021U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, by adding a new SECTION 15A. immediately after SECTION 15 to read:

/SECTION 15A. Each school district in this State shall cause all students in the district during their eighth grade year to visit and tour a maximum security prison of this State. The South Carolina Department of Corrections must provide these tours and the Department of Corrections in conjunction with the Department of Education shall establish the procedures to be followed for eighth grade students to be provided with safe and informative tours of these maximum security prisons./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. KOHN explained the amendment.

Rep. BEASLEY spoke against the amendment.

Rep. KOHN spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. BEASLEY moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Further proceedings were interrupted by Conference and Free Conference Reports, the pending question being consideration of Section 19.

The following was received.

The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C. May 23, 1989

The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred H. 3128:
H. 3128 -- Rep. McEachin: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FISH AND GAME, BY ADDING SECTION 50-1-25 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A BIRD DOG TRAINING SEASON FROM OCTOBER FIRST THROUGH THE DAY BEFORE THE OPENING OF QUAIL SEASON EACH YEAR, TO REQUIRE THAT NO GAME MAY BE TAKEN BY TRAINERS DURING THE TRAINING SEASON, AND TO REQUIRE BIRD DOG TRAINERS TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE HUNTING LICENSES AND PERMITS.

Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
that the bill do pass amended as follows:

Strike all after the enacting words and insert:

/SECTION 1. Section 50-11-120 of the 1976 Code is amended by striking in Game Zones 1 through 11 the season for rabbit and inserting:

"Rabbit: September first to Thanksgiving Day without weapons; Thanksgiving Day to March first with weapons;".

SECTION 2. Section 50-11-150 of the 1976 Code is amended by striking in Game Zones 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 "Rabbit--no limit" and inserting "Rabbit--five a day".

SECTION 3. Section 50-11-120 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding at the end of Game Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10:

"Quail: October first to Thanksgiving Day without weapons; Thanksgiving Day through March first with weapons;".

SECTION 4. Section 50-11-120 (Game Zone 6) (Quail) is amended to read:

"Quail: Monday before Thanksgiving Day to the first Saturday in March with weapons; October first to the Monday before Thanksgiving Day without weapons;".

SECTION 5. Section 50-11-120 (Game Zone 11) (Quail) is amended to read:

"Quail: Monday before Thanksgiving Day through March first with weapons; October first to the Monday before Thanksgiving Day without weapons;".

SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

/s/John Drummond                  /s/D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
/s/Douglas L. Hinds               /s/Thomas N. Rhoad
/s/John Courson                   /s/Toney L. Farr
On Part of the Senate.            On Part of the House.

Rep. McEachin explained the Conference Report.

The report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., May 23, 1989

The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 3599 -- A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 19-11-95 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONFIDENCES OR SECRETS OF A PATIENT IN THE COURSE OF DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT OF A MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITION MAY NOT BE REVEALED BY PROVIDERS OR SOCIAL, WORKERS, AS DEFINED BY THIS ACT, SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, AND TO ALLOW A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECTION.

Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the bill do pass amended as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 19-11-95. (A) For purposes of this section:

(1) 'Provider' means a person licensed under the provisions of any of the following and who enters into a relationship with a patient to provide diagnosis, counseling, or treatment of a mental illness or emotional condition:

(a) Chapter 55 of Title 40;

(b) Chapter 75 of Title 40;

(c) Section 40-63-70 as a licensed master social worker or a licensed independent social worker;

(d) Section 40-33-10 as a registered nurse who meets the requirements of a clinical nurse specialist and who works in the field of mental health.

(2) 'Patient' means a person who consults or is interviewed by a provider to diagnose, counsel, or treat a mental illness or emotional condition as authorized in item (A)(1) of this section.

(3) 'Confidence' is a private communication between a patient and a provider or information given to a provider in the patient-provider relationship.

(4) 'Written authorization after disclosure', or a similar phrase, includes an authorization in the application or claims procedure of an insurer or a person providing a plan of benefits.

(5) 'Mental illness or emotional condition' is defined consistent with accepted diagnostic practices.

(B) Except when permitted or required by statutory or other law, a provider knowingly may not:

(1) reveal a confidence of his patient;

(2) use a confidence of his patient to the disadvantage of the patient;

(3) use a confidence of his patient for the advantage of himself or of a third person, unless the patient gives written authorization after disclosure to him of what confidence is to be used and how it is to be used.

(C) A provider may reveal:

(1) confidences with the written authorization of the patient or patients affected, but only after disclosure to them of what confidences are to be revealed and to whom they will be revealed;

(2) confidences when allowed by statute or other law;

(3) the intention of the patient to commit a crime or harm himself and the information necessary to prevent the crime or harm;

(4) confidences reasonably necessary to establish or collect his fee or to defend himself or his employees against an accusation of wrongful conduct;

(5) in the COURSE of diagnosis, counseling, or treatment, confidences necessary to promote care within the generally recognized and accepted standards, practices, and procedures of the provider's profession;

(6) confidences in proceedings conducted in accord with Sections 40-71-10 and 40-71-20;

(7) confidences with the written authorization of the patient or patients affected for processing their health insurance claims, but only after disclosure to them of what confidences are to be revealed and to whom they will be revealed.

(D) A provider shall reveal:

(1) confidences when required by statutory law or by court order for good cause shown to the extent that the patient's care and treatment or the nature and extent of his mental illness or emotional condition are reasonably at issue in a proceeding; provided, however, confidences revealed shall not be used as evidence of grounds for divorce;

(2) confidences pursuant to a lawfully issued subpoena by a duly constituted professional licensing or disciplinary board or panel;

(3) confidences when an investigation, trial, hearing, or other proceeding by a professional licensing or disciplinary board or panel involves the question of granting a professional license or the possible revocation, suspension, or other limitation of a professional license.

(E) A disclosure pursuant to subsection (C) or (D) is limited to the information and the recipients necessary to accomplish the purpose of the subsection permitting the disclosure.

(F) A person to whom a disclosure is made pursuant to subsections (C)(1), (5), and (7), an employee to whom a disclosure is made pursuant to subsection (G), and any other person to whom a confidence, written or oral, is disclosed by a provider are bound by the same duty of confidentiality as the provider from whom he received the information.

(G) A provider shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences of a patient, except that a provider may reveal the information allowed by subsections (C) and (D) through an employee.

(H) A provider releasing a confidence under the written authorization of the patient or under the provisions of this section is not liable to the patient or other person for release of the confidence to the person authorized to receive it; provided, however, a patient has a cause of action for damages against a provider, associate, agent, employee, or any other person who intentionally, wilfully, or with gross negligence violates the provisions of this section.

(I) Nothing in this section alters the existing requirements of nonproviders to preserve confidences or the requirements of providers subject to Sections 44-23-1090 and 44-52-190."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect six months after approval by the Governor./

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of May, 1989.

Amend title to conform.

/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie      /s/Rep. T.C. Alexander
/s/Senator James E. Bryan         /s/Rep. James H. Hodges
Senator Robert L. Helmly          /s/Rep. Thomas E. Huff
On Part of the Senate.                 On Part of the House.

Rep. HUFF explained the Free Conference Report.

Rep. McEachin moved to recommit the Report.

Rep. HUFF moved to table the motion, which was agreed to.

The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

Debate was resumed on the following Bill, the pending question being the consideration of Section 19.

S. 321 -- Senators Setzler, Nell W. Smith, Martschink, Rose, Mitchell, Macaulay, Giese, Lourie, Thomas, Mullinax and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-18-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCESS WHEREBY SCHOOLS CAN BE GIVEN THE FLEXIBILITY OF RECEIVING EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN STATE REGULATIONS AND BY AMENDING SECTION 59-18-20 SO AS TO ESTABLISH COMPETITIVE SCHOOL WIDE INNOVATION GRANTS PROGRAM.

SECTION 19. Section 59-20-40(1)(c) of the 1976 Code, as amended by Section 2 of Act 593 of 1988 and Section 10 of Act 658 of 1988, is further amended to read:

(c) Weightings, used to provide for relative cost differences, between programs for different students are established in order that funds may be equitably distributed on the basis of pupil needs. The criteria for qualifications for each special classification must be established by the State Board of Education according to definitions established in this article and in accordance with Sections 59-21-510, 59-35-10, 59-53-1860, and 59-53-1900. Cost factors enumerated in this section must be used to fund programs approved by the State Board of Education. Pupil data received by the Department of Education is subject to audit by the department. Cost factors or weightings are as follows:

Pupil Classification Weightings

(1) Kindergarten pupils     1.30

(2) Primary pupils (grades 1 through 3)     1.24

(3) Elementary pupils (grades 4

through 8) -- base students     1.00

(4) High school pupils (grades 9

through 12)         1.25

Special Programs for Exceptional Students Weightings

(5) Handicapped         1.74

a. Educable mentally handicapped pupils

b. Learning disabilities pupils

(6) Handicapped         2.04

a. Trainable mentally handicapped pupils

b. Emotionally handicapped pupils

c. Orthopedically handicapped pupils

(7) Handicapped         2.57

a. Visually handicapped pupils

b. Hearing handicapped pupils

(8) Speech handicapped pupils     1.90

(9) Homebound pupils     2.10

Vocational Technical Programs Weightings

(10) Prevocational         1.20

(11) Vocational         1.29

Add-on Weights for Compensatory and

Remediation Weightings

(12) Grades 1-6 Compensatory     0.39     0.26

(13) Grades 2-6 Remediation     0.10     0.114

(14) Grades 7-12 Remediation         0.12

Adult Education

(15) Adult Education (14) Adult Education     0.15

Add-on Weights for Arts Education

(16) (15) Arts Education         0.02

No local match is required for adult education and the number of weighted pupil unite funded depends on funding available from the general fund of the State and the Education Improvement Act of 1984 Fund.

Each student in the State must be counted in only one of the first eleven pupil classifications. Students determined to need compensatory instruction and remediation must be counted additionally under the twelfth through fourteenth classification. If a student is determined not to meet minimum standards in reading, mathematics, or writing of the Basic Skills Assessment Act or is 'not ready' for first grade, and qualifies under state department regulations, a pupil may be counted once for each area for the purposes of calculating the district's remedial weighted pupil units. The State Board of Education must determine the qualifications for each classification in accordance with Sections 59-21-510, 59-35-10, 59-53-1860, and 59-53-1900, and Chapter 30 of this title. The program for each classification must meet specifications approved by the State Board of Education.

School districts may count each student who is instructed at home under the provisions of Section 59-65-40 in the district's weighted pupil units at a weighting of .25 for supervising, overseeing, or reviewing the student's program of home instruction. No local match is required for students instructed at home under the provisions of Section 59-65-40.

All students in grades one through six and students in grades seven through twelve who are enrolled in arts education courses must be counted under the fifteenth pupil classification in addition to one through eight, ten and eleven. Funds generated under the fifteenth pupil classification must be used by school districts to:

(1) plan, develop, and implement discipline based arts education curricula in the visual arts, music, dance, or drama compatible with the State Department of Education discipline based arts education curriculum framework;

(2) provide teacher in-service training programs for arts specialists or appropriate classroom teachers or both which are approved by the State Department of Education working with the state's colleges and universities;

(3) hire certified arts specialists or contract with professional artists approved by the South Carolina Arts Commission to assist certified arts specialists or appropriate classroom teachers or both in planning, developing and implementing discipline-based arts education curricula. The State Board of Education shall establish regulations related to the in-service training and curriculum development in cooperation with the Arts in Basic Curriculum Steering Committee. These regulations shall encourage innovation and flexibility and reflect the integrity of instruction required by each arts discipline. These regulations must be developed in cooperation with school and district-level teachers and administrators.

School districts are not required to provide a local match for the cost of the arts education program funded through the 'arts education' weighting established in this section. It is the intent of the General Assembly to phase in the arts education program and funding for the arts education program at the specified weighting over five years in substantially equal annual intervals."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 19 was adopted.

SECTION 20. Chapter 18, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-18-15. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a receiving exemptions from those regulations and statutory provisions governing the Defined Minimum Program, the Basic Skills Assessment Program, and the Remedial/Compensatory Program, provided that, during a three-year period, the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) the school has twice been a recipient of a school incentive grant pursuant to Section 59-18-10;

(2) the school has met annual NCE gain requirements for reading and mathematics compensatory programs pursuant to Section 59-5-65;

(3) the school has exhibited no recurring accreditation deficiencies; and

(4) the school has annually exhibited a school gain index value at or above the state average as computed in the school incentive grant program pursuant to Section 59-18-10.

Schools' receiving flexibility status are released from regulations and statutory provisions referred to above including, but not limited to, regulations and statutory provisions on class scheduling, class structure, and staffing. The State Board of Education in consultation with the Select Committee and the Business-Education Subcommittee must promulgate regulations and develop guidelines for providing this flexibility by December 1, 1989.

To continue to receive flexibility pursuant to this section, a school must annually exhibit a school gain index value at or above the state average as computed in the school incentive award program pursuant to Section 59-18-10 and must meet the NCE gains required for reading and mathematics compensatory education program pursuant to Section 59-5-65. A school which does not requalify for flexibility status due to extenuating circumstances may apply to the State Board of Education for an extension of this status for one year.

In the event that a school is removed from flexibility status, the school is not subject to regulations and statutory provisions exempted under this section until the beginning of the school year following notification of the change in status by the State Department of Education. Subsequent monitoring by the State Department of Education in a school that is removed from flexibility status shall not include a review of program records exempted under this section for the period that the school has received flexibility status or for the school year during which the school was notified of its removal from flexibility status."

Rep. L. MARTIN moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. BEASLEY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Baxley                 Blackwell              Burch
Burriss, M.D.          Davenport              Farr
Martin, L.             Mattos                 Short
Waldrop                Williams, D.           Wofford

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Altman
Baker                  Barber                 Barfield
Beasley                Boan                   Brown, J.
Bruce                  Carnell                Clyborne
Cole                   Cooper                 Corbett
Cork                   Derrick                Elliott
Fair                   Fant                   Felder
Gentry                 Harris, J.             Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hearn
Huff                   Jaskwhich              Keesley
Keyserling             Koon                   Littlejohn
Manly                  Martin, D.             McAbee
McCain                 McEachin               McElveen
McGinnis               McKay                  McTeer
Moss                   Neilson                Nesbitt
Nettles                Quinn                  Rama
Rhoad                  Rogers, J.             Rogers, T.
Rudnick                Sharpe                 Sheheen
Smith                  Sturkie                Townsend
Tucker                 Waites                 Washington
Wells                  Wright

So, the House refused to adjourn.

SECTION 21. Section 59-18-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-18-20. (A) The State Board of Education, acting through the State Department of Education, shall establish a competitive grant program whereby schools may be awarded grants to implement exemplary and innovative programs designed to improve instruction. These programs may include more effective utilization of substitute teachers at the individual school level.

(B) To encourage public schools to implement innovative and comprehensive approaches for improving student development, performance, and attendance, a competitive school innovation grants program is also established. Funds for the competitive school innovation grants program are as provided by the General Assembly in the annual general appropriation act. The State Board of Education, acting through the State Department of Education, must provide by regulation for this competitive grants program. All schools are eligible to apply for these grants.

A committee composed of members of the Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education and appointed by the chairman of the Business-Education Partnership shall recommend to the State Board of Education the criteria and guidelines to be used in evaluating each grant application. The criteria must include, but not be limited to, the involvement of teachers, parents, students, businesses, and school improvement councils in the development, application, and implementation of the grant proposal. Grant proposals which involve the greatest percentage of students and staff must receive priority consideration for funding. The State Department of Education and at least two members of the Business-Education Partnership, appointed by the chairman of the Partnership and representing the business community, must review all grant applications and must recommend to the State Board of Education grant recipients.

Each grant award for planning purposes cannot exceed five thousand dollars for each school. Each grant award for program implementation cannot exceed ninety thousand dollars over a three year period. Grant awards may include funds for the purchase of technical assistance.

To qualify for an additional grant award beyond the initial three years, a school must exhibit a school gain index value at or above the state average as computed in the school incentive grant program pursuant to Section 59-18-10 at least once during the initial three-year grant period.

The State Board of Education must give special consideration for waivers of regulations and reporting requirements to those schools receiving these grant awards.

Any unexpended balance of an appropriation for these school innovation grants on June thirtieth of a fiscal year must be carried forward and expended for the same purpose during the next fiscal year."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 21 was adopted.

SECTION 22. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-18-25. To provide support and training for teachers and principals in their efforts to design and implement innovative programs, the Commission on Higher Education, in consultation with the State Board of Education, shall establish a 'Center for the Advancement of Teaching and School Leadership' at a selected public college or university. The center shall provide a program for school change consisting of intensive short term institutes for teams of teachers and administrators who are committed to creating innovative programs in their schools. Priority assistance must be given to schools which have received grants to implement innovative programs under Section 59-18-20. The program must be provided through the center in conjunction with regional centers in other colleges and universities in the state. The center shall not duplicate the services of existing training programs conducted by the State Department of Education or other institutions of higher education. School teams shall work with center staff and consultants to analyze the needs of the team's school and consider strategies to bring about meaningful change from within the school. School teams shall set goals and analyze their roles and responsibilities in the change process. An evaluation component must be developed for each school with input from the school team, the school district administration, center staff, and consultants in school effectiveness and change. After school teams return to their schools, the primary and regional centers shall provide on-site support and expertise as needed by school teams. A portion of the funds for this program must be budgeted for on-site assistance to school teams by the primary and regional centers."

SECTION 23. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-25-55. The South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment shall establish a program with the sole purpose of expanding the number of high achieving minority students entering and completing teacher education programs. The program shall include, but not be limited to, identification of minority high school students who have an interest in teaching and recruitment of those students into the teacher cadet program, personal counseling of minority students in the teacher cadet program about high demand certification areas, college opportunities, and general financial aid, establishment of a recruitment plan and an intensive effort to attract qualified minorities into the Critical Needs Certification Program established pursuant to Section 69-26-30(o), and a special recruitment effort focusing on middle school minority students."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 23 was adopted.

Rep. BEASLEY asked unanimous consent to consider Sections 24 through 32 as a unit, which was agreed to.

SECTION 24. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-18-31. By the 1993-1994 school year, the State Board of Education, in consultation with the Select Committee, shall develop additional criteria which must be used to evaluate the quality of education in the school districts. The additional criteria must include measures of higher order thinking skills and problem solving, when two annual statewide administrations of tests validated for this purpose have been accomplished."

SECTION 25. The 1978 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-18-11. By not later than the 1991-1992 school year, the criteria secondary schools must meet to qualify for a school incentive award must include reduction in dropout rates or maintenance of low dropout rates. By not later than the 1993-1994 school year, the criteria schools must meet to qualify for a school incentive award must include exceptional or improved performance in higher order thinking and problem solving, provided that two annual statewide administrations of tests validated for this purpose have been accomplished."

SECTION 26. Chapter 6, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 69-6-16. (A) There is created the Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education and a permanent standing subcommittee of the Partnership for the purpose of reviewing the implementation of the South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 and recommending other major education initiatives.

The Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education consists of the following persons:

(l) Thirty-two prominent civic and business leaders of which fourteen are appointed by the Governor; six appointed by the State Superintendent of Education; six appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and six appointed by the President of the Senate;

(2) Twenty educators of which eight are appointed by the State Superintendent of Education; four appointed by the Governor; four appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and four appointed by the President of the Senate;

(3) Speaker of the House of Representatives or his designee;

(4) Lieutenant Governor or his designee;

(5) Chairman of the Education and Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives or his designee;

(6) Chairman of the Education Committee of the Senate or his designee;

(7) Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives or his designee;

(8) Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate or his designee;

(9) Chairman of the Committee on Children or his designee;

(10) Chairman of the Select Committee or his designee;

(11) Two legislators appointed by the Governor, one a member of the House of Representatives and one a member of the Senate; and

(12) The Governor and State Superintendent of Education shall serve as ex officio members.

The term of office of the members of the Business-Education Partnership must be four years except that of those first appointed an equal number must serve terms of two, three, and four years respectively as determined by lot. Except in those cases where the term of a member of the Business-Education Subcommittee has not expired, no member of the Business-Education Partnership may serve more than two consecutive terms. The number of appointments provided for in items (1) and (2) above must be reduced proportionately by the membership requirements of subsection (B) of this section.

The chairman of the Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education must be elected by the members of the Partnership and must be chosen from among the thirty-two business and civic leaders serving on the Partnership. The Business-Education Partnership must meet at the call of the chairman but not less than quarterly. The Governor must preside at all regular and special meetings of the Partnership in which he is in attendance; at those meetings at which the Governor is not in attendance the State Superintendent of Education must preside, and in the absence of the Superintendent, the chairman of the Partnership must preside.

The Partnership in conjunction with the State Department of Education may cause to be held statewide public forums for the purpose of fostering open discussions regarding the impact of the Education Improvement Act on the State's education system and education reform in general.

(B) The Business-Education Partnership must establish a permanent standing subcommittee called the Business-Education Subcommittee. The Subcommittee must be composed of twenty members of the Business-Education Partnership elected by the Business-Education Partnership. The composition of the Subcommittee must be:

(1) Ten civic and business leaders;

(2) Six educators; and

(3) Four legislators.

The eighteen members serving on the Joint Business-Education Subcommittee must remain on the Business-Education Subcommittee as reconstituted on the effective date of this section. The term of office for members of the Business-Education Subcommittee must be six years except that of the initial members an equal number must serve terms of two, four, or six years respectively as determined by lot. The chairman of the Subcommittee is to be elected by the members of the Subcommittee and must be one of the ten civic and business leaders serving on the Subcommittee. Vacancies on the Subcommittee must be filled from the membership of the Business-Education Partnership by a majority vote of the members of the Partnership."

SECTION 27. Section 59-6-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-6-20. The Governor and State Superintendent of Education shall reconvene, no less than annually, the Committee on Financing Excellence in Public Education and the Steering Committee of the Education-Business Partnership to review the implementation of the South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 and consider improvements to the act.

The State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Education shall must establish within the State Department of Education a special unit at the division level called the Public Accountability Division. This special unit must be eliminated six years from the date of implementation of the Education Improvement Act by July 1, 1995. The unit head shall hold a position comparable to a Deputy Superintendent and must be under the direct supervision of and shall report to the State Superintendent of Education.

The Deputy Superintendent shall must provide all reports to the Governor, Select Committee, joint subcommittee of the Committee on Financing Excellence in Public Education Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education, Business-Education Subcommittee, and State Board of Education and respond to any inquiries for information.

The joint subcommittee and Steering Committee of the Education - Business Partnership Business- Education Subcommittee shall serve as a screening committee for the selection of the unit head. The screening committee shall recommend for consideration three applicants. Final selection of the unit head must be made by the State Superintendent of Education after consulting with the Governor. All other positions must be filled following current State Personnel and State Department of Education employment procedures.

The new unit is responsible for planning, monitoring, and reviewing programs developed under the Education Improvement Act and shall provide information, recommendations, and an annual assessment of the Education Improvement Act to the Governor, Select Committee, and joint subcommittee Business-Education Subcommittee.

The operating procedures for the new unit are the same as the operating procedures for the three established divisions in the State Department of Education. The joint subcommittee Business-Education Subcommittee shall review and approve all products produced by the new unit and make recommendations to the State Board of Education for final approval."

SECTION 28. Section 59-6-30 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-6-30. The State Board of Education shall provide an assessment of the South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 for consideration by the Business-Education Partnership Subcommittee, the Committee on Financing Excellence in Public Education, and the General Assembly. A special assessment shall be provided on March 1, 1985. Commencing in 1985, an annual assessment must be provided by December first of each year and an appropriate amount of funding must be provided for this purpose. The Business-Education Partnership Subcommittee and the Committee on Financing Excellence in Public Education shall provide a resort on the assessment to the Business-Education Partnership, and the Partnership shall submit their its recommendations to the General Assembly prior to January February first. The staff of the Business-Education Subcommittee shall serve as the primary staff to the Business-Education Partnership and may solicit the assistance of the staffs of the House Education and Public Works Committee, the Senate Education Committee, the Select Committee, the Public Accountability Division, and the Governor's Office."

SECTION 29. Section 59-24-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-24-50. The South Carolina Department of Education's Leadership Academy shall develop, in cooperation with state-supported institutions of higher education, new training programs and expand current training programs available to present and prospective school administrators with particular emphasis on effective instructional leadership. By January 1, 1990, these training programs must be developed with particular emphasis on effective instructional leadership as it pertains to school-based improvement, including instruction on the importance of school improvement councils and ways administrators may make school improvement councils an active force in school improvement. The training must be developed and conducted in collaboration with the School Council Assistance Project."

SECTION 30. Section 59-26-20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding a new item to read:

"( ) Adopt program approval standards so that beginning with the 1991-92 school year, programs in a college or university in this state which lead to certification as Administrative personnel, must include training in methods of making school improvement councils an active and effective force in improving schools."

SECTION 31. Section 59-20-60(3) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(3) Each school district board of trustees shall cause each school in the district to prepare an annual written report to be known as the school improvement report. The reports shall focus on factors found by research to be effective in improving schools, such these factors to be prescribed by regulation of the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education shall prescribe the format of the reports and the manner in which they must be developed and submitted. Each school board of trustees shall establish an improvement council at each school in the district composed of at least two parents, elected by the parents of the children enrolled in the school; at least two teachers, elected by the faculty; at least two students in schools with grades nine and above elected by the students; other representatives of the community and persons elected by the principal; Provided, However, That the. The elected members of the council shall comprise at least a two-thirds majority of the membership of the council. The councils must be constituted in each school no later than January 1, 1978. Each council shall assist in the preparation of the annual school improvement report required in this section, shall assist with the development and monitoring of school improvement, shall provide advice on the use of school incentive grant awards, and shall provide such assistance as the principal may request as well as carrying out any other duties prescribed by the local school board. The local school board shall make provisions to allow any council to file a separate report to the local school board if the council considers it necessary. However, no council shall have any of the powers and duties reserved by law or regulation to the local school board. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this item, when an area vocational center establishes a local school improvement council, it shall must be composed as defined exclusively by federal law. The council shall perform all duties and responsibilities provided for in any state or federal law which applies to such these councils.

In order to provide additional accountability for funds expended under the Education Finance Act and the Education Improvement Act the elected members of the school improvement council shall serve a minimum term of two years. Parents of students or students in their last year of enrollment at an individual school may serve terms of one year only. The terms shall must be staggered and shall be determined by lot. Elections of members to school improvement councils shall occur no later than October fifteenth of the school Year. Within thirty days following the election, the names and , addresses, terms of service, and status of all council members as a parent, teacher, student, or representative of the community shall must be forwarded to the State Department of Education for the purpose of sharing information. The district board of trustees shall include in its annual district report a summary of the training opportunities provided or to be provided for school improvement council members and professional educators in regard to council-related tasks and a summary of programs and activities involving parents and citizens in the school."

SECTION 32. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-1-452. The Public School Employee Cost Savings Program is established for the purpose of making cash awards to individual school district employees for cost saving ideas which are proven to be workable and improve educational effectiveness. The program must be administered by the State Department of Education with the advice and assistance of a special committee to screen suggested ideas and recommend those with potential merit to be implemented and evaluated. The committee must be composed of:

(1) one member who is serving on a public school board, appointed by the State Board of Education;

(2) one member who is serving as a public school superintendent, or district financial administrator, appointed by the State Board of Education;

(3) one member who is serving as a public school principal, vocational center director, or school administrator, appointed by the State Board of Education;

(4) one public school teacher with a minimum of fifteen years service, appointed by the State Board of Education;

(5) one member appointed by the State Superintendent of Education; and

(6) three private sector business persons, who hold no public office, one appointed by the Governor, one appointed by Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one appointed by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Committee members shall serve three-year terms except that of those initially appointed, two shall serve initial terms of one year, three shall serve initial terms of two years, and three shall serve initial terms of three years, these initial terms to be determined by lot at the first meeting of the committee. Vacancies must be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term in the manner of original appointment. Committee members must attend at least eighty percent of the meetings of the committee in each fiscal year. Members of the committee must not serve on the Education Improvement Act Select Committee, the Business-Education Partnership for Excellence in Education, or the Business-Education Subcommittee while serving on the committee created under this section.

The State Board shall promulgate regulations and establish procedures to administer the program. The regulations shall limit individual cash awards to twenty-five percent of the cost savings for one fiscal year or five thousand dollars, whichever is less. No employee may receive an award for an idea which could have been implemented by the employee through his normal job duties. Employees of the State Department of Education may participate in the program.

The State Department of Education shall provide administrative support for the program. The State Board of Education shall waive or modify its regulations when appropriate and necessary to achieve cost savings.

The General Assembly shall provide funds to initiate and support the program. Two years after initial implementation of the program, the program must be supported at a level determined by the General Assembly from a portion of the proven cost savings."

Sections 24 through 32 were adopted.

Rep. HASKINS proposed the following Amendment No. 8 (Doc. No. 4311U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, page 0321-33, by inserting after the period on line 15 /A./.

Amend the report further, page 0321-33 by inserting immediately after line 23

/B. Item (h) of Section 59-26-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(h) Adopt program approval standards so that beginning with the 1982-83 school year all colleges and universities in this State that offer undergraduate degrees in education shall require that students pursuing courses leading to teacher certification successfully complete one semester of student teaching and other field experiences and teacher development techniques directly related to practical classroom situations. Preference in placement of such students must be given to public schools, but nothing in this item shall prohibit the placement of up to one-half of the annual number of these students from each college or university in private schools. Provided, that the supervisory teacher is certified by the State Department of Education."/

Amend title to conform.

Rep. HASKINS explained the amendment.

Rep. McGINNIS raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 8 was out of order as it was not germane to the Bill.

The SPEAKER stated that Section 30 of the Bill referred to 59-26-20, which is the Code Section already in existence, and that included a provision under Section H, which this Amendment addressed and he overruled the Point of Order.

Rep. HASKINS continued speaking.

Rep. McGINNIS spoke against the amendment.

Rep. HASKINS spoke in favor of the amendment.

Rep. CORBETT moved to reconsider the vote whereby Section 20 was adopted and the motion was noted.

Rep. CORBETT moved to reconsider the vote whereby Section 21 was adopted and the motion was noted.

Rep. McGINNIS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 51 to 27.

Rep. T. ROGERS moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. HUFF raised the Point of Order that fifteen minutes had not elapsed since a similar motion was made, which point was not sustained by the chair.

Rep. BEASLEY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Bailey, K.             Baxley
Bennett                Blackwell              Blanding
Brown, J.              Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Carnell                Corbett                Cork
Corning                Fant                   Farr
Ferguson               Foster                 Harris, J.
Harvin                 Haskins                Hendricks
Kay                    Keesley                Koon
Martin, D.             Martin, L.             Mattos
McAbee                 McBride                McLeod
McTeer                 Rama                   Rogers, T.
Sharpe                 Simpson                Smith
Snow                   Sturkie                Taylor
Waites                 Waldrop                Whipper
Wilkes

Those who voted in the negative are.

Altman                 Bailey, G.             Baker
Barber                 Barfield               Beasley
Boan                   Bruce                  Chamblee
Clyborne               Cooper                 Davenport
Elliott                Faber                  Fair
Felder                 Gentry                 Glover
Gordon                 Harwell                Hayes
Hearn                  Hodges                 Huff
Jaskwhich              Keegan                 Keyserling
Lanford                Littlejohn             Manly
McCain                 McEachin               McGinnis
McKay                  Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Nettles                Quinn
Rogers, J.             Rudnick                Sheheen
Townsend               Vaughn                 Washington
Wells                  Wilder                 Wilkins
Wofford                Wright

So, the House refused to adjourn.

SECTION 33. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-6-16. The State Board of Education in consultation with the Business-Education Subcommittee shall appoint a leadership network of representatives from the private sector. The leadership network shall assist the State Board of Education business-education partnership program by: (1) promoting business-education partnerships, (2) evaluating business-education partnerships, (3) disseminating the benefits of business-education partnerships, and (4) formulating recommendations on goals and activities for the business-education partnership program. The leadership network shall meet at least quarterly and make regular reports to the Business-Education Subcommittee, State Board of Education, and Select Committee."

SECTION 34. Section 59-5-65 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"(14) work with the leadership network established pursuant to Section 59-6-16."

Rep. BEASLEY explained the Section.

Section 34 was adopted.

SECTION 35. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 12-35-525. All proceeds accruing to the state pursuant to federal law or decision of the courts providing for or authorizing the imposition of the state sales and use taxes upon interstate sales of tangible personal property to persons in this state must be used exclusively for construction, renovation, or repair of school facilities for students in public preschool, elementary, and secondary educational programs."

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the Section.

Rep. McTEER raised the Point of Order that Section 35 was out of order as it was not germane under Article III of the Constitution.

The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the Section out of order.

SECTION 36. All costs of implementing the provisions of this act must be paid from funds appropriated for that purpose by the General Assembly. The programs of this act must be implemented to the extent possible using funds appropriated by the General Assembly, but no provision of this act is mandatory beyond the appropriation provided by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section prohibits local school districts from implementing programs similar to or as described in this act on the district's initiative.

Section 36 was adopted.

Rep. TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc. No. 4947U), which was adopted.

Amend the Report of the Education and Public Works Committee, as and if amended, by adding a new, appropriately numbered section in Division XI after Section 36 to read:

Amend the Report of the Education and Public Works Committee, as and if amended, by adding a new, appropriately numbered section in Division XI after Section 36 to read:

/SECTION_____. The State Board of Education shall contract with the Division of Human Resource Management of the Budget and Control Board to conduct a staffing analysis to determine the level of staffing and the position classifications and pay grades of additional staff required to implement the provisions of this act. Until the study is completed and new positions for implementation of this act authorized by the General Assembly, the State Board of Education may only employ new personnel to implement the provisions of this act on a temporary or special contract services basis. The state employee grievance procedure act shall not apply to personnel employment on a temporary or special contract services basis under this section./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

Section 36, as amended, was adopted.

SECTION 37. The divisional headings and the analysis lines under each division heading are for information purposes only and are not part of the respective sections of this act.

SECTION 38. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor, except for Section 6 of Division IV which shall take effect on July 1, 1989, and apply to persons applying for driver's licenses, beginner's permits, or special restricted driver's licenses after June 30, 1989./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Section 38 was adopted.

Rep. BEASLEY proposed the following Amendment No. 23 (Doc. No. 5022U), which was adopted.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 38 and inserting:

/SECTION 38. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Section 38, as amended, was adopted.

Rep. J. ROGERS moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. RUDNICK raised the Point of Order that fifteen minutes had not elapsed since a similar motion was made, which point was sustained by the chair.

Rep. TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc. No. 4512U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, by adding a new section to be appropriately numbered which shall read:

/SECTION_____. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-65-75. The board of trustees of a school district is empowered to enforce the compulsory attendance laws through the imposition of a civil fine against parents or guardians who fail to cause their children or wards within the ages specified in Section 59-65-10 to regularly attend school. If a parent or guardian has been notified by school officials that his child or ward has three consecutive unlawful absences or a total of five unlawful absences and the child or ward accumulates three additional unlawful absences, the parent or guardian is considered to have failed to cause his child or ward to regularly attend school, unless the parent or guardian shows he made reasonable efforts to obtain the child or ward's attendance and the child or ward's absences were without the knowledge or consent of the parent or guardian. The fine which may be imposed is fifteen dollars per day of unlawful absence occurring after notification of the parent or guardian by school officials. In lieu of a fine, a board of trustees or its designee may allow or require the parent or guardian to bring the child to school and remain at school through the school day for a number of days equivalent to the number of days for which a fine may be imposed. Proceedings to impose the fine must be in accordance with the State Administrative Procedures Act. Any fines collected by a school board must be retained by the board and expended in a manner to reduce its number of dropouts or to recover dropouts."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.

Rep. WELLS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 4 (Doc. No. 4510U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, by adding a new section to be appropriately numbered which shall read:

/SECTION_____. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-65-75. The board of trustees of a school district is empowered to enforce the compulsory attendance laws through the imposition of a civil fine against parents or guardians who fail to cause their children or wards within the ages specified in Section 59-65-10 to regularly attend school. If a parent or guardian has been notified by school officials that his child or ward has three consecutive unlawful absences or a total of five unlawful absences and the child or ward accumulates three additional unlawful absences, the parent or guardian is considered to have failed to cause his child or ward to regularly attend school, unless the parent or guardian shows he made reasonable efforts to obtain the child or ward's attendance and the child or ward's absences were without the knowledge or consent of the parent or guardian. The fine which may be imposed is ten dollars per day of unlawful absence occurring after notification of the parent or guardian by school officials. In lieu of a fine, a board of trustees or its designee may allow or require the parent or guardian to bring the child to school and remain at school through the school day for a number of days equivalent to the number of days for which a fine may be imposed. Proceedings to impose the fine must be in accordance with the State Administrative Procedures Act. Any fines collected by a school board must be retained by the board and expended in a manner to reduce its number of dropouts or to recover dropouts."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.

Rep. WELLS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to by a division vote of 61 to 9.

Rep. TOWNSEND proposed the following Amendment No. 5 (Doc. No. 4514U), which was tabled.

Amend the report of the Committee on Education and Public Works, as and if amended, by adding a new section to be appropriately numbered which shall read:

/SECTION______. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 59-65-75. The board of trustees of a school district is empowered to enforce the compulsory attendance laws through the imposition of a civil fine against parents or guardians who fail to cause their children or wards within the ages specified in Section 59-65-10 to regularly attend school. If a parent or guardian has been notified by school officials that his child or ward has three consecutive unlawful absences or a total of five unlawful absences and the child or ward accumulates three additional unlawful absences, the parent or guardian is considered to have failed to cause his child or ward to regularly attend school, unless the parent or guardian shows he made reasonable efforts to obtain the child or ward's attendance and the child or ward's absences were without the knowledge or consent of the parent or guardian. The fine which may be imposed is five dollars per day of unlawful absence occurring after notification of the parent or guardian by school officials. In lieu of a fine, a board of trustees or its designee may allow or require the parent or guardian to bring the child to school and remain at school through the school day for a number of days equivalent to the number of days for which a fine may be imposed Proceedings to impose the fine must be in accordance with the State Administrative Procedures Act. Any fines collected by a school board must be retained by the board and expended in a manner to reduce its number of dropouts or to recover dropouts."/

Renumber sections to confirm.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. TOWNSEND explained the amendment.

Rep. WELLS moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.

Rep. FARR proposed the following Amendment No. 21 (Doc. No. 4998U).

Amend the committee report, as and if amended DIVISION II, page 0321-4, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION . The State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations to ensure that all school districts offer a clearly defined program of career development, kindergarten through grade 12, including vocational schools beginning in school year 1991-92./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Rep. FARR explained the amendment.

Rep. WHIPPER moved to table the amendment.

Rep. FARR demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.

The House refused to table the amendment by a division vote of 32 to 43.

Rep. FOSTER was recognized.

Rep. RAMA moved that the House do now adjourn.

Rep. BEASLEY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Alexander, M.O.        Alexander, T.C.        Bailey, G.
Bailey, J.             Bailey, K.             Barber
Baxley                 Blackwell              Blanding
Boan                   Brown, H.              Brown, R.
Bruce                  Burch                  Burriss, M.D.
Chamblee               Cole                   Corbett
Cork                   Corning                Faber
Fant                   Farr                   Ferguson
Foster                 Gentry                 Glover
Gordon                 Harris, J.             Harvin
Harwell                Hendricks              Hodges
Huff                   Kay                    Keesley
Keyserling             Lanford                Littlejohn
Lockemy,               Martin, L.             McBride
McKay                  McTeer                 Nettles
Rama                   Rhoad                  Rogers, T.
Sharpe                 Sheheen                Short
Simpson                Smith                  Snow
Waldrop                Whipper                Wilder
Wilkes                 Williams, J.           Wofford

Those who voted in the negative are:

Altman                 Baker                  Beasley
Brown, J.              Clyborne               Cooper
Davenport              Derrick                Fair
Felder                 Haskins                Hayes
Hearn                  Jaskwhich              Keegan
Manly                  McEachin               McElveen
McGinnis               Moss                   Neilson
Nesbitt                Quinn                  Rogers, J.
Rudnick                Townsend               Vaughn
Waites                 Wells                  Wilkins
Wright

So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.

Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of Amendment No. 21, Rep. FOSTER having been recognized.

The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:

H. 4092 -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF TERRY C. SCARBOROUGH OF LEE COUNTY.

H. 4093 -- Reps. Wright and Wilder: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF THE LATE MR. HORACE MCLAIN OF BLACKVILLE IN BARNWELL COUNTY.

At 5:00 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. RAMA adjourned to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:23 P.M.