Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
Hear the words from Isaiah (745-695 B.C.)... (2:4-5):
"Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord."
Let us pray.
Lord God of hosts, help mankind to learn from the errors of the past lest we continue to repeat them.
We remember from our reading in the Old Testament and the New that God's Providence for His people was voiced by the prophets in such terms as "righteousness", "repentance", "trust"... in such a call as:
"Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord".
We bring again today the burdens of our people to You, and bombard Heaven with our petitions. May we , on our part, hear, each day Your call through your prophets,
"COME, WALK IN THE LIGHT OF THE LORD"
Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
February 22, 1991
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am hereby returning without my approval S.151, R-2, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 375 OF 1947, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CLARENDON HOSPITAL DISTRICT, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO CONVEY REAL ESTATE, WATER RIGHTS, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ADDITION TO ITS OTHER POWERS.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated February 22, 1991, which states in concluding:
"The act in question would amend Act No. 375 of 1947, relating to the Clarendon Hospital District, to authorize the district's governing body to convey real estate, water rights, and property rights in addition to its other granted powers. The Clarendon Hospital District is located wholly within Clarendon County... Thus, S.151,R-2 of 1991 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that `[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to S.151,R-2, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7..."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Senator LAND moved that the veto by the Governor be overridden.
The question was put: Shall the Act become the law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?
The "ayes" and "nays" were taken resulting as follows:
Bryan Courson Drummond
Fielding Giese Gilbert
Hayes Helmly Hinds
Hinson Holland Land
Leatherman Long Lourie
Macaulay Martin Martschink
Matthews McConnell McGill
Mitchell Moore O'Dell
Passailaigue Patterson Peeler
Pope Reese Rose
Russell Saleeby Setzler
Shealy Smith, J.V. Smith, N.W.
Stilwell Thomas Waddell
Washington Williams Wilson
The necessary vote having been received, the veto by the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
February 22, 1991
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am hereby returning without by approval S.463, R-3, a Joint Resolution:
TO APPROVE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY RECREATION DISTRICT IN BEAUFORT COUNTY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS AND ASSETS OF THE DISTRICT TO A DEPARTMENT OF BEAUFORT COUNTY GOVERNMENT, AND TO REPEAL ACT 1732 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY RECREATION DISTRICT.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office dated February 22, 1991, which states in concluding:
"The Joint Resolution in question dissolves the Beaufort County Recreation District of Beaufort County and transfers the functions and assets of the District to a department of Beaufort County government. Such is required by S.C. Code Ann. Section 4-9-80 following a successful referendum, which was held in November 1990. The Recreation District is located wholly within Beaufort County. Thus, S.463,R-3 of 1991 is clearly a Joint Resolution for a specific county. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that`[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted.' Acts similar to S.463,R-3, have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Count as violative of Article VIII, Section 7..."
Yours sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Senator WADDELL moved that the veto by the Governor be overridden.
The question was put: Shall the Act become the law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?
The "ayes" and "nays" were taken resulting as follows:
Bryan Courson Drummond
Fielding Giese Gilbert
Hayes Helmly Hinds
Hinson Holland Land
Leatherman Long Lourie
Macaulay Martin Martschink
Matthews McConnell McGill
Mitchell Moore O'Dell
Passailaigue Patterson Peeler
Pope Reese Rose
Russell Saleeby Setzler
Shealy Smith, J.V. Smith, N.W.
Stilwell Thomas Waddell
Washington Williams Wilson
The necessary vote having been received, the veto by the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
S. 226 -- Senators Waddell and Passailaigue: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ALLOW STATE INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR COMMERCIAL TIMBER LOSSES AND TIMBER DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPACT OF HURRICANE HUGO IN COUNTIES DECLARED A FEDERAL DISASTER AREA BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT OF HURRICANE HUGO, TO PRESCRIBE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEDUCTION INCLUDING REDUCTION OF OTHER TAX ATTRIBUTES OF TAXPAYERS CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION, AND TO ELIMINATE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE TAX RETURNS DUE FROM SEPTEMBER 18, 1989, TO NOVEMBER 30, 1989, FOR TAXPAYERS IN COUNTIES DECLARED DISASTER AREAS.
The Senate has determined that in applying the provisions of Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution, the House has misconstrued the substance of S. 226 and was in error in ruling the Joint Resolution out of order. The State v. Stanley, 131 SC 513 127 SE 574 [1925] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he Constitution `providing that revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives only applies to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and not to bills for other purposes, which may incidently raise revenues'" at p. 575 (cites omitted). This well-settled principle has also been recognized in numerous opinions by the Attorney General. S. 226 does not raise taxes but merely provides a tax credit to various individuals who sustained commercial timber damage as a result of Hurricane Hugo. Therefore, the Senate ordered the Joint Resolution returned to the House.
S. 695 -- Senators Waddell, Leatherman, Moore, J. Verne Smith, Thomas and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE INSTITUTION SIZE FROM EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHT TO ONE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY BEDS IN THE MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTIONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INSTEAD OF THE MEDIUM/MAXIMUM INSTITUTION PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTENDS TO AUTHORIZE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO COMPLETE THESE ENLARGED PENAL INSTITUTIONS IN LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS DURING THE 1991 SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
The Senate has determined that in applying the provisions of Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution, the House has misconstrued the substance of S. 695 and was in error in ruling the Bill out of order. In State v. Stanley, 131 SC 513 127 SE 574 [1925] the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he Constitution `providing that revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives only applies to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and not to bills for other purposes, which may incidently raise revenues'" at p. 575 (cites omitted). This well-settled principle has also been recognized in numerous opinions by the Attorney General. Not only does S. 695 not levy a tax, it in no way, incidently or otherwise, raises revenue. This Bill merely alters a description in a prior bond authorization and indicates that it is the intent of the General Assembly to provide additional revenue in legislation authorizing the issuance of additional capital improvement bonds. Therefore, the Senate ordered the Bill returned to the House.
The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:
Document No. 1345
Promulgated By Department of Health and Environmental Control
Standards For Licensing Nursing Homes; Repeal of 61-14, Minimum Standards For Licensing Of Intermediate Care Facilities
Received By Lt. Governor February 26, 1991
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
120 day review expiration date June 26, 1991
The following was received:
Document No. 1238
Promulgated By Department of Health and Environmental Control
Health Maintenance Organizations
Received By Lt. Governor May 3, 1990
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
120 day review expiration date March 21, 1991
Withdrawal Requested January 31, 1991
Withdrawn And Resubmitted February 26, 1991
120 day review expiration date April 16, 1991
Senator DRUMMOND introduced Dr. Kenneth W. Smith of Anderson, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
On motion of Senator WADDELL, Senator LEVENTIS was granted a leave of absence for today.
On motion of Senator O'DELL, Senator MULLINAX was granted a leave of absence for today.
Senator GIESE requested and was granted a leave of absence for Thursday, February 28, 1991.
The PRESIDENT appointed Senators BRYAN, LOURIE, McCONNELL and MITCHELL to escort Chief Justice George T. Gregory and his party to the rostrum at the Joint Assembly.
The following were introduced:
S. 710 -- Senator Lourie: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE STUDYING AND REVIEWING THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO MAKE ITS FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Whereas, the Joint Legislative Committee studying the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation has not yet concluded its review and study of the department, as required by Act 612, of 1990, Part I, Proviso 3.51 and additional time is needed to complete the study and review. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the time is extended for the joint committee to complete its study and review, and to make such reports to the General Assembly as may be necessary no later than January 23, 1992.
On motion of Senator LOURIE, with unanimous consent, the Concurrent Resolution was ordered placed on the Calendar for consideration tomorrow.
S. 711 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-1216 SO AS TO ENACT THE DEPENDENT TAX CREDIT ACT.
Senator ROSE spoke on the Bill.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 712 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-1217 SO AS TO ENACT THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR PARENTS ACT.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 713 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 267 OF 1985, RELATING TO ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF CHARLESTON COUNTY BY DORCHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE DORCHESTER COUNTY DELEGATION.
Senator ROSE spoke on the Bill.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Senator ROSE rose to a Point of Personal Privilege.
S. 714 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO SET FORTH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATIONS.
Senator ROSE spoke on the Bill.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
S. 715 -- Senator Long: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-260, RELATING TO THE HEALTH FACILITY LICENSURE ACT, TO EXEMPT EASTERN STAR HOME IN SUMTER COUNTY FROM LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.
S. 716 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 41-15-320, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING RULES, REGULATIONS, OR ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY EMPLOYER WHO WILFULLY OR REPEATEDLY VIOLATES ANY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY OR HEALTH RULE OR REGULATION PROMULGATED UNDER THESE LAWS MAY BE ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN SEVENTY THOUSAND, RATHER THAN TEN THOUSAND, DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND TO CHANGE THE MAXIMUM CIVIL PENALTY WHICH MAY BE ASSESSED FOR VIOLATING CERTAIN OTHER RELATED RULES, REGULATIONS, OR ORDERS FROM ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.
Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 717 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN NEWBERRY COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE "MT. PLEASANT" PRECINCT TO THE "CONSOLIDATED NUMBER 5" PRECINCT.
Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.
H. 3593 -- Rep. Fair: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION TO USE THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CHAMBERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1991, THROUGH SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1991, TO CONDUCT A YOUTH IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
Whereas, thirty-eight states have successful Youth in Government programs, and thousands of young people have participated in a model legislature and leadership assembly sponsored by the Young Men's Christian Association; and
Whereas, the Youth in Government program is designed to provide a first-hand experience in the state legislature and government affairs for high school students; and
Whereas, students taking part in the program will run for state-wide office, pass legislation, and organize their own government; and
Whereas, the purpose of the Young Men's Christian Association's Youth in Government program is to encourage our youth to develop an enthusiasm about government and community affairs. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly authorize the Young Men's Christian Association to use the Senate and House of Representatives Chambers Wednesday, December 4, 1991, through Saturday, December 7, 1991, to conduct a Youth in Government program. No charge may be imposed for the use of the chambers by the Young Men's Christian Association for this purpose.
Referred to the Committee on Invitations.
H. 3598 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING ANNE WORSHAM RICHARDSON, WORLD-RENOWNED ARTIST AND NATIVE OF TURBEVILLE, CLARENDON COUNTY, UPON HER RECENT INDUCTION INTO THE SOUTH CAROLINA HALL OF FAME.
On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 3599 -- Reps. Harvin, Baxley, G. Brown, McElveen and McLeod: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE ITEM NEWSPAPER AND ITS STAFF ON WINNING THIRTEEN AWARDS FOR NEWSPAPERS AND REPORTING EXCELLENCE FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION AND TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR EFFORT IN THE FIELD OF JOURNALISM.
On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 3534 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, RELATING TO PESTICIDE CONTROL, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1300, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
H. 3175 -- Rep. Harvin: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 91 SO AS TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN CONNECTION WITH CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES; TO PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT INSURANCE BUSINESS MAY BE PERFORMED BY A COMPANY AND TO PROVIDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE AND FOR CONDUCTING INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE; TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF A COMPANY NAME THAT MAY BE CONFUSED WITH AN EXISTING BUSINESS NAME; TO PROVIDE UNIMPAIRED PAID-IN CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS; TO PROVIDE FEE SURPLUS REQUIREMENTS; TO PROVIDE FOR REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE INCORPORATION OF A CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY; TO REQUIRE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS; TO PROVIDE FOR INSPECTIONS AND EXAMINATIONS REGARDING ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION, ABILITY TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER; TO PROVIDE FOR CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A LICENSE MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED; TO PROVIDE INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS; TO AUTHORIZE A COMPANY TO PROVIDE REINSURANCE AND TO PROVIDE REINSURANCE REQUIREMENTS; TO PROVIDE THAT NO COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO JOIN A RATING ORGANIZATION; TO PROHIBIT PARTICIPATION IN OR BENEFIT FROM A PLAN, POOL, ASSOCIATION, OR GUARANTY OR INSOLVENCY FUND; TO PROVIDE A RATE OF TAXATION ON INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND ON ASSUMED REINSURANCE PREMIUMS, TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM TAX TO BE PAID, TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY, AND TO REQUIRE TEN PERCENT OF THE PREMIUM TAX REVENUES COLLECTED BE APPROPRIATED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE FOR REGULATING CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES; TO AUTHORIZE THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS; TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF OTHER TITLE 38 PROVISIONS TO CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES; TO ESTABLISH THE CAPTIVE INSURANCE REGULATORY AND SUPERVISION FUND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL MEANS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THIS CHAPTER; AND TO PROVIDE THAT TITLE 38 INSURANCE REORGANIZATION, RECEIVERSHIPS, AND INJUNCTIONS APPLY TO CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
H. 3555 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, RELATING TO ADJUSTMENT OF DOLLAR AMOUNTS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1304, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
H. 3181 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-103-160 SO AS TO ENACT THE ENGLISH FLUENCY IN HIGHER LEARNING ACT TO REQUIRE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING TO EVALUATE THEIR FACULTIES FOR FLUENCY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, PROVIDE CERTIFICATES AS TO THAT FLUENCY, PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE, AND CONFER POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
H. 3535 -- Education and Public Works Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO BASIC PROGRAM/CURRICULUM, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1356, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
H. 3379 -- Reps. Gregory, Nettles, Short, Wilkins, Kirsh, Boan and J. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 48-27-130 AND 48-27-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFICATION AS A REGISTERED FORESTER INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SOUTH CAROLINA, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO CHARACTER AND REPUTATION, PROHIBIT REGISTRATION OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, AND PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR FORESTERS FOR SIX YEARS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.
H. 3533 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, RELATING TO LAKE MURRAY - DAILY CREEL AND SIZE LIMIT OF STRIPED BASS (ROCKFISH), DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1314, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.
H. 3304 -- Reps. J. Harris, Tucker, Waldrop, Clyborne and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-11-70, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AND PROSECUTION FOR FRAUDULENT INTENT IN DRAWING A CHECK, SO AS TO INCREASE THE SERVICE CHARGE FROM FIFTEEN TO TWENTY DOLLARS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3556 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE LICENSING BOARD FOR CONTRACTORS, RELATING TO GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CHARGES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1329, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 3557 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE LICENSING BOARD FOR CONTRACTORS, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ACT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1328, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 3507 -- Rep. J. Bailey: A BILL TO REENACT SECTION 38-73-470, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DISPOSITION OF UNINSURED MOTORIST PREMIUM; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 56 OF ACT 148 OF 1989 RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF SECTION 38-73-470.
Read the first time and on motion of Senator SALEEBY, with unanimous consent, ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
Senator J. VERNE SMITH, from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:
S. 22 -- Senator Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-1-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; AND SECTION 40-1-240, RELATING TO THE WAIVER OF THE EXAMINATION FOR ACCOUNTANTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NONRESIDENTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A WAIVER IS ALLOWED.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Senator MITCHELL, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report on:
S. 359 -- Senators Passailaigue and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 25, TITLE 7, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST THE ELECTION LAWS, BY ADDING SECTION 7-25-200, SO AS TO PROHIBIT A CANDIDATE IN ANY ELECTION FROM ACCEPTING MONEY TO FILE FOR OR WITHDRAW FROM CANDIDACY; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL REMEDIES AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES; AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Senator HAYES, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report on:
S. 536 -- Senators Lourie, Passailaigue, Bryan, Hayes, Long, Leatherman, Nell W. Smith, Macaulay, Peeler, Pope and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 77, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT, BY ADDING SECTION 44-77-85 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A DECLARANT TO DESIGNATE AN AGENT TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF TO ENSURE THAT THE DECLARATION IS GIVEN EFFECT; TO AMEND SECTION 44-77-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF "LIFE-SUSTAINING PROCEDURES" AND "TERMINAL CONDITION" AND ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF "PERMANENT UNCONSCIOUSNESS" AND "AGENT"; SECTION 44-77-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WITHHOLDING LIFE-SUSTAINING PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT ACTIVE TREATMENT MUST BE ADMINISTERED BEFORE GIVING EFFECT TO A DECLARATION; SECTION 44-77-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR WITNESSES TO A DEATH WITH DIGNITY DECLARATION, SO AS TO FURTHER LIMIT WHO MAY BE A WITNESS TO A DECLARATION; SECTION 44-77-50, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE FORM OF A DECLARATION, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE REVISED DEFINITION OF TERMINAL CONDITION, PROVIDE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS REGARDING TUBE FEEDING WHICH A DECLARANT MAY CHOOSE, PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN AGENT, AND REVISE THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE REVOCATION OF A DECLARATION; AND SECTION 44-77-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REVOCATION OF A DECLARATION, SO AS TO REMOVE THE AUTHORITY OF AN AGENT TO REVOKE A DECLARATION AND INCLUDE THAT THE DECLARANT MAY REVOKE A DECLARATION BY EXECUTING A SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Senator HAYES, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report on:
S. 541 -- Senators Lourie, Giese, Passailaigue, Bryan, Hayes and Long: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 62-5-504 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR HEALTH CARE POWERS OF ATTORNEY, TO DEFINE TERMS USED IN THE SECTION, TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND A DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADULT HEALTH CONSENT ACT APPLIES TO DECISIONS MADE PURSUANT TO A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING MENTAL INCOMPETENCE, TO PROVIDE EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS, AND A FORM FOR A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC POWERS FOR A HEALTH CARE AGENT IN ADDITION TO THOSE PROVIDED IN THE HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE THAT A HEALTH CARE AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR HEALTH CARE COSTS INCURRED ON BEHALF OF A PRINCIPAL AND IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT BUT NOT COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE THAT LIFE-SUSTAINING PROCEDURES MAY NOT BE WITHHELD PURSUANT TO A DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY IF THE PRINCIPAL IS PREGNANT, TO PROVIDE THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS MUST FOLLOW DIRECTIVES OF A HEALTH CARE AGENT UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THAT THE AGENT MUST GIVE DIRECTIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPAL'S DIRECTIVES IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE A GOOD FAITH DEFENSE TO THOSE WHO MAKE AND THOSE WHO RELY ON DECISIONS MADE PURSUANT TO A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE THAT A PRINCIPAL MAY APPOINT SUCCESSOR AGENTS AND THAT IF NO AGENT IS AVAILABLE, DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BY A SURROGATE UNDER THE ADULT HEALTH CARE CONSENT ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, TO PROVIDE REVOCATION PROCEDURES, TO PROVIDE THAT EXECUTION AND EFFECTUATION OF A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUICIDE, TO PROVIDE THAT A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY MUST NOT BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION FOR INSURANCE, MEDICAL TREATMENT, OR ADMISSION TO A HEALTH CARE FACILITY, TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE MERCY KILLING, TO PROVIDE THAT THE ABSENCE OF A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY PRESUMPTION REGARDING LIFE-SUSTAINING PROCEDURES, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-43-330, RELATING TO ANATOMICAL GIFTS, SO AS TO REORDER THE PRIORITY OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY CONSENT TO AN ANATOMICAL GIFT FOR A DECEDENT BY ADDING AN AGENT UNDER A HEALTH CARE POWER OF ATTORNEY; TO AMEND SECTION 44-66-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE ADULT HEALTH CARE CONSENT ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF HEALTH CARE; TO AMEND SECTION 44-66-30, RELATING TO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON THE PATIENT'S WISHES, IF KNOWN, AND TO ALLOW THE AUTHORIZED PERSON TO EITHER CONSENT OR WITHHOLD HEALTH CARE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 62-5-501, RELATING TO THE EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY NOT AFFECTED BY PHYSICAL DISABILITY, OR MENTAL INCOMPETENCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE HOW PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR MENTAL INCOMPETENCE MAY BE DETERMINED.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.
S. 177 -- Senators Martschink and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-75-50 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF A FACSIMILE MACHINE TO TRANSMIT UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING MATERIAL WHICH OFFERS TO SELL GOODS OR SERVICES.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
The amendment proposed by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry (LCI177.1) was adopted as follows:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, beginning on line 20 by striking Section 15-75-50(A) in its entirety and inserting
/Section 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 15-75-50. (A) No person may use a machine that electronically transmits facsimiles through connection with a telephone network to transmit unsolicited advertising material which offers to sell goods or services except as follows:
(1) where a prior or current business relationship exists between the sender and receiver.
(2) where the facsimile transmission is sent as a follow-up or response to a sales call, sales lead, or other business or association related contact."/
Amend title to conform.
There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.
S. 262 -- Senator Nell W. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2385, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 20-7-2388, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARDS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.
The amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs (CB:0001.jke) was adopted as follows:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 2, line 24, in Section 20-7-2388, as contained in SECTION 2, after the word /board/ by striking /member/ .
Amend title to conform.
There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.
S. 140 -- Senators McConnell and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, TITLE 6, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BUILDING CODES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CODES, COUNTIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES, REVISE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BUILDING CODES COUNCIL, REVISE PENALTIES, PROVIDE FOR DUTIES OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALS, AND PROVIDE FOR LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE CHAPTER; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 6 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR BUILDING CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Senator BRYAN objected to further consideration of the Bill.
S. 441 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-63-75 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS OF A CHILD'S PARENTS ARE INCLUDED ON THE CHILD'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.
ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE GEORGE T. GREGORY, JR.,
At 12:00 Noon the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.
The PRESIDENT of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.
The Reading Clerk of the Senate read the Concurrent Resolution:
H. 3468 -- Reps. Sheheen, Wilkins and Harwell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE GEORGE T. GREGORY, JR., TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1991.
The Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and members of his party, were escorted to the rostrum by Senators BRYAN, LOURIE, McCONNELL and MITCHELL and Reps. Gentry, Ross, Beatty and McElveen.
The PRESIDENT introduced the Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Gregory addressed the Joint Assembly, as follows:
"Thank you very much...Lt. Governor Theodore, President Pro Tempore Williams, Speaker Sheheen, Members of the Joint Assembly and friends...It is my privilege to address you for the third time as the Chief Justice of South Carolina. The tradition of the State of the Judiciary Address has become a symbol of the cooperation between our branches of government which has characterized our relationship in recent years. On behalf of the entire Judiciary, we are grateful for your willingness to join with us to provide a stable system of justice for all South Carolinians. We all rejoice of the breaking news with the military success and the war in the Gulf. Like you, with members of the General Assembly serving in the Gulf, we, too, have members of our staff and one of the judges serving there. Judge Larry Patterson, who you recently elected as a Circuit Judge, is one of those serving and one of our staff members, likewise, is there. It is great to recognize the military success of those who have been pursuing victory and the last few minutes have been wonderful. The peace keeping chore, however, and the challenge there may be greater than the military victory itself. My prayers continue with our President and with all of those participating and we hope that our friends and colleagues may be home soon and that peace and order may reign in the Mideast. I'm going to give you briefly some statistics about the various trial courts in our State. First, I will begin with the Circuit Court, the Court of General Sessions, and I will give you caseload statistics. These statistics will be brief, but will lead into some of the remarks that I will say later. During 1990, 100,000 criminal cases were filed in Circuit Court. While this includes many warrants which might be dropped before going to trial, each year brings increases in the number of cases processed. The state's solicitors attribute much of the increase to the prosecution of drug cases. At the end of the year, there were 49, 291 pending cases. More than a third of those failed to meet our goal of disposition within six months. Several years ago, only a fifth of our caseload failed to meet the standard. Next, is the Circuit Court, the Court of Common Pleas. The large increase in criminal cases required a greater share of available court weeks to be assigned to General Sessions Court. With few weeks available for Civil Court, down 6.6 percent in 1990. The number of cases disposed of once again fell short of the number filed. In 1990, 54,649 cases were filed, up from the previous year, and 50, 995 were ended, down 6 percent. Ideally, dispositions would match or exceed filings. The current imbalance resulted in 28,191 cases still awaiting disposition at the end of the year, up 16 percent over 1989. We have never ended the year with a backlog so large. Nearly six percent of our pending caseload has been on the docket longer than a year. Next, we look at the Family Court. For each of the past four years, filings have exceeded dispositions by about 1,000 to 2,000 cases each year. Last year, 83,245 cases were filed and 82,566 cases were ended. The 20,621 cases pending at the end of 1989 is 5 percent larger than last year. Caseload has never been greater in the Family Court. Our goal is for every Family Court matter to be disposed of within six months of filing. During 1990, the share of pending cases aged six months or less dipped to 92 percent after several years at 95 or 96 percent. So, some 8 percent of our cases exceed the six months standard that we have. The Family Court is doing great work and child support enforcement statistics indicate some of the accomplishments. Since 1983, the Family Courts of this State have enforced child support obligations through use of rules to show cause, automatically issued by the Clerks of Court when accounts are in arrears. During fiscal year, 1989-90, the state's Clerks of Court have collected $115 million in support payments. This represents an increase of ten percent over the previous year. Estimated collections for the current fiscal year total over $125 million. A three percent surcharge on these collections, to offset collection costs, will provide the counties with $2.8 million in revenue and the State with nearly $1 million. The Federal Family Support Act of 1988 has imposed additional burdens of reviewing child support awards which may make it impossible for the Family Courts to handle all child support enforcement matters. Beginning last October, the Department of Social Services began a program of reviewing each of its cases to determine whether modification of any child support award would be appropriate. Those cases should be entering the system soon. By October 1993, our Family Courts must automatically review every child support case handled by DSS at least once every three years at the request of either parent. Most importantly, federal regulations will require automatic review potential modifications for every child support case, whether or not handled by DSS, depending upon the outcome of a statistical study now being conducted by the federal office of Child Support Enforcement. As these regulations take effect, and the new modification cases are filed in our Family Courts, we must continue to assess our judicial needs, to determine whether our courts can handle the caseload, or will require assistance through administrative or quasi-judicial review. Briefly now, with respect to the Magistrates and Municipal Courts. Of the nearly one and one-half million cases handled by the state's trial courts during 1990, the 800,000 magistrates courts dispositions represent over 56 percent of the total, and the 395,000 municipal court cases are 28 percent of the total. A large share of the magistrates and municipal courts dispositions are bond forfeitures in traffic cases. These two summary courts cost less than $22 million to operate statewide, yet generate nearly $64 million for their respective counties and municipalities. Next is the Probate Court. During 1990, there were 22,826 filings in the Probate Courts, and increase of 4.6 percent. There were 21,912 dispositions, which was 12.6 percent higher than the previous year. Now, briefly, with respect to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, I tell you that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are both functioning well and in harmony. The Supreme Court continues to be temporarily housed in the Calhoun Building with the Court of Appeals during renovation of the Supreme Court Building. The Appeals docketed increased by 75 to 1,027 in 1990. This is an eight percent increase over 1989. The largest growth area has been the motions practice. In 1990, 3,546 motions were filed in the Supreme Court compared with 2,684 in 1989, a 32 percent increase. Next, I will tell you of a few of the accomplishments in the past year and some of the projects underway. First, I would like to comment on the new Appellate Court Rules. The Supreme Court promulgated new Appellate Court Rules which became effective September 1, 1990. Public hearings were conducted by the Supreme Court prior to submission to the General Assembly and again by the House Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee after submission. The old disorganized rules covered a wide variety of judicial system procedures. The new rules reorganize that information into a form which is more cohesive and useful to attorneys and the courts. Archaic language was replaced with clearer terminology, and the entire Appellate process has been simplified and streamlined. Next, is the new rules of professional conduct. Also, during the year, the Supreme Court adopted rules of professional conduct which govern the ethical conduct of attorneys in this State. The new rules replaced and improved upon older policies, and brought South Carolina into conformity with most other states' attorney ethic rules. For more than ten years, attorneys have been required to attend at least 12 hours of continuing legal education each year. The Supreme Court created and additional requirement, every three years, each attorney must also attend at least six hours of continuing legal education which relates to legal ethics. I would like to talk briefly about the Court automation project manager. For years, government has used computer technology to control the costs of meeting its responsibilities. Unfortunately, the Judiciary has hardly participated in these opportunities. While we have done extremely well in exercising fiscal restraint, we have failed to automate our offices and we still perform much of our work in inefficient ways. A priority for the Judicial Department must be to expand our computer resources and obtain greater productivity immediately and budget savings in the long run. To that end, the Department has begun a study of the use of computer systems by the various courts. We now have access to staff expertise in this area and are using this resource to assist the department, and local courts as well in making decisions about the modern technologies available to help manage our work. I would like to comment on the Supreme Court Building renovations now. Last July, after nearly 18 months of asbestos removal, work began on the long overdue renovation of the Supreme Court Building. Structural and leaking problems have been corrected and the entire building is getting a facelift. Lost space has been recaptured. The renovation project will provide additional office, library and storage space and a more efficient working arrangement for the Justices and the Clerk of Court. Work is progressing close to schedule and should be complete by August, 1991. We expect to be back in the building for our September term of court. A functional facility will improve the court's ability to better serve the people of South Carolina. The Court expresses its gratitude to you for recognizing and meeting this need. Our report on the state of the Judiciary would not be complete without an update on the activities of the State Grand Jury. This newest component of the criminal justice system has had a significant impact on drug trafficking in South Carolina. It has also had a corresponding impact on the Judicial Department. Since its inception in June, 1989, the State Grand Jury has investigated eight drug trafficking organizations operating in 21 counties. As of December 31, 1990, 175 persons had been indicted for trafficking, the most serious drug charge. Of those, 136 were South Carolinians, and 39 were from out of state. Also, 144 of them were male, 31 were female, 153 caucasian, 16 hispanic and six were black. 108 cases were concluded by December 31, 1990, with 103 found guilty or entering guilty pleas, a 95 percent conviction rate. 18 persons received sentences of 25 years without parole or higher. The average sentence was 12 years and a fine of $19,000. Law enforcement agencies assisting the State Grand Jury seized 77 vehicles, $335,998.28 in currency, 659.33 acres of real property, jewelry and firearms. At year's end, 44 final orders had been entered and 68 civil forfeiture actions were pending. In its 18 months of operation, the State Grand Jury has been in session 49 days. Eight Circuit Judges have spent a total of 81 court days on State Grand Jury matters. The Supreme Court has entered several administrative orders, had concluded two appeals from setting of bonds and has 13 appeals of convictions and four appeals of civil forfeitures pending. I would like now to concentrate on sentencing guidelines. On January 31, 1991, the Legislature received a comprehensive bill dealing with the classification of hundreds of criminal offenses. Additionally, you will receive a package of sentencing recommendations. These two items have been developed for your consideration by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission. I support their recommendations. Sentencing is the one area that directly touches every part of our criminal justice process. The Bill addresses a number of problems in our Criminal Code. Over 600 criminal offenses which carry a maximum term of one year or greater are addressed in this comprehensive legislation. The Bill assembles these offenses into two groups and provides equivalent maximum terms for crimes of comparable seriousness. Six unique classes of felony and three classes of misdemeanor offenses have been created. Each offense class carries a distinct maximum term scaled according to severity. By passing this legislation, you are bringing a sense of unity within different levels of criminal offenses. In the future, as new criminal statutes are considered, the Legislature could place them into a category with other similar crimes thereby ensuring similar offenses will always carry comparable maximum terms. The improvements provided by the classification bill could enhance the planning for criminal justice agencies and spawn new programs targeted for various groups of offenders. Additionally, this Bill draws for the first time, a clear and meaningful distinction between felony and misdemeanor offenses. The classification bill brings a sense of uniformity and equality to our criminal code. I urge you to pass this important piece of legislation this session. In conjunction with the classification bill, I ask the Legislature to adopt by Joint Resolution, regulations on sentencing prepared by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission. The Sentencing Guidelines Commission represents the different components of our criminal justice system. Working together, they have hammered out a tool which will aid in reducing sentencing disparity without overly restricting judicial discretion. The Commission chaired by Justice Harwell and Representative Wilkins developed a process which will help bring a sense of stability to sentencing policy. Their task was to develop recommendations that will help to ensure judicial fairness while maintaining adequate discretion and intelligently using the scarce resources available to our criminal justice system. The Commission's recommendations give the Legislature opportunity to establish advisory guidelines on how certain types of offenders should normally be treated. However, flexibility is also maintained so the Judge may still tailor a sentence to fit unique circumstances. The guidelines provide a recommendation on when to use probation or incarceration and how much. These recommendations provide a uniform starting point for all judges to consider. Guidelines will help to discourage lenient sentences for offenders who commit serious crimes and have long criminal records as well as help reduce lengthy prison terms for relatively minor offenders. Although, sentencing guidelines are advisory, when implemented, these recommendations should help all members of our Judiciary to act collectively in handing down equal sentences for similar crimes. Other states and the federal judicial system now use some form of guidelines. With more judges involved in the sentencing process and more sentencing options to choose from, it is increasingly difficult to maintain similar treatment for similar cases without guidelines. I believe sentencing guidelines will help. As Administrative Head of the Judiciary, I encourage your support for passage this session of sentencing guidelines and the classification bill. If time constraints do not permit full consideration of both, please give priority to the classification bill. All components of the Criminal Justice System will benefit greatly by its adoption this year. Now, I will address the budget needs of the Judiciary. As Administrative Head of the Judicial Department, it is my duty to report to you and to the citizens of South Carolina that the ability of the Judicial branch of government to discharge its constitutional responsibilities is seriously imperiled. The budget process for the Judicial Department is simply not working. Lack of adequate funding for the department may in the last quarter of this fiscal year bring us to the point of a fairly massive shutdown of trial level court in this State. The Judicial Department of South Carolina is not merely another state agency to fund, it is one of the three coordinate branches of government. The genius of the framers of this democracy created a form of government unique to the United States. The people would govern themselves by a system of executive, legislative and judicial branches, each independent of the other, but cooperative with each other. The mission of the legislative is to enact broad, future-oriented laws by which to govern whole segments of the population. The mission of the executive is to develop rules and strategies to implement these laws in the day to day administration of government. It is the role of the Judiciary to apply the law in the unique context of cases brought by citizens and the State in an adversary proceeding. The General Assembly, in response to the complex society in which we now live, has spent the great bulk of its legislative output in recent years in enacting new criminal and civil laws to govern citizen conduct and in creating new progressive programs to enhance the education, health and public safety of our citizens. The Executive Department has expanded dramatically in recent years as state agencies administer new and complex programs relating to the education, health and public safety of our citizenry. Each of the new laws, civil and criminal, which govern our citizens must ultimately be enforced by the judicial branch of government. Put in the most practical terms, citizens cannot be protected, criminals cannot be jailed, illegal pollution cannot be halted, contracts cannot be enforced and unsettled disputes cannot be resolved unless the judicial branch functions. In the present fiscal year, the entire judicial department is funded at $24.2 million. This represents six-tenths of one percent of the General Fund revenues of the State. By way of contrast in the last fiscal year, the General Assembly appropriated $24.8 million in aid to subdivisions for the two largest counties in South Carolina. This state aid to two of the 46 counties is a larger state appropriation than the appropriation for the entire judicial department. Recent United States Justice Department statistical reports indicate that South Carolina ranks last of all the 50 states in percentage of state funds allocated to the judicial department and also ranks dead last in the percentage of state and local funding devoted to the court system. This department has always been frugal and conservative in its approach to funding requests. We will continue to follow this course. However, it is not too much to tell you that the ability of the Court System to function on the most basic level is not imperiled. More and more activity in Circuit Court is now devoted to criminal cases. These matters are required by the United States Constitution to be given priority for trial. The nine additional Circuit Court Judges, who have now been elected to terms which commence July 1, 1991, have been requested by the Judicial Department for the past two years. As we meet here today, it has been twelve years since there has been any increase in judge positions at the trial level in this State. In these twelve years, our trial activity as we noted earlier in these remarks has literally exploded. Increased population, the cancer of drug sale and use in our society, and the complexity of civil litigation are among the many factors which have placed enormous demands on our judicial system. By your affirmative vote last year to create these additional trial level positions, you took a major step toward stabilizing our system of justice for all South Carolinians. The task of funding these positions and restoring the devastating cuts the department has suffered is still before you. Adequate funding of the Judicial Department cannot wait until next year. Nor can the implementation of the nine additional judges wait until next calendar year. Before closing, and with your permission, I wish to introduce our colleagues present today. From the Supreme Court, we have Justices David Harwell, Lee Chandler, Ernest Finney and Jean Toal, from the Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Alex Sanders and Judges Randy Bell, Jasper Cureton, Jack Gardner, Bert Goolsby and Curtis Shaw and retired Chief Justice Bruce Littlejohn is seated with them. All have remained wonderfully encouraging and supportive of me during the three years I have served as Chief Justice. I began my fourth year this morning. Similar encouragement and support has come from all other judges of the unified court system and all staff and department personnel. I publicly express my deep appreciation to them. In closing, I wish to thank the General Assembly for your cooperation and kindness to me personally. We labor together, the General Assembly and the Judicial Branch, for the good of all South Carolinians. As we administer justice, our common goal is fidelity to our shared trust. My faith rests in you and the people of this great State. Thank you very much. I am going to conclude with a few additional remarks. I have an announcement to make. I will retire as Chief Justice no later than December 31 of this year. By then, my judicial career will have extended some 40 years. First, as a municipal judge for over 4 years and beginning in 1956 as a state judge. My deepest appreciation goes to the General Assembly for its trust in granting me the opportunities for the past 35 years. It has been customary that the senior associate justice attain the position of Chief Justice. I make my announcement at this time, so that the General Assembly may this year elect my successor. I will be handing my written letters expressing my desire and intent to retire this year to the appropriate Bodies early next week. I want to thank you so much for electing the judges that you have elected this year. You will have at least eight additional judges to elect this year, four to replace the Family Court Judges who have been elected to the Circuit Court, three Circuit Judges who are retiring and for my replacement as Chief Justice. Perhaps, there will be additional judges. Several are talking to me and we are having an exodus from the trial bench at this time. I have concern for the system and concern for the courts and I ask that you be mindful of that. It is difficult to leave in difficult times. I had never planned to remain as Chief Justice beyond age 70 and I will be 70 in December and at that time, I think it is appropriate that I step aside and others step forward. I trust that you will give to my successor and those who follow the same treatment that you have given to me. Thank you."
The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned, whereupon the Senate returned to its Chamber and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
At 12:45 P.M., the Senate resumed.
At 12:47 P.M., on motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.
This web page was last updated on
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 8:58 A.M.