Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 1:00 P.M. Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Rev. Henry Payne, Pastor of Bel Ridge Baptist Church in Belvedere.
Heavenly Father, Creator and Sustainer of all life, we ask thee now to be present, and to guide and direct the proceedings of this Body of lawmakers. May each seek your wisdom as they decide matters that will affect so many across our state. We not only pray for this particular Body, but for all our state leaders, and the leaders of our great country. We make these petitions in the name of Jesus, and for His Names sake. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
The flowers on the podium this week are provided in memory of my wife, Arlene, Chick Rice, and other members who have passed away; and the servicemen who gave their lives in defense of their country.
Rep. JARVIS KLAPMAN
The following was received.
TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: John I. Rogers, III
Chairman, Judicial
Screening Committee
DATE: May 29, 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,
John I. Rogers, III
Chairman
/s/ Sen. Thomas H. Pope, Vice-Chairman
/s/ Sen. Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Sen. John A. Martin
/s/ Sen. Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
Pursuant to Act 119 of 1976, this committee was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain Judicial positions.
The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.
There is a contested race for the position of Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3, held by Judge J. Clator Arrants who has retired. Three candidates are seeking election. A brief summary of the background of each candidate is as follows:
William R. Byars, Jr.: (Camden, South Carolina) He was born in Charleston, South Carolina and is 44 years old. He is married and has three children. He graduated from Louisiana State University in 1967 and earned J.D. degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1972. He is a partner in the private law firm of Savage, Royall, Kinard, Sheheen and Byars and has been County Attorney for Kershaw County since 1975.
Rolly Warren Jacobs: (Camden, South Carolina) He was born in Nashville, Tennessee and is 42 years old. He is married and has two children. He graduated from Washington & Lee University in 1968 and earned his J.D. degree for the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974. He is sole proprietor of his own law firm in the general practice of law, since 1980 and has been the Master-in-Equity for Kershaw County since 1978.
Michael E Stegner: (Camden, South Carolina) He was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and is 44 years old. He is married and has three children. He graduated from St. Vincent College, Latrobe, Pennsylvania in 1968 and earned his J.D. degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1978. He was the Public Defender for Kershaw County from 1983 till January of this year and has been a partner in the law firm of Furman, Speedy & Stegner since 1981.
Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the committee by this report respectfully submits its findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.
The report consists of the Transcripts of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held at the State House on May 25, 1989, and the portions of the documents submitted by the respective candidates which were made part of the public record. Each candidate filed an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and was subject to a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in 402B Blatt Building until the date and time of the election.
The candidates were present at the screening and testified under oath.
REP. ROGERS: I WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE TO ORDER. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS AND THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT WE WILL GENERALLY FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE: I WILL CALL THE APPLICANTS. I WILL ASK YOU TO BE SWORN. STEVE BATES WILL HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS AND IF ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAS ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WE WILL THEN HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE WILL TRY TO GET THE TRANSCRIPT READY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE NEXT WEEK SO THAT IT CAN BE PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE SENATE AND OF THE HOUSE NEXT WEEK ONE DAY AND AIM TOWARDS SETTING THIS ELECTION FOR THE DAY THAT WE COME BACK TO TAKE UP VETOES, WHICH WE ARE THINKING WILL PROBABLY BE THE 20TH ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE THE WEEK BEFORE. WITH THAT, I WOULD--THE ONLY OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE, I WILL PROVIDE THAT THE PERSONAL DATA SUMMARY THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE JOURNAL AS A MATTER OF COURSE AS WE HAVE DONE IN OTHER CASES. THE FIRST APPLICANT, GOING BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER, IS WILLIAM BYARS. MR. BYARS, WILL YOU COME FORWARD.
(WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR., CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS.)
1. William R. Byars, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
200 Hunt Trace P.O. Drawer 10
Camden, SC 29020 1111 Church Street
Camden, SC 29020
2. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on February 9, 1945.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****
4. He married Camille Losse on May 28, 1967. They have 3 children: W. Robert, III, age 17, Nathan Wade, age 12, and John Rees, age 10.
5. Military Service: He served in the Military Intelligence branch of the U.S. Army, active duty from August 1967 through August, 1969, SN 05431734. He was a Lt II Field Force in Vietnam, receiving the Army Commendation Medal and Bronze Star. He was honorably discharged as a Captain, Military Intelligence, U.S. Army Reserve, in February, 1976.
6. He received a Degree in Government from Louisiana State University in 1967 and a JD Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1972.
8. Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Law Firm of Savage, Royall, Kinard and Sheheen 1972-present
County Attorney, Kershaw County 1975-present
Practice is divided into two distinct areas, normal small town trial practice of representing clients in Family and Circuit Court and representing businesses or associations on a local or state level. Trial practice has consisted primarily of criminal defense cases, Family Court matters and plaintiff's litigation, with a fair amount of defending cases in the Court of Common Pleas.
9. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal infrequent
State - frequent
10. Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 40% Criminal: 20% Domestic: 40%
11. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 50% Non-Jury: 50%
Sole counsel except for a few very serious criminal cases in which he was chief counsel.
12. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
a) State vs. Joe Brown 1979 Joe Brown, a Kershaw County native residing in Harrisburg, PA and employed as an Assistant Principal at a Harrisburg school was charged with attempted murder. The victim, Dan Hawkins, Jr., was ambushed and shot 3 times with a high powered rifle in the chest, arm and leg in Sumter County. Hawkins had previously been married to the defendant's sister, had been charged originally with her murder, entered a plea of involuntary manslaughter, served a short time in prison and was released. Joe Brown was in Camden attending the funeral of a brother who had been murdered. Hawkins alleged that while traveling home, a vehicle passed him in which Joe Brown was a passenger, and Brown proceeded to fire from the rear of the vehicle into the vehicle driven by Hawkins. Hawkins was hit, stopped his vehicle and attempted to run. He then alleged that Brown continued after him and he sought refuge in a store. Hawkins alleged that he recognized Joe Brown. Additionally, another witness on his way to church saw the ambush and later identified Joe Brown as the assailant. Joe Brown appeared to be a fine family man with a good career and had no prior history of trouble. He admitted he was in South Carolina at the time of the incident and did own a vehicle similar to the one described as the assault vehicle.
When the case came to trial, the courtroom was highly guarded since there was bad blood between the Hawkins family and the Brown family. The Hawkins family hired a private attorney to help prosecute the case. At the beginning of the trial, the independent witness gave a very melodramatic identification of Joe Brown, then pointed to one of his brothers at the back of the Courtroom as the driver of the vehicle, after which police from all around the room surrounded the person identified as well as the defense table. Counsel moved for and was granted a mistrial.
When the trial resumed in Sumter, he continued to represent Joe Brown and a co-counsel represented his brother, now also indicted for attempted murder. The case was based on motive, opportunity, placement of Brown in the State of South Carolina, the similarity of the vehicles described, the eye witness identifications and other evidence which made the State's case very strong. Feelings continued to run high between the two families. In order to establish a defense, it was necessary to reconstruct the entire day for Joe Brown and his brother. The defense called over 20 witnesses from Camden and Columbia to establish the whereabouts of the Brown brothers throughout the day, using witnesses who were friends and witnesses who were strangers, merely having business dealings with them that day. Time studies were also presented to show that the Browns could not have made a side trip to Sumter in order to ambush the victim. The Browns would never authorize any discussions of a plea. The State's case was very strong with the identification by the victim and the independent identification as well as the other facts supporting the State's case. Conversely, the defense's case was also very strong with family members and non-family members providing solid alibis for the Browns who were found not guilty.
The significance of the case is that Joe Brown was able to return to being Assistant Principal in Harrisburg, PA and to residing with his family. The significance to the community was that this case which took several months and two trials to dispose of was exhaustive enough to all parties that the feud between the Brown family and the Hawkins family has not resurfaced, perhaps because the courts provided an outlet for the hate and anger that had been seething beneath the surface for years between these two families.
b) Jeanette H. Griffiths vs. Mark W. Griffiths 78-DR-28-193 This case began in 1978 and continues as an active case today. Jeanette and Mark Griffiths were a young married couple with two children whose marriage ended in divorce in 1978. Mark Griffiths who was unrepresented by counsel in the divorce proceedings gave virtually everything to Jeanette and agreed to substantial support payments. Afterwards, as problems mounted, Mark quit his job and disappeared. Mr. Byars was requested by phone by an uncle on the west coast to represent Mark, who by this time was thousands of dollars behind in his child support payments. He was a very pleasant personable young man, but very frightened and confused. After he turned himself in and was incarcerated, they were able to get him released and establish an arrearage payment schedule. Mr. Byars assisted in getting him a job with the Kershaw County Tax Assessor's office. Through the years there have been numerous hearings in the case. His support was high, his arrearage high and his income low. Communications between the parties is non-existent. Over the years she has used four different attorneys in various contempt actions against him. Both parties are remarried and she continues with regularity, to bring actions against Mark. Her allegations have generally been determined by the court to be unfounded and she has been admonished for her attitude toward him. The young man, Mark Griffiths, who fled and was sentenced to serve time in the Kershaw County Jail, is now the Deputy Tax Assessor for Kershaw County. He has, through hard work, established a new and successful life for himself. His ex-wife is currently threatening to take him back to court again.
c) Pervese Akhtar d/b/a Circle Mobil vs. Bird Oil Company, Inc. Common Pleas No. 84-CP-07-1487 and Bird Oil Company, Inc. vs. Pervese Akhtar d/b/a Circle Mobil Federal Court No. 2:86-1327-2.
This action was commenced by Pervese Akhtar by the filing and serving of the summons and complaint on September of 1984, in the Court of Commons Pleas in Beaufort County and arose out of a lease between the two parties dated January 12, 1982, in which Bird Oil Co. (Bird) was a "franchisor" and Akhtar was a "franchisee" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Practices Act). Akhtar had been leasing a Mobil service station from Bird while Bird wholesaled Mobil gasoline to Akhtar which was then sold to the public. Akhtar alleged a breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act; fraud; unfair trade practices; and monopoly of the gasoline market. Bird counterclaimed and alleged that it was entitled to have the agreement terminated for violation of material terms of the contract.
The state court action was ultimately terminated after it was reinstituted in federal court. Just prior to trial, it was discovered that the petroleum tanks located at the Mobil station in question had been leaking, resulting in soil contamination. A settlement agreement was entered into under which Akhtar would purchase the station, Bird would be relieved of any obligation to supply gas products, and Bird would be responsible for the first $100,000.00 of the clean-up costs. After clean-up costs greatly exceeded $100,000.00, Akhtar refused to honor the settlement, alleging Bird and others had conspired to inflate the cost and/or had been negligent in the clean-up process and maintaining that he was responsible for only the purchase price of the property. Motions to compel settlement ensued, with a two day hearing resulting, which included expert testimony concerning clean-up techniques and soil contamination, among other items. The court issued an order instructing Akhtar to pay all clean-up costs above $100,000.00, in early 1989. In response to a motion for reconsideration by Akhtar, a new court order was issued on May 19, 1989, which basically reaffirmed the previous order. This case is one of the first major site pollution cases in S.C. It is significant in that its genesis was the profit margin squeeze on the retailer level of the petroleum industry. The case has sparked review by the industry of the various services available and development of a list of companies with sufficient expertise to manage a site clean-up on a turnkey basis.
d) State v. Bobby Pope. In this case, a child under the age of 14 alleged that the defendant engaged on a number of occasions in criminal sexual conduct of the first degree and lewd acts upon a minor. The defendant was a churchgoing man, with no prior offenses, married, and the father of two daughters. The little girl involved lived in the neighborhood and was a friend of one of his daughters. In the defense of Mr. Pope, it was necessary to take each individual allegation of the girl, break it down as to time and then determine whether the act could have occurred then or at some other time. Evidence was offered to refute the allegations of the girl through the introduction of physical evidence and the testimony of others.
One of the arguments of the State was that the minor could not have known the specifics of the sexual acts alleged had they not occurred. He and co-counsel Rolly Jacobs were able to establish that the parents of the minor child rented x-rated movies and that the minor's brother would sneak into the house and watch the movies and that he sometime would find the little girl behind him, also watching them. Subpoenas were issued to all movie rental stores in Camden and a list was obtained of all movies rented by the family. Copies of several of the movies were located and viewed. They found several of the specific acts alleged by the girl depicted in the movies. They were also able to establish that the minor had a history of lying in school and apparently had a very vivid imagination. They were able, finally, to establish a motive in that the little girl no longer wished to reside with her father, but with her mother who had recently moved back to the State. When time for her visitation was up with her mother, she informed her mother that she did not want to go back home and offered the allegations against the defendant as the reason. The jury verdict was not guilty on all counts except one in which there was a hung jury. That charge was later dismissed.
He has defended a number of cases brought by young teenage girls alleging criminal sexual conduct or lewd acts upon a minor. An investigation often reveals that some of these children are very troubled, have a history of lying in school, and are often the subject of child abuse in their home or either starved for attention and have no real understanding of the consequences that their false accusations may have upon the accused.
e) State v. Manny Lee Law, 244 S.E.2d 302 (1978). This case involved an escaped mental patient. Law had several legal problems and was confined to the State Mental Institution. He walked away from the institution and returned to the Florence area where he was alleged to have brutally killed a man during the commission of an armed robbery. He was subject to a huge manhunt in Florence County. Because of inflamed public opinion, venue was changed to Kershaw County, where attorney Byars was appointed to serve as co-counsel with the public defender from Florence County and took an active role. At the end of trial, the jury deliberated all night, returning a verdict the next morning of guilty. The defendant was sentenced to die based on a statute that provided for that sentence if murder was committed in the commission of an armed robbery.
They appealed on several grounds including one asserting that the statute was unconstitutional. The State maintained that Law was not mentally ill and offered testimony of a psychiatrist to rebut the argument on appeal relating to the mental capacity of the defendant. The basic thrust of the many varied exceptions by the defendant was that when the State maintains that a defendant is not mentally ill the State cannot forcibly administer personality altering drugs to the person without his or someone acting in his behalf's consent. The court held that the State can administer medication to a defendant without his consent under compelling circumstances. The State did not describe compelling circumstances except to say that it included an instance where the medication was necessary to render a defendant competent to stand trial. The Supreme Court held the death penalty statute in effect at the time of the crime unconstitutional. Manny Lee Law's sentence was reduced to life imprisonment.
14. Public Office: Elected to county-wide school district Board in 1980, reelected in 1984 and 1988, with current term expiring in 1992. Elected by members as Chairman in 1987, 1988, and 1989.
16. He is part owner of Camden Colonial Florist, Camden. He owns 30% of the stock in the corporation and serves as director, though he is uninvolved in the day to day operations.
He also is part owner (1/3 of the stock) of Happy Jack, Inc., a wholesale distributor of citrus products in North and South Carolina.
21. Sued: Yes. a) Ex-Parte, Wendy Rabon, a Minor vs. Kershaw County School District and Board of Trustees, Collectively, et at. Listed as an individual defendant with all other School Board members. The matter involved a minor child injured on a school ground. Settlement was reached in this case and this matter was brought for court approval of a minor's settlement.
b) Federal National Mortgage Association vs. John M. Counts, Shirley D. Counts, Family Credit Services, South Carolina Tax Commission, Savage, Royall, Kinard, Sheheen and Byars as Partners and Individually. The law firm had previously closed a real estate transaction for the defendant, John M. Counts. A check written by Mr. Counts was not honored by the bank. Mr. Counts made part payments on the check, but eventually the law firm brought suit against him and obtained a judgment against him for the balance due. When Mr. Counts did not maintain his mortgage payments, a foreclosure action was brought by the Federal National Mortgage Association. The law firm and each of the partners individually were named as a party defendant inasmuch as they were judgment creditors of Mr. Counts. No judgment was sought nor given against the law firm or him.
c) First Federal Savings and Loan vs. Paul B. Brown Jr., Betty M. Brown, Furman, Speedy and Stegner, a South Carolina Partnership, Dennis J. Norris, Guardian ad Litem for Sonia Dawn Brown, J. Edward Bell, III, Aphrodite Corvalas, Guardian ad Litem for Sonia Dawn Brown, William R, Byars, Jr., Trustee and Gordon L. Mahaffey. This was a foreclosure action brought by First Federal in which he was joined as a party defendant due to a second mortgage he held on the property as trustee. No judgment was sought nor rendered against him.
d) James B. Miller vs. Alice S. Boykin, Dale K. Thiel, William R. Byars, Jr., Camille L. Byars and J. Clator Arrants. James B. Miller brought suit against his tenants-in-common, Alice S. Boykin and Dale K. Thiel, to partition certain acreage that they owned north of Camden. Mr. and Mrs. Byars owned a deeded but unlocated 50 foot easement over and across the acreage for the purposes of ingress and egress and underground utilities. They were joined in this suit for the purposes of locating the easement. J. Clator Arrants, an adjacent landowner, was joined in the case for purposes of determining his rights of ingress and egress.
e) First Federal of South Carolina vs. Clarence Lewis, Marietta C. Lewis and William R. Byars. This was a foreclosure action brought against Clarence and Marietta Lewis; he was joined in this action because of a second mortgage in the amount of $1,800.00 which he held on the property being foreclosed on. No personal judgment was sought nor rendered against him.
23. His health is good.
25. He is nearsighted, with his eyesight corrected to 20/20 with glasses.
26. Currently under treatment for high blood pressure by Dr. John B. DuBose, 1344 Haile Street, Camden, SC 29020.
30. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Kershaw County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, 1985-1988: Member, West Wateree Rotary Club; Member, Kershaw Lodge 29 AMF; Member and Former Deacon, First Baptist Church, Camden; Member, American Legion; Member and Board of Directors, Committee of 100; Member and Instructor, Leadership Kershaw County.
33. Five letters of reference:
(a) R. Donald Terrell, Vice President
Citizens & Southern National Bank
P.O. Box 250
Camden, SC 29020
(b) Reverend James D. Goodroe
First Baptist Church, 1201 Board Street
Camden, SC 29020
(c) James W. DeBruhl
2317 Moultrie Road
Camden, SC 29020
(d) Sheriff L.L. Hector DeBruhl
P.O. Box 75
Camden, SC 29020
(e) Superintendent Robert L. Falls
Kershaw County School District, DuBose Court
Camden, SC 29020
Q. MR. BYARS, DID YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US?
A. YES, SIR, I DID.
Q. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THE SUMMARY THAT NEEDED CLARIFICATION OR ELABORATION?
A. NO, SIR, I FOUND THE SUMMARY TO BE ACCURATE.
Q. ALL RIGHT, SIR. IN CHECKING WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE CAMDEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. LIKEWISE, THE RECORDS OF THE SLED CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR, ALSO. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF KERSHAW COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURTS HERE IN COLUMBIA WERE CHECKED. YOU WERE FOUND TO BE A DEFENDANT IN A NUMBER OF SUITS AND I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE CORRECT INFORMATION.
A. CERTAINLY, SIR.
Q. FIRST OF ALL YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE A DEFENDANT AS A MEMBER OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IN A CASE, DICKEY VS. SNELGROVE, IN 1983. I BELIEVE THAT HAD TO DO WITH A TEST THAT WAS GIVEN TO BAND MEMBERS IN THE SCHOOLS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD--IT WAS A KIND OF ADMISSIONS TEST TO BE A BAND MEMBER AND IT WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE MATTHEW PERRY.
A. WELL, THAT WAS ONE I DID NOT LIST. I, FRANKLY, DID NOT RECALL IT. FROM THE SLED INFORMATION IT SAID IT WAS FILED ONE MONTH AND DISMISSED THE NEXT. IT DID INVOLVE SOMEONE WHO DID NOT LIKE THE BAND PRACTICES AS THEY SELECTED PEOPLE. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT I WAS EVER SERVED. I REMEMBER THE CONTROVERSY AND I DO NOT REMEMBER THE SUIT; AND BEING DISMISSED WITHIN ONE MONTH, MAYBE IT WAS DISMISSED BEFORE INDIVIDUALS WERE SERVED.
Q. ALL RIGHT, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS AN EX PARTE CASE, WENDY RABON, A MINOR VS. KERSHAW COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD IN 1983; AND THAT CASE WAS WHERE A MINOR CHILD WAS INJURED ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS AND THEN THERE WAS A MINOR SETTLEMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT.
A. YES, THAT CHILD WAS A FRIEND OF MINE--OR THE CHILD OF A FRIEND OF MINE AND IT WAS A MINOR SETTLEMENT, IT WAS SETTLED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE SCHOOL AND IT HAD TO GET THE COURT APPROVAL BECAUSE IT WAS A MINOR AND I WAS NAMED AS A TECHNICAL DEFENDANT.
Q. ALL RIGHT, SIR. IN 1987 THERE WAS A SUIT, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION VS. COUNTS, ET AL. I BELIEVE YOUR LAW FIRM WAS NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE Y'ALL WERE A JUDGMENT CREDITOR.
A. THAT'S RIGHT, SIR. WE HAD CLOSED A LOAN FOR MR. COUNTS; MR. COUNTS HAD GIVEN US A CHECK-I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CLOSING OF THE LOAN--BUT HIS CHECK BOUNCED AND WE MANAGED TO COLLECT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DOLLARS LATER WITH SOME STILL DUE. WE GOT A JUDGMENT AGAINST MR. COUNTS AND WHEN MR. COUNTS WAS LATER FORECLOSED UPON, WE WERE NAMED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT FOR THAT PURPOSE.
Q. ALL RIGHT, SIR. IN 1987, ALSO, THERE WAS A CASE, FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN VS. BROWN, ET AL. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALSO A FORECLOSURE ACTION AND YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF YOUR STATUS AS A SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDER IN THE CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. THAT CASE HAS SOME HISTORY IN TOWN. THERE WERE SEVERAL LAW FIRMS THAT WERE INVOLVED AND A NUMBER OF US SECURED OUR POSITION WITH INTEREST IN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY; SO, WHEN THAT FORECLOSURE CAME, THE LAW FIRMS WERE NAMED, YES.
Q. IN 1987 MILLER VS. BOYKIN, ET AL.; YOU LISTED THAT AS A SUIT IN WHICH YOU WERE A DEFENDANT. IT WAS A SUIT AGAINST TENANTS IN COMMON OF A PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF AN EASEMENT THAT YOU AND YOUR WIFE OWNED THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?
A. YES, SIR, THE THREE OTHER PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BEING PARTITIONED BROUGHT THE SUIT. WE WERE JOINED, MY WIFE AND I, ALONG WITH JUDGE CLAYTOR ARRANTS; WE OWNED A JOINT PIECE OF PROPERTY; WE HAD AN UNLOCATED EASEMENT THROUGH IT AND AS PART OF THE ACTION OF THE COURT LOCATED OUR EASEMENT.
Q. 1988, FIRST FEDERAL VS. LEWIS; THIS WAS ALSO A FORECLOSURE ACTION IN WHICH YOU WERE A DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF YOUR STATUS AS A SECOND MORTGAGE HOLDER ON THE PROPERTY.
A. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AND ALL OF THESE CASES, EITHER I OR MY LAW FIRM WERE JOINED, OR AS A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, AS A TECHNICAL DEFENDANT. IN NONE OF THE CASES WAS ANYBODY SEEKING ANY JUDGMENT FROM ME OR ANY ACTION AGAINST ME.
MR. BATES: ALL RIGHT, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THESE WERE CASES THAT DID NOT--THE LAST FIVE THAT DID NOT COME OUT IN THE SLED REPORT AND THAT MR. BYARS VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED TO US.
Q. IN LOOKING OVER YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IT WAS FOUND THAT BESIDES YOUR SALARY AS A SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE THAT THERE WERE NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS YOUR FIRST SCREENING HEARING, IS IT NOT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU CURRENTLY ARE SERVING ON THE KERSHAW COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AS CHAIRMAN.
A. THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
Q. AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR KERSHAW COUNTY.
A. YES, SIR.
MR. BATES: WE HAVE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY IN REGARDS TO YOUR APPLICATION TO THE FAMILY COURT SEAT IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 3. I TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN NOW FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
REP. ROGERS: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.
SENATOR POPE: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
REP. ROGERS: SENATOR POPE.
Q. I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU, MR. BYARS. I'M GOING TO ASK ALL THE CANDIDATES THESE QUESTIONS. WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE, BUT I'M CONCERNED, AND I'M SURE THAT AS A PRACTICING LAWYER THAT YOU HAVE ENCOUNTERED ON OCCASION THE CONDITION CALLED "ROBEITIS" WHICH IS THE CONDITION I TERM AS A PERSON THAT WHEN HE GETS THAT ROBE ON HIM AND SOMETIMES HIS TEMPERAMENT SORT OF GETS PUT ON THE BACK BURNER, AND I KNOW THAT LITIGANTS AND LAWYERS FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE COMPLAINED THAT JUDGES DEVELOP AN ARROGANCE ON THE BENCH AND I'M SURE THAT YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF QUALIFIED, AS DO THE OTHER TWO GENTLEMEN, OR YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE; WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS KEEPING A GOOD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT ON THE BENCH?
A. WELL, SIR, I AM AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVE ALL BEEN SUBJECTED TO THAT FROM TIME TO TIME, I'M SURE. ONE, THAT IS NOT MY PERSONALITY AND, OF COURSE, THERE IS GENERALLY NO WAY FOR THE LEGISLATORS TO KNOW THAT BUT THAT IS GENERALLY NOT MY PERSONALITY. I GUESS WHAT I WOULD DO, TO TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU, I HAVE BEEN ELECTED IN COUNTYWIDE ELECTIONS THREE TIMES AND I HAVE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THREE TERMS. AS WITH ANY SCHOOL BOARD, WE HAVE OUR CONTROVERSIES AND WE'RE GOING THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGES. AND WE HAVE HAD OCCASIONS WHERE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE HAVE COME, THE ISSUES ARE VERY DIVISIVE AND THEY ARE VERY EMOTIONAL, AND I HANDLE THE GAVEL; AND THERE ARE PEOPLE ON MY BOARD WITH WHOM I HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES. WE DID OUR OWN SELF-EVALUATION A FEW MONTHS AGO WITH THE HELP OF THE SCHOOL BOARD'S ASSOCIATION AND THE THING THAT EVERYONE SCORED ME, OR SCORED THE BOARD THE HIGHEST ON WAS THE FACT THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS FAIR TO EVERYONE, THAT HE ALLOWED EVERYBODY, EVEN THOSE WITH OPPOSING VIEWS, TO STATE THEIR OPINIONS. I RUN A MEETING AND I AM ABLE TO KEEP CONTROL. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH ME. I AM ABLE TO DO THAT BUT I WAS ALSO PLEASED TO KNOW THAT EVEN THAT THOSE WHO DISAGREED WITH ME PHILOSOPHICALLY FELT THAT I RAN THE MEETING FAIRLY, AND I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE A HISTORY OF DOING THAT. I HAVE CONDUCTED A FEW OTHER HEARINGS AS SORT OF A--FROM GROUPS THAT I REPRESENTED, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD MAYBE A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND I HAVE CONDUCTED THOSE, ALSO. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT MY PERSONALITY TO BE THAT WAY AND I AM AWARE OF THE "ROBEITIS" SYNDROME.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.
REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?
REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
REP. ROGERS: MR. JACOBS.
(ROLLY WARREN JACOBS, CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3, WAS DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS.)
1. Rolly Warren Jacobs
Home Address: Business Address
418 Lafayette Way P.O. Box 664
Camden, SC 29020 612 Lafayette Avenue
Camden, SC 29020
2. He was born in Nashville, Tennessee on August 26, 1946.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****
4. He married Karen Lee Ponist on September 16, 1972. They have 2 children: Collin Wayne, age 14, and Tyler Warren, age 12.
5. Military Service: He was a Captain in the Regular Army from June, 1968 to June, 1972. (OF 114978, #***-**-*****) Honorable Discharge.
6. He received a B.A. Degree in Economics from Washington & Lee University in 1968 and a JD Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974.
8. Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Associate - Carl R. Reasonover, General Practice 1975-1977
Partner - Reasonover & Jacobs 1977-1980
Sole Proprietor, General Practice 1980-present
9. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - once
State - 500 times
10. Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 07% Criminal: 05% Domestic: 88%
11. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 05% Non-Jury: 95%
sole counsel 97% of the time
12. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
a) Triminal vs. Triminal, 339 SE 2nd 869, 287 S.C. 495(1986). The husband acquired property prior to his marriage, partly by gift, partly by purchase. The title was never held jointly, but over the fifteen years of marriage the initial $10,000 mortgage was paid - mostly from a deduction from husband's paycheck, partly at times from the joint account. The Supreme Court decided the use of the property in support of the marriage was sufficient commingling to transmute the home into marital property, thus allowing her a share of its present value, about $66,000. Most prior cases addressed some physical act such as deposit of funds in one name into joint account, transfer of bonds or stocks into joint names, or titling property in joint names as the means to transmute non-marital property. Contributions of funds for improvements by a non-owner's spouse were treated as reimbursable to that spouse. This case established an easier standard for transmuting non-marital property to contributions to the party when the property has been used as the marital home, even though the actual monetary contributions may have been relatively small.
b) Prather vs. Tupper, 230 SE 2nd 712, 267 S.C. 236 (1976). Husband and wife had been divorced. At the hearing, the trial court found the child born during the marriage was not the child of the husband. At a subsequent hearing, wife sought paternity and child support against a third party, purportedly the true father of the child. He was appointed guardian ad litem. In his report he recommended to the court that the prior order as to the child be set aside and that former husband and punitive father be brought before the court for adjudication of their rights and obligations. The Supreme Court adopted the report of the guardian and remanded for further hearings in light of those recommendations, further pointing out and acknowledging the need of an active guardian ad litem to independently represent the child when substantial rights of the child were before the court. This has been adopted by the legislature and the courts and has mandated the use of the guardian ad litem in termination cases, adoption cases and the like.
c) State vs. Bobby F. Pope and the companion case Department of Social Services vs. Bobby F. Pope: Pope was charged with 5 counts of lewd act and one of Criminal Sexual Conduct 1st Degree for instances purportedly happening 2 years prior to a then eleven (11 ) year old female who lived next door. The charges were based on statement of the alleged victim that gave extremely repulsive details. Two actions were commenced: one in Family Court, the other in Criminal Court. Jacobs handled the Family Court matter until it was concluded and dismissed. He participated in both criminal trials, developing the direct examination on behalf of the defendant. At the first trial, the court directed a mistrial because a witness was not audible. The second trial took 3 days, with the defense calling 17 of the 25 witnesses to prove the instances could not have occurred over the 7 months in which they were supposed to have occurred. The trial required a depth of preparation to visualize and relive defendant's day to day activities over the seven months and two years prior. The defendant was acquitted on 5 counts, the last was dismissed.
d) Williams vs. Williams: In 1981 the parties were divorced and the husband was granted custody of their two children. In 1987, he instituted an action to remove the respondent from the house, to gain custody of the two additional children born after the divorce and to declare respondent mentally incompetent, leaving her destitute. Jacobs was appointed by Family Court as Mrs. Williams' guardian ad litem, because of the allegations of mental instability. He filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking to prove a common law marriage, request custody and alimony. There were six or seven temporary hearings and a one day final hearing on the merits, at which time he reintroduced detailed proof that over the years the parties had held out a marriage. The research and investigation required to conform the needed proof to elements required for a common law marriage were quite extensive. Records utilized were sought from agencies, accountants, businesses and included birth records; household and medical insurance; probate court records of involuntary admission to the State Hospital; tax returns for the years; property transfers and county property tax notices to indicate the relationship of the parties. The court found a marriage, granted alimony, but withheld custody pending the wife's continuous treatment and improvement for manic depressive disorder.
e) State vs. Frank Mattox: Defendant was charged with 8 counts of arson - for starting fires that consumed 200 acres of land. Apprehended after a forty-one man manhunt involving airplanes, highway patrol, SLED agents and local deputies, the defendant was a severe alcoholic who was never able to assist in his defense, nor recall the incident, even showing up for his trial intoxicated to the extent of being incoherent. Defense required developing and analyzing the massive amount of circumstantial evidence the State had accumulated, with no assistance from client. It required in excess of sixty hours of investigation and research and ultimately resulted in a directed verdict of acquittal before testimony could be commenced.
13. Judicial Office: Assistant City Judge, October 1975 - October 1977; Master-in-Equity, Kershaw County, General Civil Jurisdiction, Common Pleas, February 1978 - present.
20. Tax Lien: South Carolina Tax Commission Lien; #9402 in the amount of $19.87; filed March 15, 1979: paid and satisfied March 20, 1979. As a self-employed taxpayer, he did not pay quarterly estimates, but rather filed and awaited notice of interest for underpaying quarterly estimates. That year they filed lien before levying the notice.
21. Sued: Yes. He purchased 1/2 interest in his office building from John Ehrenclou, who failed to pay the balance on a mortgage loan. Foreclosure was commenced and Mr. Jacobs paid it off in the amount of $3700.
23. His health is excellent.
26. Currently under treatment for mild Hypertension by Dr. A.T. Holland, 1111 Mill Street, Camden, SC 29020.
30. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Boys Scouts of America; B.P.O.E.; American Legion; Life Member of the Reserve Officers Association; Camden Middle School PTA; Camden High School Academic Boosters Club; Camden High Bulldog Club; United Way; Red Cross Board; Y.M.C.A.; Pi Kappa Alpha.
31. As Master-in-Equity for eleven years, he has heard and decided many civil actions collateral to the problems families incur and he believes this experience will be beneficial as a family court judge.
33. Five letters of reference:
(a) Thomas M. Rose, Jr., Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P.O. Box 460
Camden, SC 29020
(b) Carl R. Reasonover, Esquire
610 Lafayette Avenue
Camden, SC 29020
(c) H. H. Dean Jordan
P.O. Box 666
Camden, SC 29020
(d) J. Marshall Womack
2208 Elkridge Drive
Camden, SC 29020
(e) Ted O. Schmidt
# 1 Dekalb Square
Camden, SC 29020
Q. MR. JACOBS, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU?
A. YES, I HAVE, MR. BATES.
Q. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING THAT NEEDED CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION?
A. NOTHING FROM THE BASIS OTHER THAN THERE WERE TWO LITTLE TYPOGRAPHICALS BUT I THINK THOSE HAVE PROBABLY BEEN CORRECTED ON THE ONES THAT YOU'VE GOT.
Q. ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. YOUR DRIVING RECORD WAS FOUND TO BE CLEAR AS WELL AS THE RECORDS OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OF THE CAMDEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT. LIKEWISE, SLED'S CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK ALSO CAME UP NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF KERSHAW COUNTY AND OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE CHECKED WITH NO RECORDS IN YOUR NAME. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. IT WAS NOTED YOUR SALARY FROM YOUR MASTER-IN-EQUITY POSITION IN KERSHAW COUNTY WAS ON THERE. AND YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS EXCELLENT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION TO THE FAMILY COURT SEAT AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU HERE TODAY. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAVE UNDERGONE THE SCREENING PROCESS, ALSO.
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. YOU DID NOTE FOR US THAT IN 1979 THERE WAS A SOUTH CAROLINA TAX LIEN FILED AGAINST YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $19.87 THAT WAS SATISFIED A FEW DAYS AFTER IT WAS FILED AND YOU PUT A BRIEF EXPLANATION IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THAT TODAY?
A. YES, SIR. DURING MOST OF THOSE TIMES I WAS PAYING QUARTERLY ESTIMATES AT DIFFERENT TIMES. THIS WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE TIME I WENT ON A DRAW FROM THE OFFICE INSTEAD OF BEING AS A PARTNER AT THAT TIME AND THE QUARTERLY ESTIMATES WE WOULD HANDLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE FEDERAL TAXES WOULD CALCULATE THEM AND YOU COULD PAY THE PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR FAILING TO PAY ALL QUARTERLY ESTIMATES ON TIME. AS A MATTER OF COURSE I DID THAT OVER THE YEARS. I THINK A LOT OF SELF-EMPLOYED PEOPLE MIGHT. WITH THE STATE IT WAS EASIER TO WAIT FOR THEM TO SEND YOU THE BILL AND THEN GO AHEAD AND JUST SEND IT BACK. THAT PARTICULAR YEAR I GOT NO BILL BACK FROM THE STATE. I GOT THE LIEN THEY HAD FILED AND I BROUGHT THAT UP TO THE TAX COMMISSION, THAT THEIR STATEMENT SAYS THEY HAVE SERVED YOU WITH THE THING FIRST. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM DO THE PROCEDURE.
Q. YOU ALSO NOTE FOR US THAT YOU HAVE BEEN A DEFENDANT IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION WHERE THE SELLER OF A HALF-INTEREST IN A PROPERTY HAD FAILED TO SATISFY ON A MORTGAGE.
A. THAT'S THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT JUDGE ARRANTS AND I OWN TOGETHER. I BOUGHT THE ONE-HALF INTEREST FROM - JOHN EHRENCLOU. JOHN INDICATED THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO DOWN AND TAKE CARE OF THE LOAN THAT HE HAD ON THE BUILDING. NINE MONTHS LATER I WAS FORECLOSED ON FOR HIS FAILURE TO PAY THE LOAN. IT WAS $3700. FORTUNATELY IT WASN'T A LOT MORE.
Q. YOU ARE CURRENTLY SERVING AS MASTER-IN-EQUITY FOR KERSHAW COUNTY?
A. THAT'S CORRECT. I HAVE BEEN THE MASTER-IN-EQUITY FOR 11 YEARS.
Q. JUST AS A MATTER OF CURIOSITY, HOW MUCH OF YOUR TIME DOES THAT REQUIRE?
A. I WOULD SAY IT REQUIRES 25 TO 35 PERCENT OF THE TIME. IT'S SPORADIC BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE SOME CASES THAT ARE REFERRED--THE MOST COMPLICATED ONE I HAVE HAD IS ONE THAT AROSE OUT OF LEXINGTON COUNTY, RICHLAND COUNTY, THE DEFENDANTS WERE IN KERSHAW COUNTY IT TOOK EIGHT DAYS OF NON-JURY HEARING, 1500 PAGES OF TESTIMONY, 150 EXHIBITS; WITH FIVE LAWYERS INVOLVED. IT WAS ALL SPREAD OUT OVER A PERIOD OF SOME - SEVEN MONTHS. THAT WAS AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME. OTHER CASES ARE VERY, VERY SIMILAR FORECLOSURE CASES. FOR INSTANCE, THE TWO MR. BYARS MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO HIM, I WAS THE JUDGE IN THOSE FORECLOSURE CASES. I WOULD IMAGINE OVER THE PERIOD OF THE 11 YEARS I'VE SERVED AS MASTER I HAVE PRESIDED OVER 1,000 CASES.
MR. BATES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. JACOBS. MR. CHAIRMAN.
REP. ROGERS: SENATOR.
Q. MR. JACOBS, IF YOU ARE ELECTED JUDGE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT YOU DON'T DEVELOP "ROBEITIS"?
A. SENATOR, I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE FOR 13 YEARS OF THE 14 YEARS THAT I'VE PRACTICED. TWO OF THOSE WERE ASSISTANT CITY JUDGE. THE LAST REMAINING 11 HAVE BEEN AS A MASTER-IN-EQUITY. I WOULD THINK YOU COULD EVEN SEE FROM MY FORMER PARTNER WHO WROTE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSING MY QUALITIES ON THE BENCH, I BELIEVE IN THE FAMILY COURT, AS WELL AS IN ANY COURT THAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO BE TREATED, WHETHER THEY ARE LITIGANTS OR WHETHER THEY'RE ATTORNEYS, WITH DIGNITY, COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND COMPASSION. I THINK THE FAMILY COURT ESPECIALLY GENERATES MORE COMPASSION NEEDED AND UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM IN CHANGING FROM ONE JUDGESHIP INTO ANOTHER JUDGESHIP.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.
REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.
A. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
REP. ROGERS: MR. STEGNER.
(MICHAEL E. STEGNER, CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 93, WAS DULY SWORN BY REPRESENTATIVE ROGERS.)
1. Michael E. Stegner
Home Address: Business Address
1508 Lyttleton Street P.O. Drawer 100
Camden, SC 29020 # Lafayette Court
Camden, SC 29020
2. He was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on November 25, 1944.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****
4. He married Harriett Neal Adden on January 20, 1973. They have 3 children: Michael Benjamin, age 11, Craig Matthew, age 8 and Jason Adden, age 5.
5. Military Service: He was a Machinist Mate 2d Class and Engineering Lab Technician on a nuclear submarine with the U.S. Navy from January, 1968 to December, 1973. Honorable Discharge.
6. He received a B.A. Degree in English from St. Vincent College, Latrobe, Pennsylvania in 1968. (He earned 6 credits toward that degree in Temple University Night School) He received a JD Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1978.
8. Legal Experience since graduation from law school:
Law Clerk, Furman and Speedy, August till November, 1978.
Associate, Furman and Speedy, 1978-1981
Partner, Furman, Speedy & Stegner, 1981 till present
Public Defender for Kershaw County, August 1983 till January 1989.
9. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - two or three oral arguments per year before U.S. Magistrate in Social Security cases
State - one week every other month as Public Defender; several times a year in Court of Common Pleas.
Other - one or two hearings per month in Family Court; appeared every other Wednesday in Juvenile Court as Public Defender.
10. Percentage of litigation:
Civil: 26% Criminal: 50% Domestic: 25%
11. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury: 60% Non-Jury: 40%
Sole counsel
12. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
a) Ronald Knight vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., S.C., 374 S.E. 2d 520 (1988), cert. denied. This was a declaratory judgment nonjury action against State Farm to write into client's auto insurance policy underinsurance coverage which had not been offered to him. Trial Court ruled in his favor. State Farm appealed. Court of Appeals ruled that insurer had duty to offer underinsurance coverage each time policy was renewed. This constituted a significant victory for insured persons in the State. The Supreme Court denied State Farm's petition for certioriari.
b) State vs. Woodrow Lee Smith. Client was charged with armed robbery. He was positively identified in a photo lineup and in court by the clerk who was robbed. He insisted he was not guilty. At trial, counsel was able to establish some inconsistencies and discrepancies in the State's case. Although client was on probation for housebreaking and grand larceny, he took the stand to testify. The jury acquitted him after twenty minutes deliberation. Law enforcement later conceded that the wrong man might have been charged.
c) South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Starnes. DSS filed action in Lancaster County Family Court to terminate the parental rights of his clients to their six minor children on the grounds of abandonment and neglect so the children could be placed for adoption. Clients strongly opposed that and wanted their family to remain together. After a contested hearing before a Family Court judge, the judge denied DSS' petition for termination. DSS did not appeal. The clients remained parents.
d) South Carolina Department of Social Services vs. Parker. Client was the mother of a minor child who was taken into protective custody by DSS due to suspected abuse apparently occurring while being watched by stepfather. Stepfather had claimed child slipped under water in bath while left unattended. He slapped child several times on back, which accounted for bruises. Medical report showed no water in child's lungs. At 30 day merits hearing, he was able to get the treating doctor to admit that child could have been under water without getting water in lungs due to spasm of the glottis. He also admitted burns on lower legs could have been accidental due to hot water coming from the spigot turned on by child. Client wanted her child back. DSS wanted placement elsewhere. Court found neglect by stepfather, not abuse, and returned child to its mother.
e) McCloud vs. Gibson. et al. McCloud brought a partition action in the Court of Common Pleas against 40 defendants, including client Gibson. She was the widow of one of the heirs of approximately 100 acres in question. He counterclaimed against plaintiff and cross-claimed against all other defendants, asking that partition be denied and that client be given title to the land under various theories of adverse possession. This was a significant case because of the number of parties and the logistics of discovery and preparing for trial. Also, they had to prove adverse possession, not favored by the law, against other heirs, which is more difficult to do than against strangers. Trial was held before a circuit judge. Attorneys subsequent to trial prepared briefs. The court issued its order denying partition and granting exclusive title to his client due to her having established adverse possession. The order was not appealed.
14. Public Office: Appointed by City Council of Camden to the City Recreation Commission, to serve from July, 1988 to June, 1991.Appointed Public Defender by Kershaw County Public Defender Corp., serving from August, 1983 till January, 1989.
15. Unsuccessful Candidate: Lost a race for City Commissioner of Camden in nonpartisan election in 1988.
16. He is a partner in the law firm of Furman, Speedy & Stegner. His wife is owner and sole stockholder of Tanning World, Inc., and he assists her regarding legal affairs, such as preparing contracts and obtaining needed licenses.
17. Occupations: He was an inside adjuster for Home Insurance Company in Pennsylvania from 1974-1975; He worked with severely retarded and handicapped children at Woods School, Langhorne, Pennsylvania; He was a VISTA volunteer in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Seattle, Washington from 1966-1967.
18. He was assessed a fine approximately 5 years ago for fishing without a license in North Carolina when visiting in-laws who had a trailer near a river.
22. Disciplined: a) Subject of a complaint by a former client, who had thought he had a worker's compensation claim. Upon initial investigation Stegner determined there was not sufficient evidence to warrant filing a claim and the client went elsewhere. He responded as requested to the complaint of not taking client's case. Client was informed by letter that the Board concurred concerning his advice to him.
b) Three post-conviction relief applications have been filing by previous clients/inmates concerning representation by Mr. Stegner as public defender.
The first was voluntarily withdrawn by the inmate before it could be heard. The other two PCR applications are still pending in Circuit Court. Both concern guilty pleas entered by the clients, each of whom claim plea bargain agreements had been made with the State and were not honored. As a result they allege ineffective assistance of counsel. The claims of the inmates are disputed in his response to the Attorney General's Office.
23. His health is very good.
30. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Kiwanis Club of Camden Board Member, Fine Arts Center of Kershaw County; Chairman, Board of Directors, Camden-Kershaw County Child Care Center; Camden Historic Preservation Committee; Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church; Camden Country Club; Camden Camera Club.
31. Member of the Order of Wig and Robe, admitted April, 1977; Member of the South Carolina Law Review.
33. Five letters of reference:
(a) Samuel R. Small, President
First Federal Savings and Loan
P.O. Box 430
Camden, SC 29020
(b) James C. Anders, Solicitor
5th Judicial Circuit, 1701 Main St.
Columbia, SC 29201
(c) William R. Neill, Chief of Police
1000 Lyttleton Street
Camden, SC 29020
(d) Doyle E. Allen
Camden-Kershaw County Recreation Department
Camden, SC 29020
(e) George W. Speedy, Esquire
P.O. Drawer 100
Camden, SC 29020
Q. MR. STEGNER, DID YOU, LIKEWISE, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THE SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE YOU SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE?
A. YES, SIR, I DID.
Q. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THAT THAT NEEDS CORRECTION OR ELABORATION?
A. THE ONLY THING, MY B.A. DEGREE WAS CONFERRED IN 1968 AND NOT 1966. I HAD PLACED 1968 IN THE LETTER BUT I NOTICE IT SAYS 1966 HERE.
Q. DON'T WANT TO ADD ANYMORE YEARS ON TO YOU THAN YOU ARE. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES FILED AGAINST YOU WHILE PRACTICING LAW. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU DID BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A COMPLAINT WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOARD AND THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL ACTION TAKEN. YOUR DRIVING RECORD AND THE RECORDS OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE CAMDEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE NEGATIVE IN YOUR NAME, AS WELL AS THE CRIMINAL RECORDS SECTION AT SLED. YOUR F.B.I. FINGERPRINT CARD HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED YET, AS WITH THE OTHER APPLICANTS. WE WILL DEFINITELY NOTIFY YOU IF ANYTHING COMES UP ON THAT ON ANYBODY. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF KERSHAW COUNTY AND OF THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED. YOU ARE CLEAR IN THOSE AREAS. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SUGGESTS NO CONFLICTING INTERESTS OR OBLIGATIONS. DID NOTE YOUR EMPLOYMENT AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER IN KERSHAW COUNTY. YOUR CREDIT REPORT WAS GOOD. I BELIEVE, ALSO, THIS IS YOUR FIRST AND ONLY APPEARANCE BEFORE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE.
A. YES, IT IS, SIR.
Q. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION TO THE SEAT AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY TODAY IN REGARD TO YOUR APPLICATION. YOU DID ALSO NOTE FOR US, TOO, THAT THERE HAD BEEN THREE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY PREVIOUS CLIENTS WHICH ARE NOW INMATES CONCERNING YOUR REPRESENTATION OF THEM AS PUBLIC DEFENDER; AND I BELIEVE TWO ARE STILL PENDING BUT THE REMAINING ONE BEING DISMISSED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A. YES, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q. AND THE TWO PENDING ONES ALLEGE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS THE BASIS OF P.C.R.'S.
A. YES, SIR.
Q. ALL RIGHT.
A. IF I COULD EXPLAIN.
Q. SURE.
A. THE INMATES CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE SOLICITOR OF THE STATE. THEY PLED GUILTY TO THE OFFENSES OF WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED. PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE STATE AND THEY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE PROMISED PROBATION, I THINK IN BOTH INSTANCES, WHICH WAS NOT TRUE AND I FILED A REPORT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THEY ARE SET TO BE HEARD NEXT WEDNESDAY. IN FACT, MR. BYARS WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT ONE OF THOSE INMATES.
MR. BATES: ALL RIGHT, SIR. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. CHAIRMAN.
Q. JUST BRIEFLY, MR. STEGNER. I WAS INTERESTED IN YOUR BACKGROUND. APPARENTLY YOU WERE AN ADJUSTER WITH THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY AND THEN BECAME A VISTA VOLUNTEER. GENERALLY WHAT DID YOU DO AS A VISTA VOLUNTEER IN MINNESOTA AND WASHINGTON?
A. WELL, MINNESOTA WAS BASICALLY OUR TRAINING GROUND FOR ALL THE VISTA VOLUNTEERS. WE HAD ABOUT A SIX-WEEK TRAINING PROGRAM WITH THE COURSES AND THE SEMINARS AND I WAS SENT TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON AS A VOLUNTEER AND I WORKED AT BASICALLY A BOY'S CLUB IN SEATTLE AND WORKED WITH THE YOUTH THERE AND ORGANIZED PROGRAMS MONITORING YOUTH ACTIVITIES COUNSELING WITH THE YOUTH.
Q. A MARVELOUS ASSIGNMENT.
A. I ENJOYED IT.
Q. I WOULD THINK SO.
REP. ROGERS: SENATOR.
Q. MR. STEGNER, IF YOU ARE ELECTED JUDGE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT YOU DO NOT GET "ROBEITIS"?
A. WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT JUDGES BE UNDERSTANDING AND COMPASSIONATE TOWARDS THE INDIVIDUALS WHO COME BEFORE THEM, PARTICULARLY IN FAMILY COURT WHERE I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS HAVE VERY STRESSFUL PROBLEMS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A FAMILY COURT JUDGE TO SHOW COMPASSION TO THESE INDIVIDUALS, TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DAY IN COURT, AND TO DELIBERATE AS CAREFULLY AS POSSIBLE. I WAS PUBLIC DEFENDER IN KERSHAW COUNTY FOR FIVE-AND-A-HALF YEARS. I RESIGNED THAT POST EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR. AND THAT IS A VERY HIGH STRESS TYPE JOB SITUATION. WE HAD A VERY HEAVY CASE LOAD, I WOULD THINK SIMILAR TO WHAT A FAMILY COURT JUDGE WOULD FACE; AND I THINK THROUGHOUT MY FIVE-AND-A-HALF YEARS I MAINTAINED AS MUCH DIGNITY AS I COULD AND SHOWED AS MUCH COMPASSION AS I COULD TO MY CLIENTS, GAVE ALL OF THEM THE ATTENTION THAT I THINK THEY NEEDED. I WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE CAMDEN KERSHAW COUNTY CHILD CARE CENTER WHEN THAT AGENCY WENT THROUGH A TURBULENT TIME. WE HAD TO PLACE A DIRECTOR OF THAT AGENCY ON PROBATION AND AS CHAIRMAN I HAD TO HOLD THE MEETINGS AND DISCUSS THE SITUATIONS WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS AND WITH THIS PARTICULAR DIRECTOR; AS A RESULT SHE HAD TO RESIGN EVENTUALLY. THERE WERE NO PROTESTS OR ANY TYPE OF SUITS FILED AGAINST OUR BOARD AND I THINK IT WAS HANDLED VERY DIGNIFIED AND WITH RESPECT FOR THE WOMAN CONCERNED. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A FAMILY COURT JUDGE NOT TO GET THAT "ROBEITIS" SYNDROME AND I THINK I'M KNOWN FOR A FAIR AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. THAT IS ONE OF MY GOOD QUALITIES, I BELIEVE.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU.
REP. ROGERS: ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
REP. GENTRY: NO, SIR.
REP. ROGERS: THANK YOU, SIR.
A. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
REP. ROGERS: LET ME SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND ALL THREE OF YOU GENTLEMEN WHO HAVE APPLIED. YOU ARE A CREDIT TO OUR PROFESSION AND YOU ARE A CREDIT TO YOUR BAR, AND I AM SURE THAT ANY ONE OF YOU COULD SERVE WITH DISTINCTION. WE WILL NOW HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A MOMENT AND THEN WE WILL OPEN THE ROOM AGAIN.
REP. ROGERS: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU HAD ANY RESERVATIONS, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS UNANIMOUSLY FOUND ALL THREE CANDIDATES TO BE IMMINENTLY QUALIFIED AND WE WILL BE SUBMITTING A RESOLUTION SETTING THE ELECTION FOR THE DAY THAT WE RETURN TO TAKE UP VETOES WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE THE FIRST OF JUNE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WOULD DECLARE THE HEARING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
The Judicial Screening Committee has investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and finds each to be qualified to seek election.
Candidate Seat Jud. Circuit
William R. Byars, Jr. #3 Fifth
Rolly Warren Jacobs #3 Fifth
Michael E. Stegner #3 Fifth
Respectfully submitted,
John I. Rogers, III, Chairman
/s/ Sen. Thomas H. Pope, III
/s/ Sen. Isadore E. Lourie
/s/ Sen. John A. Martin
/s/ Sen. Glenn F. McConnell
/s/ Rep. Larry E. Gentry
/s/ Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/ Rep. D. Malloy McEachin, Jr.
On motion of Rep. J. ROGERS, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.
The following was received.
May 25, 1989
The Honorable Sandra K. McKinney
Clerk of the S.C. (Doc. No. 863)
House of Representatives
Dear Mrs. McKinney:
The Department of Health and Environmental Control is this date hereby resubmitting Regulation 61-69, concerning Classified Waters: Chattooga River. This Regulation was previously referred to Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Sheheen
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 25, 1989
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senators McLeod, Fielding and Lee of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 643:
S. 643 -- Senator Lindsay: 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.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 25, 1989
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 493:
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).
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 26, 1989
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 789:
S. 789 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-530, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN YORK COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN OF THESE PRECINCTS.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 26, 1989
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 503:
S. 503 -- Senators Land, Moore, Lourie, McLeod, Lindsay, Thomas, Bryan, Mitchell, Rose, 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.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., May 26, 1989
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Senator Leventis vice Senator Setzler of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate on S. 93:
S. 93 - Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-36-1460 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT BY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3532 - Reps. Sharpe and McCain: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-43-10 AND 48-43-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION, DRILLING, TRANSPORTATION, AND PRODUCTION, SO AS TO DEFINE "SANITARY LANDFILL" AND TO REGULATE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO WASTE AND ANTIPOLLUTION ACTIVITIES INVOLVING OIL AND GAS AND TO REGULATE ACTIVITIES RELATING TO METHANE GAS IN AND RELATED TO LANDFILLS.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3707 - Rep. Nettles: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-590, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND DESIGNATED PRODUCERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN APPLICANT MAINTAINING MULTIPLE OFFICES ON JUNE 4, 1987, IS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AS A DESIGNATED AGENT FOR EACH LOCATION HE OWNED AND OPERATED AT THAT TIME AND THROUGH WHICH PREMIUMS OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT WERE WRITTEN.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3872 - Reps. Wilkins, Baxley, Barber, Hodges, Corning, Sheheen, Hayes, Cole, Nettles, Beasley, McEachin and Rudnick: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-5-380 SO AS TO ALLOW STATE-EMPLOYED ATTORNEYS TO ENGAGE IN PRO BONO REPRESENTATION UNDER A PRO BONO PROGRAM ORGANIZED, SPONSORED, OR ENDORSED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR AND TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REPRESENTATION.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3887 - Reps. Snow, Barfield, G. Brown, Bruce and Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 46-13-30 AND 46-13-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PESTICIDE CONTROL, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS AND TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PERSON MAY BE PENALIZED FOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 46-13-55 AND 46-13-185 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL ACTIVITY AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY TO EMPLOY COUNSEL.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3341 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-5630, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO OWNERS AND LIENHOLDERS BY A SHERIFF OR CHIEF OF POLICE WHEN AN ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE NOTICE TO BE SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL IN ADDITION TO REGISTERED MAIL.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3378 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-15-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RECORDS IN SEPARATE BOOKS BY THE SHERIFF, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SHERIFF TO MAINTAIN THESE RECORDS IN A COMPUTER SYSTEM OR TRANSFER THEM TO A MICROFILM SYSTEM INSTEAD OF BEING KEPT IN SEPARATE BOOKS.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 3456 - Reps. M.D. Burriss and T. Rogers: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-23-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING, ADVERTISING, AND RETURNING A PISTOL TO THE PERSON WHO FOUND AND TURNED THE PISTOL IN TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
Rep. BEASLEY, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report, on:
H. 3904 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 56-19-240 AND 56-19-290, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTIFICATES OF TITLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ODOMETER DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS MUST COMPLY WITH FEDERAL GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND TO ELIMINATE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED ON TITLE CERTIFICATES AND ON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Rep. BEASLEY, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:
S. 595 - Senator Macaulay: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-840, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DELINQUENT REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE MONETARY PENALTIES FOR LATE REGISTRATION, AND THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR OPERATING AN UNLICENSED VEHICLE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE MONETARY PENALTIES FOR LATE REGISTRATION MAY NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE LATE REGISTRATION OF CAMPERS OR TRAVEL TRAILERS.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Rep. BEASLEY, from the Committee on Education and Public Works, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:
H. 3903 - Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIFICATIONS OF LICENSE PLATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAY REVALIDATE ALL LICENSE PLATES EXCEPT VEHICLES EXCEEDING TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS BY STICKER OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS UPON PAYMENT OF THE SAME FEE PRESCRIBED FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 811 -- Senators Passailaigue and Bryan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING MR. FRANCIS A. HUMPHRIES OF CHARLESTON COUNTY FOR HIS EXCELLENT SERVICE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY AND WISHING HIM HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS IN HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 813 -- Senator Helmly: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF GEORGE B. BISHOP, SR., OF BERKELEY COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 814 -- Senator Bryan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. DOBBINS, JR., OF LAURENS COUNTY, FORMER MEMBER OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND EXTENDING HEARTFELT SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4117 -- Rep. L. Martin: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF DACUSVILLE RECREATION ASSOCIATION OF PICKENS COUNTY.
On motion of Rep. L. MARTIN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 654 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND, RELATING TO THE RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD VENDING MACHINE PROGRAM, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1081, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
On motion of Rep. MOSS, with unanimous consent, the Joint Resolution was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 784 -- Senator Lourie: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO ERECT CERTAIN DIRECTIONAL SIGNS IN RICHLAND COUNTY RELATING TO THE LOCATION OF THE LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SOUTHERN SEMINARY.
Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
S. 802 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDERS COMMISSION, RELATING TO LICENSE FEES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1122, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
On motion of Rep. G. BAILEY, with unanimous consent, the Joint Resolution was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 803 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, RELATING TO ADVERTISING, RESIDENCE, REQUIREMENT, CREDIT REPORT, BRANCH OFFICE, LICENSING, CLOSING STATEMENTS, EXAMINATIONS, BROKER, SALESMEN AND PROPERTY MANAGERS, HANDLING OF FUNDS, AGE REQUIREMENT, SIGN ON OFFICE, DISPLAY OF LICENSE, FAILURE OF EXAMINATION, MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS, MULTI-UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY, EMPLOYEE DUTIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1100, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
On motion of Rep. G. BAILEY, with unanimous consent, the Joint Resolution was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 804 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO REPEAL ACT 735 OF 1936 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.
Referred to Newberry Delegation.
S. 809 -- Senators Horace C. Smith, J. Verne Smith, Pope, Hayes, Stilwell, Thomas, Lee, O'Dell, Setzler and Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 116 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENTS OF PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE STATE AND THEIR CAMPUS POLICE OFFICERS TO EXERCISE LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS INCLUDING THE POWER TO ARREST AND TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING STANDARDS FOR THE OFFICERS INCLUDING ATTENDANCE AT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
S. 812 - Senator Gilbert: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF THE BOYS CLUB OF FLORENCE.
On motion of Rep. McEACHIN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
On motion of Rep. L. MARTIN, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4117 be read the second and third times the next two successive legislative days.
The following was introduced:
H. 4118 - Reps Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE IRMO HIGH SCHOOL'S ACADEMIC QUIZ TEAM UPON WINNING THE STARS 2000 NATIONAL ACADEMIC TOURNAMENT IN LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, ON SUNDAY, MAY 14, 1989, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE LEXINGTON COUNTY STUDENTS FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION WHICH PAVED THE ROAD TO THIS HIGH ACCOMPLISHMENT.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4119 - Reps. Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE IRMO CAMPUS I MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL DIVISION OF THE FIFTH ANNUAL NATIONAL SCIENCE OLYMPIAD IN BOULDER, COLORADO, DURING A NATIONAL COMPETITION IN MAY, 1989.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4120 -- Reps. Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE IRMO HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION OF THE FIFTH ANNUAL NATIONAL SCIENCE OLYMPIAD IN BOULDER, COLORADO, DURING A NATIONAL COMPETITION IN MAY, 1989.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Alexander, M.O. Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, J. Bailey, K. Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Brown, R. Burriss, M.D. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cooper Corbett Corning Davenport Derrick Fair Farr Felder Foster Glover Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harwell Haskins Hayes Hearn Hendricks Johnson, J.W. Kay Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Limehouse Manly Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McCain McEachin McElveen McGinnis McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Moss Nesbitt Nettles Phillips Quinn Rama Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Smith Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Washington Wells Whipper Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on May 29, 1989.
Bill Cork Dave Waldrop Joe E. Brown Grady Brown Dell Baker Irene Rudnick Henry Brown Thomas Huff James G. Mattos Tee Ferguson Ennis Fant Thomas Rhoad James Faber Frank McBride Michael Jaskwhich T.M. Burriss Luther Taylor Danny Bruce Paul Burch James E. Lockemy Denny W. Neilson T.C. Alexander James H. Hodges Paul Short Alex Harvin, III Derham Cole Dick Elliott Steve Lanford Juanita M. White Larry Koon
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Rep. ALTMAN a leave of absence for the day.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. LIMEHOUSE a temporary leave of absence.
Announcement was made that Dr. Basil Manly, IV of Greenville is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
The following was received.
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., May 25, 1989
The CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, to whom was referred:
S. 643 -- Senator Lindsay: 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.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein:
/SECTION 1. Section 37-2-416 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-2-416. (1) Whether or not a change is authorized by prior agreement, a creditor may change the terms of a revolving charge account applying to any balance incurred before or after the effective date of the change. If the change increases the rate of the credit service charge or of additional charges, alters the method of determining the balance upon which charges are made so that increased charges may result, or imposes or increases minimum charges, the change is effective with respect to a balance incurred before the effective date of the change only if the consumer after receiving disclosure of the change agrees to it in writing or the creditor delivers or mails to the consumer one written disclosure of the change at least thirty days before the effective date. and the consumer incurs additional debt on or after that date. The written disclosure must 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 under the terms in effect before the change in terms on the written request of the consumer sent to the creditor at the address provided in the disclosure. The disclosure also must state that the consumer may apply for another revolving account on the new terms.
(2) A disclosure provided for in subsection (1) is mailed to the consumer when mailed to him at his address used by the creditor for mailing him periodic billing statements.
(3) If a creditor attempts to change the terms of a revolving charge account as provided in subsection (1) without complying with this section, any additional cost or charge to the consumer resulting from the change is an excess charge and is subject to the remedies available to the consumer (Section 37-5-202) and to the administrator (Section 37-6-113)."
SECTION 2. Section 37-3-408 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 37-3-408. (1) Whether or not a change is authorized by prior agreement, a creditor may change the terms of a revolving loan account applying to any balance incurred before or after the effective date of the change. If the change increases the rate of the loan finance charge or of additional charges, alters the method of determining the balance upon which charges are made so that increased charges may result, or imposes or increases minimum charges, the change is effective with respect to a balance incurred before the effective date of the change only if the debtor after receiving disclosure of the change agrees to it in writing or the creditor delivers or mails to the debtor one written disclosure of the change at least thirty days before the effective date. and the debtor incurs additional debt on or after that date. The written disclosure must 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 under the terms in effect before the change in terms on the written request of the consumer sent to the creditor at the address provided in the disclosure. The disclosure also must state that the consumer may apply for another revolving account on the new terms.
(2) A disclosure provided for in subsection (1) is mailed to the debtor when mailed to him at his address used by the creditor for mailing him periodic billing statements.
(3) If a creditor attempts to change the terms of a revolving loan account as provided in subsection (1) without complying with this section, any additional cost or charge to the debtor resulting from the change is an excess charge and is subject to the remedies available to the debtor (Section 37-5-202) and to the administrator (Section 37-6-113)."
SECTION 3. Section 37-2-405(2)(c) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(c) a secured credit transaction in which the primary security is a lien on real estate to the extent a formula for determining the rate of the credit service charge and any change in the amount of payment upon renegotiation or refinancing is specified in the agreement between the parties or is an alternative mortgage instrument; or".
SECTION 4. Section 37-3-402(2)(c) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"(c) a secured credit transaction in which the primary security is a lien real estate to the extent a formula for determining the rate of the loan finance charge and any change in the amount of payment upon renegotiation or refinancing is specified in the agreement between the parties or is an alternative mortgage instrument; or".
SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/ Peden B. McLeod /s/ Thomas A. Limehouse /s/ Herbert U. Fielding /s/ George H. Bailey /s/ Richard W. Lee /s/ William N. Cork On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House
Rep. LIMEHOUSE explained the Conference Report.
The report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following Bills and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.
H. 4112 -- Rep. Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN KERSHAW COUNTY, SO AS TO REDEFINE AND RENAME THE PRECINCTS, PROVIDE THAT THE LINES DEFINING THE PRECINCTS ARE AS SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL MAP PREPARED BY AND FILED WITH THE DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL SERVICES OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE KERSHAW COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, TO ESTABLISH POLLING PLACES FOR THE PRECINCTS.
H. 3088 -- Reps. Taylor, D. Martin, Clyborne, White and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-35, AS AMENDED, 7-13-40, AS AMENDED, 7-13-50, AS AMENDED, 7-13-60, 7-13-70, AS AMENDED, 7-13-610, 7-13-830, AS AMENDED, 7-15-450, 7-17-510, 7-17-520, 7-17-530, 7-17-540, 7-17-550, 7-17-560, 7-17-570, AND 7-25-140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, AND PROVIDE FOR HEARING AND DECIDING PROTESTS AND CONTESTS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN AT THE COUNTY LEVEL; TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 13, TITLE 7, RELATING TO BALLOTS FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-611 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARRANGEMENT OF EVERY "OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT" AND OF EVERY "OFFICIAL STATE BALLOT"; TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW MAY BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING POLITICAL PARTIES FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; TO PROVIDE THAT, IN THE CASE OF ANY COUNTY WHICH OPERATES ITS ELECTIONS THROUGH AN ELECTION AND REGISTRATION COMMISSION COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS, THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION ARE NOT AFFECTED OR CHANGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 7-9-110, RELATING TO PERMITTING COUNTY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES TO ESTABLISH A COUNTY PARTY ELECTION COMMISSION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND 7-13-90, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS OF PRIMARIES; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JUNE OF EACH GENERAL ELECTION YEAR.
H. 3950 -- Rep. Fant: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-13-120 SO AS TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS AND SUITS AGAINST CORPORATIONS AND OTHER EMPLOYERS RELATING TO CLAIMS FILED WITH THE STATE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION.
H. 3560 - Reps. McGinnis, McAbee, Hayes, Lockemy and McKay: A JOINT RESOLUTION NAMING THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD COMPLEX ON BLUFF ROAD IN COLUMBIA THE "T. ESTON MARCHANT NATIONAL GUARD COMPLEX" IN HONOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S DISTINGUISHED ADJUTANT GENERAL, AND AUTHORIZING THE PLACING OF SIGNS OR MARKERS AND THE EXPENDITURE OF NECESSARY FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFYING THE COMPLEX.
The following Bills 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. 571 -- Senators Lourie, Passailaigue, Wilson, Leatherman, Fielding, McGill, Waddell, Courson, Long and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-9-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE CONVENTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES, SO AS TO CHANGE TIMES WHEN THE CONVENTIONS MUST BE HELD.
S. 736 -- Senators Mullinax, J. Verne Smith, O'Dell and Stilwell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 30 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY LICENSE PLATES AND CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED ONLY FOR CORPORATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
H. 4020 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO WATER UTILITIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1107, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
H. 4021 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO SEWERAGE UTILITIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1106, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
H. 4022 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1085, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
H. 4047 -- Rep. Corbett: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF SEA BANKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., IN HORRY COUNTY.
S. 763 -- Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE COASTAL COUNCIL, RELATING TO BEACH RESTORATION FUND APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1140, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. SHARPE explained the Joint Resolution.
S. 764 -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RESTORE THE CHARTER OF SAMUEL H. SWINT POST #77 OF THE AMERICAN LEGION IN AIKEN COUNTY.
On motion of Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4020 be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4021 be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. M.O. ALEXANDER, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 4022 be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. SHARPE, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 763 be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3748 -- Rep. J. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 6-7-740, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BOARDS OF ZONING APPEALS AND ZONING BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT, SO AS TO REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR A USE VARIANCE FROM THE TERMS OF AN ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY.
Debate was resumed on - Amendment No. 1, which was proposed on Wednesday, April 19, by the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
Rep. J. BAILEY explained the amendment.
Rep. J. BAILEY continued speaking.
Rep. GORDON withdrew his objection to the Bill.
Reps. KLAPMAN and HASKINS objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3120 - Rep. White: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-150, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PHARMACISTS AND PROVISIONS REGARDING DANGEROUS DRUGS, LICENSED PHARMACISTS, AND DRUG OUTLETS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE REFILLING OF CERTAIN PRESCRIPTION MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEYOND THE DATE ON WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FILLED, AND PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION ABRIDGES ANY RIGHT OF A PHARMACIST TO REFUSE TO FILL OR REFILL ANY PRESCRIPTION.
Reps. HAYES, HENDRICKS and HUFF objected to the Bill.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 502 -- Senators Nell W. Smith, Moore and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-2382 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A MEMBER NOT TO BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING PROGRAM OF THE SYSTEM FOR THE REVIEW OF THE FOSTER CARE OF CHILDREN; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2385, RELATING TO LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR MEMBERS' TERMS TO CONTINUE UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE APPOINTED AND QUALIFY AND FOR NOTICE OF A BOARD VACANCY BY CERTIFIED INSTEAD OF REGISTERED MAIL.
The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4645U), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1, page 1, beginning on line as, and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Subarticle 4, Article 13, Chapter 7, Title 20 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 20-7-2382. After participating in a training program of the system for the review of foster care of children, a local review board member is not liable for damages for personal injury as a result of an act or omission in the discharge of his duties as a member if he acts in good faith and his conduct does not constitute "gross negligence, recklessness, wilfulness, or wantonness."
SECTION 2. Section 15-78-60 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 675 of 1988, is further amended by adding an appropriately numbered item to read:
"( ) acts or omissions of members of local foster care review boards acting within the scope of their official duties pursuant to Subarticle 4, Article 13, Chapter 7 of Title 20. However, the member shall act in good faith, his conduct may not constitute "gross negligence, recklessness, wilfulness, or wantonness, and he must have participated in a training program established by the state foster care review board system."/
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MOSS explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. MOSS explained the Bill.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. WILKINS moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to.
On motion of Rep. J. ROGERS the House non-concurred in the Senate Amendments, to the following Bill and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
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 SCHOOLWIDE INNOVATION GRANTS PROGRAM.
Rep. WALDROP, from the Newberry Delegation, submitted a favorable report, on:
S. 804 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO REPEAL ACT 735 OF 1936 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NEWBERRY COUNTY PARK COMMISSION.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4121 - Reps. Quinn, Wright and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 140 OF 1969, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE COUNTY LIBRARY IN RICHLAND COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PRIOR TO THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN RICHLAND COUNTY OR LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5, REFERENDUM IN EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE MUST BE CONDUCTED, PROVIDE FOR A METHOD OF INITIATING THE REFERENDUM, PROVIDE THAT THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION SHALL INTRODUCE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IF A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS IN EACH DISTRICT AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE FAVOR THEIR ALTERATION, PROVIDE A SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING THE REFERENDUM, AND TO PROVIDE THAT IF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY ACT ALTERS ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN RICHLAND COUNTY OR IN LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 OTHER THAN AS PROVIDED ABOVE, THESE ALTERATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICTS CONCERNED BEFORE THEY MAY TAKE EFFECT.
Rep. QUINN asked unanimous consent to have the Bill placed on the Calendar without reference.
Rep. T. ROGERS objected.
Referred to the Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 4122 - Reps. Corning, Hayes, Moss, Hearn, Wright, Fair and Bruce: A BILL TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; TO ESTABLISH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE COMMISSION; AND TO MERGE THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S AFFAIRS, INCLUDING THE CHILDREN'S CASE RESOLUTION SYSTEM, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, INTO THE COMMISSION.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 201 - Senators Lindsay, McConnell, Lourie, Williams, Martin, O'Dell and Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 58-13-910 AND 58-13-920, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL OFFICERS AND CONSTABLES OF RAILWAYS OR OTHER COMMON CARRIERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THEY MAY BE RESIDENTS OF OTHER STATES IF THEY ARE COMMISSIONED IN OTHER STATES WHERE THE RAILWAY OR COMMON CARRIER OPERATES AND MEET LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING STANDARDS OF THIS STATE AND THAT THE COMMISSIONS OF RESIDENTS EXTEND BEYOND THE TERM OF THE APPOINTING GOVERNOR.
The Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No 4653U), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 58-13-910 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 58-13-910. Upon the application of the superintendent or manager of any a railway or other common carrier doing business in this State, the Governor shall appoint certify special officers or constables for the protection and safety of all property and interest of such the common carrier, provided such if the officers and constables are paid by the common carrier applying for their appointment certification. Special officers or constables appointed pursuant to the laws of another state for protection of interstate shipments, passengers, and employees of railroad companies commissioned as railroad police officers in another state in which the common carrier operates and who meet all law enforcement training standards required in this state must be certified under the doctrine of full faith and credit with capacity in this state to enforce the laws for the protection of interstate shipments, passengers, and employees of railroad companies. The capacity may not be interpreted as a state commission but exists by virtue of the State of South Carolina under the doctrine of full faith and credit recognizing and giving full force and effect under our laws to the legal capacity created in the complying state."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
On motion of Rep. McABEE, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 201 be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3546 -- Reps. Mappus, Kohn, Holt, Rama, Whipper, Winstead, Barber, Hallman, J. Bailey, Washington and D. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 55-9-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE AERONAUTICS COMMISSION AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE IN REGARD TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRPORTS, SO AS TO GRANT TO THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE BUT NOT TO THE AERONAUTICS COMMISSION CERTAIN ADDITIONAL POWERS IN REGARD TO THE LEASING OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES PURPOSES.
The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4644U), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking subsections (3) and (4) of Section 55-9-190 as contained in Section 2, page 2, and inserting:
/(3) Lease for a term not exceeding twenty-five years such airports or landing fields to private parties for operation or lease or assign for a term not exceeding twenty-five years to private parties for operation space, area, improvements and equipment on such airports or landing fields, provided in each case that in so doing the public is not deprived of its rightful, equal and uniform use thereof. lease these facilities to private entities which shall operate them. All such leases must contain appropriate options for renewal, reasonable escalation provisions designed to protect the lessors from inflation over the term, and provide absolute net rent to lessors. No lease may deprive the public of legal and uniform use of the facility.
(4) lease real property to private entities under terms and conditions they consider appropriate for the establishment of office parks, warehouse parks, and other income producing facilities on real property each may have and which in the judgement of its governing body is not at that time or in the projected plans for the use of the airport required for the use of air navigation or air transportation facilities. All leases must provide absolute net rental to the lessor and reasonable escalation provisions designed to protect the lessor from inflation over the term of the lease. The provisions of this item (4) do not apply to the Aeronautics Commission./
Renumber to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MAPPUS explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 637 -- Senators Bryan, Hayes, Peeler and Fielding: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-33-330, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM FOR THE HANDICAPPED, INC., SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FOUR ADDITIONAL MEMBERS MAY BE ELECTED BY THE BOARD.
The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 5001U), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 43-33-330, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /with the advice and consent of the Senate/ beginning on line 30 of page 1 and inserting /with the advice/.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. MOSS explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. HAYES moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request.
H. 3099 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SURRENDER OF A DEFENDANT WHEN THE SURETY HOLDING THE BOND WISHES TO REMOVE THE BOND, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER BEFORE THE DEFENDANT'S RECOMMITMENT TO CUSTODY.
The yeas and nays, were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M. O. Altman Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Baxley Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Bruce Burch Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Cork Corning Davenport Derrick Faber Farr Felder Ferguson Gentry Glover Gordon Hallman Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hayes Hearn Hendricks Huff Jaskwhich Kay Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Lanford Limehouse Lockemy Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McElveen McGinnis McLeod McTeer Nesbitt Phillips Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Smith Snow Sturkie Taylor Townsend Tucker Vaughn Waites Waldrop Wells Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Winstead Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference, the SPEAKER appointed Reps. HAYES, GENTRY and NETTLES to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Of all the days our nation sets aside to commemorate the people, the traditions and events that have enriched our lives as Americans, there are none more meaningful than Memorial Day.
More that 630,000 American men and women have given their lives so that our nation might endure. Their task is done ours remains before us. It summons us to remember that the honor and glory of a great nation is to acknowledge its heroic dead.
While memorials are f sting tributes for all the world to see, we also need to look inward.
Surely, there is not better time than Memorial Day to rechristen our faith in America and the precepts we hold dear.
Surely there is no more appropriate time than Memorial Day to pledge anew our allegiance to the flag we love.
Surely this is the time to rededicate ourselves to upholding and strengthening the institutions and values that so many Americans have fought, suffered and died to preserve.
Our nation has paid a high price in blood, suffering and death to let our way of life and institution deteriorate.
On this Memorial Day, our words of tribute will not be empty, no matter how inadequate they may seem for the occasion. Memorial Day will take on an even greater significance, if we gain from our observation of it, a new inspiration to rededicate ourselves to the ideals and principles that made America great; that made America "one nation under God."
Such a Memorial Day observance would fittingly commemorate the gallantry and sacrifices of all, both living and dead, who have fought for liberty, justice and freedom.
Rep. G. BROWN moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn in memory of all Americans who fought and died for the United States, which was agreed to.
The following was introduced:
H. 4123 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Felder and Tucker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONGRATULATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THEIR ESTEEMED FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, ROBERT J. SHEHEEN, ROBERT N. MCLELLAN, PATRICK B. HARRIS, AND LUCILLE S. WHIPPER ON THEIR RECEIVING HONORARY DEGREES FROM DISTINGUISHED SOUTH CAROLINA INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
Rep. McLELLAN made a statement relative to the General Appropriations Bill, H. 3600.
Rep. J.W. JOHNSON made a statement relative to the General Appropriations Bill, H. 3600.
Rep. PHILLIPS moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow, which was agreed to.
Rep. T. ROGERS made a statement relative to the General Appropriations Bill, H. 3600.
Rep. LIMEHOUSE raised the Point of Order that if the House was now considering a conference report, then it was out of order as it was not in compliance with Rule 5.15 in that it had not been printed. He further stated that if a report wee not being considered, then the debate of the House should not be interrupted and the House should be back on the calendar and proceed accordingly.
Rep. HASKINS further argued the Point of Order in stating that if the House was now considering a conference report, then some action would be taken on the report, but this was only an update of the report.
The SPEAKER stated that debate was improper at this time and he sustained the Point of Order.
REP. FELDER moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, which was rejected by a division vote of 39 to 46.
Rep. WILKINS moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was not agreed to.
Rep. FABER moved that the House do now adjourn.
Rep. JASKWHICH demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bailey, K. Baker Baxley Bennett Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Davenport Faber Fair Fant Felder Foster Glover Hallman Harris, P. Harvin Haskins Hendricks Klapman Mattos McAbee McBride McCain McEachin McGinnis McKay McLeod Moss Nesbitt Nettles Short Simpson Sturkie Taylor Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Wilkes
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G. Barber Barfield Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, R. Bruce Burch Cole Cooper Corbett Cork Derrick Farr Ferguson Gentry Harris, J. Hayes Hodges Huff Jaskwhich Kay Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Koon Limehouse Lockemy Manly Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. McElveen McTeer Neilson Quinn Rama Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Smith Snow Stoddard Townsend Waites Washington Wilkins Williams, J. Winstead Wofford Wright
So, the House refused to adjourn.
The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 442 - Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-5-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE GROUNDWATER USE ACT, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION TO IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES AND TAKE CERTAIN CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, AND TO PROVIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE CIVIL PENALTIES MAY BE APPLIED.
Rep. SHARPE explained the Bill.
S. 614 -- Fish, Game and Forestry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, RELATING TO OPERATIONS OF FIELD TRIALS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1103, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. RHOAD explained the Joint Resolution.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 498 -- Senators Drummond, Hayes and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-1-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALE OF DRIFTED OBJECTS, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO WATERCRAFT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 50-23-10, 50-23-30, 50-23-60, 50-23-120, 50-23-170, 50-23-200, 50-23-205, 50-23-270, AND 50-23-280, RELATING TO TITLING OF WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTORS, SO AS TO DELETE BOATS AND OTHER WATERCRAFT FROM PROVISIONS REGULATING MATERIALS FOUND DRIFTING, TO CHANGE AND ADD DEFINITIONS, TO EXEMPT COMMERCIAL BARGES, WINDSURFERS, AND WATERCRAFT PROPELLED EXCLUSIVELY BY HUMAN POWER OR WITH OARS, PADDLES, OR SIMILAR DEVICES FROM TITLING REQUIREMENTS, TO CHANGE PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING FOR A TITLE CERTIFICATE, TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION FOR DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES, TO PROVIDE A LATE FEE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE FORM OF THE MANUFACTURER'S OR IMPORTER'S CERTIFICATE, TO DEFINE "HOMEMADE WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTOR", TO CHANGE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SERIAL NUMBERS AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, TO ESTABLISH ACTS WHICH PROHIBIT THE LAWFUL OPERATION OF WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTORS, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DEAL WITH A WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTOR BY A PERSON WHO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS STOLEN, TO PROVIDE FOR DISPOSAL OF STOLEN, ABANDONED, JUNKED, ADRIFT, DESTROYED, OR SALVAGED WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTORS, AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 50-23-135, 50-23-185, 50-23-275, AND 50-23-200 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR TITLING ABANDONED, JUNKED, ADRIFT, AND SALVAGED WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTORS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE INSPECTION OF FACILITIES INVOLVED WITH WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTORS, TO REQUIRE TITLING OF WATERCRAFT OR OUTBOARD MOTORS NOT PREVIOUSLY TITLED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONDITIONAL TITLES.
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 0098R), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 12 and inserting:
/SECTION 12. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 50-23-185. Any law enforcement officer may inspect a junkyard, scrap metal processing facility, salvage yard, marina, repair shop, boat yard, dry dock, licensed business buying, selling, displaying, trading watercraft or outboard motors, new and used or parts of watercraft and outboard motors or both, parking lots, and public garages or any other person dealing with salvaged watercraft or outboard motors or parts of them.
The physical inspection must be conducted while an employee or owner is present and must be for the purpose of locating stolen watercraft or outboard motors, investigating the titling or registration of watercraft or outboard motors wrecked or dismantled./
Amend the bill further, by striking SECTION 18 and inserting:
/SECTION 18. Section 50-23-280 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 50-23-280. (a) A person violating the provisions of this chapter or a regulation promulgated by authority of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than thirty days.
(b) A person convicted of violating Section 50-23-200 is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or both."/
Amend the bill further, by striking SECTION 21 in its entirety.
Renumber sections and amend title to conform.
Rep. BENNETT explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Reps. WRIGHT and HEARN proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc. No. 5219U), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding appropriately numbered sections to read:
/SECTION____. Chapter 25, Title 50 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 50-25-510. A motorboat operating upon waters of the State must comply with the following noise control requirements:
(1) Motorboats with inboard-outboard propulsion machinery must exhaust underwater at all times unless designed or modified to exhaust through the transom or above water in accordance with the provisions of item (2) of this section.
(2) Exhaust systems on inboard motorboats must be equipped with baffle type marine silencers and installed in accordance with the American Boat and Yacht Council Project P-1. Silencers in wet exhaust systems must allow the full flow of exhaust cooling water through them. Vertical dry exhaust systems must be fitted with spark arrestors. Boats constructed before 1970, which contain the original propulsion machinery, are exempt from the requirements of this item.
(3) The use of glass-pack mufflers, resonators, and above water, open 'straight-pipe' exhaust systems are prohibited.
(4) Motorboats with outboard propulsion machinery must exhaust underwater at all times unless designed or modified to exhaust above water in accordance with the provisions of item (2) of this section.
(5) The motorboats competing in a regatta, boat race, marine parade, tournament, or exhibition, approved as provided in Section 50-21-1010, are exempt from the provisions of this article. Exceptions also may be granted during designated hours for pretrial runs and for trial runs for speed records immediately following the event.
(6) The operator of a motorboat who violates any of the provisions of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be:
(a) for a first offense, fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days;
(b) for a second offense, fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days;
(c) for a third or subsequent offense, fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both."
Rep. WRIGHT explained the amendment.
Rep. BENNETT raised the Point of Order that Amendment No. 2 was out of order as it was not germane to the Bill.
The SPEAKER stated that the Amendment met the germaneness test and he overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. GENTRY moved to table the amendment.
Rep. CORBETT demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Bailey, J. Bailey, K. Baker Barber Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Brown, J. Bruce Burch Burriss, M.D. Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cooper Cork Derrick Elliott Fant Felder Ferguson Foster Gentry Glover Hallman Harris, J. Hayes Hendricks Hodges Huff Kay Keesley Kirsh Kohn Limehouse Mappus Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McCain McElveen McGinnis McLeod McTeer Nesbitt Rhoad Rogers, J. Rudnick Sharpe Sheheen Smith Snow Stoddard Townsend Tucker Waldrop Whipper Wilder Wilkes Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are
Altman Bailey, G. Baxley Brown, H. Burriss, T.M. Cole Corbett Corning Davenport Fair Farr Haskins Hearn Jaskwhich Keegan Klapman Koon Manly McEachin Neilson Nettles Quinn Rama Simpson Sturkie Vaughn Waites Wells Williams, J. Wofford Wright
So, the amendment was tabled.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
The following Bill was taken up.
S. 428 - Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-235, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STRIPED BASS (ROCKFISH), SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MAY SET AND PUBLISH THE DAILY CREEL LIMITS AND SIZE LIMITS FOR STRIPED BASS AND BLACK BASS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-285, RELATING TO PENALTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PENALTIES ASSESSED BY THE SECTION INCLUDE CONVICTIONS OF SECTION 50-13-235; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 50-13-220 AND 50-13-230 RELATING TO STRIPED BASS.
The Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4900U).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 50-13-220 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 50-13-220. No more than two five striped bass or (rockfish) shall may be caught in any one day from Lake Murray, Lake Greenwood, Catawba Wateree Lakes, Clark Hill Reservoir, Stevens Creek, Hartwell Dam and their tributaries:
(1) Broad River from the lock and dam of the Columbia Canal to its confluence with Lower Saluda River;
(2) Lower Saluda River from the Lake Murray Dam to its confluence with Broad River;
(3) Wateree River from the Lake Wateree Dam to its confluence with Congaree River;
(4) Congaree River from the confluence of Broad and Lower Saluda Rivers to its confluence with Wateree River;
(5) Lake Marion, Lake Moultrie, and the Diversion Canal;
(6) the Tailrace Canal from Pinopolis Dam to Cooper River;
(7) the east and west branches of Cooper River downstream to the U.S. Highway 17 bridge;
(8) Wando River;
(9) the Rediversion Canal;
(10) Santee River from the Lake Marion Dam downstream to the Intercoastal Waterway.
This section applies to all tributaries, streams, creeks, or other watercourses connected to the waters described above.
SECTION 2. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 50-13-236. The department may establish the daily creel limits and size limits on Lake Murray for striped base (Rockfish) and Black Bass by regulations promulgated and adopted in accordance with Article I of Chapter 23 of Title 1. No creel or size limits may be set by emergency regulations. A person taking striped bass or black bass exceeding the limits set by the department is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 50-13-285."
SECTION 3. Section 50-13-210 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 50-13-210. It shall be is unlawful for any a person in any one day to catch more than forty game fish; however, of the total creel limit
(1) not more than ten of such the total may be striped bass, (Rockfish), or hybrid base (striped bass-white bass) or any a combination thereof of them; unless regulations promulgated by the department and adopted by the General Assembly by authority of Section 50-13-236 reflect otherwise;
(2) not more than ten of such the total shall may be black bass (large mouth, small mouth, coosae) or any a combination thereof) of them unless regulations promulgated by the department and adopted by the General Assembly by authority of Section 50-13-236 reflect otherwise;
(3) not more than ten of such the total shall may be trout;
(4) not more than eight of such the total shall may be walleye or sauger or a combination thereof of them;
(5) not more than thirty of such the total shall may be any game fish not herein specified."
SECTION 4. The next to the last paragraph of Section 50-17-510 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"The Wildlife and Marine Resources Department may adopt by regulation all fishery regulations promulgated under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 94 265) establishing catch or possession limits, seasons, or fishing periods in the Fishery Conservation Zone adjacent to this state's waters. When adopted, a violation of these regulations is punishable as provided in this section. The regulations promulgated by the federal government regarding catch or possession limits on cobia, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel and billfish under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) are declared to be the law of this State and apply in all state waters. The department may adopt by regulation all other fishery regulations promulgated under Public Law 94-265 which apply to the Fishery Conservation Zone adjacent to this state's waters. When adopted, these regulations apply in state waters and a violation of these regulations is punishable as provided in this section."
SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. BENNETT explained the amendment.
Rep. LIMEHOUSE moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Tuesday, May 30, which was adopted.
The following was received.
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., May 29, 1989
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 3099 -- Rep. Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-53-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SURRENDER OF A DEFENDANT WHEN THE SURETY HOLDING THE BOND WISHES TO REMOVE THE BOND, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER BEFORE THE DEFENDANT'S RECOMMITMENT TO CUSTODY.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the bill pass amended as follows:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. Section 38-53-10 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding two appropriately numbered items to read:
"( ) 'Appropriate judge' means a magistrate, municipal, or circuit court judge who has jurisdiction over the defendant.
( ) 'Good cause' means the violation of a specific term of the bail bond not to include the nonpayment of fees."
SECTION 2. Section 38-53-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 38-53-50. The person desiring to make a surrender of the defendant shall obtain a copy of the undertaking and deliver it together with the defendant to the official in whose custody the defendant was at the time bail was taken or to the official into whose custody he would have been given had he been committed. The official shall detain the defendant in his custody and by a certificate in writing acknowledge the surrender. Upon the presentation of the copy of the undertaking and the certificate of the official, the court before which the defendant has been held to answer or the court in which the preliminary examination, warrant, indictment, information, or appeal is pending, upon notice of three days given by the person making the surrender to the prosecuting officer of the court having jurisdiction of the offense, together with a copy of the undertakings and certificate, shall order that the obligors be exonerated from liability of their undertakings. If money or bonds have been deposited as bail, the money or bonds must be refunded. (A) A surety desiring to surrender a defendant for 'good cause' or the nonpayment of fees must give three days' notice to the defendant and his attorney of his intention to attempt to revoke the bail bond. After the three day period has expired, the surety shall then take the defendant before the appropriate judge and show good cause why he should be relieved to obtain a commitment order and deliver it together with the defendant to the official in charge of incarcerating defendants. However, if circumstances exist in which incarceration of the defendant is required to prevent imminent violation of the specific terms of the bail bond, the surety may take the defendant before the appropriate judge for a commitment order. If the appropriate judge is not available within a reasonable period of time or if circumstances warrant immediate incarceration of the defendant, the surety may deliver the defendant with an affidavit stating the facts to support the surrender of the defendant for good cause. If the surety surrenders the defendant with an affidavit, the surety must take the defendant before the next available appropriate judge for a commitment order. A surety who surrenders a defendant with an affidavit for less than good cause is subject to penalties imposed for perjury as provided in Article 1, Chapter 9 of Title 16.
(B) The court, at the hearing, may order the surety to refund to the defendant any fees paid toward the bail bond after deducting the surety's actual costs, reasonable expenses, and reasonable fees, as determined by the court."
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/ John C. Hayes, III /s/ Robert W. Hayes, Jr. /s/ Thomas H. Pope, III /s/ Larry E. Gentry /s/ Sam Stilwell /s/ Eugene L. Nettles On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House
Rep. HAYES explained the Free Conference Report.
The Free Conference report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 3402 -- Reps. Faber and McBride: A BILL TO REQUIRE CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO UNDERGO PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING IN THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND FIREARMS, AS PART OF BASIC TRAINING, BEFORE BEING COMMISSIONED OR EMPLOYED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; TO REQUIRE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCREENING TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS.
The Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 4746U).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 1 and inserting:
/SECTION 1. (A) After July 1, 1990, no candidate for the position of law enforcement officer in South Carolina may be commissioned or employed as a law enforcement officer unless he has first undergone psychological screening in the use of deadly force and firearms as a part of his basic training.
(B) The psychological screening must be administered by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy as part of its curriculum for the training and certification of law enforcement officers and shall encompass the immediate, short-term, and long-range psychological effects and implications of the use of, and the failure to use, deadly force and firearms in emergency situations. The screening must include emotional and physical stress as a factor in the use of deadly force and firearms and must focus attention on the effects of deadly force and firearms on both the user and the victim.
(C) The Training Council of the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy shall promulgate appropriate regulations to carry out the provisions of this section./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. McBRIDE explained the amendment, and moved to adjourn debate upon the Bill until Tuesday, May 30, which was adopted.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. BENNETT a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
Rep. G. BROWN withdrew his objection to the following Bill.
S. 350 - Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 29 SO AS TO ENACT THE UNIFORM STANDARDS CODE FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 31-1-40 AND 31-1-50 SO AS TO REQUIRE AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR A CONNECTION TO A MOBILE HOME; AND TO REPEAL ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 17 OF TITLE 31 RELATING TO MOBILE HOMES AND HOUSE TRAILERS.
Rep. HALLMAN withdrew his objection to the following Bill.
S. 522 -- Senators Lourie, Land, Fielding, Mitchell, Martschink and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-25-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBER GOVERNMENTS, REGARDLESS OF POPULATION, MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEMBER ON THE GOVERNING BOARD OF AN AUTHORITY.
On motion of Rep. J. ROGERS, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 4124 -- Reps. J. Rogers, McEachin, Gentry and D. Martin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1980, AT 12:00 NOON AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR FOR THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES IN 1989.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the House of Representatives and the Senate meet in joint assembly in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at 12:00 Noon for the purpose of electing a successor to the judge of the Family Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires in 1989.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
On motion of Rep. KIRSH, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Legislative Council.
S. 671 - Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 271 OF 1981, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ROCK HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS WHICH STIPULATE WHEN ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TAKE OFFICE, WHAT PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE ELECTIONS IS REQUIRED, AND THE DATES BY WHICH A CANDIDATE MUST FILE NOTICE OF HIS CANDIDACY.
On motion of Rep. FARR, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Education and Public Works.
S. 776 -- Senators Pope, Martin and Bryan: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 288 OF 1987, RELATING TO THE UNION-LAURENS COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO NINE.
On motion of Rep. HEARN, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Legislative Council.
H. 3762 - Reps. Hearn, J.W. Johnson and Lockemy: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 42-5-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND THE TAX ON SELF-INSURERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REQUIRED REPORT BE MADE BY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE THIRD MONTH FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE SELF-INSURER'S FISCAL YEAR, PROVIDE AUTHORITY TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION TO ASSESS A PENALTY AGAINST A SELF-INSURER WHO FAILS TO PAY THE TAX BY THE REQUIRED DATE, AND PROVIDE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF-INSURING IN SOUTH CAROLINA UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Rep. QUINN asked unanimous consent to introduce a Bill.
Rep. T. ROGERS objected.
Rep. MARVIN, with unanimous consent, from the Clarendon Delegation, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:
H. 4090 -- Rep. Harvin: A BILL TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EAST CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE IN CLARENDON COUNTY ARE ELECTED AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF THESE MEMBERS.
On motion of Rep. MARVIN, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was taken up for immediate consideration.
H. 4090 - Rep. Harvin: A BILL TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EAST CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE IN CLARENDON COUNTY ARE ELECTED AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF THESE MEMBERS.
Rep. MARVIN proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc. No. 5208U), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. The Board of Trustees of East Clarendon School District Number Three in Clarendon County, from time to time as necessary, shall apportion and reapportion the election districts of the school district for the purpose of electing the board of trustees for the school district and, further, shall provide for the manner of election of the trustees in accordance with the laws of this State, mutatis-mutandis.
SECTION 2. Act 40 of 1969 is repealed.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.
Rep. SIMPSON asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3618 from the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Rep. TAYLOR objected.
Rep. G. BROWN asked unanimous consent to recall H. 3171 from the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Rep. SHARPE objected.
The Senate Amendments to the following Joint Resolution were taken up for consideration.
H. 3602 -- Ways and Means Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE MONIES FROM THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89.
Rep. McLELLAN moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments, until Tuesday, May 30, which was adopted.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration.
H. 3898 -- Reps. Jaskwhich and Manly: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 275 OF 1985, AS LAST AMENDED BY ACT 269 OF 1987, RELATING TO THE TAX LEVY FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY.
Reps. BLACKWELL, BAKER and VAUGHN proposed the following Amendment No. 12 (Doc. No. 5053U), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 and inserting:
/SECTION 2. An authorized tax levy for the general Operations of the school district of Greenville County above eighty-four mills is authorized in the manner permitted in this section and Sections 3 and 4 of this act. Beginning in the year after the referendum provided for in Section 5 is approved, if approved, and thereafter, the board of trustees of the district, upon a two thirds recorded vote of its membership, may increase this eighty-four mill authorization by not more than a total of three mills in any successive two-year period. In determining these two-year periods, a particular year is to be used once. That is to say by example that the first two years after the referendum provided for in Section 5 is approved, if approved, constitute a two-year period, and the two years immediately following constitute the next successive two-year period. If the board determines that the millage needs of the district in any year exceed the authorized limits of this section, the excess millage desired must be approved by the qualified electors of the district in a referendum called for this purpose by the board to be conducted as provided in Section 4./
Amend the bill further, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 5 and inserting:
/SECTION 5. (A) Before the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 7 of this act may take effect, the qualified electors of the school district of Greenville County must first approve of its provisions in a referendum conducted by the election commissions of the respective counties in the school district. This referendum must be conducted on November 7, 1989. The board shall frame the question for the ballot and two questions must be used. Both of the questions must receive approval for any of the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 7 of this act to be considered approved and for this purpose the provisions of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 7 of this act are declared to be nonseverable.
(B) The two questions for the ballot required in subsection (A) must be substantially as follows :
(1) "Shall the trustees of the School District of Greenville County, upon a two-thirds recorded vote of its members be able to raise the millage for the operation of the School District of Greenville County by not more than a total of three mills in any consecutive two-year period?
(2) If the plan of limited fiscal autonomy contained in question (1) is approved, shall the terms of trustees of the School District of Greenville County thereafter elected be for two years?
(C) The county commissioners of election shall conduct and supervise this referendum in the manner governed by the election laws of this State mutatis mutandis. The commissioners shall prepare the necessary ballots after the questions for the ballot have been framed by the school board, appoint managers for the voting precincts, and do all things necessary to carry out the referendum, including the counting of ballots and declaring the results. The commissioners shall advertise the date of the referendum ninety days preceding it in a newspaper of general circulation in the district and shall publish a second notice thirty days before the referendum. The costs of the referendum must be borne by the school district./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. BLACKWELL explained the amendment.
Rep. WILKINS moved to table the amendment.
Rep. BLACKWELL demanded the yeas and nays; which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are
Alexander, M.O. Fant Jaskwhich Manly Mattos McGinnis Wilkins
Those who voted in the negative are
Baker Blackwell Clyborne Haskins Vaughn
So, the amendment was tabled.
Reps. VAUGHN and BLACKWELL proposed the following Amendment No. 13 (Doc. No. 5105U), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding a new section to be appropriately numbered to read:
/SECTION_____. If in any year of equalization and reassessment the millage authorized to be levied for the benefit of the school district of Greenville County is reduced pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-43-280 or any other provision of Article 3, Chapter 43, Title 12 of the 1976 Code, the reduced millage is the millage amount which may be levied for the operations of the district in that year and in future years and must be used also for purposes of determining allowable millage increases in future years. The provisions of this section expire upon the provisions of Section 3 of this act becoming effective in the manner provided by this act./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. VAUGHN explained the amendment.
Rep. WILKINS moved to table the amendment.
Rep. BLACKWELL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Fant Jaskwhich Manly Mattos McGinnis Wilkins
Those who voted in the negative are
Baker Blackwell Clyborne Haskins Vaughn
So, the amendment was tabled.
The question then recurred to the motion that the House concur in the Senate Amendments.
Rep. BLACKWELL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Fant Jaskwhich Manly Mattos McGinnis Wilkins
Those who voted in the negative are.
Baker Blackwell Clyborne Fair Haskins Vaughn
So, the Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
Rep. WALDROP 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. G. BAILEY demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, J. Bailey, K. Baker Barfield Baxley Blanding Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Bruce Carnell Chamblee Clyborne Cole Cooper Corbett Fair Fant Ferguson Foster Glover Hallman Haskins Hearn Hendricks Jaskwhich Johnson, J.W. Kay Klapman Lanford Manly Mappus Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McCain McElveen McGinnis McLeod Nesbitt Nettles Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Snow Townsend Vaughn Waldrop Wilder Williams, J. Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey, G. Barber Blackwell Brown, J. Burch Davenport Derrick Elliott Faber Farr Felder Gentry Harris, J. Harvin Hayes Hodges Huff Keegan Keesley Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Limehouse Lockemy Martin, D. McBride McEachin McTeer Moss Neilson Quinn Rama Rhoad Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Rudnick Smith Taylor Tucker Waites Wilkes Wilkins Wofford Wright
So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4118 - Reps. Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE IRMO HIGH SCHOOL'S ACADEMIC QUIZ TEAM UPON WINNING THE STARS 2000 NATIONAL ACADEMIC TOURNAMENT IN LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, ON SUNDAY, MAY 14, 1989, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE LEXINGTON COUNTY STUDENTS FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION WHICH PAVED THE ROAD TO THIS HIGH ACCOMPLISHMENT.
H. 4119 -- Reps. Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE IRMO CAMPUS I MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL DIVISION OF THE FIFTH ANNUAL NATIONAL SCIENCE OLYMPIAD IN BOULDER, COLORADO, DURING A NATIONAL COMPETITION IN MAY, 1989.
H. 4120 -- Reps. Wright and Quinn: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE IRMO HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEAM UPON WINNING FIRST PLACE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION OF THE FIFTH ANNUAL NATIONAL SCIENCE OLYMPIAD IN BOULDER, COLORADO, DURING A NATIONAL COMPETITION IN MAY, 1989.
H. 4123 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Felder and Tucker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CONGRATULATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THEIR ESTEEMED FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES, ROBERT J. SHEHEEN, ROBERT N. MCLELLAN, PATRICK B. HARRIS, AND LUCILLE S. WHIPPER ON THEIR RECEIVING HONORARY DEGREES FROM DISTINGUISHED SOUTH CAROLINA INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING.
At 5:15 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. G. BROWN adjourned in memory of all Americans who fought and died for the United States to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:23 P.M.