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:

Beloved, hear the words recorded by St. John (NIV 6:9):

"Another of his disciples, Andrew,

Simon Peter's brother, spoke up,

`Here is a boy with five small barley

loaves and two small fish, but

how far will they go among so many?'"
Let us pray.

O God, whose vantage point is above the circle of the earth, we sometimes tremble when we see the great pile of responsibility upon us as a State and a Nation.

Forbid that we should think negatively as Andrew did in the long ago when he said, "What good are a few loaves and a couple fish for all these people?"

May we have the insight to see clearly the things that OUGHT and SHOULD be done!

As we face every challenge help us to ask two questions: Is the cause right? and is the need real?

Whether a State or a Nation with great resources, or a lad with a little lunch, help us to exercise our stewardship in faith and with dedication... and look for surprises!

Amen.

Senator GIESE made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not present.

Senator GIESE moved that a call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the call:

Bryan Courson Drummond
Fielding Giese Gilbert
Hayes Hinds Hinson
Holland Land Leatherman
Leventis Long Lourie
Macaulay Martin Martschink
Matthews McConnell McGill
Mitchell Moore Mullinax
O'Dell Passailaigue Patterson
Peeler Pope Reese
Rose Russell Saleeby
Setzler Shealy Smith, J.V.
Smith, N.W. Thomas Waddell
Washington Williams Wilson

The Senate resumed.

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE FOR JUDICIAL SCREENING

TO: The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House

FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee

DATE: April 3, 1991

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the positions of Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit (Seat #2), Judge of the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit (Seat #3), Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Seat #1), and Judge of the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit (Seat #1).

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. Instead, it is the Committee's role to determine whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge. Under the statute, the Committee's determination in regard to each candidate is not binding on the members of the General Assembly.

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 Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held at the State House on March 28, 1991, and the portions of the documents submitted by the candidates and by persons filing affidavits which were made part of the public record. Persons filing affidavits were given an opportunity to testify regarding the qualifications of the candidates. If the persons filing affidavits testified, their testimonies were included in the Transcript. If the persons filing affidavits did not appear to testify, their affidavits were included in the Transcript.

Each candidate's file includes an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. Those documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 402 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

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

SENATOR POPE: WE HAVE A QUORUM NOW. I'M GOING TO CALL THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE, IS PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975, REQUIRED TO REVIEW CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE; AND OUR FUNCTION IN THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES, BUT RATHER TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS.

THE INQUIRY WE UNDERTAKE IS THOROUGH. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EACH CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY SLED, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS; A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS REQUIRED; AND WE HAVE A CREDIT REPORT; AND WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING, AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES.

THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEW TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE CANDIDATES AND THE VISITORS, MY NAME IS TOM POPE AND I WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF THIS JOINT COMMITTEE A FEW MONTHS AGO. WE HAVE WITH US REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GENTRY, WHO IS THE VICE CHAIRMAN; SENATOR ISADORE LOURIE, WHO HAS BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE FOR MANY YEARS AND HAS SERVED SO WELL; REPRESENTATIVE B.L. HENDRICKS, WHO IS OUR FIRST LAY PERSON IN RECENT TIMES ON THE COMMITTEE, AND WE ARE REAL PROUD OF HIM; AND REPRESENTATIVE DAN MARTIN FROM CHARLESTON WHO IS OUR FIFTH MEMBER WHO IS PRESENT TODAY.

THE SENATE MET VERY LATE LAST NIGHT. WE MET UNTIL ABOUT 10:30; AND, SO, WE MAY HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE WITH OUR OTHER TWO SENATORS, GETTING THEM HERE BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS.

I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYBODY, I KNOW A LOT OF YOU ARE HERE RIGHT NOW AND WE CAN ONLY DO ONE CANDIDATE AT A TIME AND WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO BE EXPEDITIOUS, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO LIMIT ANYONE'S QUESTIONS ON THE COMMITTEE OF OUR CANDIDATES; SO, I ASK YOU, PLEASE, TO BEAR WITH US. WE CERTAINLY DON'T INTEND TO INCONVENIENCE ANYONE ANYMORE THAN WE HAVE TO AND WE WILL TRY TO MOVE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. OUR PLAN, UNLESS SOMETHING UNFORSEEN DEVELOPS, IS WE PLAN TO FINISH THE SCREENING TODAY EVEN IF IT REQUIRES US TO STAY A LITTLE LATE. WE HOPE THAT WON'T BE NECESSARY, BUT WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT IF WE HAVE TO.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HODGES FROM LANCASTER JUST JOINED US AND HE'S OUR SIXTH COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO IS NOW PRESENT WITH US.

I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW US. THIS IS MS. PAULA BENSON WHO WORKS FULL-TIME WITH THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT SHE IS STAFF COUNSEL WITH US AND WE'RE REAL PLEASED TO HAVE PAULA AS STAFF COUNSEL FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND SHE'S DONE A LOT OF GOOD WORK FOR US ALREADY. THANK YOU PAULA. AND BARBARA SATTERWHITE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COMMITTEE IS ON MY LEFT; AND SHE HAS WORKED FOR THE JOINT SCREENING COMMITTEE IN YEARS PAST UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF SENATOR HEYWARD MCDONALD AND SENATOR TOM SMITH, AND SO SHE'S OFF AND RUNNING AND IT'S NOT A NEW DIRECTION BECAUSE SHE'S DONE IT BEFORE; AND SHE'S DONE A REAL FINE JOB GETTING EVERYTHING ORGANIZED. AND WE HAVE SOME PAGES HERE FOR US TODAY IF WE NEED TO HAVE ANY SPECIAL ERRANDS RUN.

AT THIS TIME I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF MATTERS THAT--UNAVOIDABLY THIS HAPPENS--WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF MATTERS THAT WE WILL NEED TO TAKE UP IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I SO MOVE.

SENATOR LOURIE: I SECOND IT.

SENATOR POPE: ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
(AYE STATED IN UNISON.)

SENATOR POPE: OPPOSED, NO.

(SILENT PAUSE.)
SENATOR POPE: I WOULD ASK YOU, PLEASE, GIVE US YOUR INDULGENCE. WE WILL BE AS BRIEF AS WE CAN, BUT WE DO HAVE A FEW MATTERS WE HAVE TO TAKE UP AND WE WILL BE WITH YOU SHORTLY.

(OFF THE RECORD EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:14 A.M.; BACK ON THE RECORD AT 9:34 A.M.)
SENATOR POPE: WE WILL GO BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION NOW. THE AGENDA BRINGS US TO THE JUDGESHIP OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ORANGEBURG, CALHOUN, AND DORCHESTER COUNTIES, AND WE HAVE FIVE APPLICANTS. WE WILL START ALPHABETICALLY WITH MR. WALTER BAILEY AND ASK HIM TO PLEASE COME TO THE END OF THE TABLE. MR. BAILEY, WE DO NOT HAVE MICROPHONES, SO THE COURT REPORTER WOULD APPRECIATE YOU AND THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SPEAKING PRETTY LOUDLY IF YOU CAN.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR POPE: MR. BAILEY, I WOULD ASK YOU TO, PLEASE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SHE WILL SWEAR YOU. (WALTER M. BAILEY, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q YOU ARE WALTER MARSHALL BAILEY, JR.?
A YES, SIR.
Q MR. BAILEY, YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR; IS IT CORRECT?
A THE ONLY MISTAKE I SEE IN ITEM NUMBER FIVE, MILITARY SERVICE, THE COMMISSIONING DATE SHOULD BE '73 INSTEAD OF 1971. I JUST CAUGHT THAT THIS MORNING; OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT; YOU DON'T NEED ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OTHER THAN THAT?
A NO, SIR.
Q IS THERE ANY OBJECTION BY YOU OF MAKING THIS SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD TODAY?
A NO.
Q WE WILL CONSIDER IT DONE AT THIS POINT.

1. Walter Marshall Bailey, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:

120 South Magnolia St. 134 East Richardson Avenue

Summerville, SC 29483 Summerville, SC 29483

2. He was born in Boca Raton, Florida on October 16, 1945. He is presently 45 years old.

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

4. He was married to Barbara Hargadon Bailey on August 3, 1968. He has four children: Sheila, age 19 (Sophomore at Francis Marion College/part time sales clerk); Edwin, age 15; Sarah, age 12; and Pamela, age 12.

5. Military Service: U. S. Naval Reserve - Enlisted October 17, 1962; Active Duty Submarine Service July 12, 1965 - May 29, 1967; Honorable Discharge October 16, 1968, as Third Class Petty Officer; Commissioned Judge Advocate Generals Corp on April 23, 1973; Transferred to Retired Reserve November 1, 1990; Served as Reserve Unit Commanding Officer for 4 consecutive years immediately prior to retirement; present rank - Commander, JAGC (0-5); Service No. ***-**-*****.

6. He attended The Citadel, July 1963 - November 1963; left to attend University of South Carolina; University of South Carolina, January 1964 - May 1965, left to go on active duty in Naval Reserve; Baptist College at Charleston, September 1967 - August 1969, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (Management); University of South Carolina School of Law, September 1969 - May 13, 1972, Juris Doctor.

7. At Baptist College at Charleston he was a member of the Skydiving Club (September 1967 - August 1968). At the University of South Carolina School of Law, he was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Fraternity (October 1969 - May 1970).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1986

15.25 hours - two (2) JAG Conferences

1987

6 hours - S. C. Municipal, County Attorneys Institute

1988

17.67 hours - Naval Reserve JAG Conference, UM, UIM Seminar

1989

61 hours - Reserve Lawyers Course

1990

7.16 hours - 1990 Military Law Update Workshop

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been continuously engaged in private practice in Summerville from admission to the Bar in September 1972 to present. His practice has been primarily in Dorchester, Charleston and Berkeley Counties and has included all State and Federal Courts. He has been a sole practitioner since 1982; Attorney for the Town of Summerville - 1977 to present; Attorney for Dorchester School District No. 2 - 1976 to present; Assistant Solicitor for Dorchester County - 1974-1976 and 1979-1980.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - 3

State - 224

Municipal Court Prosecutions - 56

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 20%

Criminal - 26%

Domestic - 54%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 23%

Non-jury - 77%

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

(a) He served on the Plaintiff's Committee for multi-district litigation resulting from the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 212 in 1974. This was a significant legal experience, because the three (3) member committee took depositions in various parts of the country and participated in several trials in Federal District Court in North Carolina.

(b) State vs. Kenneth Green. He represented Kenneth Green in a murder trial in General Sessions Court in Dorchester County in 1982. This case was significant, because the Solicitor had served a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty, and he extensively researched applicable law, prepared the case for trial and tried it.

(c) Marchand, Executrix vs. Government Employees Insurance Company. U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, 1987. This case involved complex issues of stacking of underinsured motorist coverage and failure to offer.

(d) McGill vs. Summerville School District No. 2. He successfully defended the School District in a challenge to the election of the School Board. Plaintiff's Appeal to the Fourth Circuit was denied. This case was significant because of the issues involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was helpful to him in representing the Town of Summerville in an action by the Justice Department concerning the Voting Rights Act.

(e) Blackard vs. Darby Marine and Supply, Inc. This case was tried in Federal District Court in Charleston in 1984. It concerned the sinking of a yacht and provided insight into Admiralty Law, which he was not previously familiar with.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Turkett vs. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 279 S.C. 309, 306 SE2d 602 (1983), South Carolina Supreme Court.

(b) Middleton vs. David A. Cantley Construction Company, 278 S.C. 154, 293 SE2d 311 (1982), South Carolina Supreme Court.

(c) Knight vs. Autumn Company, Inc., et al., 271 S.C. 112, 245 SE2d 602 (1978), South Carolina Supreme Court.

(d) Brooks vs. Brooks, 289 S.C. 352, 345 SE2d (1986), South Carolina Supreme Court.

(e) Sparkman, et al. vs. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Unpublished Opinion No. 84 - 1419 - Decided November 14, 1984; U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) State of South Carolina vs. Charles Raymond Dozier, 263 S.C. 267, 210 SE2d 225 (1974).

(b) State of South Carolina vs. Willie Kinard, Unreported Anders Brief - Approximately 1981, South Carolina Supreme Court.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: None other than military service and part-time and summer employment while in school.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: He is a partner in a general partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing a twenty (20) acre tract of land for investment.

27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

31. Sued: He was sued in Federal District Court in 1986 together with the Governor, the Dorchester County Sheriff, the Mayor of Summerville, the Summerville Chief of Police, the Municipal Judge, the Associate Municipal Judge and other Co-Defendants by a man who contended that his civil rights had been violated when he was tried and convicted of driving without a driver's license in his possession. A directed verdict was granted in favor of all Defendants. Rory vs. Freese, et al., U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Civil Action No. 2:86-373-8J.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was on 1/10/91 by Dr. Otis E. Engelman, Jr., Summerville.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Dorchester County Bar Association and South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Summerville; Vocational Advisory Committee, Dorchester School District No. 2.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) James F. Jackson, Vice President
First National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 897, Summerville, SC 29484

(b) Kathy D. Meadows, Assistant Secretary
South Carolina Federal
100 N. Main Street, Summerville, SC 29483

(c) Hon. Berlin G. Myers, Mayor
Town of Summerville
104 Civic Center, Summerville, SC 29483

(d) G. Waring Parker, Esquire
P. O. Box 1042, Summerville, SC 29484

(e) David P. McCann, Esquire
68 Hasell Street, Charleston, SC 29402

Q IN REVIEWING THE FILE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. AND, THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE. THE DORCHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE SUMMERVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THOSE RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND THEY ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DORCHESTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS WERE CHECKED AND THEY INDICATE NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU AT ALL; BUT YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, WHICH I THINK YOU HAVE EXPLAINED IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT?
A I'M CITY ATTORNEY FOR SUMMERVILLE AND PART OF THAT JOB IS PROSECUTING CASES FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT. MR. RORY, WHO WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT ACTION, HAD SOME RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS ABOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE; HE FELT LIKE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE. HE GOT STOPPED AND WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE HIS LICENSE AND HE TOLD THEM HE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND THE ARRESTING OFFICER DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH HIM; SO, HE TOOK HIM TO THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE. THE JUDGE CALLED ME UP AND ASKED ME WHAT TO DO WITH THE MAN. HE WOULD NOT CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; HE WOULD NOT TELL THE JUDGE WHETHER HE WANTED A JURY TRIAL OR A BENCH TRIAL. HE WANTED TO--THE JUDGE WANTED TO LET THIS GUY OUT ON A P.R. BOND, BUT HE REFUSED TO NOT DRIVE WITHOUT THE LICENSE AND THE JUDGE SAID, I CAN'T LET YOU OUT ON A P.R. BOND IF YOU VIOLATE THE SAME ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE--THE SAME STATUTE THAT WE HAVE ARRESTED YOU FOR. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH HIM. I TOLD THE JUDGE THAT IF THE MAN WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AND WOULD NOT CONFIRM WITH THE STATE THAT HE WANTED A JURY TRIAL, TO GO AHEAD AND OFFER HIM A BENCH TRIAL; AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY POINT IN KEEPING THE MAN IN JAIL FOR TWO WEEKS OR SO UNTIL THE NORMAL TRIAL DATE WOULD COME UP; SO, I SAID MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO EXPEDITE THE BENCH TRIAL, WHICH WAS DONE, AND HE WAS CONVICTED. AND AS FAR AS I CAN UNDERSTAND THE THRUST OF HIS COMPLAINT, THAT WAS HIS ALLEGATION AGAINST ME, THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE THE ADVICE I GAVE THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AS FAR AS HANDLING THE CASE. THE COMPLAINT ITSELF WAS PROBABLY 25 TO 30 PAGES LONG. IT WAS JUST A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
Q A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS ENTERED IN YOUR FAVOR?
A A DIRECTED VERDICT BY JUDGE BLATT AFTER HE TESTIFIED.
Q ALL RIGHT; I BELIEVE YOUR HEALTH IS LISTED AS BEING EXCELLENT.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LISTED ON YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST. YOUR FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED SATISFACTORILY. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY; AND NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT TODAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU IN ANY WAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF GENERAL QUESTIONS, MR. BAILEY, THAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AND I'M ALSO GOING TO ASK EVERYBODY ELSE; I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU WHEN I SAY THIS.
A ALL RIGHT.
Q BUT ONE OF THE CRITICISMS THAT WE HEAR AS COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND AS LAWYERS FROM JURORS AND WITNESSES AND FROM OTHER LAWYERS AND LITIGANTS IS THAT--NOT ABOUT THE COMPETENCY OF THE JUDGE OR THE LEGAL TALENTS OF THE JUDGE--BUT ABOUT DEMEANOR, SHORT-TEMPEREDNESS. SOME PEOPLE HAVE DESCRIBED THE CONDITION OF "ROBE-ITIS," ONCE THE BLACK ROBE HAS BEEN PLACED ON YOU. TEMPERAMENT SEEMS TO BE AWFULLY IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO ALL THOSE GROUPS I IDENTIFIED. COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD INTEND TO DO IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO THIS JUDGESHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT TEMPERAMENT IS KEPT FOREMOST IN YOUR MIND?
A SIR, I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 19 YEARS AND I HAVE SEEN EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT; AND I THINK ALL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW IN THE WORLD KIND OF FALLS FLAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN EVEN TEMPERAMENT, AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT ONLY TO TREAT EVERYBODY FAIRLY, LITIGANTS, JURORS, AND THE LAWYERS, BUT TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT YOU ARE DOING THAT. YOU CAN KNOW WHAT SOMEBODY'S ARGUMENT IS, A JUDGE CAN READ THE BRIEFS AND KNOW WHICH WAY HE IS GOING TO GO PROBABLY IN A LOT OF CASES; AND I HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN AND THE JUDGE WILL MAKE UP HIS MIND AFTER READING THE BRIEFS AND GIVE ONE LAWYER THE CHANCE TO SPEAK AND GO AHEAD AND RULE AND CUT THE OTHER GUY SHORT; AND I THINK THAT'S WRONG. I THINK THAT MAYBE A LEGAL MISTAKE MAY NOT BE MADE, BUT THE APPEARANCE IS THAT BOTH SIDES AREN'T GETTING A FAIR SHOT. AND I THINK THAT I AM EVEN-TEMPERED. I THINK THAT I AM LOW-KEY AND BALANCED AND I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY TEMPER OR MOODINESS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. I WOULD TRY MY BEST TO GIVE BOTH SIDES A FAIR SHOT AND A FAIR HEARING.
Q ALL RIGHT; ANOTHER AREA OF INTEREST TO ME--AND IN THINKING ABOUT WHAT QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK, I DON'T HAVE A LONG LIST OR ANYTHING, BUT I DID TALK TO SOME JUDGES AND SOME LAWYERS AND ANOTHER THING THAT I HEARD IS ABOUT WORK ETHIC. THAT IS JUST MY TERM FOR IT, BUT IN SOME INSTANCES, AND THIS IS NOT A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM, BUT IN SOME INSTANCES THERE IS DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING JUDGES, SAY, ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS OR FRIDAYS AT ALL IN SOME CASES. THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO ME. I HAVEN'T REALLY OBSERVED IT THAT MUCH. BUT WHAT DO YOU SEE YOUR ROLE AS BEING AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE WITH REGARD TO HOLDING COURT LATE IN THE WEEK AND PERHAPS EVEN LATE IN THE EVENING, IF NECESSARY?
A I THINK A JUDGE IS PAID TO GET THE JOB DONE AND IF IT TAKES WORKING LATE, IF IT TAKES WORKING AN OCCASIONAL WEEKEND, OR WHATEVER. I THINK THE BUSINESS OF WINDING COURT DOWN THURSDAY AFTERNOON OR EARLY FRIDAY MORNING TO GET HOME IS WRONG. I THINK THEY ARE GETTING PAID TO PUT IN A FULL DAY'S WORK, A FULL WEEK'S WORK, AND IT SHOULD BE DONE.

SENATOR POPE: I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO POSE SOME QUESTIONS.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE ASKED THE QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE ON DEMEANOR BECAUSE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME, ALSO.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: I HAVE A QUESTION.

SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.

Q WERE YOU A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FOR SUMMERVILLE?
A NO, PART-TIME. I HAVE BEEN PART-TIME SINCE ABOUT '77, I THINK. IT'S ABOUT 20 PERCENT OF MY PRACTICE.

SENATOR POPE: IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE OR STATEMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, MR. BAILEY?
A NO, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

SENATOR POPE: IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE, WE THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO LEAVE.
A THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: NEXT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MR. JAMES H. MESSERVY. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

MR. MESSERVY: JAMES HERBERT MESSERVY.

(JAMES H. MESSERVY, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. MESSERVY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AND I RAISED THIS QUESTION TO MRS. SATTERWHITE, I THINK, YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, IS ON POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND, OF COURSE, Y'ALL ARE DOING AN ETHICS BILL NOW TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS.
Q YES, SIR.
A I HAVE A NUMBER OF OFFICE COMPLEXES THAT I RENT TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER, AND IT DEPENDS ON WHICH VERSION OF THE ETHICS BILL YOU HAVE, I DID NOT PUT THAT DOWN, BUT THAT MAY AT ONE TIME BE A CONFLICT OR NOT; I DO NOT KNOW.
Q THIS IS, LIKE, OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT YOU OWN AND YOU LEASE TO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES?
A YES. I PROBABLY OWN MORE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN DORCHESTER COUNTY THAN ANYBODY ELSE. I STARTED BUILDING ABOUT 12 YEARS AGO.
Q IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR TENANT IN THOSE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT HAS A LOT OF LITIGATION OR ANYTHING?
A I HAVE STATE AGENCIES. I HAVE GOT PROBABLY 40 TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE BUILDINGS. I HAVE GOT STATE AGENCIES IN SOME. I HAVE GOT BEAUTY SHOPS; YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A--YOU KNOW, PSYCHOLOGISTS, TAX PEOPLE, DIFFERENT THINGS.
Q BUT IF--DEPENDING ON WHAT ULTIMATE BILL IS COMPLETED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OF COURSE, YOU WOULD COMPLY FULLY WITH THAT AT THAT TIME?
A YES, SIR.
Q IF YOU FORESAW A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU WOULD---
A YES, SIR.
Q ---ACT APPROPRIATELY, I ASSUME.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER THEN?
A NO, SIR.
Q WE WILL CONSIDER IT DONE.

1. James Herbert Messervy

Home Address: Business Address:

100 Fairway Drive 300 North Cedar, Suite A-4

Summerville, SC 29483 Summerville, SC 29483

2. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on March 3, 1946. He is presently 45 years old.

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

4. He was married to Linda Thomas on January 25, 1980. He has two children: James Herbert, Jr., age 9, and Ashleigh, age 7. He also has a step-child, Tiffany Provence, age 18 (student at University of Florida).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended The Citadel, 1963-1967; the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1967-1968; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1970-1973.

7. At The Citadel he was a member of the Senior Class Board of Directors. He was President of the Dorchester County Young Democrats; Chairman of the First Congressional District Young Democrats; and a member of the Division of Administration of Governor John C. West.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has taken courses recently involving Civil Procedures, Code Rules, Family Court and Criminal Law.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been in general practice that began in 1973, which generated into primarily trial practice by 1980. One-half time is spent as Assistant Solicitor, one-fourth time on civil trial and one-fourth time on family practice.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - 1

State - 3 to 4 trials per year - Common Pleas

Other - 50 to 100 per year - Family Court

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 25%

Criminal - 50%

Domestic - 25%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 10%

Non-jury - 90%

Sole counsel 80%, chief counsel 10%, associate counsel 10%

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

(a) DSS v. Trivino

State v. Trivino

In this particular case, Mr. Trivino was accused of molesting his daughter in a DSS child abuse case. He was not prosecuted, and another Assistant Solicitor allowed Mr. Trivino to re-enter the home after completing therapy. Upon being appointed Assistant Solicitor, Mr. Messervy discovered that Mr. Trivino was molesting other daughters within his family. All children were immediately removed. He spent a lot of time in the preparation and trial of the DSS case in which the children were to remain in protective custody. Because of the seriousness of the case, he was also assigned to handle this in the Court of General Sessions. They prepared for trial, but at the last minute Mr. Trivino decided to enter a guilty plea as charged. In Court, Mr. Trivino received the maximum jail sentence, and his daughter achieved the age of 18 before he was released.

(b) Cronan v. Dorchester County, et al.

This case came about in 1978. As a result of this case, a permanent Restraining Order was issued against Dorchester County to restrain them from working on private property. The extent of the problem in Dorchester County was illustrated when the Attorney General, in a separate case, indicted the road supervisor, a county councilman and a private citizen, charging that Dorchester County had built a golf course on private property.

(c) Murphy v. Seabury

In this case, he represented a ten-year-old girl who was involved in an automobile accident in which her jaw was locked in place when she hit the dash. In addition, she had a small cut on her face, which was to require stitches. Prior to going to trial, his primary emphasis was on a small scar that this young girl would be living with the rest of her life. Upon being re-examined by the plastic surgeon, the scar could not be found. He, at the same time, was reviewing her dental records. The dental records suggested that there was a possibility in the future that she would have an injury known as TMJ (Temporo Mandelaloi Jomit). After long discussions with the oral surgeon and extensive review of the medical literature, he decided that this would be the emphasis of his case. No one believed in the merits of the case but Mr. Messervy and the 12-member jury. He was informed by the insurance company that the verdict of $85,000 was the largest verdict in the country at that time on an unoperated TMJ and was a precedent setting verdict in other TMJ cases. This case was especially hard, because the Defendant was a middle-aged MD victim, whose only true source of income was Social Security.

(d) Hughes v. County of Dorchester, et al.

This matter involved Mr. Messervy representing Mr. DeLee, who was a poor old man whose road was being claimed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had filed suit against him and the County to have the road closed, asserting that it was not a county road. The County promised Mr. DeLee that they would represent him. The County further went into default. At the default hearing, to be removed from default, the County admitted that they had no knowledge or information that would allow them to be removed from default. Thus, a judgment was entered for the Plaintiff against Mr. DeLee and the County. Mr. DeLee, being unknowledgeable concerning what was going on, allowed the judgment to go past its ten days without appealing it. At this point, Mr. DeLee came to see Mr. Messervy. He then filed a Motion to have Mr. DeLee removed from default and further found additional parties interested in keeping the road as a County road. They brought suit against the County and the Plaintiff in the first suit, asking for an injunction to restrain the road from being closed. This matter was heard and a Temporary Injunction was granted by the Circuit Court. The cases were combined and a trial was held. It was through extensive research that they found that the road was, in fact, built by the County; that there were plats on record showing that the road was a County road, and the road was declared to be a County road. This Order was not appealed.

(e) In the Interest of a Minor Under the Age of 17

This is a case that Mr. Messervy will not cite, unless requested. It involves a minor that took two days to try. Mr. Messervy was given the case approximately five days prior to trial, which required substantial investigation. The minor was being charged with reckless homicide and felony DUI. It was a one car accident in which the passenger riding in his car was killed, the passenger being his first cousin. All witnesses to the minor's drinking, driving, etc., were relatives and refused to cooperate. In addition, it required the use of reconstruction specialists, both for the State and the Defense. The Defense presented a Professor Emeritus from Clemson while the State had a highway patrolman trained in reconstruction of accidents. As part of the Plaintiff's case, the Judge ruled that the highway patrolman was not an expert and, therefore, could not testify as an expert. From extensive cross-examination, they were able to totally discredit the testimony of the Clemson expert. In addition, from substantial direct examination, he was able to bring out that the opinions of relatives of the Defendant, who had been with him immediately prior to the accident, was that the minor was severely intoxicated and should not have been driving. The minor was convicted of reckless homicide. The case was appealed, but the appeal was dropped.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Southeastern Steel Company, Inc. v. Burton Block and Concrete Company, Inc., 258 SE2d 888 (1979).

22. Public Office: South Carolina House of Representatives - 1974 (elected); Assistant Solicitor, First Judicial Circuit - 1980 to present (appointed).

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: Re-Election to South Carolina House of Representatives, 1974; election to the South Carolina House of Representatives, 1979.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: Real Estate Developer - Cedar Square, 16 office complex developer in Summerville, SC, 1980 to present; Flowertown Partnership - Multiple office developments.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: Professional Information Services, Inc. - President, an informational company using computers.

27. Potential conflicts of interest in any financial arrangements or business relationships: Only relationship is the partnership. He intends to divest himself of all non-family business interests within six months of being elevated to Court.
33. His health is good. His last physical was on 11/29/85 by Dr. C. W. Wimberly, Summerville.

35. He needs glasses to read.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Dorchester County Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Hibernian; Elks; George Miller Country Club; Ashley River Boat Club; Dorchester County S.P.C.A.; Charleston Marine Institute, Board of Directors 1988 to present, Vice President 1990 to present

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) James F. Jackson, Vice President

First National Bank of South Carolina

P. O. Box 897, Summerville, SC 29484

(b) Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esquire

P. O. Box 20757, Charleston, SC 29413-0757

(c) Ernest Moultrie, Chief of Detectives

Dorchester County Sheriff's Department

100 Sears Street, St. George, SC 29477

(d) Hon. Hazel Parson-Starkes

Mayor, Town of Ridgeville

P. O. Box 56, Ridgeville, SC 29472

(e) James A. Bell, Esquire

P. O. Box 905, St. George, SC 29477

Q GOING THROUGH MY CHECK LIST, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE DORCHESTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE SUMMERVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE; ALSO, SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DORCHESTER COUNTY ARE ALSO NEGATIVE; LIKEWISE, WITH THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. AND YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, MR. MESSERVY, I BELIEVE?
A SO FAR, YES, SIR.
Q AND WE SHOW NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AS YOU HAVE CLARIFIED THAT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC INTEREST STATEMENT. YOUR NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPEAR TO BE IN ORDER. AND WE HAVE HAD ONE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS MAILED TO US BEFORE THE DEADLINE. IT WAS RECEIVED BY US AFTER THE DEADLINE. THE DEADLINE WAS NOON TUESDAY; AND WE RECEIVED IT, I BELIEVE, YESTERDAY MORNING. HAS OUR STAFF ADVISED YOU OF THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND SINCE IT WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE TIME, BUT IT WAS MAILED BEFORE THE TIME, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US TAKING THAT UP?
A NONE WHATSOEVER, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. MR. MESSERVY, TO GO INTO THE SAME QUESTIONS I ASKED MR. BAILEY CONCERNING TEMPERAMENT AND THE PROBLEM OF ROBE-ITIS THAT A LIMITED FEW PEOPLE ON THE BENCH HAVE, BUT IT'S STILL A CONCERN TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I THINK, WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR DEMEANOR MAINTAINS A PROPER ROLE IN THE PROCESS AND THAT YOU DIDN'T DEVELOP THIS CONDITION CALLED ROBE-ITIS?
A WELL, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, I GUESS, FOR THE LAST 11 OR 12 YEARS AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ANYBODY LOOKING AT MY RECORD AND DOING THAT AND MY MOVING OF CASES AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF; AND, YET, I LEARNED, I THINK, A LOT FROM UNDER JOHN HAMILTON SMITH AND OTHERS THAT THERE IS A TIME TO MOVE TRY THEIR OWN CASES. REMEMBER, ALWAYS THAT PEOPLE IN FAMILY COURT ARE NERVOUS. I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE A TRIAL LAWYER OR WHAT. I'VE NEVER WALKED IN A COURT, AND I HOPE I NEVER DO, THAT I DON'T HAVE BUTTERFLIES TO TRY A CASE. BUT I REALLY FEEL THAT YOU ARE THERE TO SERVE A PURPOSE AND THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW THE CASE TO PROGRESS FORWARD AND LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT. I THINK IF YOU DO THAT AND TREAT EVERYBODY WITH THE RESPECT THAT THEY ARE DUE, BECAUSE YOU MAY FEEL THAT A CASE IS NOT WORTHY TO BE THERE, BUT THAT PERSON FEELS VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT CASE. AND YOU NEED NOT TO BELITTLE LAWYERS THAT I HAVE SEEN SOME JUDGES ON OCCASION DO; AND YOU NEED NOT PUT YOUR OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS IN UNLESS THAT IS THE TIME TO PUT IT IN AND DEVELOP A CONCEPT TO PUT YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS IN, SUCH AS SENTENCING. I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERY JUDGE HAS A DIFFERENT FEELING. I THINK IF YOU FOLLOW THAT PATTERN AND BE OPEN TO THE BAR AND LET THE BAR UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO WORK WITH THEM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH THE BAR IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY RUN THE COURT. I THINK IF YOU DO ALL OF THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WILL HAVE A PROBLEM.
Q CONCERNING THE WORK ETHIC QUESTION THAT I ASKED PREVIOUSLY, DO YOU--WHAT OBSERVATION WOULD YOU MAKE ABOUT WORKING LATE IF IT REQUIRED IT OR WORKING INTO THE LATE PART OF THE WEEK?
A I LIKE TO GET CASES OVER WITH. I--MY OWN CASES, I WOULD MUCH RATHER TRY A CASE UNTIL 8:00 OR 9:00 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND GET IT OVER WITH, THAN TO COME BACK THE NEXT MORNING AND START IT OVER. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WORKING LATE. IF YOU WILL LOOK WHEN I HAVE HANDLED COURT, WE HAVE MOVED BUNCHES OF CASES; AND IN DIFFERENT AREAS THAT I HAVE DONE, WE HAVE MOVED BUNCHES OF CASES AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO STAY LATE TO DO IT.
Q YOU ARE SPENDING ABOUT HALF OF YOUR TIME NOW AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, I REALLY ENJOY IT.

SENATOR POPE: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMITTEE IF THEY WOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. PLEASE, FEEL FREE. ANYTHING?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENT OR COMMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, MR. MESSERVY?
A NOT UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO TAKE UP THIS.
Q WELL, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS WE WILL LET THE COMPLAINANT TESTIFY AND THEN YOU CAN RESPOND SO THAT YOU WILL KNOW WHAT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO. THANK YOU, SIR.
A WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MOVE BACK OVER THERE?

SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR. AT THIS POINT, SINCE WE HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMPLAINT, MAYBE WE WILL ASK MR. JUDY, MR. JUDY, WILL YOU COME UP AND HAVE A SEAT. STATE YOUR FULL NAME, PLEASE.

MR. JUDY: RONNIE F. JUDY.

SENATOR POPE: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SHE WILL SWEAR YOU.
(RONNIE F. JUDY, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. JUDY, YOU FILED A WRITTEN COMPLAINT WITH THIS COMMITTEE.
A YES, SIR.
Q WE RECEIVED IT YESTERDAY AND WE ADVISED YOU, I THINK, THAT IT WAS TECHNICALLY LATE BUT WE ARE GOING TO LET YOU PROCEED SINCE IT WAS MAILED BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
A YES, SIR, I APPRECIATE THAT.
Q YES, SIR. I THINK ALL THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE THE WRITTEN FORM, BUT WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS TIME TO TELL US WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS AGAINST MR. MESSERVY.
A MY COMPLAINT IS THAT I AM THE EXECUTOR OF A 73-YEAR-OLD WIDOW WOMAN IN DORCHESTER COUNTY WHO WAS DRUG INTO PROBATE COURT AND DECLARED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT BY A MAN POSING AS A DOCTOR. THE FIRST HEARING WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE THE DOCTOR WOULD NOT GO ALONG WITH THE SCHEME TO HAVE THIS LADY DECLARED INCOMPETENT; SO, THE HEARING WAS POSTPONED FROM JANUARY 26, 1983 TO FEBRUARY 11, 1983; AND I ATTENDED THAT HEARING AND I NOTICED ONE OF THE DOCTORS, HE WAS NOT DRESSED LIKE A DOCTOR AND HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS PERHAPS NERVOUS BECAUSE HE KEPT LOOKING BACK THERE AT US. SO, ANYHOW, THE LAWYER THAT WAS APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MRS. RUMP WAS NOT PROTECTING MRS. RUMP'S INTEREST; SO, I WROTE HIM A NOTE---
Q EXCUSE ME. WHO WAS THAT LAWYER?
A JAY WILSON PATRICK.
Q GO AHEAD, SIR.
A AND I WROTE HIM A NOTE AND HAND-DELIVERED IT UP THERE TO HIM AND ASKED HIM TO, PLEASE, CALL SOME WITNESSES IN MRS. RUMP'S BEHALF. AND HE LOOKED BACK AT ME AND SAID, "GET OUT OF HERE. YOU AIN'T GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS."
SO AT THE END OF THE HEARING, I ASKED THE JUDGE WHY WASN'T THE DOCTORS FROM THE ORANGEBURG REGIONAL HOSPITAL THERE AT THAT HEARING. AND THE OTHER ATTORNEY---
Q EXCUSE ME A MINUTE. WHICH JUDGE IS THAT?
A JUDGE SHELTON J. PARKER.
Q IS THAT A PROBATE COURT JUDGE?
A YES, SIR.
Q GO AHEAD, SIR.
A MR. JAMES A. BELL WANTED TO HAVE ME REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM AND AFTER THAT I GOT UP AND I SAID, "LET'S DO IT FAIR. LET'S NOT DO IT CROOKED." SO, ANYHOW, AFTER THE HEARING MRS. RUMP WAS DECLARED INCOMPETENT; AND THREE MONTHS LATER SHE DIED OF A HEART ATTACK AND LEFT ME THE EXECUTOR OF HER ESTATE. I IMMEDIATELY WENT DOWN TO JUDGE PARKER'S OFFICE AND OBTAINED A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT; AND AFTER READING THE TRANSCRIPT, I REALIZED THAT IT WAS NOT VERBATIM TO WHAT WAS SAID IN THE COURTROOM. SO I WENT BACK TO JUDGE PARKER AND ASKED HIM THAT I WANTED TO HEAR THE TAPE WHERE THE TRANSCRIPT WAS MADE FROM. SO HE SET UP A DATE FOR ME TO COME IN AND LISTEN TO IT; AND ON THAT DATE I WENT TO LISTEN TO IT, HE ADVISED ME THAT THE TAPE HAD BECOME LOST.
Q EXCUSE ME A MINUTE. WAS MR. MESSERVY AT THAT COURT HEARING AT ALL?
A MR. MESSERVY'S BROTHER, DR.THOMAS MESSERVY.
Q YES, SIR; BUT WAS MR. JIM MESSERVY, JAMES MESSERVY,
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY; CONTINUE, PLEASE, SIR.
A LET ME THINK. SO, ANYHOW, I HAD SOME LAWYERS OUT OF MT. PLEASANT THAT ADVISED ME TO LEAVE THAT DOCTOR ALONE BECAUSE THEY NEVER WOULD BRING HIM BACK INTO THE WILL CONTEST; AND THEIR ADVICE TO ME AND MY BROTHER WAS DON'T GO RATTLE THIS DOCTOR'S CAGE BECAUSE HE WAS WILLING TO STAY OUT OF IT. SO WE FIGURED SOMETHING WAS WRONG; SO, WE GOT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING AND WENT TO THE V.A. AND LOCATED THIS DOCTOR. HE WAS, OR ACCORDING TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT HEARING HIS LAST NAME WAS SPELLED DIFFERENT; SO, WE APPROACHED DR. MARING AT THE V.A. HOSPITAL AND ASKED HIM TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND TELL US WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT IT. AND AS HE WAS READING IT, HE NODDED HIS HEAD SAYING HE DIDN'T--THAT WAS NOT HIM, HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
SO I ASKED HIM TWICE, ARE YOU POSITIVE THAT WASN'T HIM? AND HE SAID, "THAT IS JUST WHAT I GOT THROUGH TELLING YOU."
SO, ANYHOW, WE LEFT AND COME ON BACK AND SEVERAL DAYS LATER ONE OF THE GIRLS IN THE OFFICE, SALLY PENDARVIS, CALLED AND SAID THEY HAD FOUND THE TAPE; SO, WE TOLD HER THAT WE WANTED TO COME LISTEN TO IT. SO WE WENT AND LISTENED--SO WE WENT TO LISTEN TO IT AND WHEN THEY WENT TO PLAY IT, IT WOULD WAD UP ON THE MACHINE; SO, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THEIR MACHINE THAT WAS MESSING UP; SO, WE WENT NEXT-DOOR AND GOT THE MAGISTRATE'S MACHINE AND BROUGHT IT BACK THERE AND TRIED TO PLAY IT AND IT WOULD WAD UP AGAIN. SO, THEY SAID, "WELL, WE'VE GOT TO GET SOMEBODY TO WORK ON IT." I SAID TO MYSELF, I THINK SOMEBODY HAS DONE WORKED ON IT. SO, ANYHOW, THEY SAID THEY WOULD LET US KNOW. SO ABOUT THREE OR FOUR DAYS LATER THEY CALLED AND SAID WE COULD COME LISTEN TO IT AND MY BROTHER AND DAVID KNIGHT, AN ATTORNEY OUT OF COLUMBIA, CAME DOWN AND LISTENED TO IT; AND LOW AND BEHOLD, I RECOGNIZED THE DOCTOR'S VOICE THAT WE HAD JUST TALKED WITH AT THE V.A. WAS ON THERE. AND WE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.

SO, WE GOT IN OUR TRUCK AND WENT BACK TO THE V.A. AND CALLED THE DOCTOR DOWN AND TOLD THE DOCTOR THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE TOLD US ON OUR LAST VISIT. AND HE SAID I REMEMBER GOING DOWN THERE NOW. SO I ASKED HIM, I SAID, "HAVE YOU GOT AN OFFICE THAT WE CAN GO AND TALK IN?" HE SAID, "YES." SO WE FOLLOWED HIM BACK THERE IN HIS OFFICE; AND I STARTED QUESTIONING HIM LIKE, WHERE DID HE TESTIFY AT THAT HEARING? AND HIS REPLY WAS THE FIRST FLOOR IN THE DORCHESTER COUNTY COURTHOUSE. I'M FINDING THE COURTROOM IS UPSTAIRS. AND WHEN I ASKED HIM WHAT TYPE OF CLOTHING HE WAS WEARING, IT WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. AND WHEN I ASKED HIM WHERE HE WAS SITTING AT DURING THIS PROCEEDING, IT WAS DIFFERENT. SO HE GOT VERY NERVOUS AND GOT UP AND OPENED THE DOOR AND TOLD US TO GET OUT OF HIS OFFICE, THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER NO MORE OF OUR QUESTIONS.
SO I WROTE WASHINGTON AND WASHINGTON SENT ME A LETTER THAT THIS DOCTOR WAS ON AUTHORIZED SICK LEAVE THAT DAY.
SO I GOT ARTHUR RAVENEL, REPRESENTATIVE ARTHUR RAVENEL, INVOLVED IN IT AND HE SENT ANOTHER LETTER STATING THAT THIS DOCTOR WORKED TWO HOURS AT THE V.A. AND ATTENDED A HEARING SOME 72 MILES--I DON'T KNOW WHERE. HE WAS NOT AT THE HEARING THAT I ATTENDED. ANYHOW, I WENT TO THE V.A. TALKED TO DR. SURRATT, WHO WAS DR. MARING'S SUPERVISOR THAT DAY, AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE CAN PERSONALLY VOUCH THAT DR. MARING WAS AT THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON OR THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY THAT DAY ATTENDING HIS MEDICALS. AND I ASKED DR. SURRATT FOR A STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT AND HE SAID, "NO"; HE SAID, "GET ME A SUBPOENA AND I WILL TELL THEM JUST WHAT I TOLD YOU."
SO, ANYHOW, I WENT AHEAD AND FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FIRST SOLICITOR OF DORCHESTER COUNTY, WITH JOE MIZELL; AND HE TOLD ME AFTER I FILED THE COMPLAINT IN ORANGEBURG, HE TOLD ME THAT---
Q WHO DID YOU COMPLAIN AGAINST IN THAT COMPLAINT?
A DR. THOMAS MESSERVY AND DR. CRAIG R. MARING. SO HE TOLD ME THAT JIMMY MESSERVY WOULD BE AT THE COURTHOUSE THE FOLLOWING WEEK, FOR ME TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM. SO I WENT DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE AND I SEEN MR. MESSERVY IN THE BACK OF THE COURTROOM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE IS, AND I TOLD HIM WHAT I HAD TOLD MR. MIZELL; AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW--HE WOULD PUT SOMEBODY ON IT AND FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED. TO THIS DAY I HAVE HEARD NOTHING. AND I CALLED THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE TO GET SOME DOCUMENTS THAT WERE DOCUMENTED ON THAT AND EVIDENTLY THEY FILED IT IN FILE 13 BECAUSE NO RECORD WHATSOEVER WAS UP THERE.
Q WOULD THIS HAVE BEEN IN 1984?
A YES, SIR, IN '84 BECAUSE--(PAUSE)---
Q DID YOU---
A WE FIRED THE LAWYERS FROM MT. PLEASANT AUGUST OF '84 AND HIRED THE LAWYERS FROM COLUMBIA IN AUGUST OF '84.
Q DID YOU WRITE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR MESSERVY ABOUT THIS?
A NO, SIR, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU FILE A COMPLAINT WITH HIM? WAS HE IN CHARGE OF THIS COMPLAINT?
A MR. MIZELL PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S--HE IS THE GUY THAT I WENT DOWN TO SAINT GEORGE AND TALKED WITH ABOUT IT. I DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT HE WAS A BROTHER TO THIS DOCTOR.
Q BUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING WAS YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ASSISTANT SOLICITOR MESSERVY IN THE DORCHESTER COURTHOUSE AFTER YOU FILED THE COMPLAINT WITH THE SOLICITOR?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM SINCE?
A I CALLED BACK TO SOLICITOR MIZELL'S OFFICE, THAT'S WHERE I CALLED, AND THEY SAID THEY WERE STILL WORKING ON IT AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT EVER SINCE.
Q BUT YOU HAVE NOT TALKED TO ASSISTANCE SOLICITOR MESSERVY SINCE THAT TIME IN 1984?
A NO, SIR, JUST THAT ONE TIME.
Q TELL US SPECIFICALLY---
A THEN I WENT AND FILED A COMPLAINT, I WENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND THEY REFERRED ME TO MR. STEVE SEELING, AND MR. SEELING REFERRED ME TO THE MEDICAL BOARD. AND I WENT TO THE MEDICAL BOARD AND FILED A COMPLAINT THERE, AND THEY PUT AN INVESTIGATOR BY THE NAME OF LARRY HUFFSTETLER ON IT; AND HE WAS GOING TO GET ON IT RIGHT AWAY AND HE WAS GOING TO COME DOWN TO SAINT GEORGE AND TALK TO ALL THE WITNESSES. THAT HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM BEFORE, HE WAS ONLY DOING A ONE-SIDED INVESTIGATION. SO IT ROCKED ON THERE AND I NEVER DID HEAR ANYTHING FROM MR. HUFFSTETLER; SO, I DECIDED TO GO UP THERE AND TALK WITH HIM. I THINK ON THE SECOND TIME I WENT AND TALKED WITH HIM, HE SAID HE HAD A NEW JOB IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THAT THEY HAD ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR WHO WAS COMING IN THERE, A MRS. WHITE, AS WELL AS I RECALL.
AND, ANYHOW, AFTER I TALKED WITH THEM, I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THEY HAD DONE ANY INVESTIGATION, AND WHEN I STARTED COMPLAINING THAT IT WAS A PAYOFF, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SENT MR. LARRY HUFFSTETLER BACK TO THE MEDICAL BOARD ON AN AIR JET BECAUSE HE IS BACK AT THE MEDICAL BOARD NOW.
Q WE WANT TO TRY TO FOCUS ON MR. MESSERVY BECAUSE THAT IS THE POINT OF THE HEARING.
A RIGHT.
Q WE WANT YOU TO TELL US, IF YOU WOULD, WHAT MR. MESSERVY DID, OTHER THAN FAIL TO--AS YOU SAID, FAILED TO FOLLOW UP WITH A COMPLAINT YOU FILED---
A THE INVESTIGATION.
Q ---IN 1983 OR '84.
A YES, SIR.
Q IS THERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT?
A THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN HONESTLY SAY.
Q YOU HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH HIM IN THE DORCHESTER COURTHOUSE?
A YES, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. JUDY?

Q MR. JUDY, JUST A COUPLE. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THAT DR. MESSERVY DID NOT DO OR DID DO? WHAT DID HE DO WRONG?
A HE BROUGHT IN A FAKE DOCTOR, A MAN POSING AS A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR AND HE GOT--WHEN I FOUND OUT THEY HAD FOUND THE TAPE, I GOT A COPY OF THE TAPE MADE AND SENT IT BY A NAVY INVESTIGATOR FROM CHARLESTON TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IT CAME BACK IN THAT MEMORANDUM THAT THE TAPE HAD BEEN CHANGED AND TAMPERED WITH; BUT I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH SLED WANTING TO SEND THE TAPE OFF TO BE EXAMINED FROM DAY-ONE. AND FINALLY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE HAS FILED AND MADE THEM INVESTIGATE IT AND MR. RICK DENTON AT THE F.B.I. TOLD ME THAT HE HAD TO PUT FIRE UNDER SLED TO MAKE THEM MOVE. AND ON THE THIRD INVESTIGATION--THE SECOND INVESTIGATION, WHICH SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE MY MR. HENRY SINCLAIR, HE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME TO GO AHEAD AND GET ALL THE WITNESSES LINED UP AND HE WOULD BE DOWN TO INVESTIGATE THEM IN TWO WEEKS. WELL, I WAITED AND WAITED SEVEN MONTHS TIME FOR HIM AND I STILL AIN'T HEARD OR SEEN OF HIM.

SENATOR LOURIE: SENATOR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS TESTIMONY AND REVIEW IT AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME AND CONCLUDE THE HEARING.
Q MR. JUDY, WE HAVE TAKEN YOUR TESTIMONY.
A YES, SIR.
Q SHE'S TRANSCRIBING EACH QUESTION AND EACH ANSWER YOU'VE GIVEN US, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND I THINK YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE THANK YOU FOR APPEARING.
A I APPRECIATE IT.
Q YES, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: MR. MESSERVY, YOU FEEL FREE TO RESPOND.

A YES, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE ON THAT BECAUSE I ASKED MY BROTHER TO BE HERE TODAY; UNFORTUNATELY GOVERNOR CAMPBELL APPOINTED HIM TO THE VICTIMS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE APPEAL BOARD, AND HE IS HEARING APPEALS TODAY ON THAT. MY BROTHER IS A DIPLOMAT, A FELLOW IN THE BOARD OF--IN THE PSYCHIATRY FIELD. HE IS PAST PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. HE IS CHAIRMAN--I MEAN, HE IS A MEDICAL DIRECTOR AT CHARTER RIVERS IN LEXINGTON COUNTY AND A BOARD CERTIFIED PSYCHIATRIST. MR. JUDY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT. HAD I HAD A RECOLLECTION OF IT, AND HAD I INVESTIGATED IT, I WOULD NOT BE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY; I WOULD THINK THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISBARRED, BEING AS MY BROTHER IS THE ONE THAT THERE'S AN ACCUSATION AGAINST.
I CHECKED WITH SOLICITOR MIZELL YESTERDAY AS SOON AS I READ THIS, AND HE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF IT. THE ONLY RECOLLECTION I HAVE OF MR. JUDY IS A COUPLE--TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS CONCERNING ANOTHER MATTER. AND I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. I NEVER DID ANYTHING IN THIS CASE. THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE I HAVE IS THAT--I DID CHECK--THERE HAVE BEEN THREE INVESTIGATIONS AND I BELIEVE I TOLD COUNSEL FOR THE COMMITTEE YESTERDAY TO CONTACT MR. HUGH MUNN WHO KNEW ABOUT THIS CASE. I HAD NO INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT WHAT I HAD READ IN THE NEWSPAPERS, AND I INFORMED HER THAT MR. HUGH MUNN OF SLED IS FAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SHE CONTACTED HIM. THAT'S IT.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q JUST ONE OR TWO. YOU DON'T EVER RECALL TALKING WITH MR. JUDY ABOUT THIS CASE?
A NO, SIR.
Q AT ALL?
A AND I'M NOT SAYING I DIDN'T. HE MAY HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS A CASE DOWN THERE, BUT IF Y'ALL HAVE EVER BEEN IN CRIMINAL COURT THE FIRST DAY OF COURT, IT IS HECTIC; AND AT THAT TIME I DON'T DO ANY INVESTIGATING; HAD I KNOWN MY BROTHER WAS INVOLVED, I WOULDN'T HAVE TOUCHED IT WITH A 10-FOOT POLE.
Q THANK YOU, SIR.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: MR. JUDY YOU ARE FREE TO STAY WITH US IF YOU LIKE, BUT YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE IF YOU'D LIKE, ALSO.

MR. JUDY: I BELIEVE I WILL STAY.

SENATOR POPE: THAT'S FINE.
MR. NEWTON POUGH. (PAUSE.) STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD.

MR. POPE: EXCUSE ME, I APOLOGIZE. I MISPRONOUNCED IT. MR. POUGH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(W. NEWTON POUGH, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. POUGH, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A WELL, TWO MINOR CHANGES.
Q YES, SIR.
A ONE, QUESTION 11--19, RATHER; THE WORD "CASES" WOULD CHANGE TO "APPEALS." AND ON PAGE 2, 17-D.
Q YES, SIR.
A THE WORD IS "SITUS" AND NOT "STATUS"; INCORRECT SPELLING, THE LAST SENTENCE IN SECTION D.
Q YES, SIR.
A OTHER THAN THAT, I FIND NO OTHERS.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR; AND YOU WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THIS A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A I HAVE NONE, SIR.
Q IT WILL BE DONE.

1. W. Newton Pough
Home Address: Business Address:

Box 1504, S. C. State College 512 Amelia Street, NE

300 College Street Orangeburg, SC 29115

Orangeburg, SC 29117

2. He was born on July 4, 1921. He is presently 69 years old.

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

4. He was married to Altamese B. Pough on October 12, 1944. He has one child: Carmen, age 36 (State Director of Home Economics, S. C. Department of Education).

5. Military Service: Army Air Force, 9/42 - 2/46; 34383534; Staff Sergeant; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended S. C. State College, 1941-1942, 1947-1949, BS; S. C. State College, 1949-1952, LLB; S. C. State College, 1972, JD.

7. He was a member of the debating team during his undergraduate studies and a member of the editorial staff of the Law School Journal during law school.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended several continuing educational seminars annually.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been in continuous practice since June, 1952.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:
Federal - 2, 10%

State - Weekly, 80%

Other - 2, 10%

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 45%

Criminal - 15%

Domestic - 40%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 45%

Non-jury - 55%

Sole Counsel

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

(a) The State v. Linda Collington, (S.C. 1972), 192 SE2d 856. The Defendant was charged with murdering her baby that was found in a trash bin. The State failed to prove the date, time, place, mode of murder, or that the baby was born dead or alive.

(b) Bessie Powell v. G. D. Searle and Co., et al.; U.S.D.C. (S.C.); C/A 5:84-1613-6 (1985). This was a case of product liability. The Plaintiff became pregnant while the IUD was in place. The Court granted Summary Judgment to the Defendant, stating that because of the Plaintiff's high intelligence, she should have understood the caution risk as printed in the warning label.

(c) Mann, et al. v. Walker, et al.; Supreme Court Opinion #0429 (S.C. 1985). The Family Court granted the Plaintiff the adoption of the child of the defaulting Defendant mother and defaulting father. Subsequently, on Motion of the mother before another Family Court Judge of the same circuit, he reopened the case and set aside the adoption decree and gave the mother the child without notice or service on the father. "Can one Judge of the same circuit of the Family Court set aside a Decree of the first Judge, when the same is denied to the Circuit Judge"?
(d) The State v. Herman M. Geathers, (S.C. 1976), 236 SE2d 419. The Defendant was charged with the crime of rape and kidnapping. Can the state disregard the known situs of the crime, then select another situs based upon circumstantial evidence?

(e) The State v. James Fields, et al., (S.C. 1963), 126 SE2d 6, 372 U.S. 582, per curiam opinion. These were a series of cases tried before the Magistrate Court for breach of the peace, verdict guilty, affirmed by the S. C. Supreme Court. It was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court without personally appearing, based upon briefs as filed. This case became the model for trying all subsequent breaches of the peace case during the 1960s.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Etta Clark v. C. H. Flory, State Forrester, et al., U. S. Court of Appeals, Case No. 7257 (1956).

(b) Adeal Mixon, et al. v. General Motors Corp. and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, U.S.D.C., (S.C. 1983), #79-0370-2, (Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation Docket No. 362)

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) The State v. Becky Chandler, (S.C. 1976), 226 SE2d 553

(b) The State v. Linda Collington, (S.C. 1972), 192 SE2d 856

(c) The State v. Robert (Bozo) Johnson, (S.C. 1960), 113 SE2d 540

(d) The State v. Herman M. Geathers, (S.C. 1976), 236 SE2d 419

(e) The State v. Louise Moorer, (S.C. 1963), 129 SE2d 330

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: He ran for the S. C. House of Representatives in 1974 and lost and was a candidate for the S. C. Court of Appeals in 1980 and lost.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: He is secretary-treasurer for Belleville Development, Inc., a real estate development.
27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

31. Sued: A Claimant filed a purported Will; the heirs requested that it be proved in solem form. The Claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence. She failed to appear at the hearing. She alleged that he failed to give her notice of the hearing, even though he had copies of letters he had sent to her. Subsequently, on the trial date, the Plaintiff took a voluntary non-suit.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in December of 1990.

34. Hospitalized in past ten years: Yes.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar: He has served on several committees, but he did not run for any office. He served one term as vice-president of the Orangeburg County Bar.
National Association of Trial Lawyers of America; National Association of Colleges and Universities Attorneys

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of the Committee of Building and Church Location, for the Orangeburg District of the United Methodist Church; Vice Chairman of the S. C. Methodist Conference Commission of Finance and Administration; Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, past President of local chapter, now serving as regional legal advisor; 33rd Degree Mason and past President of the S. C. Sovereign Inspector General; Shriner and past Potentate of Jeddah Temple #160, past deputy of said temple
Current Positions: (1) Board of Trustees of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of South Carolina; custody of Grand Lodge property, including investing and conservation of property and making recommendations to body for best method of preserving, protecting and investing such property; 1962 to present, a 1.5 million dollar operation; served as its general counsel from 1960 to present.
(2) Past Chairman and now member of the Board of Directors of the Orangeburg Area Mental Health Center. They establish clinic policies, employ personnel, general supervision of the various activities of the clinic, including financial obligation and responsibilities; 1968 to present. (3) Served as deputy legal advisor for the Ancient Arabic Order of the Mystic Shrine of North and South America and Its Jurisdiction, Inc. (P.H.A.), headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, for 1972 to present. He was awarded the Legion of Merit Award, August 1987. (4) He was also awarded the honorary past Imperial Potentate degree in August of 1984

41. He believes that his long experience as a practicing attorney has given him the temperament and legal knowledge to be an asset to the bench.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Curtis B. Carter, Vice President
First Union National Bank of S. C.

P. O. Box 1127, Orangeburg, SC 29116

(b) Harlan Wilson, Jr., District Superintendent

Orangeburg District, The United Methodist Church

P. O. Box 303, Orangeburg, SC 29116-0303

(c) Vermelle J. Johnson

Executive Vice President and Provost

South Carolina State College

Orangeburg, SC 29117

(d) Charles E. Riley

Most Worshipful Grand Master

Prince Hall Masons of South Carolina

P. O. Box 992, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) Thomas Ray Sims, Esquire

P. O. Box 2016, Orangeburg, SC 29116

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ORANGEBURG CITY POLICE RECORDS, AND SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ORANGEBURG COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. I BELIEVE YOU REPORT THAT YOU WERE SUED BY SOMEONE?
A YES, SIR.
Q QUESTION 31; COULD YOU TELL US BRIEFLY ABOUT THAT?
A SIR, WE REPRESENTED THIS LADY IN FILING A WILL AND WE HAD PROBLEMS TRYING TO FIND THE WITNESSES TO THE WILL; WE COULD NEVER FIND THEM; AND THE MATTER CAME UP FOR A HEARING AND WE WROTE HER TO BE PRESENT IN COURT. SHE DID NOT APPEAR IN COURT AND THE JUDGE, AND I SAY RIGHTLY, RULED THAT THE WILL COULD NOT BE ADMITTED TO PROBATE.
SUBSEQUENTLY, SHE ALLEGED THAT I WAS DERELICT IN NOT ADVISING HER TO APPEAR; AND BECAUSE SHE DID NOT APPEAR, SHE LOST THE CASE. THAT'S WHY SHE BROUGHT THE ACTION AGAINST ME. HOWEVER, DURING THE DEPOSITIONS, AND WHAT HAVE YOU, IT WAS BROUGHT OUT THAT HER STATEMENT WAS NOT COMPLETELY TRUE.
Q AND THAT CASE ULTIMATELY WAS NON-SUITED?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, MR. POUGH?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. WE REVIEWED THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. WE HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOU AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU. TO GO TO THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT TEMPERAMENT AND JUDICIAL DEMEANOR, WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE, MR. POUGH, IF YOU WERE ELECTED TO THIS JUDGESHIP TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DID NOT DEVELOP ROBE-ITIS OR THAT YOUR DEMEANOR BECAME LESS THAN ACCEPTABLE? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
A WELL, JUST TO START OFF WITH, I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS AMERICAN'S NON-HUMANITY TOWARD MAN. WITH THAT KIND OF CONCEPT, I BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED AS HUMAN BEINGS; AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE LAWYERS AND/OR LITIGANTS BEFORE THE BENCH, THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THEIR DAY IN COURT; THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ALL THE COURTESIES THAT THE COURT CAN RENDER TO THEM, WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUES ARE JUSTFUL OR NOT, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THAT COURTESY WHILE BEFORE THE COURT. AND WITH THAT IN MIND, WE SAY THAT ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE TREATED AS HUMAN BEINGS AND NOT BEING ROUGHLY TRAMPLED OVER. AND ONE SHOULD NOT LET ONE'S PERSONAL EMOTIONS ENTER INTO ONE'S PROFESSIONAL JOB.
Q AND IN THE AREA OF WORK ETHICS, WOULD THE FACT THAT THE JOB OF CIRCUIT JUDGE MAY REQUIRE FRIDAY COURT, IT MAY REQUIRE LATE EVENING WORK, THAT WOULD NOT CREATE ANY PROBLEMS FOR YOU?
A NONE WHATSOEVER, SIR, BECAUSE I HAVE SAID SOME THINGS ABOUT JUDGES MYSELF, NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND THEM WHEN I NEED THEM; SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

SENATOR POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUES- TIONS OF MR. POUGH?

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: ONE QUESTION. SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.

Q ABOUT YOUR AGE, DO YOU CONSIDER THAT TO BE A DISADVANTAGE TO YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME?
A WELL, I FEEL, SIR, THAT MY AGE AND EXPERIENCE WOULD BE AN ADVANTAGE THAT WOULD BE AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BECAUSE OF EXPERIENCE.
Q I AM SURE THAT IS TRUE.

SENATOR POPE: MR. HODGES.
BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:
Q MR. POUGH, HAVE YOU BEEN ATTORNEY FOR SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE BEFORE?
A I SERVED FROM 1969 TO, I THINK IT WAS, 1986, I BELIEVE.
Q YOU WERE A STAFF LAWYER, OR?
A I WAS A RETAINED ATTORNEY.
Q OKAY.

SENATOR POPE: IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, THAT IS ALL I HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT, ANY ADDITIONAL STATEMENT TO MAKE, MR. POUGH?
A NONE AT THIS TIME, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.

CHARLES WHETSTONE. (PAUSE.) PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME.

MR. WHETSTONE: CHARLES WILLIAM WHETSTONE, JR.

SENATOR POPE: PLEASE, RAISE YOUR HAND, MR. WHETSTONE.
(CHARLES W. WHETSTONE, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. WHETSTONE, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A IT IS CORRECT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF MINOR CHANGES. MY BIRTHDAY IS REVERSED WITH MY AGE. IT SHOULD BE BORN IN 1950 AND I'M 41, RATHER THAN WHAT IS ON THERE.
Q OKAY.
A AND IN MY STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST, WE RECENTLY MERGED OUR LAW FIRM WITH ANOTHER LAWYER AND IT SHOULD SHOW ON THERE THAT HE REPRESENTS CALHOUN COUNTY IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THERE.
Q WHICH LAWYER IS THAT?
A LEE PRICKETT; AND I WANTED TO DISCLOSE THAT THE FIRM REPRESENTED CALHOUN COUNTY.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A AND IN REGARD TO POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUST TO BE SURE WE ARE CLEAR ON THAT, THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT I WOULD HAVE, I THINK IT'S QUESTION 27, WOULD BE WITH THE EXISTING LEGAL PARTNERSHIP I HAVE WITH MY PARTNERS, WHICH, OF COURSE, WOULD BE RESOLVED IF I GO ON THE BENCH.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR, I DO NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, CONSIDER IT DONE.

1. Charles W. Whetstone, Jr.

Home Address: Business Address:

Route 3, Box 478 P. O. Box 437

St. Matthews, SC 29135 203 Railroad Avenue

St. Matthews, SC 29135

2. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on January 16, 1950. He is presently 41 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4. He was married to Nancy Koon on July 8, 1978. He has two children: Kate Elizabeth, age 8; and Charles William, III, age 6.

5. Military Service: None, with the exception of two years in ROTC at Clemson University

6. He attended Clemson University, 1968-1972, BA Political Science, minor in English, graduated with honors; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1972-1975, Juris Doctor.

7. At Clemson University he was in Kappa Alpha Order (fraternity), 1969-1972, Number #3, 1971-1972; Phi Kappa Phi (honors fraternity), 1970-1972; Tiger Brotherhood, 1971-1972; The Tiger student newspaper, 1970-1972, news editor, 1971-1972.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
His continuing education has consisted of seminars related to the areas of his primary practice. He has attended the Municipal Association Seminar for the past four years, because he represents four municipalities. He has also attended seminars pertaining to trial advocacy, family court, and criminal law so that he can stay abreast of current issues and developments in areas of law that he deals with most frequently. While serving as Municipal Judge for the Town of Elloree, he also attended seminars at the Criminal Justice Academy.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Upon graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law, he immediately went into private practice in St. Matthews, and he has been in private practice since that time. His law practice has always been a general practice. Initially, he learned to handle real estate transactions and criminal cases. Calhoun County did not have a Public Defender when he began practice, and with only eight attorneys in the county, indigent appointments came around rather frequently. The most substantial matter he handled early in his practice was the construction of the initial water and wastewater system for the Town of Santee and the Santee Public Service District. This matter included title work, securing rights of way, dealing with funding agencies, condemnations, and generally getting the system off the ground. His practice has evolved since that time to center around municipal work, personal injury, criminal defense, workers' compensation, domestic and real estate. The practice continues to be general in nature with no one specific area of focus.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:
Federal - very seldom

State - frequent

Other - frequent

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 40%

Criminal - 30%

Domestic - 30%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 70%

Non-jury - 30%

He has been sole counsel, chief counsel and associate counsel.

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

(a) State v. Bryson (criminal case). First degree criminal sexual conduct with charges in two counties. These cases have not as yet been totally resolved. The criminal charges were initiated and followed by a DSS neglect and abuse case. He was successful in getting the venue changed in the DSS case to the Defendant's home county, getting the opportunity to pursue discovery and getting the DSS case put on hold until the criminal charges were resolved. Depositions of all doctors have been taken, and with their testimony one county has dropped its criminal charges and the other should follow suit. This case is significant because of the severity of the criminal charges which have now been or are being disposed of as a result of the use of discovery to determine that a criminal charge did not exist as originally alleged.

(b) Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Franklin V. Goodwin, Jr. (condemnation case). The Highway Department condemned a .5 acre tract of Defendant's property for a new road. In the beginning, no offer was made to settle the case; however, before trial an offer of $1,500 was made. The jury, after trial, awarded a verdict of $33,301.33. A subsequent hearing to determine attorneys' fees resulted in the additional payment of $8,500.75 and a determination by the Court that a reasonable hourly rate for his services was $107 and for his associate, E. Paul Gibson, was $98. He tried the case and prepared the same with Mr. Gibson. The case was significant because the property which was condemned was not in town and had no improvements on it. Also, important is the substantial award of attorneys' fees which were strenuously opposed by the Highway Department.

(c) Maxine Barton v. Jonathan Logan (Workers' Compensation). Claimant made claim for benefits alleging a repetitive trauma to her arm and shoulder from working over the years in a sewing room. The single commissioner denied the case, and his ruling was upheld by the full commission by a vote of 3/3. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the Court found the repetitive trauma recognized formally as a compensable injury. The case is significant, because repetitive trauma has not been held by the Supreme Court to be a compensable injury under South Carolina law, while it is recognized in other states.

(d) Middleton v. U. S. Steel. This was a third-party action in U.S. District Court which was brought after the workers' compensation claim was settled. Plaintiff alleged the inhalation of ammonia gas caused lung damage. He performed all of the trial preparation, including depositions in South Carolina and North Carolina, motions hearings, briefs, and securing expert testimony. The case was tried by Mr. Whetstone and his law partner for three to four days over a two-week period in Charleston. The case resulted in a verdict for the Defendant. The case is significant because of the substantial nature of the case and the extensive preparation required to try the case. It is also significant because it was, at the time, the largest case in which he had been involved.

(e) Stradling v. Harmon (automobile accident). Liability was denied in this case which revolved around who crossed the center line causing the accident. Plaintiff had substantial injuries but had recovered. Numerous witnesses and five attorneys were involved. He tried the case with co-counsel from the county where the accident occurred and with an attorney for Plaintiff's insurance company who was defending the counterclaim. A substantial verdict was returned for the Plaintiff which was appealed but settled before the appeal was perfected. The case is significant because of the positive result and the questionable nature of the liability.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

None

20. Judicial Office: He was Municipal Judge for the Town of Elloree, appointed by the Town Council; jurisdiction - criminal cases in the Town of Elloree from October, 1986 until December, 1989.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: Farming - He sharecrops his father's land with his cousin, T. R. Stowe. Mr. Stowe provides the labor, equipment and expertise. Mr. Whetstone provides the land which he rents from his father. Some of the expenses are shared and some are paid by Mr. Whetstone.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: None other than listed in Question #24.

27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in January of 1990 by Dr. Robert L. Smoak and Dr. Ernie Connor.

35. He wears glasses or contact lenses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; Calhoun County Bar Association; and South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Cameron Businessmen's Club; Calhoun Country Club; Trustee, Parish Pastor Relations Committee, Nominations Committee, Sunday School Teacher at Shady Grove United Methodist Church; Secretary of the Methodist Center Board

41. He believes that his general practice of law over the years makes him uniquely qualified to be a circuit judge. His practice has allowed him to be on all sides of question rather than always being on one side or the other. He has defended and prosecuted criminal cases, has represented both Plaintiff and Defendant in civil cases and domestic cases, and has handled workers' compensation cases and the resulting third-party actions. By having handled all of these varied aspects of cases, he can understand the legal aspects of cases, the logistical aspects of getting cases to Court, and the pressures on the attorneys and litigants involved.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Robert A. Caffey, Assistant Vice President

First National Bank

P. O. Box 306, Cameron, SC 29030

(b) O. H. Wienges, Jr., Esquire
` P. O. Box 376, St. Matthews, SC 29135

(c) Charles H. Williams, Esquire

P. O. Box 1084, Orangeburg, SC 29116-1084

(d) Joel R. Jones

Ebenezer United Methodist Church

P. O. Box 204, Hemingway, SC 29554

(e) Samuel F. Reid, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Drawer 329, Orangeburg, SC 29116-0329

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE; THE CALHOUN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE ST. MATTHEWS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CALHOUN COUNTY WERE CHECKED AND THEY ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. AND YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q WE HAVE REVIEWED AND SUBMITTED THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS, WHICH ARE SATISFACTORY. WE HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST YOU AND NO WITNESSES ARE PRESENT TODAY TO TESTIFY. AT THE PRESENT TIME WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR WORK IS IN THE COMMON PLEAS AND GENERAL SESSIONS COURT?
A COMMON PLEAS AND GENERAL SESSIONS TOGETHER WOULD BE PROBABLY 50 TO 60 PERCENT OF WHAT I DO.
Q AND CONCERNING THAT QUESTION ABOUT JUDICIAL DEMEANOR AND TEMPERAMENT BEING WHAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE CONSIDER IMPORTANT, DO YOU CONCUR THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INGREDIENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL JUDGE?
A I BELIEVE IT IS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE BEST WAY I THINK TO AVOID A CASE OF ROBE-ITIS IS TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU CAME FROM. I HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAVE DEALT WITH ALOT OF PEOPLE. I REPRESENT SEVERAL TOWNS. I'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. I'VE REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS AND HAVE BEEN BEFORE A LOT OF DIFFERENT JUDGES. AND I THINK THAT AS A JUDGE I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT EXPERIENCE OF BEING A SMALL-TOWN LAWYER HAVING TO DEAL WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND I THINK REMEMBERING THAT CERTAINLY WILL HELP ME AVOID ANY TYPE OF CASE OF JUDGE-ITIS BECAUSE I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY AND EVENLY, THE WAY I HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH THROUGHOUT MY LEGAL CAREER.
Q AND THE QUESTION ABOUT THE WORK ETHIC, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS A MONUMENTAL PROBLEM, BUT TODAY WE DO HAVE A VERY CROWDED COURT DOCKET IN GENERAL SESSIONS AND COMMON PLEAS AND WE NEED TO DIVERT OUR MANPOWER ON THE BENCH TOWARDS RESOLVING THOSE CASES. DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT IN THE QUESTION OF WORKING LATE, IF NECESSARY, NOT EVERY NIGHT, WORKING LATE OR STAYING ON FRIDAYS?
A I HAVE NO PROBLEM, MR. CHAIRMAN, PUTTING IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT IT TAKES TO GET THE JOB DONE, WHETHER IT REQUIRES STARTING EARLY OR WORKING LATE, OR WHATEVER IT TAKES.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF MR. WHETSTONE?

(NO QUESTIONS INDICATED.)

SENATOR POPE: IF NOT, DO YOU CARE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL STATEMENT?
A NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU A LOT.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: MR. JAMES C. WILLIAMS. (PAUSE.) PLEASE, STATE YOUR FULL NAME.

MR. WILLIAMS: JAMES CARLYLE WILLIAMS, JR.
SENATOR POPE: AND RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE, SIR.
(JAMES C. WILLIAMS, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. WILLIAMS, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A I HAVE A COUPLE OF CHANGES. THE SLED REPORT REFERS TO ME BEING A CANDIDATE IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST CIRCUIT. I FAILED TO INCLUDE THE FIFTH CIVIL CASE WHEN I SENT THE FINAL DRAFT OF MY RESUME IN, AND I HAVE SUBMITTED THAT AND ASKED THAT IT BE INCLUDED. THERE WERE ONLY FOUR INCLUDED.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE OTHER MATTER, I FAILED TO PUT DOWN THAT I HAVE REPRESENTED THIS SOLICITOR'S OFFICE FOR TWO YEARS IN THE PROSECUTION OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE CASES, THE CIVIL PROSECUTION OF NEGLECT AND ABUSE CASES, OF CALHOUN AND ORANGEBURG COUNTIES. I WAS NOT OFFICIALLY CLASSIFIED AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR; I WAS RETAINED BY THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE TO DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH IT BEING MADE A PART OF THE REPORT.
Q WE WILL MAKE IT A PART OF THE RECORD, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL CASE THAT YOU FURNISHED US AND WE WILL MAKE THAT A PART OF THE RECORD.
A THANK YOU, SIR.

1. James Carlyle Williams, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
Cope Road, P. O. Box 65 120 Doyle Street, NE
Norway, SC 29113-065 P. O. Box 1764

Orangeburg, SC 29116-1764

2. He was born in Orangeburg, South Carolina on December 20, 1943. He is presently 47 years old.

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

4. He is single.

5. Military Service: United States Army Reserve, October 4, 1965 to March 1976; Highest rank attained: E-7; Present status: none; Character of discharge: honorable

6. He attended Clemson University, September 1961 through May 1965; Bachelor of Science Degree with High Honor; and the University of South Carolina Law School, September 1976 through May 1979, Juris Doctor.

7. At Clemson University he graduated in 1965 with High Honors. He received the Gamma Sigma Delta Sophomore award for having the highest scholastic average in the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences as a Sophomore. He was elected to the membership in Phi Eta Sigma, National Freshman Honorary Society and Phi Kappa Phi, National Senior Honor Society, both based upon academic standards. He was elected to Gamma Sigma Delta National Honorary Agricultural Fraternity. He was elected to Tiger Brotherhood, Honorary Service Fraternity. He was elected to Blue Key Fraternity as a Junior and served as Secretary/Treasurer. He was elected to Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities as a Junior and a Senior. He was a member and Chancellor of Alpha Zeta Honorary Agricultural Fraternity and received the Alpha Zeta award as the Outstanding Agricultural Student in 1965. He served as Business Manager and Editor-in-Chief of the Agrarian, the official student publication of the College of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. He served as President of the Dairy Science Club, Chairman of the Agricultural Council, founding brother and first president of the Alpha Gamma Social Fraternity. He served as President of the National Student Branch of the American Dairy Science Association and received an award as the outstanding student in Dairy Science in the United States. He was a member of the Clemson Aero Club.
At the University of South Carolina Law School he participated in Mock Trial competition and represented the University of South Carolina in regional competition at the University of Mississippi. He placed second in Mississippi and represented the region in the National Mock Trial competition in Houston, Texas. Their two-man team was one of the final four teams in national competition. Other activities during law school were limited due to the fact that he was commuting 85 miles each day and farming full time while attending law school.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
S. C. Municipal Associations annual meeting of Municipal Attorneys for 1985, 1988, 1990; Adjoining Landowner disputes sponsored by Professional Education Systems
Sponsored by South Carolina Bar: Helping Farmers; Evidence; The South Carolina Corporate Practice Manual; Family Law Issues
Sponsored by the Orangeburg County Bar Association: Probate Court; Bankruptcy
School Law sponsored by South Carolina Independent School Association; Title Insurance sponsored by Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company

9. Courses taught or lectures given: Coached mock trial team for a local high school for two years in the South Carolina Bar Mock Trial Program

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

November 8, 1979 Admitted to the South Carolina Bar

1979-1980 Practiced law as an associate of J. C. Nicholson, Jr., with a general law practice. Areas of practice included domestic, real estate, tort litigation, defense work, insurance claims and other general practice.

1980-1981 Practiced law as a partner in the law firm of Marshall, Nicholson and Williams. A general practice similar to that listed above.

1981-1982 Practiced law as a partner in the law firm of Nicholson and Williams with a general practice similar to that above.

1982-1984 Practiced law as a sole practitioner with a general practice similar to that above when Nicholson moved to Anderson, South Carolina.

1984-Present Practiced as Senior Partner in the law firm of Williams and Houser with a general practice similar to that above.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - One case

State - Weekly

Other - Magistrate (bi-weekly)

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 40%

Criminal - 2%

Domestic - 58%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 15%

Non-jury - 85%

In most cases he was sole counsel. He has served as chief counsel in a few cases. He has never served as an associate counsel.

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

(a) Rothrock v. McCall Thomas Engineering Company, Inc. This was a slander and tortuous interference with a contract action brought by a disgruntled construction supervisor against the design engineering firm. The case was tried in Berkeley County, South Carolina and verdict rendered for the Defendant after five days of trial. The case was not appealed. This case was significant because it involved questions of federal constitutional law under the New York Times case which was relatively recent at the time. The Defense Verdict was especially meaningful as he was defending an out-of-town corporation. He was assisted by two associate counsel.

(b) Reed v. Medlin, 281 SE2d 125 (S.C. 1981) and 328 SE2d 115 (S.C.App. 1985). On September 12, 1979, Mr. Reed was burned to death in a collision while stopped at a road block set up by two highway patrolman. Representing the widow, they brought suit against a highway patrolman, the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, three individual Defendants and a corporate Defendant. After two appeals which resulted in the Department being dismissed as a Defendant and after having settled with all Defendants other than Patrolman Medlin and having added Patrolman Morris as a Defendant, the case was tried in November of 1985. After a 4-day trial, they received a verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $250,000 which was one of the largest jury verdicts ever rendered in Orangeburg County to that time. The case involved several interesting questions of law which were decided on appeal. He was chief counsel assisted by two associate counsel.

(c) Joseph Broughton v. Seaboard Airline Railroad. Mr. Broughton drove his automobile into the side of a switch engine which was crossing a spur track in North Charleston, South Carolina. He received severe permanent brain damage which resulted in total disability and loss of his well-paying job as a longshoreman. The case was extremely difficult because of the contributory negligence issue. The case was tried in Federal Court in Charleston with Simmons Tate defending. During the course of the trial, Defendant raised its offer to $25,000 which was rejected by their client, Mrs. Broughton, against their advice. At the conclusion of the trial of the case they entered into a "high/low" agreement wherein they agreed to limit any possible recovery to $250,000, and the Defendant agreed to a minimum recovery in the amount of $50,000 plus attorney's fees. This agreement was entered into by the Defendant against the advice of its counsel. The jury was out less than two hours before returning a verdict for the Defendant. The case is significant for him, because it resulted in a significant monetary recovery for a family which had been placed in destitute circumstances by this unfortunate incident.

(d) Dixie Kemmerlin v. Roy Campbell, M.D. This medical malpractice case was one of the first cases he tried after being admitted to the Bar and was the first time a local physician had been sued by a local attorney. Their expert testified that the physician had failed to meet the standard of care in treating a gun shot wound to the chest. Neither the defense counsel or the presiding judge treated the case with much significance as they began the trial. However, by the end of his examination of their expert witness, they had the interest of not only defense counsel and the presiding judge, but many members of the Orangeburg County Bar who had come into the courtroom to watch the proceedings. The jury rendered a defense verdict, but the case was significant for a number of reasons. First, he learned that he could prepare and try a very complicated medical malpractice case as well as anyone. Secondly, he learned that an individual shot in a barroom brawl on the wrong side of the tracks does not make an attractive subject for a medical malpractice action. Thirdly, he learned that the fact that there has never been a jury verdict in Orangeburg County against a local physician is not likely to change soon.

(e) John M. Till v. Dairymen, Inc. This action was brought in federal court on behalf of a local dairy farmer who believed that the butterfat percentage of his milk had been manipulated by Dairymen, Inc. and Coble Dairies in order to take advantage of a price differential. He had very accurate records that this had been going on for some period of time and resulted in significant financial losses. When they contacted the potential defendants, they flew in a plane load of lawyers and company officials to Orangeburg to tell them if they proceeded in this suit they would bury them under so much paperwork they would not be able to try the case for five years. They filed the case, refused to participate in the burdensome discovery with which they challenged them and went to trial in Charleston. There were eleven attorneys representing the Defendants, and he associated a Charleston attorney who was more familiar with federal court procedures to assist. At the close of the Plaintiff's case, the Judge called all of the attorneys into his Chambers and announced that he was going to send the case to the jury on fraud and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. He strongly recommended settlement. Three hours later, the Defendants agreed to settle by paying their initial demand. This case was significant in that he was able to guide the litigation from the initial filing of the Complaint through trial without being intimidated or overwhelmed by a tremendous defense team from three states. Additionally, the "little guy" was able to prevail over one of the largest Co-ops in the world and one which is known for being extremely litigious.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Reed v. Medlin. This case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court once and to the South Carolina Court of Appeals later. In the first appeal, the Court sustained the Department of Highways and Public Transportation's demurrer on the grounds of sovereign immunity. However, the Court overruled the Department's demurrers as to whether or not the conditions alleged constituted a defect and as to whether or not they were entitled to an action for damages to the widow and children. The second appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Highway Department on the survivor cause of action as well as the denial of a Motion to Amend by adding the Chief Highway Commissioner as party. The second appeal resulted in the trial of the case shortly before McCall v. Batson, 329 SE2d 741 (S.C. 1985) (repealed the doctrine of sovereign immunity).

(b) Nancy B. Evans v. Dan W. Evans, Memorandum Opinion No. 88-MO-018, filed February 29, 1988. In this appeal from the Orangeburg Family Court, he represented the Defendant/Respondent. In this custody, visitation, support and property action, the trial court's judgment was viewed as an almost total victory for the Defendant. The Court of Appeals in its decision affirmed the lower court's order.

20. Judicial Office: He served as Mayor of the Town of Norway for eight years, and during that time he presided over the Mayor's Court. Mayor's Court tries criminal matters within its jurisdiction and holds preliminary hearings in more serious matters. It could levy fines up to $200.

22. Public Office: He served as the Mayor of the town of Norway for 8 years and a member of the Town Council for 14 of the past 23 years. He was responsible for receiving federal and state aid used for the construction of a recreational area in the community. He was responsible for receiving federal assistance in expanding the water system to a low-income minority area.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: He was an unsuccessful candidate for the S. C. House of Representatives, District 95, in 1978; for the Orangeburg County Council, District 4, in 1986; and for the Town Council in the Town of Norway in 1989.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:

1965-1972, He engaged in dairy and general farming operation with his father near Norway, South Carolina. He was responsible for the general management of a 250-cow dairy herd and a row crop operation consisting of cotton, corn, soy beans and feed grains with a total of approximately 1,000 acres.

1973-1974, He was employed as general Farm Manager of C&S Farms, Inc., Norway, South Carolina. He was responsible for the operation of extended farming operations consisting of over 2,000 acres of row crops, a pure-bred breeding operation of approximately 200 brood sows, an SPF breeding operation of approximately 50 sows, a commercia swine feeding operation of approximately 2,000 head and a grain buying and farm supply business.

1974-1979, He was a self-employed farmer operating a 150-brood sow operation and approximately 100 acres of feed grains.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise:

1983-present Shareholder, officer and member of the Board of Directors of Norway Telephone Company, Inc., a family-owned, independent telephone company serving the area in and around Norway, South Carolina

1986-present Shareholder and officer in NORCOM, Inc., a cable television communications company presently operating four cable television systems in South Carolina and engaging in general telephone and television cable construction work.

1990-present Elected to the statewide Board of Directors and presently serving as Secretary of PMN, Inc., a cellular telephone company providing cellular service to the rural areas of South Carolina.

27. Potential conflicts of interests in any financial arrangements or business relationships: It is conceivable, but highly unlikely that the relationships described in Question #25 could result in a conflict of interest. Should such circumstances arise, he would recuse himself, explaining to the parties his reasons for doing so. Any possible conflicts created by his previous representation of parties in a pending action would be handled in an identical manner.

33. His health is very good. His last complete physical examination was in December of 1988.

34. Hospitalized: He was hospitalized for 23 days in December of 1986 as a result of a bacterial infection he suffered after having eaten raw oysters. He returned to work on a limited schedule immediately following his release from the hospital and on a full-time basis approximately one month later. He was also hospitalized for one week in June of 1989, for a left retromastoid craniectomy. This surgical procedure removed an irritation to a facial nerve which was causing facial spasms on the left side of his face. The surgery was completely successful, and he returned to work approximately one month later.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Orangeburg County Bar, President 1989; South Carolina Bar Association; American Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Former member of the Orangeburg County United Fund Board of Directors; member of Norway Ruritan Club since 1966, having served several terms as President and Secretary; lifelong member of the Norway Baptist Church, having served as a member and Chairman of the Board of Deacons on numerous occasions, Sunday School teacher for 20 of the last 25 years and in various other leadership positions in the church; founding member of the Board of Directors of Heritage Hall Academy at Norway, South Carolina, having served continuously as President from 1970 until the present time; served as Board Representative to the South Carolina Independent School Association since 1970; served on the Athletic Committee from 1983 to 1986, was elected President of the Association in 1984 and having served continuously since that time; Commissioner, Orangeburg Conservation District since 1989.

41. He participates in the South Carolina Pro Bono program and usually has one pro bono case pending at all times.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Michael A. Wolfe, Vice President
Orangeburg National Bank
P. O. Box 2166, Orangeburg, SC 29116-2166

(b) Thomas B. Bryant, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 1265, Orangeburg, SC 29116-1265

(c) M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Drawer H, Charleston, SC 29402-0197

(d) William A. Horger, Esquire
P. O. Box 518, Orangeburg, SC 29116-0518

(e) M. M. Weinberg, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Drawer 1289, Orangeburg, SC 29151-1289

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RECORDS, AND NORWAY AND ORANGEBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ORANGEBURG COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. HOW IS YOUR HEALTH NOW, MR. WILLIAMS?
A FINE.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. I BELIEVE YOU WERE A FARMER FOR AWHILE?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU STILL IN FARMING?
A NO, SIR; I OWN A LITTLE FARM BUT I RENT IT. I'M NOT FARMING IT NOW. I FARMED 11 YEARS BEFORE I WENT BACK TO LAW SCHOOL.
Q WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO ENSURE, MR. WILLIAMS, THAT YOU DID NOT DEVELOP BAD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT WHILE YOU WERE ON THE BENCH?
A WELL, YOU VISUALIZE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, I DO, IF I WERE A JUDGE AND I THINK I WOULD TAKE SOME LITTLE 3 BY 5 CARDS AND PUT SOME THINGS ON THEM THAT I NEED TO REMEMBER AS I WAS SITTING ON THE BENCH AND ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE TO BE PATIENT; AND ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE WOULD TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE'S PHRASE, "REMEMBER, I CAME FROM DIRT, TOO." I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE JUDICIARY IS FORMED MORE BY HOW JUDGES TREAT LITIGANTS AND PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM THAN IT IS BY THE LEGAL DECISIONS THEY MAKE; AND I THINK REALIZING THAT THAT IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN WOULD HELP ME BE MORE PATIENT AND TOLERANT WITH THE PEOPLE COMING BEFORE ME IN THE COURTROOM. I ALSO THINK THAT THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD OUT IN THE WORLD BEFORE I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL IN SOME SENSE IS INVALUABLE IN THAT I HAVE SEEN THE WORLD FROM THE OTHER SIDE, SO TO SPEAK. I AM NOT, CERTAINLY, CRITICAL OF LAWYERS WHO WENT STRAIGHT INTO LAW SCHOOL AND SOMETIMES I WISH THAT I HAD; BUT I THINK THAT DOES GIVE ME A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE, TO SEE HOW THE REST OF THE WORLD LIVES AND IT HAS BROUGHT A LITTLE BIT OF MATURITY, AND I THINK THAT IT WAS A VERY STRONG DISADVANTAGE OF GETTING THROUGH LAW SCHOOL HAVING TO GET BACK INTO THE SWING OF THINGS, BUT IT HELPED ME TO SEE THINGS IN A BROADER PERSPECTIVE AND I THINK THAT WILL HELP ME KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE AND KEEP MY PATIENCE AND ABILITY TO TREAT PEOPLE FAIRLY SO THAT THEY WOULD PERCEIVE JUSTICE AS BEING FAIR, WHETHER THEY HAVE GOTTEN WHAT THEY WANTED OR NOT.
Q AND THE QUESTION CONCERNING WORK ETHIC, DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEM THAT YOU WOULD HAVE WITH HOLDING COURT ON FRIDAYS, IF NECESSARY, OR LATE IN THE AFTERNOON ON OCCASION WHEN IT'S NECESSARY?
A NO, SIR, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY A FULL-TIME POSITION. I WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WITH ACCEPTING IT. I WORK NOW FROM--I'M USUALLY IN THE OFFICE BEFORE 8:00 O'CLOCK AND I DON'T LEAVE UNTIL ABOUT 6:00. I DON'T HAVE A FAMILY AT HOME WAITING ON ME TO GET THERE. I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO BE IN OPERATION ENOUGH TO KEEP CASES FROM BACKING UP AND CREATING A BACKLOG. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, IF IT MEANS COMING EARLY OR STAYING LATE OR EVEN OCCASIONALLY ON THE WEEKEND IF IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
Q THANK YOU, SIR. AND YOU HAVE NO OR, OF COURSE, THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU IN THIS MATTER, AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE OR COMMENTS?
A NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUES-
TIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I HAVE GOT ONE QUESTION. SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.

Q IN LOOKING AT YOUR INFORMATION, YOU HAVE A RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CRIMINAL PRACTICE RIGHT NOW. DO YOU SEE THAT AS A SHORTCOMING? AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS, HOW WOULD YOU OVERCOME THAT IF YOU WENT ON THE BENCH DEALING WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF CASES THAT YOU'LL BE HANDLING ARE CRIMINAL?
A WELL, CERTAINLY THE PROCEDURE, OR A LOT OF THE PROCEDURE IS THE SAME; IT WOULD REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE PREPARATION FROM ME, I THINK, TO BONE UP ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND SOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW. I DON'T SEE THAT AS A DISADVANTAGE. I SEE THAT AS AN AREA THAT I WILL CERTAINLY HAVE TO WORK ON. I HAVE DONE MORE CRIMINAL IN MAGISTRATE COURT AND ON THE LOWER COURT LEVEL THAN I HAVE IN CIRCUIT COURT, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE ANY DISADVANTAGE REALLY. I THINK DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF CIVIL LAW WOULD HAVE THE SAME APPLICATION; IN WORKING IN A PARTICULAR AREA OF LAW, A JUDGE HAS TO GET FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE LAW IF HE HAS NOT BEEN FAMILIAR WITH IT IN THE PAST.

SENATOR POPE: MR. MARTIN HAS A QUESTION.

Q I NOTICE THAT YOU RAN FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND YOU WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; YOU RAN FOR ORANGEBURG COUNTY COUNCIL AND YOU WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; YOU RAN FOR TOWN COUNCIL OF NORWAY AND YOU WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. COULD WE CONSIDER ANY OF THESE TO BE INDICATIVE OF YOUR POPULARITY IN YOUR AREA?
A WELL, WHAT I DIDN'T PUT DOWN IS--AND THAT ONLY ASKED FOR OFFICES THAT I HAD RUN FOR AND NOT BEEN ELECTED TO--I SERVED 23 YEARS IN THE TOWN OF NORWAY EITHER ON TOWN COUNCIL OR AS MAYOR BEFORE I WAS DEFEATED IN A VERY NARROW ELECTION. CERTAINLY I CAME IN FIFTH IN A FIELD OF FIVE WHEN THERE WERE FOUR POSITIONS; SO THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, BUT I HAD MANY YEARS OF SERVICE THERE BEFORE THAT HAPPENED. AS FAR AS MY RUN FOR THE HOUSE, WHEN I RAN I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. I RAN AGAINST A MR. ED BENNETT WHO WAS VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED AND A GOOD FRIEND OF MY FAMILY'S AT THE TIME. HE HAD BEEN IN, I THINK, ABOUT 12 YEARS AT THE TIME; AND I JUST GOT BEAT, THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.
I MEAN, I LOST THE ELECTIONS; THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. I DON'T THINK THAT IS ANY MAR ON MY STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY. ANYBODY IS DISAPPOINTED WHEN THEY LOSE; BUT, OF COURSE, THINGS HAPPEN. I PROBABLY TRIED TO STAY IN THE TOWN OF NORWAY POLITICS TOO LONG. SENATOR POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Q MR. WILLIAMS, I NOTICE YOU ARE A CLEMSON MAN AND STUDIED AGRICULTURE, AND I THINK YOU STATED THAT YOU FARMED 11 YEARS.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU REFERRED TO "HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVE," I ASSUME YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FARMERS?
A YES, SIR; WELL, NOT ONLY FARMERS. I AM A FARMER AT HEART. I FINISHED CLEMSON IN DAIRY SCIENCE, BUT JUST THE BUSINESS WORLD OUT THERE AND THE SCHOOL OF "HARD KNOCKS," I THINK, IS WHAT I MEAN BY "THE OTHER HALF"; THE HALF THAT IS NOT MEMBERS OF THE BAR.
Q FARMING IS HARD.
A YES, SIR.

Q MR. WILLIAMS.
A YES, SIR.
Q HOW ARE WE GOING TO SOLVE THE DAIRY PROBLEM?
A I DON'T KNOW, SIR. THE BEST YEARS OF MY LIFE WERE SPENT IN THE DAIRY BUSINESS.
Q IT'S A DISAPPEARING BREED, ISN'T IT?
A YES, SIR, IT IS. AND IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE SOME STATES CAN PRODUCE MILK SO MUCH MORE CHEAPLY THAN WE CAN, BUT THEY'RE BRINGING THAT MILK IN; AND I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR IT, SENATOR. WHEN I WAS A STUDENT IN DAIRY SCIENCE AT CLEMSON, THERE WERE LIKE 500 DAIRIES IN THE STATE AND I THINK THERE ARE WAY LESS THAN 100 NOW; AND IT'S A TRAGEDY, I THINK, THAT WE--AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. I WISH I DID. I HAVE A LOT OF GOOD FRIENDS, INCLUDING MY OWN FAMILY, WHO WERE IN THE DAIRY BUSINESS AND TRIED TO DO A GOOD JOB AND JUST WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY.
Q IT'S A PROBLEM THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT'S INSOLUBLE.
A YES, SIR.
Q THANK YOU.
A THERE'S TOO MANY FORCES THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL IN SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE MILK SITUATION. THE MIDWEST HAS SO MUCH CHEAPER PRICES. AND WHEN I WAS A STUDENT WE TRAVELED IN THOSE AREAS AND THE HEALTH CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED IN THOSE STATES IN THE MIDWEST WERE NOT TOLERATED AT ALL IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND IT RAISES THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF MILK.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. WILLIAMS. WE APPRECIATE IT.
A YES, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THAT CONCLUDES THE SCREENING FOR THE FIRST POSITION, THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. THOSE WHO HAVE JUST BEEN SCREENED, IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE, YOU FEEL FREE TO DO SO BECAUSE I WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO HANG AROUND FOR NO REASON. AND THE NEXT POSITION WILL BE THE 14TH CIRCUIT, JUDGE LUKE BROWN'S POSITION, WHICH, OF COURSE, COVERS HAMPTON, COLLETON, JASPER, BEAUFORT, AND ALLENDALE COUNTIES. WE ARE GOING TO, LIKEWISE, DO THIS ALPHABETICALLY; AND JUDGE DONALD FANNING, IF YOU WOULD COME UP FIRST. (PAUSE.) PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME.
JUDGE FANNING: DONALD ALTON FANNING, SR.
(DONALD A. FANNING, SR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS CORRECT.
Q YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
A NOT AT THIS POINT.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION, JUDGE, TO MAKING THIS PART OF RECORD IN THIS CASE?
A NO, SIR.
Q IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Donald Alton Fanning
Home Address: Business Address:
Blue Heron Bluff, P. O. Box 1124

Ladys Island Beaufort, SC 29901

P.O. Box 1366
Beaufort, SC 29901

2. He was born in Rochester, New York on October 2, 1935. He is presently 55 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-*****

4. He was married to Leola Long on June 30, 1962. He has three children: Donald Alton, age 25 (senior MUSC Dental College); Laura Elizabeth, age 22 (graduate, Winthrop College); and Lorick Vrooman, age 21 (Junior, Wittenberg University).
5. Military Service: 1961-1964, U. S. Air Force JAG, Captain, AO 31 173 58, Civilian, Honorable Discharge

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

7. At Wittenberg University he was on the varsity baseball team, 1954; Lambda Chi Alpha Social Fraternity; High Tau, Treasurer; full responsibility for financial operation of Fraternity House and Board Club, feeding 60 to 70 college men 3 meals per day; Pi Sigma Alpha, National Political Science Honorary. At the University of Chicago Law School he was a moot court competitor. He was the recipient of the National Honor Scholarship to the University of Chicago Law School.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Child Sexual Abuse, 4/26/85
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE An Introduction to the New Rules of Civil Procedure, 6/28/85
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Valuation of Businesses and Professions in Equitable Division Cases, 12/12/85 and 12/13/85
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Current Issues in Family Court, 4/25/86
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE The New S. C. Adoption Statute and the Equitable Apportionment Statute, 12/18/86 and 12/19/86
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE A Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update and Alimony Perspectives, 11/19/87 and 11/20/87
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Guidelines in Using Mental Health Professional in Custody and Child Abuse Cases, 3/18/88
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Ethics, Rules and Contemporary Issues in Family Court, 7/15/88
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Evidence & Statutory Law Update, 11/17/88 and 11/18/88
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Child Victim in Court, 2/27/89 and 2/28/89
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Bits and Pieces, 7/21/89
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Issues in Family Law, 11/17/89
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Criminal Law Update, 1/25/90 and 1/26/90
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Seminar, 3/30/90
S. C. Bar Association - JCLE Family Law Issues, 11/9/90

9. Courses taught or lectures given: In August of 1976, he delivered a lecture to the Southeastern Conference of Juvenile Court Judges at Black Mountain, North Carolina, which reviewed the constitutional law pertaining to Juveniles Court and presented the annual case update. He has made two presentations to the Family Court Judges of South Carolina at annual meetings concerning matters of Family Law.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

April 1961 to April 1964 USAF, Judge Advocate, Hunter AFB, Georgia

April 1964 to September 1968 Dowling, Dowling, Sanders & Dukes (Joab Dowling, G. G. Dowling, James C. Sanders & Marvin Dukes)

September 1968 to August 1970 Hendricks & Fanning (Carl Hendricks, Jr., Partner)

August 1970 to July 1975 Donald A. Fanning, Attorney at Law (Charles Webb, III and John B. O'Neal, III, Associates)

July 1975 to July 1977 Judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and Judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County

July 1977 to present Family Court Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit

Since January 1976, he has served numerous terms as Special Circuit Court Judge, by appointment of Chief Justice in Allendale, Beaufort, Colleton, Berkeley, Greenville, Lexington, Anderson, Pickens, Kershaw, Richland, Charleston, Florence, Lancaster, Chester and Fairfield Counties.

He has held both jury and non-jury terms of Common Pleas Court and General Sessions Court and has worked with the Grand Jury.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:
Federal -
State - Daily from 9 to 5+ for past 15 1/2 years
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 10%
Domestic - 85%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury -
Non-jury - 100% in past five years

Trial Judge

20. Judicial Office: Judge, Civil and Criminal Courts of Beaufort County - July 7, 1985 to June 30, 1977, civil jurisdiction limited to $25,000, general criminal jurisdiction. Judge, Family Court of Beaufort County - June 30, 1977 to present. Appointed by Governor John West as Special Presiding Judge, Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, 1/19/76 to 2/6/76 and 9/27/76 to 10/1/76. Served as Special Circuit Judge upon appointment of Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court for Allendale, Beaufort, Kershaw, Colleton, Berkeley, Greenville, Lexington, Anderson, Pickens, Richland, Charleston, Florence, Lancaster, Chester and Fairfield Counties, unlimited jurisdiction.

21. Five (5) significant Orders or Opinions:

(a) Ray G. Ellis and Elizabeth W. Ellis v. South Carolina Tax Commission. Beaufort County, Court of Common Pleas, Judgment Roll 36798, Affirmed, South Carolina Supreme Court, 280 S.C. 65, 309 SE2d 761 (1983).

(b) Atlantic Soft Drink Co. of Columbia, Inc. v. South Carolina National Bank and the National Bank of North America. Richland County, Court of Common Pleas, 82-CP-409-3643, Affirmed, South Carolina Supreme Court, 287 S.C. 228, 336 SE2d 876 (1985).

(c) Marquard v. Pacific Columbia Mills and Home Insurance Company. Richland County, Court of Common Pleas, Affirmed, South Carolina Supreme Court, 278 S.C. 323 (1982)

(d) Raeford Rabon v. Melvin R. Roberts and Guardsmerk, Inc. Richland County, Court of Common Pleas, Appeal not perfected.

(e) Lorene Black, et al. v. Virgil Conrad and the South Carolina Department of Social Services. Richland County, Court of Common Pleas, 82-CP-40-5587.

22. Public Office: Member, S. C. Commission on Aging, Executive Committee, 1972 to 1975, appointed; member, S. C. Judicial Grievance & Discipline Commission, 1976, appointed; Associate Government Appeals Agent, Local Board #7, selective service, 10/6/67, appointed.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: Candidate for Circuit Court Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, 1980, screened and qualified, withdrew prior to vote of General Assembly.
Unsuccessful Candidate: Beaufort County Council - 1968
Unsuccessful Candidate: Democratic Primary - South Carolina House Seat, 1970

31. Sued:

Mary D. S. Peters v. Richard Riley, Governor, Daniel McLeod, Attorney General, John T. Campbell, Secretary of State, et al.

The list of defendants includes several Circuit and Family Court judges, the former Deputy Clerk of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of South Carolina, the Clerk of Court for Beaufort County, the Sheriff of Beaufort County, the Auditor of Beaufort County, the Treasurer and the County Attorney as well as several individuals.

This suit was filed in the Federal District Court in 1983.

Mrs. Peters' 65-page prose Complaint was totally without merit. The best that he could understand is that Mrs. Peters has been involved in litigation before courts in this state, has been unsatisfied with her outcome, and wishes the judicial system and county government to stop harassing her by enforcing their judgments, taxes, rules and regulations.

Mrs. Peters appeared before the Family Court of Beaufort County in an action for a legal separation and separate maintenance from her husband, Fred Peters. She was unsatisfied with the decision made by the Court and was unwilling to accept rulings by the appropriate judge who was not in total agreement with her thinking. Her allegations concerning tapes and interference with the Grand Jury are totally untrue and products of her imagination. She did appear before the Legislative Screening Committee, however, the account of the effect of her appearance is totally incorrect. He did not admit any wrongdoing before the Committee. He was found fully qualified by the full Committee to hold a Circuit Court judgeship, and her appearance had no connection with his ultimate withdrawal from the race.

He was represented in this suit by the South Carolina Attorney General.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was on 7/30/87 by Dr. Haddad, 121 S. Ribaut Road, Beaufort, South Carolina 29902.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Beaufort County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; New York Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
St. John's Lutheran Church; United States Power Squadron; Beaufort Rotary Club; Social Ministry Committee, S. C. Lutheran Synod; Low Country Retired Officers Association; Boy Scouts of America; Committee Member, Troop I, Beaufort, South Carolina; Chatham Club; Golf Professionals Club (tennis membership)
41. He has been appointed Special Circuit Judge by two Chief Justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the Honorable Woodrow Lewis and the Honorable C. Bruce Littlejohn. He has served six years on the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Standards, a committee consisting of a Circuit Judge, a Family Court Judge and a practicing attorney. This committee renders advisory opinions to judges on issues of judicial ethics. He was first appointed by Chief Justice Bruce Littlejohn and reappointed by Chief Justice Julius B. Ness and reappointed by Chief Justice George Gregory.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Grady D. Thames, Assistant Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1047, Beaufort, SC 29901

(b) James H. Moss, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 507, Beaufort, SC 29901-0507

(c) Ralph Riddle, Pastor
St. John's Lutheran Church
P. O. Box 358, Beaufort, SC 29902

(d) Fred S. Washington, Jr., County Director
S. C. Department of Social Services
P. O. Box 1065, Beaufort, SC 29901-1065

(e) Wyatt B. Pringle
Kinghorn Insurance Agency
P. O. Drawer 1088, Beaufort, SC 29901

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, BECAUSE YOU ARE PRESENTLY ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH, HAVE REPORTED TO US THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RECORDS, AND THE BEAUFORT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, AS ARE SLED AND THE F.B.I., ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, YOUR HOME COUNTY, ARE NEGATIVE. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE REPORTED A COUPLE OF FEDERAL COURT ACTIONS AGAINST YOU?
A YES.
Q IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, ELABORATE ON THOSE A LITTLE BIT.
A WELL, THE ONE WHICH IS THE LARGEST ONE THERE, I GUESS, IS A SUIT BY MRS. MARY PETERS. IT WAS A 65 PAGE PRO SE SUIT AGAINST GOVERNOR RILEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL MCLEOD, THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT, GRADY PATTERSON, I BELIEVE, AND MR. CAMPBELL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF, AND THE BEAUFORT COUNTY TREASURER, THE--JUDGE LUKE BROWN, JUDGE PAUL MOORE, MYSELF, JUDGE BURNSIDE, JUDGE KEMP, JUDGE KLECKLEY; IT KIND OF READ LIKE WHO'S WHO IN THE JUDICIARY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. MRS. PETERS WAS BASICALLY DISCONTENT WITH A NUMBER OF DECISIONS IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND SHE HAD, I BELIEVE, THE POSITION THAT HER PROPERTY WAS A GRANT FROM THE KING OF ENGLAND AND WE DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH IT. AND SHE HAD A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPTS BEING CHANGED. AND THE ROAD WAS BLOCKED; SHE BLOCKED THE ROAD OUT THERE, WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEPT COMING UP. AND, ULTIMATELY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDED ALL OF US IN THAT SUIT AND NOTHING EVER REALLY CAME OF IT. ULTIMATELY, THE BEAUFORT COUNTY ATTORNEY FILED A SUIT AGAINST MRS. PETERS IN WHICH HE ATTEMPTED TO GET A RESTRAINING ORDER RESTRAINING HER FROM HARASSING US ANY FURTHER WITH HER LITIGATION; AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE END OF IT AND IT DIED ON THE VINE. THE OTHER FEDERAL SUIT INVOLVED A HABEAS CORPUS. I CONDUCTED SOME POST CONVICTION RELIEF HEARINGS IN CHARLESTON; I DENIED THE MAN'S POST CONVICTION RELIEF AND HE RETURNED TO THE CENTRAL CORRECTIONS INSTITUTION AND AFTER THAT HE EXHAUSTED HIS APPEAL IN FEDERAL COURT, I BELIEVE, OR IN STATE COURT AND HE THEN FILED A HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. I REALLY HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE PAPERS CAME TO MY OFFICE WHEN I WASN'T IN TOWN. I TOOK THEM AND SENT THEM TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THAT'S THE LAST THAT I KNOW OF IT, UNTIL I GOT YOUR REPORT THERE WHICH LISTED THAT CASE IN THERE, AND I DO RECALL HAVING RECEIVED THE PAPERS AT ONE POINT IN TIME; BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT.
Q JUDGE FANNING, I NOTICE YOU HAVE ON OCCASION BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE.
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE HELD GENERAL SESSIONS COURT AND COMMON PLEAS?
A I HAVE HELD BOTH GENERAL SESSIONS AND COMMON PLEAS JURY COURT. I AM ABOUT ONE OF THE FEW FAMILY COURT JUDGES WHO HAS EVER HELD THE JURY END OF CIRCUIT COURT AND ONE OF THE FEW THAT HAS EVER HELD GENERAL SESSIONS JURY COURT. SEE, I WAS--I WENT ON THE BENCH IN 1975 AS A COUNTY JUDGE; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, I HAD JURY IN MY COUNTY COURT. SO WHEN THE NEW SYSTEM CAME IN IN '77 OF FAMILY COURT, JUSTICE LEWIS, WOODROW LEWIS, USED ME EXTENSIVELY IN COMMON PLEAS COURT AND IN GENERAL SESSIONS, LIMITED GENERAL SESSIONS; I HELD GENERAL SESSIONS IN BEAUFORT AND ALLENDALE AND COLLETON COUNTY.
Q YOU ARE THE FIRST SITTING JUDGE TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, SO YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON ROBE-ITIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH FOR YOU TO COMMENT ON THE QUESTION. WHAT CAN YOU DO TO AVOID THE PROBLEM?
A WELL, MY FIRST COMMENT THAT I HAVE IS THAT THE BEST PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING; AND I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 16 YEARS AND THE BENCH AND THE BAR PRETTY WELL KNOW MY DEMEANOR AND MY MANNER AND THE WAY I DEAL WITH PEOPLE AND THE WAY I HANDLE COURT AND HANDLE THE SITUATION; AND I THINK THAT OVER THOSE YEARS IN THE FAMILY COURT, WHICH IS THE MOST HOSTILE, THE MOST AGGRAVATING FORM OF COURT THAT YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET, I HAVE MAINTAINED MY COMPOSURE AND MY PATIENCE AND MY DEMEANOR IN THE MOST ADVERSE OF SITUATIONS; AND I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, SPEAKS THE BEST I CAN FOR WHAT I WOULD DO AND MIGHT DO IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD BE WILLING--AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS YOU WOULD ASK ME; BUT, YOU KNOW, THE BAR HAS--THE BAR CONDUCTS A SURVEY ON JUDGES WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY THE JUDGE GETS THE REPORT; AND, YOU KNOW, THAT--IT'S DONE THROUGH A RATING SYSTEM THROUGH AN ACCOUNTING FIRM, I BELIEVE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE STILL DOING THAT.
Q I THINK THEY STOPPED DOING THAT.
A BUT I HAVE A NUMBER OF YEARS OF THAT AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE TO YOU, IF YOU SO DESIRE. YOU KNOW, I FEEL THAT EVERYBODY DESERVES THEIR DAY IN COURT. THEY DESERVE TO BE TREATED FAIRLY, CONSIDERATELY, PATIENTLY. AND I THINK A JUDGE OFTENTIMES HAS A DUTY TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFULLY THAN WE MAY. WE GO--IN FAMILY COURT, YOU MAY HAVE 80 DAYS' CASES ON THE DOCKET IN A DAY AND LIKE IN SUPPORT CASES; AND YOU REALLY HAVE TO MOVE PRETTY PROMPTLY. BUT OFTENTIMES YOU GET PEOPLE BEFORE YOU THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND YOU GET PEOPLE WHOSE CHILDREN ARE EMANCIPATED AND YOU SEE THEM--SOMEBODY COMES IN, "HAVE YOU PAID YOUR SUPPORT?" "NO." "WHY HAVEN'T YOU PAID IT?" AND OFF TO JAIL YOU GO FOR NOT PAYING YOUR SUPPORT; AND MAYBE IF YOU LOOKED AT THE FILE, THE PERSON MIGHT HAVE BEEN EMANCIPATED; THE CHILD MAY NOT REALLY BE--MAY NOT BE. AND THEY ARE TOO IGNORANT AND MAYBE NOT AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON TO EVEN RAISE THAT; SO, I THINK A JUDGE HAS A CERTAIN OBLIGATION TO LOOK AT THAT FILE TO SEE THAT THERE IS JURISDICTION, TO SEE THAT THERE IS THOSE KIND OF THINGS; AND THAT'S KIND OF AN INSIGHT INTO YOUR RELATIONSHIP OF WHO IS COMING BEFORE YOU. I KNOW IN CRIMINAL COURT, IN THE SENTENCING ASPECT OF CRIMINAL COURT, OFTENTIMES YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BEFORE YOU THAT THEIR WHOLE LIFE IS REALLY IN THE BALANCE; AND A JUDGE HAS A REAL HARD JOB TO SORT OUT WHO I SHOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OR A CHANCE TO AND WHO I SHOULDN'T GIVE A CHANCE TO; WHO MAYBE CAN BE REHABILITATED, CAN BE TURNED OUT, CAN MAKE HIS LIFE STRAIGHTEN OUT, AND WHO REALLY CAN'T; AND WHEN WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS OFTENTIMES, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY MAKE A GOOD DECISION, YOU MAY MAKE A BAD DECISION. I HAVE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE THAT I HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN VERY REWARDING WHERE I HAVE PICKED OUT SOMEBODY WHO IS IN A PRETTY BAD FIX AND GAVE THEM THAT CHANCE AND THEY HAVE KEPT THE FAITH WITH ME IN THE LONG RUN. AS FAR AS WORKING LONG HOURS AND THAT KIND OF THING, THAT IS NO PROBLEM WITH ME. I HAVE BEEN DOING THAT AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. OF COURSE, IN THE--IN CIRCUIT COURT WHEN YOU PUT A JURY OUT, THEN YOU HAVE GOT TO WAIT UNTIL THEY COME BACK AND SOMETIMES IT'S MIDNIGHT AND SOMETIMES IT'S 8:00 O'CLOCK. AND THE ONE THING ABOUT THAT THOUGH IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO CONSIDER THAT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE ON THE JURY HAVE FAMILIES, THEY HAVE JOBS, THEY HAVE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES BESIDES BEING ON THE JURY; AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT; BUT YOU CAN'T RUN ROUGHSHOD OVER EVERYBODY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END.
SENATOR POPE: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS?

(NO QUESTIONS INDICATED.)
Q WELL, WE HAVE HAD NO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED, AND WE HAVE NO WITNESSES HERE PRESENT; SO, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, THAT WILL---
A I HAVE ONE MATTER THAT I THINK I NEED TO COMMENT ON FOR THE RECORD. AS A SITTING FAMILY COURT JUDGE WITH ALMOST 16 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ON FIVE SEPARATE OCCASIONS AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FOUND QUALIFIED BY THE COMMITTEE BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE; BUT I FEEL THAT AS A SITTING JUDGE THAT I DELIBERATELY RESTRAIN FROM ATTEMPTING TO ATTAIN OR SOLICITING ATTORNEYS' SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS ENDORSING ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT FOR A SITTING JUDGE. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR AN ATTORNEY WHO PRACTICES BEFORE ME AND WHO KNOWS HE HAS GOT TO COME BEFORE ME TOMORROW OR THE NEXT WEEK TO REFUSE TO SIGN ON MY PETITION; AND, THEREFORE, I HAVE NOT SOLICITED OR NOT ATTEMPTED TO GET A PETITION OR ANYTHING OF THAT TYPE OF SUPPORT. UNDER THE CANNONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS, WE CAN'T USE OUR POSITION TO GAIN OR TO FURTHER OUR PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT. HOWEVER, I'M AWARE THAT THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR WHICH REPRESENTS THAT THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR HAS VOTED BY A MAJORITY EXPRESSING A PREFERENCE FOR A CANDIDATE; AND I WISH TO APPRISE THE COMMITTEE OF THE FLAWED NATURE OF THAT VOTE AND THE UNDERLYING FACTS WHICH CAST CONSIDERABLE LIGHT ON THAT MATTER. I DID NOT ASK THE BAR TO VOTE AND I SOUGHT NO ENDORSEMENT FROM THEM. THE VOTING PROCESS THAT WAS ADOPTED WAS TO WRITE A NAME ON A PLAIN PIECE OF PAPER, PUT IT IN AN ENVELOPE AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BAR. THERE IS NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER ON WHO VOTES OR HOW MANY TIMES THEY VOTE. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SAFEGUARD PUT IN PLACE BY THE BAR OR THE GROUP THAT ESTABLISHED THIS PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE VOTING WAS BY A MEMBER OF THE BAR OR THAT THAT MEMBER VOTED ONLY ONCE. THE SECOND POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT 61 PIECES OF PAPER WERE RECEIVED WITH NAMES ON THEM. MANY OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER WERE JUST PAPER WITH THE NAME TYPED ON THEM AND AS SUCH. THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR HAS 200 MEMBERS. IT HAS APPROXIMATELY, I THINK, 200 MEMBERS. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT APPROXIMATELY 139 MEMBERS OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR DID NOT VOTE IN THIS PROCESS, OR OVER 70 PERCENT OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR CAST NO VOTE. THAT'S WELL OVER TWICE AS MANY WHO HAVE PURPORTEDLY CAST A VOTE. THE LETTER WHICH YOU RECEIVED SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT A MAJORITY OF THE BAR HAS ENDORSED A CANDIDATE. THAT ENDORSEMENT IS PREDICATED, AT BEST, ON A VOTE OF 20 PERCENT OR LESS OF THE TOTAL BAR IN A VERY SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT THAT OUGHT TO BE PLACED ON THE RECORD JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
Q WELL, IT'S IN THE RECORD. SHE HAS TYPED IT ALL.
A ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME?

SENATOR POPE: MR. MARTIN.

Q BASED ON YOUR LAST STATEMENT, CAN WE CONSIDER THAT AS BEING AN ALLEGATION ON YOUR PART AGAINST BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR AS HAVING COMMITTED FRAUD?
A NO, IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. I'M NOT MAKING A FRAUD ALLEGATION. I'M JUST STATING FACTS AS THEY EXIST.
Q WELL, IS THERE ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR?
A I'M NOT MAKING ANY COMPLAINT AND I'M NOT MAKING ANY ALLEGATION OF FRAUD. I'M JUST STATING FACTS, MR. MARTIN.
Q WELL, THEN WHAT IS THE REAL INTENT OF YOUR PURPOSE TO THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS?
A WELL, I THINK IT'S TWO-FOLD; FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE PROCESS WAS FLAWED AND THAT THE RESULT IS INSIGNIFICANT.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: NOTHING FURTHER.

SENATOR POPE: SENATOR.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN.

Q JUDGE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING US IS THAT THEY HAD SOME POLL TAKEN AND THAT THE POLL DOES NOT--IT'S NEITHER SCIENTIFIC, NOR DOES IT REPRESENT THE FULL SCOPE OF THE BAR, AND IT NEEDS TO BE JUST JUDGED ON THOSE FACTS?
A RIGHT.
Q WOULD THAT BE A FAIR ASSESSMENT?
A I THINK THAT IS A FAIR ASSESSMENT, SIR.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: THANK YOU, SIR.

Q JUDGE, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE OF YOUR COMMENTS YOU WERE QUOTING JUDICIAL ETHICS; IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IT'S IMPROPER FOR A FAMILY COURT JUDGE TO SOLICIT SUPPORT FROM BARS, FROM MEMBERS OF THE BARS, THAT APPEAR BEFORE THEM?
A I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY BUT MYSELF, AND I HAVE REFRAINED FROM IT. I HAVE NOT ASKED FOR SUPPORT AND I HAVE NOT SOUGHT THAT. IT PUTS PEOPLE IN VERY, VERY DIFFICULT POSITIONS. IT'S JUST LIKE IN THE SENATE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT APPEARING BEFORE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF THING; IF A JUDGE GOES TO THE BAR AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, "I WANT YOUR ENDORSEMENT," AND DEPENDING ON HOW MANY HE CAN ASSEMBLE; AND, OF COURSE, AS YOU GET A BIGGER BAR, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO PUT TOGETHER A GROUP. YOU TAKE RICHLAND WHICH PROBABLY HAS, WHAT, 500 MEMBERS?

SENATOR POPE: 2,000.
A IN THE RICHLAND COUNTY BAR, YOU CAN'T GET THE PEOPLE TOGETHER.
Q BUT SPECIFICALLY THE CANNON YOU QUOTED, WHAT DOES IT SAY?
A WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THE CANNONS TO--IT DOESN'T SAY--NONE OF THE CANNONS DEAL WITH SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. THEY DEAL WITH THE--WITH IMPROPRIETY, THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE USING OF YOUR POSITION TO PUT UNDUE INFLUENCE ON SOMEBODY TO ACT OR NOT ACT, OR THAT KIND OF THING.
SENATOR POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Q THE PROCESS OF THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR, WHO DECIDED ON THE PROCESS OF MAKING A SELECTION? DID THE BAR DECIDE THAT? OR DID JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL DECIDE THAT? DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE ON THAT?
A THEY HAD A MEETING ONE AFTERNOON ATTENDED BY A SMALL GROUP OF THE BAR; MANY OF THE MEMBERS WEREN'T THERE; AND THAT PROCESS WAS ADOPTED. I WAS NOT THERE MYSELF. I WAS IN COLUMBIA HOLDING COURT.
Q AND THE PROCESS, WAS THAT JUST TO SEND THEM A NAME ON A---
A SEND IN A NAME ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
Q WERE ALL THE BAR MEMBERS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY NOTIFIED OF THAT PROCESS?
A I ASSUME THEY WERE NOTIFIED, I BELIEVE, YES; AND 139 DIDN'T RESPOND.

Q JUST A COMMENT, THAT'S NOT VERY UNUSUAL; WE HAVE A LOT OF NAMES--MEMBERS OF THE BAR FOR SOME NOT TO RESPOND. IN A SMALL COUNTY, YOU MIGHT HAVE LIKE 9 TICKETS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REAL WAY TO REGISTER THE FACTS.
A WELL, I THINK YOUR LETTER THAT THE COMMISSION RECEIVED, IF YOU READ THE LETTER, IT INDICATES "THE MAJORITY" AND WHEN YOU KNOW THE NUMBERS AND YOU APPLY THEM WITH WHAT YOU HAVE, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE NUMBERS TO KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE GOT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I WANT TO SEE THE LETTER. REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: YOUR COMMENTS SURPRISE ME BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LETTER.

SENATOR POPE: I HAVEN'T SEEN IT EITHER. DO Y'ALL WANT TO SEE THE LETTER BEFORE HE FINISHES?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: YES, I WOULD.

SENATOR POPE: WHY DON'T WE TAKE ABOUT A 2-MINUTE RECESS AND GET THE LETTER.

(OFF THE RECORD AT 10:50 A.M.; BACK ON THE RECORD AT 10:54 A.M.)

SENATOR POPE: WE WILL GO BACK ON THE RECORD NOW. MRS. SATTERWHITE HAS FURNISHED US WITH THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POLL THAT WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING IT FOR US.

SENATOR POPE: IT'S BEEN FURNISHED TO THE COMMITTEE; AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE CANDIDATE ABOUT THE LETTER? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW, IT SAYS, "THE BEAUFORT COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION WAS ASKED TO REVIEW THE CANDIDATES"; WHO ASKED? WHO ASKED THAT THE REVIEW TAKE PLACE?
A I DO NOT KNOW.

SENATOR MCCONNELL: WELL, MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR SITUATION AS A SITTING JUDGE AND, FRANKLY, I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING A JUDGMENT AND ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
A ANYONE ELSE.

SENATOR POPE: GO AHEAD.
A YOU KNOW, ONE QUESTION THAT ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES PROBABLY--AND A LOT OF THEM HAVE LEFT, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHEN CAN WE ACTUALLY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF SEEKING VOTES, COMMITMENT TYPE THINGS?
SENATOR POPE: WELL, LAST YEAR WHEN WE PUT THE AMENDMENT INTO THE BILL FOR THE NEW JUDGES, THE INTENTION WAS THAT IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND THE MEANING OF THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THAT "NO PLEDGE RULE" IS THAT NO CANDIDATE COULD SEEK OR OBTAIN ANY PLEDGES UNTIL AFTER THE SCREENING CONCLUDED AND THE REPORT WAS CONCLUDED; BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS TIED TO A BILL WHOSE EFFECTIVE DATE IS JULY 1 OF 1991, WHICH HASN'T ARRIVED YET; SO, WE HAVE ADOPTED THE COMMITTEE POSITION CONSISTENTLY THAT THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT THE FEELING WAS THAT IT SHOULD GO INTO EFFECT; THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANY DELAY.
A SO, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING---

SENATOR POPE: SO RIGHT NOW THE "NO PLEDGE RULE" IS NOT TECHNICALLY IN EFFECT, BUT WE'VE ASKED CANDIDATES TO ABIDE BY IT AND SO FAR AS I KNOW, ALL OF THEM HAVE INDICATED THEY DID ABIDE BY IT.
A SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT UNTIL YOU ISSUE YOUR REPORT, WE SHOULD NOT BE SEEKING PLEDGES OR COMMITMENTS.

SENATOR POPE: THAT'S CORRECT.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: MR. T. REEVE SAMS. (PAUSE.) FIRST, PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MR. SAMS: TALBARIE, T-A-L-B-A-R-I-E, REEVE SAMS.
(T. REEVE SAMS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. SAMS, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS IT CORRECT, OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS CORRECTION?
A AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. THERE MIGHT BE SOME TYPO THAT I INADVERTENTLY SKIPPED OVER, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING OF ANY MATERIAL NATURE THAT IS INCORRECT.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION OF MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF RECORD OF THIS MATTER?
A NOT AT ALL.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, IT SHALL BE DONE.

1. T. Reeve Sams

Home Address: Business Address:

P. O. Box 69 P. O. Box 849

313 Hancock Street 811 Craven Street

Beaufort, SC 29901 Beaufort, SC 29901

2. He was born in Beaufort, South Carolina on September 8, 1924. He is presently 66 years old.

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

4. He was married to Betty Johnson on June 14, 1950. He has three children: W. Toland, age 39 (attorney with firm of Sams and Sams, Beaufort, SC); Jane E. Fisher, age 36 (housewife and mother, Charlotte, NC); and T. Reeve, Jr., age 31 (clinic supervisor, Colonial Group, Inc., Augusta, Georgia).

5. Military Service: Active service in U. S. Army; June 12, 1943 to November 1945; Infantry Rifleman; ETO-Pfc.; Serial No. 14192244; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended The Citadel, 1941-1943, left to enter military service; University of Nebraska, September 1943 - December 1943, ASTP, left for other military service; University of South Carolina, 1946-1947, left to enter law school; University of South Carolina Law School, 1947-1949, received LLB, later converted to J.D.; Draughn's Business College, Columbia, SC, June 1950 - September 1950; left for employment with South Carolina Legislative Council.

7. At the University of South Carolina, he was a member of the International Law (or International Relations) Club, 1946. At the University of South Carolina School of Law, he was a member of Law Federation, 1947-1949.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

South Carolina Defense Trial Association Mid-year and Annual Meetings, 1986, 1987 and 1988 covering such subjects as Tort Reform, Bad Faith Claims, The Insurance Crisis, Brief Writing, Wrongful Termination, Workers Compensation Developments, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Advocacy and Evidence

1989, S. C. Bar CLE - The Law of Automobile Insurance and South Carolina Bar CLE, the South Carolina Corporate Practice Manual

1990, South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys, Mid-year Meeting, Rehabilitation Studies and Experts and Conflicts of Interest, S. C. Bar CLE, Evidence Law, Emphasis on Medical Evidence

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

10. Published Books:

"Recent Legislation," co-authored with W. A. Cook, The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 4, June 1951

"Recent Legislation," co-authored with W. A. Cook, The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, June 1952

"Recent Legislation," co-authored with L. G. Merritt, The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, June 1953

"Recent Legislation," The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, June 1954

"Recent Legislation," The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, summer

"Recent Legislation," The South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 3, spring 1956

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Staff attorney with South Carolina Legislative Council, 1950-1957, drafting and checking constitutionality of legislation requested by members of the General Assembly

General private practice of law in Beaufort, South Carolina, 1957 to date, civil trials, real estate probate and some criminal trials in earlier years

From about 1964 to date, the general character of practice has been civil trial practice

14. Frequency of appearance in court:
Federal - 15 cases, approximately

State - 170 cases, approximately

Other - Magistrates Court - 3 cases

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 91%

Criminal - 7%

Domestic - 2%
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 97%

Non-jury - 3%

15 trials of which one was in association with out-of-state counsel and of which four were in Federal District

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

(a) Lady's Island Builders v. Eighth Beaufort MCAAS Quarters, Inc., 175 F. Supp 186 (1959). This case was significant to him in that it caused his first actual appearance in any court to be before District Judge Wyche and caused his second court appearance to be before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

(b) Division of General Services v. C. E. Ulmer, 256 S.C. 523, 183 SE2d 315 (1971). This case was significant in that it appeared to him that the Supreme Court ignored its prior decisions in order to achieve a result which appeared more equitable than that which the statute involved would have allowed. This taught him that it is better to have equity rather than the law on your side.

(c) Burke v. Pearson, 259 S.C. 288, 191 SE2d 721 (1972). This case is significant in that it established in this State that the principles of respondent superior did not apply to the relationship of private physician and hospital nurse performing her general duties of care of patients. It was also his first medical malpractice case.

(d) Hyder v. Jones, 271 S.C. 85, 245 SE2d 123 (1978). This case was significant in that it established that the statute which abrogated the doctrine of parental immunity was prospective and not retroactive in application.

(e) DeLoach v. Whitney, 275 S.C. 543, 273 SE2d 768 (1981). This case was significant in that it established the law in this State that the statute imposing strict liability did not embrace negligent installation of a non-defective product.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Inabinet v. Inabinet, The County Court of Orangeburg County, 1967, 249 S.C. 65, 152 SE2d 553

(b) Grantham v. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., The Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, 1964, 245 S.C. 144, 139 SE2d 744

(c) Hicks v. Battey, The Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, 1972, 259 S.C. 426, 192 SE2d 477

(d) Middleton v. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., The Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, 1979, 273 S.C. 8, 253 SE2d 505

(e) Moultrie v. Ranger, The Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, 1982, 278 S.C. 48, 292 SE2d 41

22. Public Office: Member, South Carolina House of Representatives, elected November 1958 through November 1962, served on Judiciary Committee; member (Chairman), Beaufort County Commissioners of Election, appointed August 20, 1964 through approximately December 1974; member, Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, appointed sometime in 1968 through 1971, approximately

23. Unsuccessful candidate: Defeated in election of 1962, seeking reelection as member of Beaufort County Delegation to South Carolina House of Representatives; defeated in election held in 1975 to succeed the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., as Resident Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:

From about June 1949 - December 1949
Employed as adjuster (checking and servicing dealer floor-plan accounts) with Commercial Credit Company, Charleston, SC

From about January 1950 - June 1950
Employed as Amendment Clerk, S. C. House of Representatives

From September 1950 - June 1957
Employed as attorney with S. C. Legislative Council and held position of Assistant Director of Legislative Council and Assistant Code Commissioners from about 1954-1957

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: He is a partner with former law partner in Levin and Sams, Investors - ownership of interests in real estate in Beaufort, South Carolina, some of which are rental and others of which are held for investment.

27. Other than the fact that his son is engaged in the practice of law in this State, he is not conscious of any conflicts of interest. If elected as a Circuit Judge, he would not participate in any legal matters in which his son is involved.

31. Sued: His former law firm of Levin, Sams and Grimsley was sued as alleged agent of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York in obtaining a deficiency judgment against the Plaintiff Cloide C. Branning. The suit was dismissed in the U. S. District Court as having no merit. {Cloide C. Branning v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, a corporation; Levin, Sams and Grimsley, P.A., C.A. No. 2:86-1924-8]

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was on 2/25/91 by Dr. Louis J. Roempke, 126 S. Ribaut Road, Beaufort, South Carolina 29902.

35. He is farsighted and wears glasses for reading. He was last examined on 10/26/90 by Dr. George Widener of 126 S. Ribaut Road, Beaufort, South Carolina. His vision is 20/40.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; Beaufort County Bar Association (President 1982-1984); American Board of Trial Advocates (Vice President Charleston Chapter, 1989 to date); South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association (Member, Executive Committee 1981-1984); Association of Defense Trial Attorneys; Defense Research Institute

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Beaufort Museum, President; Member Board of Trustees of College of Beaufort, Vice President; Member, South Carolina Historical Society, Beaufort County Historical Society and Historic Beaufort Foundation; Member, Jean Ribaut Society; Member, St. Peter's Catholic Church, Beaufort, South Carolina

41. Campaign Chairman, Beaufort County United Fund; President, Beaufort County United Fund; Member, Sertoma Club of Beaufort and former president

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Connie Glass, Assistant Vice-President NCNB

P. O. Box 508, Beaufort, SC 29901

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

P. O. Drawer 1107, Beaufort, SC 29901-1107

(c) Randolph Murdaugh, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 457, Hampton, SC 29924

(d) Ladson F. Howell, Esquire

P. O. Box 40, Beaufort, SC 29901-0040

(e) James H. Moss, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 507, Beaufort, SC 29901-0507

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE BEAUFORT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. AND I THINK YOU REFERENCED IN YOUR RESPONSE THAT YOU HAD BEEN SUED ONCE IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT, BUT THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED. IF YOU WOULD GIVE US A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT LITIGATION.
A YES, SIR. I--BECAUSE OUR INVOLVEMENT WAS RELATIVELY BRIEF, I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CASE WHEN IT WAS FINALLY TERMINATED; AND, SO, I CONTACTED THE CLERK OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND FOR SOME REASON THEY COULDN'T EVEN FIND THE FILE. I CONTACTED CHARLESTON ATTORNEY HENRY SMYTHE WHO HAD REPRESENTED MORGAN GUARANTY IN THAT SUIT, WHO ,THEY WERE ONE DEFENDANT AND OUR LAW FIRM WAS THE OTHER DEFENDANT--WE HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN BY WAY OF AN AMENDMENT AND ADDED AS A PARTY--AND HE SAID THAT HIS FILE WAS IN STORAGE; HE WAS GOING TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO FIND IT. I ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT HIM SEVERAL TIMES AFTER THAT AND JUST MISSED HIM; SO, I REVIEWED MY FILE AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED WAS IN A PRIOR SUIT A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, I THINK, WAS OBTAINED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT CLOIDE BRANNING. IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT IN WHICH WE WERE NOT REALLY INVOLVED--WELL, FIRST LET ME BACK UP. OUR FIRM HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PRIOR LITIGATION INVOLVING MR. BRANNING. THEN THERE WAS FURTHER LITIGATION IN WHICH WE WERE NOT INVOLVED; HOWEVER, SOME ATLANTA ATTORNEYS WHO WERE REPRESENTING MORGAN IN THAT CASE CONTACTED HUDSON DAVIS, WHO WAS THEN A MEMBER OF OUR FIRM, AND JUST SIMPLY SET UP SOME DEPOSITIONS AND SERVED SUBPOENAS. THAT WAS REALLY THE EXTENT OF OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE LITIGATION. AND WHEN I READ OVER THE COMPLAINT, I DIDN'T SEE THAT IT SET FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST US BECAUSE IT WAS ASKING FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, WHICH WE HAD NO CONTROL OVER. WE HAD NOT BEEN COUNCIL OF RECORD OR ANYTHING. SO I MADE A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND IT WAS HEARD BY THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE IN CHARLESTON, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS GRANTED. AND I HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE CASE SINCE THEN, BUT THEN WHEN I DID CONTACT MR. SMYTHE, HE TOLD ME THAT CASE, WHEN IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED, HAD BEEN THROWN OUT AS HAVING NO MERIT.

(SENATOR MARTIN ENTERED THE ROOM.)
Q I WOULD POINT OUT FOR THE RECORD THAT MY FIRM ACTUALLY WAS INVOLVED EITHER IN THAT SUIT OR SOME OTHER SUIT REPRESENTING AN ATLANTA LAW FIRM AND IT WAS DISMISSED, BUT I JUST SAY THAT FOR DISCLOSURE PURPOSES. THE SUIT WAS CONCLUDED SUCCESSFULLY AND DISMISSED?
A THAT'S THE REPORT I GOT FROM MR. SMYTHE.
Q YOUR HEALTH, MR. SAMS, IS REGARDED AS GOOD?
A YES, SIR. THE ONE THING I NEGLECTED, NOT THAT IT HAS ANYTHING, I DON'T BELIEVE, I FORGOT THAT I'M COLOR- BLIND. I SHOULD REMEMBER THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT A BAD THING FOR A JUDGE.
Q MR. SAMS, YOUR AGE AT THE PRESENT TIME IS, I BELIEVE, 66?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU DON'T SEE THAT AS ANY DETRIMENT WITH REGARD TO A MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE TO SERVE ON THE CIRCUIT COURT BENCH?
A NO, I THINK BEFORE I REACH AGE 72 I WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE NEARLY FIVE YEARS, I SUPPOSE, OF SERVICE. I AM AWARE OF JUDGES WHO HAVE NOT SERVED ANY LONGER THAN THAT BEFORE RETIRING; I MEAN, NEWLY ELECTED JUDGES. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT ALTHOUGH IT DOES LIMIT THE TIME THAT I COULD SERVE AS A JUDGE, I AM THIS OLD AND I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE THAT MY AGE HAS ENABLED ME TO ACQUIRE.
Q THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ACQUIRE IT.
A I GUESS YOU CAN GET SOME PRETTY QUICK EXPERIENCE EVEN IF YOU ARE YOUNG.
Q MR. SAMS, CONCERNING THE QUESTION ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND ITS IMPORTANCE, WHAT ARE YOUR IMPRESSIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO TO MAKE SURE THAT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT REMAINS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION FOR YOU ON THE BENCH?
A WELL, I HOPE THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS CUTTING IT SHORT IN ANY WAY; BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I CERTAINLY CONCUR IN THE REMARKS THAT THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE MADE AS FAR AS MEASURES TO BE OBSERVED. JUDGE FANNING, I THOUGHT WHERE HE REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE JURY, FOR INSTANCE, AND AS A LAWYER I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN CASES WHERE I, NOT BECAUSE I WAS TIRED BUT EVERYBODY WAS TIRED, INCLUDING THE JURY, I WISHED THAT THE JUDGE HAD CALLED A RECESS UNTIL THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE YOU GET A JURY OUT THERE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IS WHIPPED OUT AND MAYBE IT JUST HAPPENS THAT IT'S JUST BEFORE SUPPERTIME OR JUST BEFORE BEDTIME AND THEY'VE GOT CHILDREN, AND I THINK IT MIGHT EFFECT WHETHER THEY HAVE THE TIME TO DELIBERATE AND GIVE A FULL DEBATE THAT THEY ORDINARILY AND, HOPEFULLY, THEY DO IN THE JURY ROOM SO THAT YOU COULD ARRIVE AT JUSTICE. I THINK SOME JURIES HAVE BEEN SORT OF RUSHED OUT BECAUSE OF THE LATE HOUR. BUT AS FAR AS MY PERSONAL WILLINGNESS TO WORK LONG HOURS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE SAID, THAT THAT IS WHAT I AM PAID TO DO. IT WOULD BE MY DUTY TO TRY TO MOVE THE DOCKET ALONG. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE MADE ABOUT EVERY MISTAKE ANY LAWYER EVER COULD MAKE AND I AM SYMPATHETIC TO LAWYERS AND THEIR PROBLEMS. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE TO RECESS COURT BECAUSE OF PRACTICAL MATTERS WITH LAWYERS NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THE WITNESSES WHERE YOU HAVE GOT OUT-OF-STATE WITNESSES. YOU HAVE GOT TO LEARN TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE, I THINK. AS I SAY, I HAVE MADE ABOUT EVERY MISTAKE AND I HOPED THAT I WOULD BE FORGIVEN AND, SO, I THINK I AM SORT OF A TOLERANT PERSON; BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE DUTY OF A JUDGE TO MOVE THE DOCKET AS BEST YOU CAN.

SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR. I'D ASK THE COMMITTEE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. SAMS ANY QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN.

SENATOR POPE: SENATOR.

Q MR. SAMS, YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT BEING COLOR-BLIND DOESN'T CREATE MANY PROBLEMS FOR YOU EXCEPT DRESSING IN THE MORNING?
A THAT'S RIGHT. I LOOKED DOWN WHEN I CAME IN HERE AND SAID, "GOOD, LORD, I'VE GOT ON THE WRONG TROUSERS." AND THEN I LOOKED AND I HAD ON THE WRONG COAT, TOO, SO.

Q I'LL TELL YOU, ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED IS NOT TO BUY SHOES THAT LOOK THE SAME IN DIFFERENT COLORS EITHER.
A ONE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND ON AND TALK ABOUT ROBE-ITIS, UNLESS THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION YOU WERE GOING TO ASK. I--WELL, THIS IS PARTLY, I GUESS, A REPLY, THAT I DIDN'T COME UP HERE TO GET IN A FIGHT WITH JUDGE FANNING ABOUT THE BEAUFORT BAR, THE SOLICITATION OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR TO ENDORSE YOUR CANDIDACY. I THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE SOLICITATION OF THE SUPPORT FROM THE BAR, THERE IS A STORY BEHIND THAT. IN FACT, IN MY ALMOST 30 YEARS OF TRIAL PRACTICE, AND THAT HAS BEEN THE BULK OF MY PRACTICE, THE ATTORNEYS WHO I HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST IN THE COURTROOM ARE SUPPORTING ME IN THIS CANDIDACY; AND I THINK ANY OF YOU WHO ARE LAWYERS WOULD APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT I CONSIDER THAT A COMPLIMENT THAT THEY FEEL THAT I WOULD BE FAIR, THAT I AM NOT SO BIASED HAVING BEEN A DEFENSE LAWYER FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS THAT I CAN'T GIVE A FAIR SHAKE. BUT I DID--WELL, THE WAY THIS CAME ABOUT, ANOTHER YOUNG MAN BY THE NAME OF MIKE MCCLOSKEY HAD BEEN A CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION AND WITHDREW. I WAS THEN CONTACTED. I HAD NOT CONSIDERED IT UNTIL THEN. I SAID THAT I DID NOT WANT TO RUN IF IT WAS GOING TO BE--THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANY MEANINGFUL OPPOSITION FROM BEAUFORT BAR TO MY CANDIDACY BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS A DEFENSE LAWYER AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE STORY WAS GOING TO BE. SO THE LAWYERS ASSURED ME, PEOPLE LIKE JIM LAWSON AND SAM SALEENA, WHO IS PROMINENT AND ACTIVE IN THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION, THAT THEY FELT THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. SO, STATEMENTS OF ENDORSEMENT WERE CIRCULATED AND I COUNTED THEM UP A FEW DAYS AGO AND I HAD ABOUT 115 SIGNATURES ON THAT 90 TO 95 PERCENT OF THE TRIAL BAR, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONES WHO SELDOM, IF EVER, GO TO COURT. WITH RESPECT TO THE BALLOT, I, TOO WAS DISSATISFIED. I ATTENDED THE MEETING AND I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THAT. THAT CAME ABOUT WHEN GEORGE O'KELLEY, WHO WAS A CANDIDATE FOR AN AT-LARGE SEAT, ASKED THAT A MEETING OF THE BAR BE CALLED; THIS WAS BACK IN OCTOBER; AND THAT THE BAR PASS A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A CANDIDATE. THE BAR HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT; THEY APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO EVALUATE IT. THERE WAS A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS OUR FUNCTION AS A BAR, OR WHETHER IT'S Y'ALL'S FUNCTION TO EVALUATE THE CANDIDATES. I THINK THEY USED THE SORT OF GUIDELINES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE AMERICAN BAR, INTEGRITY, LEGAL ABILITY, DEMEANOR, THINGS OF THAT SORT. AND THEN THAT FORM WAS MADE UP AND WAS MAILED OUT TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE BAR. AND SOME OF THEM MISUNDERSTOOD AND EVEN VOTED AT THAT TIME, BUT IT WAS BEING SET UP JUST TO SHOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED AND THEN THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE IT UP AT A SUBSEQUENT BAR MEETING. THEY HAD A SUBSEQUENT BAR MEETING, WHICH, AS JUDGE FANNING POINTED OUT, APPARENTLY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE HAD HEARD, NOT TOO WELL-ATTENDED; I GUESS THERE WERE ABOUT 25 OR 30 LAWYERS THERE. AND THEN IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO GO INTO ALL THAT DETAIL, THAT IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH CALCULATION TO--THEY HAD IT RATED, SAY, ON INTEGRITY FROM 1 TO 4, AND YOU WOULD HAVE ALL SORTS OF CALCULATIONS TO MAKE; AND IT WAS JUST TOO COMPLICATED A PROCESS. SO THEY JUST DECIDED AT THAT MEETING THAT THEY WOULD SEND OUT A BALLOT FORM IN WHICH THEY WOULD SIMPLY INDICATE THE THREE CANDIDATES BECAUSE THEY WAITED TO DO THAT UNTIL ALL THE CANDIDATES HAD FILED WHO COULD FILE SO THAT THEY WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHO WAS RUNNING. IT WAS SENT OUT TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE BAR, AS FAR AS I KNOW. I RECEIVED IT ON TUESDAY. I IMMEDIATELY, WHEN I READ IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS UNCLEAR AS TO HOW THE VOTE WAS TO BE DONE; AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CONTROL BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A RETURN ENVELOPE ENCLOSED, YOU KNOW, NOTHING TO KEEP TRACK OF HOW MANY BALLOTS; SO, I CALLED GEORGE O'KELLEY, WHO WAS THEN PRESIDENT OF THE BAR, AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT. AND HE SAID, "WELL, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO--NO LAWYER IS GOING TO FAKE THE VOTE. YOU'VE JUST GOT TO RELY ON THEIR INTEGRITY"; AND THAT SOUNDED REASONABLE, BUT I STILL FELT MYSELF THAT--BECAUSE I EXPECTED TO WIN THAT I WOULD WANT A BALLOT THAT WAS UNCONTESTED. AND TO GIVE YOU THE FIGURES, WHICH JUDGE FANNING ALLUDED TO, 61 MEMBERS OF APPROXIMATELY 200 OF THE BAR VOTED AND 41 VOTED FOR ME, 18 VOTED FOR JUDGE FANNING, AND 2 VOTED FOR MR. SMOAK; THAT IS THE BEAUFORT BAR; AND, SO, THAT IS THE VOTE. IF YOU GET THE PERCENTAGES, I HAD ABOUT 67 POINT SOMETHING PERCENT; JUDGE FANNING HAD ABOUT 29 POINT SOMETHING; AND MR. SMOAK, I THINK HAD 3 OR 5 PERCENT; I'M NOT SURE. I CALCULATED THAT BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR FIGURE. BUT THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE--AND THAT IS THE FULL EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER WHICH SIMPLY SAID THAT I HAD RECEIVED A MAJORITY.

SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A AND I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I DID NOT INSTIGATE THIS; AND I MAKE THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO BE THOUGHT THAT IT--CIRCULATING IN YOUR MIND THAT I WAS THE ONE THAT STEAM-ROLLED THIS THING ALONG, BUT IT STARTED WAY BACK WHEN GEORGE O'KELLEY WAS RUNNING FOR AN AT-LARGE JUDGESHIP.
SENATOR POPE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HODGES.

Q MR. SAMS, I WANT TO ASK YOU THE SAME I ASKED MR. WILLIAMS EARLIER; IN LOOKING AT YOUR SUMMARY, IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN PRIMARILY A CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEMS DO YOU FORESEE IN TRYING CRIMINAL CASES? DO YOU THINK THAT'S A LIMITATION THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME? AND HOW WOULD YOU PLAN TO OVERCOME YOUR LIMITATIONS THERE?
A WELL, AS FAR AS THE DIFFICULTY AND NOT HAVING DONE IT, I CAN'T ASSESS THAT RIGHT NOW; BUT I WOULD RELY, AS I HAVE SEEN MANY JUDGES DO, ON GUIDANCE FROM THE SOLICITORS, GUIDANCE FROM THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING OTHER PARTIES AS FAR AS WHAT THE LAW AND THE RULES ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE ARE, I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT; BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD COPE WITH THAT EXCEPT ASSISTANCE FROM COURT PERSONNEL AND THE ATTORNEYS OF THE BAR TO GIVE ME SOME GUIDANCE AS FAR AS WHERE TO LOOK AND WHAT TO LOOK FOR. I THINK THAT I HAVE SEEN SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO JUDGESHIPS WHO HAD VERY LITTLE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN ANY AREA OF THE COURTROOM AND, YET, THEY HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE, I THOUGHT, PRETTY ACCEPTABLE JUDGES. IN TALKING WITH OTHER JUDGES TO GET THEIR OPINIONS, HAVING SEEN ME OVER THE YEARS, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY REALLY FELT THAT I WOULD BE A QUALIFIED PERSON AND HOW MANY AREAS OF THE LAW I'M JUST COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH, I HAVE BEEN TOLD ALMOST UNIFORMLY THAT IT'S A LEARNING PROCESS; AND I KNOW FROM JUST HAVING SAT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE DEALT WITH COMPLEX LITIGATION THAT YOU HAVE, HOPEFULLY, A SMART LAWYER ON THIS SIDE AND A SMART ONE OF THAT SIDE, AND THEY GIVE YOU SOME GOOD BRIEFS AND GOOD GUIDANCE IN THAT WAY, AND THEN I THINK I HAVE GOT COMMON SENSE ENOUGH AND KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE LAW TO KNOW WHERE TO LOOK IF I'M NOT AWARE OF SOMETHING TO HOPEFULLY COME UP WITH A JUST DECISION. EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES. THAT'S HOW--I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE REALLY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. MY INVOLVEMENT WITH CRIMINAL MATTERS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN MOST OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WERE BOOTLEGGERS INSTEAD OF DOPE RELATED AND THINGS, DRUG RELATED THINGS; AND, SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE HAD A FEW THINGS THAT WE WERE APPOINTED WHERE OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND WE WERE APPOINTED, BUT USUALLY THOSE--I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY TRIALS RESULTING FROM THAT. IN MY EARLIER YEARS I DID HAVE SOME TRIALS BUT MOST OF THESE HAVE BEEN PLEAS THAT I HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO. SENATOR POPE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. SAMS. MR. GERALD SMOAK WILL BE NEXT. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

MR. SMOAK: GERALD C. SMOAK, SR.
SENATOR POPE: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(GERALD C. SMOAK, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. SMOAK, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS OR CHANGES?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT; SO, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A NO, SIR, I DO NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Gerald C. Smoak

Home Address: Business Address:

130 Jefferson Davis 120 Walter Street

Walterboro, SC 29488 P. O. Drawer 1108

Walterboro, SC 29488

2. He was born in Walterboro, South Carolina on September 18, 1930. He is presently 60 years old.

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

4. He was married to Peggy P. Smoak on June 13, 1975.

He was moving party in the divorce of his first marriage to Joette R. Smoak. The Divorce Decree was dated June 11, 1975, and the grounds for the divorce was three-years separation.

He has six children: Debbie Williamson, age 34 (school teacher); Gerald C., Jr., age 31 (attorney); Phyllis Utsey, age 30 (school teacher); Tara Snyder, age 27 (attorney); Todd Hudson, age 25 (clerk for law firm); and Ashley Hudson, age 21 (college student).

5. Military Service: He entered the United States Air Force on March 20, 1951, as a private and served through August 31, 1958. He obtained the rank of 2nd Lieutenant and received an Honorable Discharge. His service number was A02221426.

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1951, B.A., and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1956, J.D.

7. At the University of South Carolina he was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He became exempt in 1986 from the Continuing Legal Education program pursuant to the provisions of Regulation 3 of the MCLE.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

He has been a trial lawyer, and 75% of his practice has dealt with civil litigation. The balance of his practice has been devoted to real estate, workers' compensation, domestic law, criminal trial practice and appearances before administrative bodies.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - Twice in the last five years

State - On a regular basis due to his civil practice and his duties as Assistant Solicitor

Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 75%

Criminal - 15%

Domestic - 10%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 80%

Non-jury - 20%

He was sole or chief counsel in these trials except for a very few trials in which he was associated.

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

(a) JoLynn Bennett, a Person Physically Incapacitated by her Guardian ad Litem Robert G. Bennett v. Brown Transport Corporation and Converse College

He represented the Plaintiff in this action. This case involved a young college woman who received brain injury in an accident. The case was tried for two days in State Court and settled. This case was significant because of the severity of injuries and the amount of damages.

(b) Andy E. Hoff v. Olive W. Rumph and Sumter Petroleum Company

He represented the Plaintiff in this action. The jury returned a verdict of $215,000 for the Plaintiff. This case was significant, because the Plaintiff was totally disabled prior to trial.

(c) James H. Garrett v. Packet Motor Express Company, Inc.

He represented the Plaintiff in this action. The Plaintiff was operating a tractor/trailer and rear-ended another vehicle. The case was tried in State Court, and the jury returned a verdict of $160,000 in favor of the Plaintiff. This case was significant due to the questionable liability and the extent of the injuries.

(d) Hugh H. Lee v. Patrick Ray Baldwin and D. D. Dodge, Jr. and Charles Dodge, individually and as Trustees of the Estate of D. D. Dodge

He represented the Plaintiff in this action. This case was tried but settled during jury deliberation for the sum of $160,000. This case was significant due to the questionable liability and the extent of injuries.

(e) Martha Ackerman v. David W. Hiott, M.D., Joseph F. Flowers, M.D., John A. Kinard, M.D. and Walterboro Medical Center

He represented the Defendants in this action. This action for medical malpractice was tried in the State Court for approximately two weeks. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants. This case was significant due to the severity of the claimant's injuries and the probability of his clients having to pay extensive damages.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Freddie R. Hollomon v. S. C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation

W.C.C. No. 7954872

He represented the employee/claimant in this Workers' Compensation claim. The decision of a single Commissioner was appealed to the Full Commission and affirmed. An Order by the Commission was issued on May 3, 1989.

(b) Ertha Lee Hodges v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company

He represented the Respondent in this appeal. The case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

22. Public Office: Elected to South Carolina House of Representatives in 1970-1972.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: He ran for the South Carolina Senate in 1972 and in 1989 and was unsuccessful both times.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: He taught school during the 1953-1954 school year.

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: He is an Advisory Director for First Federal Savings and Loan Association of South Carolina for an indefinite term. His duty is a local director. He is also a Director for Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc., for a term of three years. His duties are to help make the policies and decisions concerning the management of the cooperative.

27. If appointed, he would resign as Advisory Director of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of South Carolina and as a Director of Palmetto Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc., in order to avoid any type of conflict of interest.

31. Sued: He was named as a Defendant in a foreclosure action in his capacity as Executor of an estate. He was also named as a Defendant in an action concerning an appraisal fee. This action was settled and dismissed with prejudice.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in June of 1990 by Dr. J. Frank Biggers, #2 Medical Park, Suite 201, Walterboro, South Carolina.

38. He has never been treated for alcoholism. He stopped using alcoholic beverages on April 22, 1973.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

Colleton County Bar Association; American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; South Carolina Association of Counties (as attorney for Colleton County); Association of South Carolina Claimant Attorneys for Workers Compensation; 14th Circuit Fee Dispute Board (Chairman, 1978-1989); South Carolina State Bar Council (14th Circuit, 1969-1975); South Carolina State Bar Council (Executive Committee, 1973-1975)

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

He is on the Administrative Board of Bethel United Methodist Church and has taught the adult Sunday School class in the past. In the past, he has been President of the Walterboro Jaycees and Chairman of the United Fund.

41. In 1989, he received a South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Service Award and has been active in the South Carolina Bar Lawyers Caring About Lawyers Program for many years.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) J. Forest Eley, Vice President

First National Bank

P. O. Box 1167, Walterboro, SC 29488

(b) J. R. Jones, Jr., Pastor

Bethel United Methodist Church

P. O. Box 407, Walterboro, SC 29488

(c) Posey Belcher, Minister

First Baptist Church

P. O. Box 650, Walterboro, SC 29488-0650

(d) Harris L. Beach, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 1122, Walterboro, SC 29488

(e) Randolph Murdaugh, III, Solicitor

Fourteenth Judicial Circuit

P. O. Box 457, Hampton, SC 29924

Q WE HAVE HAD THE CHECK OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES DISCIPLINE WITH NO COMPLAINTS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE RECORDS OF THE COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE WALTERBORO CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF COLLETON COUNTY INDICATE YOUR NAME AS A DEFENDANT IN TWO ACTIONS THAT, I BELIEVE, ARE LISTED WITH YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE; IF YOU WOULD TELL US ABOUT THOSE, PLEASE.
A YES, SIR, WELL, THE FIRST ONE, I BELIEVE, LISTED IS THE ONE T.D. HIERS BROUGHT AGAINST ME. THIS WAS INVOLVING AN APPRAISAL THAT WAS DONE FOR A CLIENT. MR. HIERS DID THE APPRAISAL AND SUBMITTED THE BILL WHICH MY CLIENT THOUGHT WAS COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE AND HE TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HIM AND WE COULDN'T NEGOTIATE WITH HIM; SO, HE BROUGHT THE SUIT AND THE MATTER WAS FINALLY SETTLED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THAT IS WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.
Q HE WAS HIRED TO DO AN APPRAISAL FOR A CLIENT OF YOURS?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOT FOR YOU PERSONALLY?
A NO, SIR, NOT FOR ME PERSONALLY, NO, SIR.
Q THIS IS LIKE A CONDEMNATION MATTER?
A YES, SIR, IT WAS INVOLVING A DWELLING HOUSE THAT THE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY BOUGHT FROM MY CLIENT IS WHAT IT INVOLVED; NOT REALLY A CONDEMNATION, BUT THEY HAD TO BUY IT BECAUSE OF POLLUTION OR WHATEVER.
Q HOW LONG WAS THAT MATTER PENDING BEFORE IT WAS SETTLED? DO YOU REMEMBER?
A NO, SIR, I DO NOT, SIR. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW LONG IT WAS PENDING. I KNOW THAT MR. HIERS FINALLY DISMISSED HIS ATTORNEY AND SIGNED THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL HIMSELF. SIR, I DO NOT KNOW, SIR, BECAUSE WE SENT HIM A CHECK--I KNOW THAT--AFTER THE CLOSING AND HE SENT IT BACK AND SAID IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. WE DID TRY TO PAY HIM THEN WHAT MY CLIENT THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE FEE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
Q WHAT WAS THE OTHER MATTER?
A THE OTHER MATTER WAS INVOLVING AN ESTATE WHICH I WAS THE EXECUTOR OF; AND IT WAS A FORECLOSURE BECAUSE THE ESTATE WAS BANKRUPT; AND I WAS--THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST ME AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE.
Q IT WAS JUST A FORECLOSURE ACTION?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S ALL.
Q AND YOU WERE ONLY SUED IN YOUR CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOT PERSONALLY?
A NO, SIR.
Q THEY ULTIMATELY SOLD THE PROPERTY, I ASSUME?
A YES, SIR, THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY; AND THERE WAS A DEFICIENCY AGAINST THE ESTATE, BUT IT WAS BANKRUPT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. HOW DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR HEALTH, MR. SMOAK?
A GOOD, SIR.
Q GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS YOU SUBMITTED, WHICH ARE IN ORDER. AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY. ON THE QUESTION OF ROBE-ITIS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH EACH CANDIDATE, WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOU THINK YOU WOULD DO TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU WERE ON THE BENCH YOU WOULD NOT DEVELOP THIS CONDITION OF ROBE-ITIS OR BAD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A WELL, SIR, I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW OVER 30 YEARS AND I HAVE BEEN A TRIAL LAWYER, SIR, AND I HAVE SEEN SOME CASES OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, SIR; SO, I CERTAINLY THINK I KNOW WHAT IT IS AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE IT; AND I THINK MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BENCH AND THE BAR AND THE PUBLIC OVER THE YEARS INDICATE THAT I HAVE A GOOD TEMPERAMENT. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY REAL CONFLICTS WITH ANY JUDGE OR LAWYERS OR THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT I DO NOT HAVE A GOOD TEMPERAMENT. I THINK A TRIAL LAWYER ALMOST HAS TO HAVE A GOOD TEMPERAMENT TO SURVIVE BECAUSE IN THE PIT AS MUCH AS I HAVE BEEN IN THE PIT, SIR, I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD TEMPERAMENT TO SURVIVE. THAT WOULD BE MY--(PAUSE)---
Q AND THE QUESTION THAT WE OR THE OTHER AREA OF QUESTION THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED THIS MORNING RELATES TO WORK ETHIC AND THE NEED FOR LONG HOURS OR CERTAINLY THE DISCRETION NOT TO KEEP A JURY THERE TOO LONG EITHER; YOU CAN OVERDO IT, BUT WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ABOUT FRIDAY COURT OR LATE NIGHT COURT OR LATE EVENING COURT IF NECESSARY ON THOSE OCCASIONS?
A YOU MEAN, I HAVEN'T GOT TO WORK ON WEEKENDS, YOU RECKON? THAT IS GREAT. THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC. REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: SUNDAY AFTERNOONS, TOO.
A THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, SIR, BECAUSE MY PRACTICE IS SUCH THAT SATURDAY WORK AND SOME SUNDAY WORK HAVE BEEN--I HAVE DONE ALL OF MY PRACTICE; AND I GO TO WORK AT ABOUT 8:00 IN THE MORNING AND GET TO LEAVE ABOUT 6:00 IN THE AFTERNOON USUALLY; SO, I DON'T HAVE A BIT OF PROBLEM WITH THE HOURS; SO, IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN MY HOURS, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN THIS SITUATION. SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT, SIR; I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. GENTRY, DO HAVE ANY?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO.

SENATOR POPE: MR. MARTIN.

Q I NOTICE IN THIS LAWSUIT OF MR. HIERS AGAINST GERALD SMOAK THAT HE WAS REPRESENTED BY SMOAK, SMOAK, & MOODY AND S.A. SMOAK, JR.
A I.A. SMOAK.
Q I.A. SMOAK, JR. AS HIS LAWYER?
A YES, SIR.
Q I FIND IT A LITTLE--IS HE RELATED TO YOU?
A NO, SIR, HE IS NOT. HE HAS THE SAME NAME BUT HE IS NOT ANY RELATION.
Q I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
A OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

SENATOR POPE: ANYTHING ELSE?

(NO QUESTIONS INDICATED.)

SENATOR POPE: IF NOT, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE?
A I JUST HAVE ONE ONE COMMENT, IF I MAY, SIR; AND THAT IS, WHEN I DECIDED TO SEEK THIS OFFICE, I NOTIFIED THE CHIEF JUSTICE GEORGE GREGORY THAT IF I AM ELECTED THAT I--ALTHOUGH MOST OF MY PRACTICE HAS BEEN IN COLLETON COUNTY--AND BY THE WAY THE BAR THERE DID ENDORSE ME, ALL BUT I THINK, FOUR OR FIVE WHICH I COULDN'T RUN- DOWN--THAT IF I AM ELECTED THAT I WILL BE A RESIDENT JUDGE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY IN THE 14TH CIRCUIT, SIR. I OWN PROPERTY IN BEAUFORT COUNTY AND I HAVE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND I INTEND TO LIVE THERE WHETHER I GET THIS POSITION OR NOT, AS A MATTER OF FACT; I HAVE HAD MY HOME FOR SALE IN WALTERBORO FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS AND I HOPE I CAN SELL THAT BECAUSE I WILL BE IN BEAUFORT COUNTY IF I AM ELECTED AND I WILL HAVE MY CHAMBERS IN BEAUFORT; AND I JUST THOUGHT I SHOULD SAY THAT TO THE COMMITTEE.

SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. SMOAK, THAT WILL BE ALL.
A THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THAT COMPLETES THE SCREENING FOR THE 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IF THOSE CANDIDATES WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE--I SEE ALL OF YOU ARE STILL HERE--PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE TIME IT'S TAKEN, BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO PROCEED RIGHT ON THROUGH.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: THE NEXT POSITION WE WILL BE SCREENING CANDIDATES FOR WILL BE THE FAMILY COURT POSITION IN THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT NUMBER 2, RICHLAND AND KERSHAW COUNTIES, AND THAT WAS THE SEAT THAT WAS VACATED BY--I BELIEVE JUDGE JOE WILSON WAS THE ONE WHO HELD THAT SEAT UNTIL HE WAS ELECTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. MS. ABIGAIL R. ROGERS WILL BE FIRST. PLEASE STATE MS. ROGERS: ABIGAIL R. ROGERS.

SENATOR POPE: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(ABIGAIL R. ROGERS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MS. ROGERS, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES I HAVE.
Q IS IT ACCURATE. DOES IT NEED ANY CORRECTION?
A NO CORRECTIONS; IT IS ACCURATE.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT A PART OF THIS RECORD THEN?
A NO OBJECTIONS.
Q OKAY, WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Abigail R. Rogers

Home Address: Business Address:

501 S. Waccamaw Ave. 955 Park Street, P.O. Box 191

Columbia, SC 29205 Columbia, SC 29202

2. She was born in Greenville, South Carolina on July 3, 1957. She is presently 33 years old.

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

4. She is single.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended the University of South Carolina, 1975-1979, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism. She received her J.D. Degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979-1982.

7. At the University of South Carolina (undergraduate) she was an active member of the Student Government Association; member of the student senate; member of the African American Student Organization; intern in Adv/P.R. (School of Journalism); dorm advisor; early morning newswriter (WIS Radio/now WVOC); speaker for the inauguration for President Holderman; member of the Search Committee for the USC Provost; part-time bank teller at C&S Bank; tour guide for USC special guests; member of the Student Christian Association; member of A E Rho (Broadcasting Society); member of Alpha Lambda Delta (honor society); member of Sigma Delta Chi (professional society).

At the University of South Carolina School of Law, she was a member of the Student Bar Association; secretary of Black American Law Students Association, 1980; student representative to Law School Admissions Committee; research assistant, Head Law Librarian (May 1980-Sept. 1981); ABA Law Students Division; law clerk for Judge Jasper Cureton (Master in Equity, 1980); law clerk for Richland County Public Defender's Office; played intramural basketball.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1987

Immunity Justiciability and Admissibility - Key Questions, SC Bar: 5/8/87 6 hours

Appellate Advocacy, SC Bar: 7/10/87 6 hours

1988

Trial Techniques, S. C. Highway Department: 7/29/88 3 hours

Effective Public Speaking, S. C. Highway Department: 6/17/88 3 hours

Putting the Computer to Work for Lawyers, RPW Center: 8/24-8/25/88 12 hours

1989

S. C. Depositions by Proffey Education Systems, Inc., S. C. Highway Department: 5/18/89 6 hours

Persuasive Trial Techniques: The Judicial Perspective, S. C. Bar: 1/14/89 3 hours

Accident Reconstruction, S. C. Bar Young Lawyers Division: 7/1/89 3 hours

1990

Trial and Appellate Advocacy, S. C. Bar: 1/20/90 3 hours

5th Annual Criminal Law Update - JCLE Circuit Court and Family Court, USC Law School: 1/25/90 13.5 hours

9. Courses taught or lectures given: She has been an Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice at Midlands Technical College since 1985. She has taught courses in juvenile delinquency, criminal evidence and procedure, criminal law, police organization, constitutional law, introduction to criminal justice, criminal justice and security administration and procedure.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1982-1985 Fifth Circuit Assistant Solicitor - tried cases in both Family and General Sessions Court

1985-present Assistant Chief Counsel, S. C. Highway Department. Although she does some criminal work, the main focus of the practice is civil litigation, workers compensation, and appellate practice

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal Occasionally (4 appearances)

State Daily while working in the Solicitor's office; regularly while working at the S. C. Highway Department

Other Significant - Worker's Compensation Commission
4 cases before the full Commission

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 50%

Criminal - 30%

Domestic - 20% (Juvenile Matters)

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 60%

Non-jury - 40

She was sole counsel in all the cases in trial courts.

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

(a) South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. William L. Horne, Jr., 397 SE2d 788 (1990). The issue involved whether under the implied consent law the Department can suspend the drivers license of a person accused of driving under the influence who refused to submit to a breathalyzer test where the requirements for admission of the test results were not met. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation and held that the validity of breathalyzer does not arise until a test is given and its results are entered into evidence.

(b) State of South Carolina v. Elizabeth D. Wooten, Anthony P.

Haskett, James Rice. This case involved the inadvertent erasure of portions of a video cassette recording of Defendants performing sobriety tests. Defendants alleged that the arresting officers intentionally and maliciously erased the tapes to avoid the prosecution. The cases were dismissed at the trial level due to prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered new trials.

(c) State of South Carolina v. Thomas K. Adams. Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence. The case was tried on two previous occasions; both trials resulted in mistrials. During the second mistrial the evidence was lost by the Court. The Defendant argued that the conviction should be overturned due to the fact that evidence favorable to the Defendant's case was unavailable. This case is pending before the Court of Appeals.

(d) Patricia Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. This case involves a condemnation case settled by a former attorney employed with the Department. The terms of the settlement were not complied in a timely manner before the assigned attorney's departure. Plaintiff sued for damages and attorney's fees alleging that Defendant's non-compliance resulted in damage to Plaintiff's property. Case was subsequently dismissed by the court.

(e) Catherine V. Bowen v. The South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation. Plaintiff's brother's truck was seized and confiscated as a result of his being charged with Driving Under the Influence 10th offense. The confiscation and seizure statute authorized the Department to sell the truck at a public auction. Plaintiff, who transferred ownership of the truck to her brother two weeks prior to his arrest, alleged that she was the true owner and thus the Department should be enjoined from selling the truck. The court ruled that Plaintiff's brother was the owner at the time of arrest, and thus the Defendant was proper in seizing the truck.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

She has not tried any civil appeals. All of her work is at the civil trial level.

27. She has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

33. Her health is excellent. Her last physical was in November of 1990 by Dr. Richard Allison, III.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar, House of Delegates; American Bar Association; National Bar Association; President, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, June 1990; President-Elect, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, June 1989; Secretary/Treasurer, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 1988; Treasurer, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 1987; Co-Chairperson, Speakers' Bureau, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 1985; Chairperson of the Victim Witness Committee, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 2985; South Carolina Bar Delegate to ABA, 1985 to present; Editor, Barrister Magazine, nationally distributed publication by the American Bar Association (1 of 12 editors, 1987-1989 and reappointed 1990; Vice-Chairperson, Minority in Profession Committee, American Bar Association, 1987-1989; University of South Carolina Law School Alumni Association; President, Columbia Lawyers Association, 1986-1988; Richland County Bar Association

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

St. John Baptist Church; Board of Directors for Babcock Center; Board of Directors for United Way; Trainer for United Way Agency; Toastmasters; YWCA; Board of Directors, Baptist Hospital Women's Place; United Way Speakers Bureau; Young Women's Christian Association; Who's Who Outstanding Young Women of America

41. It is her belief that a Family Court Judge should have trial experience in as many types of Courts as possible. As a Fifth Circuit Assistant Solicitor, she tried cases involving juvenile delinquency, truancy, abuse and neglect, and the waiver of juvenile hearings in Family Court. She has a working knowledge of the juvenile system and its relationships to the South Carolina Department of Youth Services, South Carolina Department of Social Services, the school system, and the law enforcement agencies. She has tried misdemeanor and felony cases in General Sessions Court.

As an Assistant Chief Counsel at the Highway Department, she has appeared in the Court of Common Pleas, General Sessions Court and before the Workers' Compensation Commission. She has prepared legal pleadings, motions and appellate briefs. She has argued before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and has a command of the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure and General Trial Practice Rules. All of these skills are needed to understand the complexity of the case, to make rulings on motions and to render a fair and just decision.

As an officer with the South Carolina Bar, she is familiar with attorneys statewide. She is familiar with their concerns and also has a good working relationship with them.

As a native of Columbia who is active in the church and the community, she attended public schools and has strong ties to the community. She is a highly recruited public speaker who volunteers for the United Way, YWCA, Babcock Center for the Mentally Retarded, and various other public interest organizations. The community knows her, has watched her grow up and has taken an active part in her personal and professional development. Her parents were teachers in the public school system in this community for over 30 years. They instilled in her a duty of public and community service. She has dedicated her life to public service and feels a need to continue to serve by pursuing this Family Court judgeship.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) James D. Huggins, Manager

S. C. Highway Employees Federal Credit Union

P. O. Box 191, Columbia, SC 29202

(b) John E. Montgomery, Dean

USC School of Law

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208

(c) Honorable Matthew J. Perry

Judge, U. S. District Court

1845 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201

(d) Howard P. King, Esquire

P. O. Box 2038, Sumter, SC 29150

(e) Honorable Randall T. Bell

Judge, S. C. Court of Appeals

P. O. Box 11629, Columbia, SC 29211

Q WE HAVE CHECKED, OF COURSE, WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE AND NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU ACCORDING TO THE BOARD. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. YOUR HEALTH, YOU CONSIDER IT GOOD, MS. ROGERS?
A YES, IT'S GOOD.
Q AND YOUR POSITION AT THE PRESENT TIME IS WHERE?
A IS WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL.
Q I BELIEVE YOU WERE IN BRIEF PRACTICE BEFORE THAT?
A NO, I WAS WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SOLICITOR'S OFFICE.
Q AND YOU PROSECUTED JUVENILE CASES, AS WELL AS OTHER CASES?
A YES, IN THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I DID A--I WAS DEBATING THIS BEFORE WHILE I WAS SITTING THERE; I, WHILE IN STATE COURT OR AS A STATE ATTORNEY, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ON PRIVATE PRACTICE BUT WHEN THE BAR INITIATED THE PRO BONO PROGRAM SO THAT WE COULD HELP INDIGENT CLIENTS, I BECAME CERTIFIED TO HANDLE FAMILY COURT MATTERS AND SERVED AT THAT TIME IN DIVORCE AND SEPARATION MATTERS THROUGH THE PRO BONO.
Q SO YOU DO THAT EVEN AS YOU WORK NOW WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT?
A YES, WITH SPECIAL PERMISSION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. I'VE BEEN CERTIFIED FOR 1989, 1990, AND HAVE HANDLED SOME DIVORCE CASES FOR INDIGENT CASES ONLY.
Q AND AT THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT YOU JUST DO ALL SORTS OF, I GUESS, GENERAL MATTERS?
A YES, ALL MATTERS; CIVIL COURT, CRIMINAL COURT,APPELLATE COURT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, CONDEMNATION, EVERYTHING; I'D SAY ALMOST EVERYTHING.
Q CONCERNING THE QUESTION ABOUT ROBE-ITIS AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, WHAT OBSERVATIONS COULD YOU GIVE US ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT TRY TO DO TO AVOID ANY PROBLEMS WITH DEMEANOR WHICH MIGHT AFFECT YOUR PERFORMANCE?
A I AGREE WITH SO MANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES; I HAVE BEEN IN COURT WHERE THE JUDGES HAVE BEEN IN BAD MOODS AND BEEN IMPATIENT AND ILL-TEMPERED; AND IT IS NOT AN EASY THING TO EXPLAIN TO YOUR CLIENT OR PEOPLE AROUND YOU THAT IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, PERHAPS, MY REPRESENTATION OF THEM; BUT PERHAPS THE JUDGE WAS IMPATIENT FROM HANDLING SO MANY CASES THAT DAY; AND I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD TREAT PEOPLE THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED. I AM VERY, VERY CONSCIOUS OF A JUDGE'S STRESS LEVEL, BUT I AM DETERMINED NOT TO BE IMPATIENT BECAUSE I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER HOW I FELT BEING IN THE COURTROOM WHERE THE JUDGE IS JUST HAVING A BAD DAY; AND IT HAPPENS OFTEN.
Q AS FAR AS THE QUESTION ABOUT WORK ETHICS, AND PARTICULARLY IN FAMILY COURT MATTERS WHEN PEOPLE HAVE EMERGENCY PROBLEMS, THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAPPEN 9:00 TO 5:00 AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS HAPPEN DURING THE WEEK, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS IN THE WEEKEND WORK THAT MAY BE EVEN MORE REQUIRED WITH FAMILY COURT THAN CIRCUIT COURT, AND PARTICULARLY FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND SUCH THINGS AS THAT?
A I WAS THINKING ALSO ABOUT THAT QUESTION; I HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM; I AM SO HYPER THAT I OFTEN HAVE TO STOP MYSELF FROM WORKING SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS. WHEN I CHANGED FROM THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, WHERE WE WERE REQUIRED TO WORK WEEKENDS AND AFTERNOONS, AND WENT TO STATE GOVERNMENT, I FOUND THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO WORK ON WEEKENDS AND IN THE AFTERNOONS OFTEN; SO, I BEGAN TEACHING. SO I'VE BEEN TEACHING FOR SIX YEARS BECAUSE I HAD SO MUCH ENERGY THAT I FELT THAT I HAD SOME TIME TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.
Q WHAT TEACHING IS THAT?
A I TEACH AT MIDLANDS TECH. I TEACH CRIMINAL LAW.
Q ON WEEKENDS OR AT NIGHT?
A AT NIGHT AND SOMETIMES ON WEEKENDS, AND AT BENEDICT COLLEGE ON WEEKENDS, ALSO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A PROBLEM FOR ME NOT TO WORK ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS.
Q AND, OF COURSE, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND THE CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THEY ARE IN ORDER. AND NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, NOR HAVE ANY WITNESSES DESIRED TO BE PRESENT TODAY.

WOULD THE COMMITTEE LIKE TO ASK MS. ROGERS ANY QUESTIONS?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: I HAVE ONE.

SENATOR POPE: MR. MARTIN.

Q THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR JUDICIAL SCREENING, BUT I NOTICE THAT YOU ARE SINGLE. ARE YOU TOO BUSY TO MARRY?
A MY WEDDING DATE IS SET FOR SEPTEMBER 21ST. MY FIANCE IS IN THE ARMY AND HAS BEEN CAUGHT UP IN THIS WAR AND HE WAS DUE TO BE BACK IN JANUARY; BUT HIS NUMBER, HE SAYS, WILL COME UP ABOUT JUNE OR JULY, SO I HOPE HE WILL BE HERE BY SEPTEMBER.

SENATOR POPE: IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR STATEMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, MS. ROGERS?
A NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU.

MS. LYNNE W. ROGERS. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, ALSO.

MS. ROGERS: LYNNE W. ROGERS.

SENATOR POPE: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. (LYNNE W. ROGERS, ESQUIRE, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MS. ROGERS, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY ON YOU?
A I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, IT IS EXCEPT FOR THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY MS.

HINSON FROM THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE REFERS TO ME AS A MALE.
Q OH.
A I HAVE CONTACTED MRS. SATTERWHITE ABOUT THAT AND SHE ASSURES ME THAT I AM THE SAME LYNNE W. ROGERS THAT THEY HAVE FOUND NO GRIEVANCES HAVE BEEN FILED WITH.
Q OKAY; WELL, WITH THAT ONE CORRECTION THEN, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HAVING THE SUMMARY MADE A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Lynne W. Rogers

Home Address: Business Address:

7900 Loch Lane Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office

Columbia, SC 29223 1701 Main Street

Columbia, SC 29201

2. She was born in Washington, D.C. on October 24, 1951. She is presently 39 years old.

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

4. She was married to James Paul Rogers on June 28, 1980.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Davis & Elkins College, September 1969 - May 1970, left to transfer to school at home; Howard University, September 1970 - August 1973, Bachelor of Arts Degree; Howard University, August 1973 - May 1976, Juris Doctor Degree - May 8, 1976.

7. In Law School she concentrated in legislation and administrative process; member of Delta Theta Phi Legal Fraternity, 1973-1976, serving as Clerk of the Rolls, 1975-1976; admitted to Legislative Clinic, 1975-1976; served as Senior Class Secretary, 1975-1976. In College, she was on the Dean's List, 1971-1973, and a member of the Political Science Society.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

During the past five years her continuing legal education has primarily involved the annual criminal law seminars and seminars in domestic relations. She has also attended seminars on effective order writing and Family Court appeals.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:

1986-1990 Faculty Member - South Carolina Bar Judicial Training Seminar. Lectured new Family Court Judges on juvenile and child abuse cases.

1988-1990 Panelist - South Carolina Bar, Judicial Continuing Legal Education Seminars

Topics have included Tips for Court Appointed Attorneys in Family Court (1990); Panelist, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyer

Division. Criminal and Family Law and Procedure (1990); Panelist, South Carolina Bar - "Bridge the Gap Seminar" (This seminar is mandatory for recent law school graduates). Topic: Domestic Relations (1990); Selected Issues in Domestic Relations: Crack/Cocaine Babies - The Department of Social Services, Law Enforcement, and the Courts (1989); South Carolina Bar Convention, Panelist Topic: Juveniles and the Law (1989); Evidentiary Issues in Family Court (1988).

1988 to present Instructor - The Department of Youth Services

Taught law related education to juveniles placed at the Department of Youth Services as well as juveniles diverted from the criminal justice system.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1988 to present Head Assistant Solicitor for Family Court, Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office.

Primary responsibility is the organization and operation of Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit. Duties include supervising a staff of seven, comprised of three attorneys and support staff; preparing and conducting cases for prosecution in Circuit Court, in addition to Family Court child abuse and all juvenile criminal cases; participating in appeals before the Supreme Court; representing the prosecution at preliminary hearings; providing legal advice to law enforcement officials; and performing related work as required. Position requires considerable knowledge of state statutes, Children's Code, court procedure, child protective services and extensive trial experience.

1985-1988 Assistant Solicitor, Fifth Judicial Circuit

Duties and responsibilities included scheduling cases for trial; providing legal advice and training to the Department of Social Services case workers and the Guardian ad Litem project of Richland County; researching legal issues; writing court orders and legal opinions; and preparing and conducting cases for prosecution for the Richland County and Kershaw County Department of Social Services.

1977 National Bar Association, Washington, D.C.
Research Associate, Criminal Justice Division

Researched minority personnel employment in managerial and decision-making positions within the criminal justice system in eight targeted United States cities. Project required collecting and analyzing data in the operation of the court systems, correctional institutions, law enforcement agencies, criminal and juvenile justice programs and educational institutions.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - 0%

State - 100%

Other - 0%

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 0%

Criminal - 75%

Domestic - 25%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 5%

Non-jury - 95%

In jury trial she was associate counsel. In non-jury trials she was sole counsel or chief.

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

(a) In Re: Christopher M. - This case involved a juvenile, age 11 years, charged with murder. It is significant because it involved the prosecution of the youngest child charged with a violent crime in Richland County. (1988)

(b) In Re: Grace N. - This case involved a sexual abuse victim who was mentally retarded. It was significant because despite the mental handicap of the victim, she was found to be competent to testify. This case was also a case of first impression on this issue in Richland County. (1989)

(c) State v. Nesbitt - This case was significant because the victim was the youngest child found competent to testify in Circuit Court in the State. (1988)

(d) State v. Dawkins - She was associate counsel in this case which was one of the most heinous rape cases in the history of South Carolina. (1988)

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Department of Social Services v. Judith Henry, Oliver Jenkins, Dennis Rowe and John Doe - Opinion Number 22927, November 28, 1988.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:

1984-1987 Rogers & Stevenson School of Fine Arts, Co-Owner/Director

Co-Founded, developed and managed a privately-held fine arts school for adults and children. Taught, produced and promoted fine arts in the Columbia area.

1977-1984 Lynne's Dance Workshop, Washington, D.C., Owner/Executive Director

Founded, developed and managed a privately-held children's dance school headquarters in Washington, D. C. The school taught, produced and promoted dance for over 100 dance productions for the Phillis Wheatley Community Center in Greenville, South Carolina

1971-1980 While enrolled in college and following graduation, held various positions as a Dance Specialist and Substitute Teacher with the Washington, D.C. Recreation Department and the Washington, D.C. Public School System, respectively.
27. She has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

33. Her health is good. Her last physical was on 7/17/90 by Dr. Gerald Wilson, Midlands Surgical Associates, P.A., 3101 Carlisle Street, Columbia, S.C. 29204.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association (Family and Criminal Law Section); National Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association (Family and Criminal Law Section); Delta Theta Phi Legal Fraternity; Council on Child Abuse and Neglect; Richland County DSS Multi-Disciplinary Team; Columbia Lawyers Association; Richland County Bar (Family and Criminal Law Section)

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

Columbia, South Carolina Chapter of Links, Inc., 1986 to present, President - 1990 to present, Vice President - 1988-1990; Women's Roundtable, Columbia, South Carolina; St. Luke's Episcopal Church; Cities in Schools, Columbia, South Carolina, Board Member, 1988 to Present

41. She has handled 5,000 - 10,000 cases in Family Court for the past 6 years in the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office. She has tried approximately 70 cases in Family Court and 8 cases in Circuit Court.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Mary Chapiesky-Beard, Assistant Vice President

Southern National

P. O. Box 687, Columbia, SC 29202

(b) Honorable J. B. Ness

P. O. Box 909, Bamberg, SC 29003

(c) Francenia B. Heizer, Esquire

P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211

(d) Richard A. Harpootlian, Solicitor

Fifth Judicial Circuit

P. O. Box 1987, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) James C. Anders, Esquire

P. O. Box 7014, Columbia, SC 29202

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES, AS YOU JUST REFERRED TO THE LETTER FROM MS. HINSON, REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, AND SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. IS YOUR HEALTH GOOD, MS. ROGERS?
Q IT IS.
Q OKAY. YOU ARE PRESENTLY EMPLOYED AT THE FAMILY COURT AS A SOLICITOR FOR THE FAMILY COURT?
A YES, I AM HEAD ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR THE FAMILY COURT SECTION HERE IN RICHLAND AND KERSHAW COUNTY.
Q AND DOES THAT TAKE YOU INTO COURT A GOOD BIT?
A YES, IT DOES. SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK, YES, IT DOES.
Q AND YOU HAVE HAD A POSITION FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW?
A I HAVE HAD THAT POSITION FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT I HAVE BEEN HEAD ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR THREE YEARS.
Q OKAY. THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BY YOU; AND THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS ARE SATISFACTORY. NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU OR TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU. ON THAT QUESTION OF ROBE-ITIS OR JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT THAT'S BEEN ASKED TO ALL CANDIDATES SO FAR ON THIS DAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD DO TO AVOID DEVELOPING ANY DEMEANOR PROBLEMS OR TEMPERAMENT PROBLEMS?
A I FEEL THAT ALL PERSONS WHO APPEAR IN COURT ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS, RESPECT, AND FAIRNESS. IN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, I HAVE HANDLED OR REPRESENTED THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SINCE 1985; THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CASE WORKERS AND IN THOSE CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES, I HAVE TO DEAL WITH NOT ONLY THE RESPONDENTS' ATTORNEYS, BUT ATTORNEYS FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEMS AND MANY PARTIES TO THOSE TYPES OF ACTIONS, IN ADDITION TO THE JUVENILE CASES THAT I PROSECUTE, MOSTLY ARE WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, AND AT VARIOUS TIMES THE PRIVATE BAR IS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THOSE INDIGENT JUVENILES; AND I THINK MY EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH PEOPLE, AND THOSE TOUGH SITUATIONS AND ISSUES THAT ARE DECIDED IN FAMILY COURT, I WOULD BE FAIR, JUST, AND GIVE EVERY ONE DUE RESPECT THAT THEY DESERVE WHEN THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT.
Q AS TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE WORK ETHIC AND THE LONG HOURS THAT FAMILY COURT SOMETIMES REQUIRES, EITHER RUNNING LATE INTO THE EVENING ON OCCASION OR WORKING FRIDAYS OR EVEN SOMETIMES ON THE WEEKENDS FOR EMERGENCIES, DOES THAT PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS IN YOUR LIFE?
A NO, IT DOES NOT; AND I HAVE BEEN BEFORE THOSE JUDGES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS WITH EMERGENCY HEARINGS, JUVENILE DETENTION HEARINGS, OR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE HEARINGS, AND I DO A LOT OF WORK AFTER 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE OFFICE AND AT MY HOME ON WEEKENDS.
Q I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION: YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE DONE JUST A GREAT VOLUME OF JUVENILE WORK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE AND HAVE APPEARED IN THE COURT ON MANY DIFFERENT CONTEXTS; BUT AS TO DIVORCE ASPECT OF THAT JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, HAVE YOU HANDLED THOSE, AS WELL?
A NO, I HAVEN'T BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE; HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ISSUES, MANY OF THE ISSUE THAT ARE DEALT WITH IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT ACTIONS SUCH AS CHILD SUPPORT, CHILD CUSTODY, AND THOSE TYPE ISSUES, I HAVE DEALT WITH IN PROSECUTING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES. SO OTHER THAN THE GROUNDS OF DIVORCE AND BRINGING A DIVORCE, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAVEN'T DONE IN FAMILY COURT.

SENATOR POPE: WOULD THE COMMITTEE LIKE TO ASK MS. ROGERS ANYMORE QUESTIONS?

SENATOR POPE: THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, MS. ROGERS, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS?
A NO.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: WE WOULD ASK MS. LYNNE ROGERS AND MS. ABIGAIL ROGERS, IF YOU WANT TO STAY, YOU ARE WELCOME TO STAY, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE, WE WILL BE GLAD FOR YOU TO GET BACK TO YOUR BUSINESS. THE NEXT POSITION IS THE FAMILY COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT 3, OCONEE AND ANDERSON COUNTIES; THAT WAS JUDGE HALL'S POSITION THAT HE HAS VACATED UPON GOING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

MR. TOMMY B. EDWARDS.

SENATOR MARTIN: MR. CHAIRMAN.

SENATOR POPE: YES, SIR.

SENATOR MARTIN: I HAVE GOT THE SENATE'S UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR US TO VOTE FROM THE BALCONY IN THE EVENT THERE ARE ANY ROLL CALLS; SO, IF THERE IS A ROLL CALL VOTE IF WE WANT TO VOTE, WE CAN GO UP THERE AND VOTE.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR, APPRECIATE IT. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

MR. EDWARDS: TOMMY BARTLETT EDWARDS.

SENATOR POPE: WOULD YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND?
(TOMMY B. EDWARDS, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. EDWARDS, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE, YES.
Q DO YOU FIND IT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, I DO.
Q SO YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR, NO OBJECTION.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Tommy Bartlett Edwards

Home Address: Business Address:

P. O. Box 254 Solicitor's Office

Walhalla, SC 29691 Oconee County Courthouse

Walhalla, SC 29691

2. He was born in Anderson, South Carolina on January 23, 1949. He is presently 42 years old.

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

4. He was married to Jean Harvin on May 21, 1971. He has three children: William Harris, age 12; Caroline Bartlett, age 8; and Benjamin Edwin Harvin, age 5.

5. Military Service: U. S. Army (Reserve Officer Commission); Active Duty; October 1971 - July 1973; Serial No. ***-**-*****; Rank: Active Duty - 2nd Lieutenant; Honorable Discharge; Present Status: Have fulfilled all individual Ready Reserve Requirements

6. He attended Presbyterian College, August 1967 to June 1971, B.A.; Anderson Junior College, June - August 1968, summer school; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August 1973 - May 1976, J.D.

7. At Presbyterian College he was Student Government Association President, 1970-1971; varsity football, 1967-1969; Blue Key, 1969-1971; Gold "P" Recipient, 1971; Outstanding Senior Award, 1971. At the University of South Carolina School of Law, he participated in intramural basketball, 1973-1976; participated in a program involving law students speaking to local high school classes on Family Law and related matters, 1976; and Law School Clinical Program participant, 1975.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

The last five years of his continuing legal education have focused upon criminal law and procedure and trial advocacy with CLE credits being obtained through the South Carolina Solicitor's Association Annual Conferences. He did, however, amass some 160+ hours of approved CLE credits as a result of his completion of the Career Prosecutor Course at the National College of District Attorneys, Houston, Texas, in June 1985. He amassed a like number of hours in 1986 as a Faculty Advisor for the Career Prosecutor Course.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: He was an instructor in Juvenile Law (1989) and Criminal Law (1990), Tri-County Technical College, Pendleton, SC; instructor, South Carolina Constable Training Program, Tri-County Technical College, 1990 and 1991; faculty advisor, National College of District Attorneys, Houston, Texas, 1986

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

(a) VISTA Attorney (1976-1977)

Montana Legal Services Association

Helena, Montana

Areas of Practice: Consumer Law & Domestic Relations

(b) Associate (1977-1979)

French & Grainey

Ronan, Montana

Areas of Practice: Domestic Relations, Criminal Defense, Real Estate, Civil Litigation

(c) Assistant Attorney General (1979-1982)

S. C. Attorney General's Office

Columbia, South Carolina

Areas of Practice: Represented S. C. Wildlife & Marine Resources Department in all state agency legal matters; prosecution of wildlife and commercial fisheries violations and related appellate work; drafting of wildlife, fishing and boating regulations

(d) Associate (1982-1985)

Larry C. Brandt, P.A.

Walhalla, South Carolina

Areas of Practice: Real Estate, Commercial Collections and civil litigation, domestic relations

(e) Tenth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office:

1982-1985 - Part-time Assistant Solicitor

1985-1988 - Full-time Assistant Solicitor

1988-present - Full-time Deputy Solicitor

Areas of Practice: Prosecution of all type criminal cases in General Sessions Court, 1982 to present; Representation of Department of Social Services in Child Abuse & Neglect cases and Adult Protective Services cases in Family Court, 1982 to present; Prosecution of juvenile matters in Family Court, 1982 to present

(f) Instructor (1989-1990)

Department of Criminal Justice

Tri-County TEC

Areas of Instruction: Juvenile Delinquency and Criminal Law

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - 0

State - Monthly

Other - 0

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 2%

Criminal - 80%

Domestic - 18% (DSS Abuse and Neglect Actions)

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 80%

Non-jury - 20%

Sole Counsel in 75% of the cases tried; co-chief counsel in remainder

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

(a) State v. Ralph and Janice McCall, 84-GS-37-91, et seq. (representing State):

First Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor(s) case prosecuted in Oconee County under the new statute (Section 16-3-655). Convicted Defendants, husband and wife, of numerous counts of molestation of two children (sister and brother) for whom the couple babysat. Utilized testimony of experts on sexually abused children to refute claims of Defendants that children's behavior was inconsistent with that of an abused child.

(b) Department of Social Services v. Martin, 87-DR-37-84 (representing DSS):

Four-day trial in Family Court of a Department of Social Services Child Abuse and Neglect action where father was accused of sexual abuse of four-year old son. Allegations arose after mother and father separated and became engaged in custody dispute and criminal charges against the father for sexually abusing his son had been dismissed. Court found that the child had been sexually abused by father and restricted father's contact with son until such time that the father successfully completed an intensive program of treatment.

(c) State v. Ronnie Howard and Jesse Edmond, 86-GS-37-209, et seq., (representing State):

Defendants, both from Charlotte, North Carolina, tried for murder. Defendants had initially assaulted victim in North Carolina but had suffocated her and placed her body in Oconee County. Defendants objected to South Carolina jurisdiction since crime originated in North Carolina. Trial court ruled in Defendant's favor but reversed itself on State's Motion to Reconsider based on relevant S. C. Supreme Court case decided same week. Defendants immediately appealed trial court's ruling on jurisdiction resulting in State filing motion to dismiss appeal because of its interlocutory nature. Supreme Court dismissed appeal and State proceeded to trial. Defendants convicted of murder and received life sentences.

(d) State v. Toomer, 277 S.C. 217, 284 SE2d 783 (1981), (representing State):

Illegal Shrimp Trawling case which he litigated from jury trial in Magistrate's Court in Beaufort County through argument before the S. C. Supreme Court. Established concept of "Captain-in-fact" assigning criminal liability to person who actually owns and controls operation of boat regardless of which person on board possesses the captain's license.

(e) State v. McClain, 85-GS-37-461 (representing State):

Criminal prosecution of Defendant for Assault and Battery of High Aggravated Nature upon live-in girlfriend's four-year-old son. No eyewitnesses to assault; case had to be proven on basis of circumstantial evidence refuting Defendant's explanation of how injuries occurred, which required extensive use of expert medical testimony from various medical specialists who had treated the child.
18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) No domestic appeals.

(b) Moore v. Timmerman and South Carolina Wildlife & Marine Resources Department, 276 S.C. 104, 276 SE2d 290 (1981), (South Carolina Supreme Court, decided March 9, 1981) - Case involving forfeiture of shotguns, etc. confiscated in a night hunting for deer case. Submitted on briefs to S. C. Supreme Court.

24. Other Occupation: He was a pipe fitter's helper for Daniel Construction Company (now Fluor-Daniel), June - October 1971.

27. He has no financial arrangements or business relationships of which he is aware which could constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest. Should any potential conflict of interest arise, however, he would make the parties aware and offer to recuse himself. In the event he was satisfied that a conflict did exist or gave the appearance of existing, he would recuse himself.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in October of 1988 by Dr. Frank A. Axson, Radio Station Road, Seneca, SC 29678.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar; Oconee County Bar; Montana Bar (inactive)

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

Religious: Member, Walhalla Presbyterian Church; Deacon, 1983-1986; Elder, 1986 to present; Chair, Pulpit Nominating Committee, 1988

Civic: Walhalla Lions Club; Board of Directors, 1988 to present; President, 1989-1990

Charitable: Oconee County United Way; Board of Directors, 1982-1988; President, 1988

Social: Oconee Assembly, 1989 to present; Spindle Tree Racquet Club, Seneca, South Carolina (athletic club)

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) T. R. Evatt, President

Oconee Savings and Loan Association

115 North Second Street, Seneca, SC 29678

(b) B. R. Ewing, M.D.

1506 North Fant Street, Anderson, SC 29621

(c) Roy D. Harden

P. O. Box 101, Walhalla, SC 29691

(d) Larry C. Brandt, Esquire

P. O. Box 5830, Walhalla, SC 29691

(e) James A. Timmerman, Jr., Executive Director

S. C. Wildlife & Marine Resources Department

P. O. Box 167, Columbia, SC 29202

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVING EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE WALHALLA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF OCONEE COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q AT THE PRESENT TIME ARE YOU A FULL-TIME SOLICITOR OR IS IT A PART-TIME POSITION?
A I AM FULL-TIME. I'M DEPUTY SOLICITOR IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT AND THE PRIMARY COUNTY THAT I WORK IN AT THE PRESENT TIME IS OCONEE COUNTY.
Q AND YOU HAVE ALSO BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE A TOTAL OF ABOUT FIVE YEARS; AND I GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL IN '76; AND HAVE HAD APPROXIMATELY FIVE YEARS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE AND THE REMAINDER OF THAT HAS BEEN PUBLIC SECTOR WORK.
Q AND DURING THE PRIVATE PRACTICE YOU HAVE HANDLED A LOT OF DOMESTIC CASES?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE HANDLED DOMESTIC CASES. THE PRIVATE PRACTICES I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HAVE BOTH BEEN SMALL-TOWN GENERAL PRACTICES AND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF MOST EVERY AREA OF THE LAW. I DID WORK THE FIRST YEAR OUT OF LAW SCHOOL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WORKED WITH LEGAL SERVICES UNIT OUT OF STATE.
Q IN MONTANA?
A YES, SIR; AND, I, OF COURSE, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME DOMESTIC RELATIONS FROM THAT SIDE, AS WELL.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS. YOUR FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS APPEAR SATISFACTORY. NO ONE HAS COMPLAINED AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY AND NO ONE HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY TODAY. CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF TEMPERAMENT ON THE BENCH, JUDICIAL DEMEANOR AND AVOIDING DEVELOPING ROBE-ITIS, WHAT OBSERVATIONS CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR PERCEPTION OF HOW ROBE-ITIS CAN BE AVOIDED AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO AS A JUDGE TO AVOID IT?
A ROBE-ITIS IS AN INTERESTING TERM. I KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE SPEAKS OF AND AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. IN MY EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICING LAW IN THE TIME I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAR, AS ALL OF US WHO ARE LAWYERS, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE BITTER END OF THAT ROBE-ITIS FROM TIME TO TIME, I AM SURE, THE JUDGES ARE HUMAN JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE; I THINK--AND I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH YOUR ATTITUDE ABOUT THE JOB PRIMARILY--I THINK IN FAMILY COURT--AND YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY ON THIS--BUT PERHAPS IN FAMILY COURT MORE SO THAN CIRCUIT COURT, A JUDGE'S TEMPERAMENT MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS--ASPECTS THAT NEED TO BE EXAMINED WITH REGARD TO SOMEONE SERVING ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH, AS THE JUDGE IS THE JUDGE AND THE JURY IN FAMILY COURT, AS WE ALL KNOW. I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF JUSTICE IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE RESULT OFTENTIMES; AND FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THAT A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, IN PARTICULAR, AT ALL TIMES HAS TO HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND OF JUSTICE; AND I THINK IN DOING THAT, TREATING PEOPLE WITH RESPECT AT ALL TIMES IS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS OF A JUDGE, AND THAT'S--I HAVE HAD A LOT OF PRACTICE WITH DEVELOPING TEMPERAMENT OFTENTIMES AND I HAVE BEEN A FULL-TIME ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AND DEPUTY SOLICITOR, AND MR. SMOAK USED THE TERM "PIT" A MINUTE AGO AND I HAVE BEEN IN THAT PIT AWHILE IN DEALING WITH SOME VOLATILE MATTERS AND MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN, AT LEAST, I FEEL AND MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TOLD ME THIS, THAT MY TEMPERAMENT HAS SOMETIMES HELPED MAYBE COOL THOSE VOLATILE ISSUES A LITTLE BIT TO HELP PEOPLE LOOK AT THINGS RATIONALLY. I HOPE I WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THAT TO THE BENCH.
Q CONCERNING THE MATTER OF TIME COMMITMENTS OR WORK ETHIC ON THE BENCH, WOULD YOU, AGAIN, SINCE THIS IS A FAMILY COURT SLOT, EMERGENCIES REALLY HAVE A WAY OF PREVAILING IN THAT COURT; THEY COME UP AT ODD TIMES; DOES THAT PRESENT ANY PROBLEM WITH WEEKEND WORK OR LATE WORK IN THE EVENING?
A NO, SIR, IT WOULD NOT. I'M USED TO THAT AND I'M USED TO BEING ON CALL ON A REGULAR BASIS AND WORKING LONG HOURS; SO, THAT WOULD JUST BE A CONTINUATION OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS.

SENATOR POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. EDWARDS?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. EDWARDS. THANK YOU. UNLESS YOU HAVE A FINAL COMMENT OR OBSERVATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
A NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANKS ALOT.
A THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

SENATOR POPE: MR. SANFORD EUGENE HALEY. STATE YOUR FULL NAME, PLEASE, SIR.

MR. HALEY: SANFORD EUGENE HALEY.
(SANFORD E. HALEY, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. HALEY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A IT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q SO YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, WE WILL DO IT.

1. Sanford Eugene Haley

Home Address: Business Address:

527 Drayton Circle Anderson County Solicitor's Office

Anderson, SC 29621 Box 4046

Anderson, SC 29621

2. He was born in Mooresville, North Carolina on June 29, 1944. He is presently 46 years old.

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

4. He was married to Harriet Epps on July 16, 1970. He has three children: Sanford Eugene, III, age 19 (college student, clerks part time for law firm of Epps, Krause and Nicholson); Catherine Epps, age 16 (high school student, works part time at local theater); and Mary Elizabeth, age 6.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Anderson College, 1966, Associate of Arts; University of Georgia, 1976, Bachelor of Arts, Journalism; Cumberland School of Law, 1979-1980, transferred to University of South Carolina; University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1982, J.D.

7. At Anderson College he received the Hall Scholarship; at the University of Georgia, Dean's Work Scholarship; at Cumberland School of Law, Dean's Scholarship Honor Court; and at the University of South Carolina School of Law, Thurmond Scholarship.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has concentrated on CLEs dealing with Family Court.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: He has spoken to local high schools and civic groups regarding Family Court.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

9/82 to 8/83 - South Carolina Attorney General's Office, Columbia, South Carolina, worked in prosecution and post conviction relief

8/83 to 2/89 - South Carolina Attorney General's Office and DSS, Greenville, South Carolina, handled child support cases in nine county area

2/89 to present - Tenth Circuit Solicitor's Office, handles all Family Court cases in Anderson County

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - 0

State - 0

Other - Family Court, average four days per week

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 70%

Criminal - 30%

Domestic -

(classifying juvenile trials as criminal and other Family Court matters as civil)

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury -

Non-jury - 100%

He was sole counsel on all.

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

(a) Swilling/Sheridan Murder Case - This was a Petition to waive a juvenile to Circuit Court. It went to the Supreme Court on a supersedeas motion. Both Defendants were convicted.

(b) Moss/Kay Abik - Two victims were shot with one gun. Each Defendant denied shooting the second victim, and no eyewitnesses were available. Both Defendants were convicted of both shootings in separate trials.

(c) Harvey Sexual Abuse Case - The Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing a four-year old retarded girl who could not testify.

(d) Juvenile Case - A 14-year old male was convicted of sexually abusing a 5-year-old male, despite initiation of contact by the 5 year old.

(e) Juvenile Case - A 12-year old male was convicted of sexually abusing a 5-year old female. He was forced to charge the Defendant with abik, because he was not 14.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

He has not handled any civil or domestic appeals. He did handle some for approximately eight months in the post conviction relief section of the Attorney General's office, which dealt with criminal appeals.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: He was Community Development Director for the City of Belton, South Carolina, prior to entering law school in 1978.

27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

28. He was charged with an open container violation by the City of Anderson Police Department in 1966. The case was called for trial, ended in a mistrial, and was not called for trial again.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in July of 1990 by Dr. James Pennell, Anderson, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar and Anderson County Bar

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

Central Presbyterian Church, Anderson, South Carolina; Chairman of the Board, Foothills Rape Crisis Center; Governor's Juvenile Advisory Council

41. Positive: He has always been interested and involved in all issues affecting children. He will continue to work in this area in any capacity in which he can be of help.

Adverse: His credit check may reflect late payments made on some bills during the period from 1984 to 1987 when his youngest child incurred great medical expenses.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) James P. Rickman, Assistant Vice President

American Federal Bank, FSB

1722 N. Main Street, Anderson, SC 29622-2585

(b) Jack F. McIntosh, Esquire

P. O. Box 197, Anderson, SC 29622-0197

(c) Steven M. Krause, Esquire

P. O. Box 2167, Anderson, SC 29622

(d) James S. Eakes, Esquire

P. O. Box 1405, Anderson, SC 29622

(e) James M. McCallum, R.Ph.

1217 North Fant Street, Anderson, SC 29621

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVERY BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE ANDERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF ANDERSON ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH, YOU REPORTED IT TO BE GOOD OR EXCELLENT?
A YES, SIR, FORTUNATELY.
Q AND YOU I BELIEVE ARE ALSO AN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR TO THE TENTH CIRCUIT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. TOMMY AND I WORK FOR THE SAME GUY.
Q IS YOUR POSITION A FULL-TIME POSITION, ALSO?
A FULL-TIME.
Q DO YOU PROSECUTE CASES IN FAMILY COURT?
A I DO THE FAMILY COURT WORK FOR ANDERSON COUNTY.
Q FOR ONE COUNTY OF THE CIRCUIT?
A RIGHT; I DO ALL THE FAMILY COURT WORK FOR THAT COUNTY.
Q YOU DO THAT EXCLUSIVELY OR IS THAT IN ADDITION TO GENERAL SESSIONS?
A AS A PRACTICAL MATTER I DO IT EXCLUSIVELY. I DO WHATEVER THEY ASK ME TO DO, BUT I VERY SELDOM DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN FAMILY COURT WORK BECAUSE IT TAKES MOST OF THE WEEK.
Q HAVE YOU HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS PART OF THE FAMILY COURT JURISDICTION, THE DIVORCE WORK?
A SOME EXPERIENCE. WHAT I HAVE DONE SINCE I HAVE BEEN OUT OF LAW SCHOOL, I WORK FOR THE A.G.'S OFFICE FOR AWHILE. I DID WHAT IS CALLED CHILD SUPPORT CASES.
Q RIGHT.
A I WORKED FOR THEM FOR AWHILE AND THEN I WENT TO WORK FOR THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE. IN DOING THE CHILD SUPPORT CASES, AS MS. ROGERS SAID PREVIOUSLY, YOU DEAL WITH VIRTUALLY ALL THE ISSUES THAT YOU ARE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IN DIVORCE OTHER THAN ESTABLISHING WHAT YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE. AND, OF COURSE, NOW IN THE D.S.S. CASES WE ALSO DEAL WITH SOME CHILD SUPPORT, CUSTODY ISSUES, GUARDIAN AD LITEMS.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q CONCERNING THE QUESTION ABOUT ROBE-ITIS AND WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO AVOID IT ONCE YOU GET ON THE BENCH, WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO AVOID THAT SYNDROME?
A WELL, I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID; AND I KEEP THINKING OF SOMETHING I READ, AND I THINK IT'S THE PHYSICIAN'S CREED, "FIRST DO NO HARM"; I THINK IF YOU JUST HAD A LITTLE CARD THAT YOU SAT IN FRONT OF YOU EVERY MORNING, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US ALOT. I HAVE SEEN THAT AND SEEN ITS CONSEQUENCES AND I THINK ALL OF US WOULD AGREE THAT WE NOW HAVE A PERCEPTION PROBLEM THAT WE PROBABLY HAVE NOT HAD IN THE PAST, AS ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES AND THE WHOLE COURT SYSTEM. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S CAUSED BY--PROBABLY ALOT OF THAT IS CAUSED BY PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO FINISH SAYING WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY. I IMAGINE IF A SCIENTIFIC POLL WAS TAKEN--I DOUBT ONE HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN, BUT I IMAGINE IF ONE WERE TAKEN THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THAT I GOT CUT OFF BEFORE I GOT TO SAY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. IT DOESN'T TAKE BUT PROBABLY A FEW MORE SECONDS TO LET SOMEBODY FINISH. I HAVE DONE--YOU KNOW, I AM IN FAMILY COURT PROBABLY EVERY DAY NOW, EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, AND I HAVE BEEN IN FAMILY COURT SINCE 1973, PROBABLY AROUND FOUR DAYS A WEEK IN FAMILY COURT IN HEARINGS; AND THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT I SEE THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, JUST TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO LET THE PEOPLE FINISH. YOU KNOW, WE WORK IN COURT EVERY DAY. WE GET UP AND GO TO WORK AND THAT IS WHAT WE DO; BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME TO COURT, MAYBE THAT IS THE ONLY TIME THEY ARE GOING TO BE IN COURT IN THEIR LIFE. THEY ARE UNDER STRESS AND THEY ARE GOING TO REMEMBER ALL THEIR LIFE WHAT HAPPENS, AND THEY WILL REMEMBER HOW THEY ARE TREATED. THEY DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS HUMAN BEINGS. THEY DESERVE RESPECT.
Q IN TERMS OF THE WORKLOAD OF THE FAMILY COURT BENCH, WOULD YOU FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE FAMILY COURT BENCH AS FAR AS WORKING ON THE WEEKENDS ON OCCASIONS FOR EMERGENCY REASONS, OR NIGHT ON OCCASIONS, OR FRIDAY AFTERNOONS WHEN NEEDED?
A NO, I WOULDN'T FORESEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. I HAVE BEEN DOING THAT NOW SINCE 1983, YOU KNOW. MR. MESSERVY MADE THE COMMENT THAT HE LIKES TO GET THROUGH; AND I THINK EVERYONE WHO HAS DONE THIS LIKES TO GET THROUGH. YOU HAVE GOT SO MANY CASES THAT YOU HAVE TO DO, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU REACH A BAD RESULT, I THINK, WHEN YOU KEEP CONTINUING SOMETHING. ALSO, YOU HAVE GOT ALOT OF PEOPLE YOU HAVE GOT TO CONSIDER. YOU'VE GOT ALOT OF PEOPLE YOU'VE GOT TO GET TOGETHER TO DO THESE HEARINGS. I WOULD RATHER STAY AND FINISH LIKE HIM. AND, ALSO, ON ALL THE D.S.S. CASES AND ALL THE JUVENILE CASES, YOU HAVE TIME FRAMES THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET. YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THOSE; YOU HAVE JUVENILE DETENTION HEARINGS, D.S.S. EMERGENCY REMOVALS, THE 10-DAY TIME FRAME; YOU CAN'T IGNORE THAT.

SENATOR POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HALEY?

SENATOR POPE: DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A NOTHING, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. HALEY. THAT CONCLUDES FOR THE FAMILY COURT ON THE TENTH CIRCUIT POSITION. IF MR. HALEY AND MR. EDWARDS DON'T CARE TO STAY, THEY ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO LEAVE. AND NEXT WE HAVE THE FAMILY COURT POSITION FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, JUDGE PATTERSON'S SEAT, GREENVILLE AND PICKENS COUNTY. WE HAVE FIRST STEPHEN S. BARTLETT. PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MR. BARTLETT: STEPHEN S. BARTLETT.

SENATOR POPE: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN.
(STEPHEN S. BARTLETT, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. BARTLETT, YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT I AM NOT THE THIRD; I AM JUST STEPHEN.
Q YOU ARE NOT EVEN A JUNIOR?
A NO, SIR.
Q OTHER THAN THAT, THE FORM IS CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THIS RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Stephen S. Bartlett

Home Address: Business Address:

111 Teal Lane P. O. Box 488

Mauldin, SC 29662 Greenville, SC 29662

2. He was born in San Diego, California on April 23, 1952. He is presently 38 years old.

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

4. He was married to Elizabeth Anthony on January 12, 1980. He has one child, S. Wyman Bartlett, age 10, and one step-child, Craig A. Colaluca, age 18.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Montgomery Community College, 1971, transferred; Central Missouri State University, 1972-1974, B.S. Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1974-1977, J.D. Degree.

7. At Central Missouri State, he was on the varsity debate team and was captain of the varsity pistol team. At the University of South Carolina, he was Justice of the Supreme Court. At the University of South Carolina Law Center, Criminal Justice Institute, he was a clerk for Professor Jon Thames.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

Every year he has reported excess hours of JCLE from the following: National Judicial College, National Institute for Court Management and South Carolina Bar.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:

National Judicial College, 1986 to present

South Carolina Bar, CLE Seminar

Criminal Justice Academy, JCLE Seminar

Greenville Tech, part-time faculty members, law courses

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Assistant City Attorney, Greenville, S. C.

General government law and criminal prosecution - 1977

Assistant Circuit Solicitor, Greenville County

Prosecutor in circuit and magistrates court for first two years; represented solicitors office in Family Court for last year, 1977 to 1980

Municipal Court Judge, City of Greenville, S. C.

Full-time judge of Municipal Court with staff of 17 - 1980 to present

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal -

State -

Other - 100% in Municipal Court as Judge

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil -

Criminal - 100% (as Judge)

Domestic -

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 25%

Non-jury - 75%

20. Judicial Office: Municipal Judge for the City of Greenville, South Carolina, appointed by Mayor and Council, Municipal Court has limited criminal jurisdiction

21. Due to the nature of Municipal Court, few written orders or opinions are rendered. Municipal Court is not a court of record. The one opinion he has written that was reviewed on appeal concerned the necessity defense. It was upheld by the Supreme Court.

27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

30. Tax Lien: There was a federal tax lien in 1984. The family business was being sold, and they were unable to pay the taxes in the last quarter. It was paid within months.

31. Sued: He has been named in a few suits where he was acting as Judge. All cases were dismissed.

33. His last physical was in May of 1990 by Dr. Jim Burford, 3850 E. North Street, Greenville, South Carolina.

35. He wears corrective lenses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar and the American Bar Association

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

He is on the Board of Directors for the Family Counseling Center of Greenville, 1982-1988. It is a United Way agency that was responsible for family counseling, counseling of abused spouses, battered wives' shelter, and travelers' aid.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

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

Company of South Carolina

P. O. Box 6807, Greenville, SC 29606-6807

(b) William L. Dodson, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 2547, Greenville, SC 29602

(c) Ernest J. Howard, Esquire

P. O. Box 10383, Greenville, SC 29603-0383

(d) William T. Clarke, Esquire

P. O. Box 10293, Greenville, SC 29603

(e) Weyman H. Dodson, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 2566, Greenville, SC 29602

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU SIT AS THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF GREENVILLE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU HAD THAT POSITION?
A I HAVE BEEN FULL-TIME MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR 10 YEARS NOW.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR; BECAUSE YOU HAVE HAD THAT JUDGESHIP, THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND THEY HAVE NO RECORD, OF COURSE, OF REPRIMANDS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND MAULDIN, AND THE GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS, AND SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GREENVILLE COUNTY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND I THINK THERE ARE TWO TAX EXECUTIONS IN THE RECORD. WOULD YOU COMMENT ABOUT THOSE?
A YES, SIR. I WAS MARRIED IN 1980. MY WIFE IS A DENTAL HYGIENIST AND IT WAS HER LONG HOPE TO BE A SHOP OWNER AND TO HAVE A SMALL RESTAURANT OF HER OWN; AND, SO, WE ENTERED INTO A FAMILY BUSINESS; PRIMARILY SHE ENTERED INTO A FAMILY BUSINESS KNOWN AS THE YOGURT MALL, HEYWARD MALL, SOUTH CAROLINA. WE HAD TO BORROW MONEY TO GET INTO THAT VENTURE AND THE ONLY WAY WE COULD DO SO WAS BY OUR JOINT INCOME AND IT WAS ENTERED INTO AS A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP; AND, THEREFORE, BOTH OF OUR NAMES ARE ON ALL DOCUMENTS, LEASES, AND SO ON. UNFORTUNATELY IT TURNED INTO WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO TERM A "FINANCIAL DISASTER"; BECAUSE OF SOME LEASEHOLD AGREEMENTS AND ALL, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO RETRACT HERSELF FROM IT. BOTH OUR HOUSE AND BUSINESS WERE UP FOR SALE AT ONE POINT AND WE KEPT THE BUSINESS GOING BECAUSE IT'S A MUCH MORE VIABLE ASSET FOR SALE AS AN ONGOING, RATHER THAN JUST THE ASSETS THEMSELVES BEING SOLD PIECEMEAL. WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO SELL IT. WE DID GO THROUGH A PERIOD WHERE WE OWED SOME TAXES; WE OWED VENDORS; WE OWED LEASEHOLDS AT ONE TIME. WE PROBABLY OWED SOMEWHERE AROUND $100,000. AND WE PAID THE TAXES. WE PAID ALL THE VENDORS. AND TO THIS DATE WE ARE STILL RETIRING SOME OF THAT DEBT. WE WERE PROBABLY GOOD CANDIDATES FOR BANKRUPTCY AT THAT TIME, BUT I FELT LIKE THAT WAS NOT THE HONORABLE WAY TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATIONS WE HAD. WE HAVE PAID OFF EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE OWED; AND IT WAS A REGRETTABLE FINANCIAL DISASTER, BUT ONE THAT I THINK WE HAVE BEEN HANDLING AS BEST WE CAN.
Q BOTH OF THOSE TAX EXECUTIONS WERE PAID?
A YES, SIR.
Q I BELIEVE THE---
A I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT---
Q ---RECORDS APPEAR THAT THEY WERE PAID PRETTY PROMPTLY AFTER THEY WERE FILED, I BELIEVE.
A (NODDED HIS HEAD; NO VERBAL RESPONSE.)
Q IF I'M READING THE DATES CORRECTLY, I THINK IT WAS FILED FEBRUARY THE 3RD OF '85 AND PAID THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY; IS THAT RIGHT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
A SOMEWHERE IN THERE. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, OF COURSE, I WAS IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE TAX COMMISSION AND I WAS AWARE THAT I HAD TAXES OWED; AND WE WERE IN CONSTANT NEGOTIATIONS TRYING TO HANDLE THIS THE BEST WAY WE COULD; AND I, FRANKLY, WAS NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION HAD ACTUALLY FILED AN EXECUTION. I WAS AWARE OF ONE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; BUT WAS NOT AWARE OF SOUTH CAROLINA UNTIL THIS PROCEEDING. BUT EVERYTHING WAS PAID AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
Q YOUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION DID NOT INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THESE TWO TAX EXECUTIONS?
A THAT'S RIGHT. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THEM. I KNEW THAT THEY WERE OWED AND BEING DEMANDED, BUT DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY HAD GONE TO A FORMAL FILING.
Q THEY WERE NOT SERVED UPON YOU?
A NO.
Q THEY WERE SIMPLY FILED; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
Q YOUR APPLICATION DOES NOT LIST ANY JUDGMENTS OR SUITS AGAINST YOU; AND I THINK WE HAD SOME INDICATION THAT YOU WERE A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION?
A YES, SIR, THERE WAS THAT ONE CASE; IT WAS A CASE INVOLVING MY CAPACITY AS A MUNICIPAL JUDGE. IT WAS A MR. ROBERT WILSON WHO HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH A SIGN ORDINANCE VIOLATION; HE WAS CHARGED BY THE CITY OF GREENVILLE ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS; FILED A 1983 ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED VERY EARLY-ON CITING JUDICIAL IMMUNITY. THE CITY OF GREENVILLE, LEFT AS THE SOLE COMPLAINANT, SETTLED ITS CASE, OR SOME ASPECTS LATER ON; I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY FURTHER LITIGATION. IT WAS HANDLED ALL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MY ONLY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE IS THAT I WAS REMOVED EARLY-ON BY SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Q AND YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWED NO CONFLICTS. HAS YOUR WIFE'S BUSINESS--THAT BUSINESS HAS BEEN SOLD?
A THAT IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.
Q ALL RIGHT; NOW THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND THE CREDIT REPORT, WE DID SHOW A $49 LIEN; IS THAT THE SAME ONE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?
A YES, THAT IS THE SAME ONE. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WHAT THAT INCURRED WAS INTEREST OWED AND IT WAS JUST WHERE THE CHECKS WERE PASSING IN THE MAIL, WHICH WE WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF. OF COURSE, THAT WAS DURING THAT POINT WHERE WE WERE HAVING PROBLEMS PAYING ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST THAT A PAYMENT WAS A LITTLE BIT LATE AND WE PAID THAT $44 AS SOON AS WE WERE AWARE OF IT.
Q JUDGE BARTLETT, HAVE YOU HAD ANY EXPOSURE TO THE FAMILY COURT PRACTICE?
A I WAS WITH THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT SOLICITOR'S OFFICE AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AND PRACTICED THERE FOR ONE YEAR PROSECUTING JUVENILE CASES AND ALSO HANDLING SOME D.S.S. TYPE MATTERS.
Q AND AS FAR AS THE DOMESTIC RELATION SIDE OF FAMILY COURT, HAVE YOU DONE ANY WORK IN THAT AREA?
A NO, SIR.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE QUESTION RELATING TO JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT? DO YOU CONSIDER THAT AS AN IMPORTANT FEATURE, JUDGE?
A I THINK IT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FEATURE. IT'S ONE THAT I'VE TRIED TO MAKE MY HALLMARK OF MY SERVICE THE PAST 10 YEARS. THE PROSPECTIVE OF THE PUBLIC OF WHETHER THEY ARE DEALT WITH EQUALLY AND FAIRLY IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHETHER THEY DO GET JUSTICE. IF THEY DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TREATED FAIRLY THEN A GREAT DEAL OF DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE TO COURTS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN THE SOCIETY. SO FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, I HAVE STRIVED VERY HARD AND THAT IS A HALLMARK OF MY SERVICE.
Q HOW OFTEN DO YOU--THE HOURS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THE FAMILY COURT JUDGESHIP, DOES THAT PRESENT A PROBLEM, WORKING ON THE WEEKENDS ON OCCASION, OR WORKING FRIDAY AFTERNOON, OR WORKING INTO THE NIGHT WHEN REQUIRED?
A NO, SIR. I HAVE ALWAYS PRIDED MYSELF THAT OUR COURT WAS WHAT I WOULD CALL A "WORKING COURT." OUR FIRST CASE IS CALLED AT 8:00 A M. I HEAR AN AVERAGE OF 30,000 CASES A YEAR; AND WE HAVE AN 8:00 O'CLOCK, A 9:00 O'CLOCK, A 10:00 O'CLOCK, 11:00 O'CLOCK, 2:00 O'CLOCK, AND 3:00 O'CLOCK SESSION. I ALSO HEAR APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 40 PRELIMINARY HEARINGS EACH WEEK. SO, WORK IS NOT A NOVELTY TO ME.
Q YES, I CAN TELL. NO ONE HAS FILED A COMPLAINT, NOR HAS ANYONE ASKED TO TESTIFY TODAY. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF JUDGE BARTLETT?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

Q I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU HEAR ABOUT 30,000 CASES A YEAR?
A APPROXIMATELY. OF COURSE, IN MY COURT WE ARE, OF COURSE, LIMITED CRIMINAL JURISDICTION; SO, SOME OF THOSE INVOLVE LIKE A STEALING CASE, WITH A GOOD PERCENTAGE OF THEM BEING JURY TRIALS, CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SHOPLIFTING; SO, ON THE AVERAGE SOME ARE VERY TIME-CONSUMING.

SENATOR POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMITTEE?
Q (BY REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN) YOU OUGHT NOT TO HAVE A BACKLOG.
A AT TIMES WE HAVE A GOOD BACKLOG.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NEXT IS MR. JOHN W. KITTREDGE. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

SENATOR POPE: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
(JOHN W. KITTREDGE, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. KITTREDGE, YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE FORM?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q IS THAT SUMMARY CORRECT?
A IT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHANGE I WOULD MAKE, IN REFLECTING ON THE NUMBER OF APPEARANCES I HAVE HAD, I HAD LISTED THAT I APPEAR AN AVERAGE OF ONCE PER WEEK IN STATE COURT. IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO THREE. I HAD THREE HEARINGS THIS WEEK AND THAT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE FACT, THREE.
Q WITH THAT ONE MODIFICATION, IT'S CORRECT?
A THAT IS TRUE.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A NO OBJECTION, SIR.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. John W. Kittredge

Home Address: Business Address:

42 Forest Lane 408 East North Street

Greenville, SC 29605 Greenville, SC 29601

2. He was born in Greenville, South Carolina on September 28, 1956. He is presently 34 years old.

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

4. He was married to Lila Graham Hewell on June 20, 1981. He has three children: Lila Marian, age 7; John Williamson, Jr., age 3; and Zay Jeffries, II, age 3.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, College of Criminal Justice, 1975-1979, B.S., summa cum laude, and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979-1982, J.D.

7. During his undergraduate years, he worked regularly, but without compensation with the Greenville Police Department. During his law school years, he worked during summer months as a law clerk for the Horton Law Firm in Greenville.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He generally attends more CLE courses than required. The majority of the CLE courses he attends are family law related.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: He lectured at a CLE seminar in December of 1985, sponsored by the Greenville County Bar and approved for CLE credits. He also arranged and served as moderator at a Civil Trial Advocacy CLE seminar in December of 1989, sponsored by the Greenville County Bar and approved for CLE credits. He has also appeared on television to discuss South Carolina's adoption laws. He has further lectured on criminal domestic violence and participated in a radio program devoted to the topic of domestic violence.

10. Published Books or Articles: The Inevitability of Police Discretion, published by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association magazine. The exact date of publication is unknown, probably 1978.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

He served as a law clerk to the Honorable William W. Wilkins, Jr., United States District Judge, from August 1982 through August 1984. Since September of 1984, he has worked at the law firm of Wilkins, Nelson & Kittredge. He has a litigation practice, primarily devoted to family law.

He also worked as a part-time Assistant Solicitor from September 1984 until July 1985, and again from a brief period in 1986. As an Assistant Solicitor, he prosecuted many criminal cases.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - two times per year

State - average of three appearances per week

Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 28%

Criminal - 2%

Domestic - 70%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 10% or less

Non-jury - 90% +

He would estimate that he was sole or lead counsel in the majority of the cases. He was associate counsel in approximately one-third of the cases.

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

(a) Schwiers v. Schwiers, 85-DR-23-157. This was an unusually compelling domestic case, factually and legally. After a lengthy trial, his client was awarded 80% of the marital property, valued at approximately $1.5 million. The case was settled on appeal.

(b) Bible v. Bible, 88-DR-23-4651. This was the most complicated and involved case, procedurally and substantively, he has ever handled. Virtually every issue was litigated, from personal jurisdiction to substantial equitable division issues. Appeals were taken to the Georgia and South Carolina Supreme Courts, and they prevailed in both instances. This multi-million dollar case was eventually settled, after protracted discovery and numerous court hearings. He devoted approximately 600 hours to this case.

(c) DSS v. Ruth Nichols, et al., 86-DR-23-4864. He was Ruth Nichols' court-appointed attorney. He received no fee. This case was significant to him, because Ms. Nichols, after decades of dedicated service as a schoolteacher, was accused of beating one of her students. Ms. Nichols' lifetime of public service was tarnished. He defended her in a case vigorously pursued by the Solicitor's Office. Ms. Nichols won, and this fine, elderly woman was able to retire with some dignity.

(d) First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 90-CP-23-955. He represented the First Baptist Church of Mauldin on a pro bono basis, in its petition to close a road on its property. The closing of the road is necessary to enable the church to expand its facility to accommodate its growing membership. For some reason, the church's petition was adamantly challenged by the City of Mauldin. Following a lengthy trial, the judge issued an order in favor of the church. The trial court's decision has been appealed by the City of Mauldin.

(e) State v. McDuffie. He prosecuted many cases as an Assistant Solicitor, but this was the most significant to him. It involved a highly-publicized robbery and murder. Interesting legal questions arose during the trial, and the case was defended by an expert criminal defense attorney. The defendant was convicted of armed robbery and manslaughter.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Watson v. Watson, 291 S.C. 13, 351 SE2d 883 (Ct. App. 1986).

(b) Burns v. Burns, 293 S.C. 1, 358 SE2d 168 (Ct. App. 1987).

(c) Lineberger v. Lineberger, Op. No. 1577 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 1990).

(d) Bible v. Bible, 89-MO-320 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Dec. 15, 1989).

(e) White v. Snell, 299 S.C. 406, 385 SE2d 211 (Ct. App. 1989).

27. If any conflict of interest arises (e.g., as a result of his financial holdings), he would recuse himself from hearing such a case. However, since Family Court actions generally do not involve financial arrangements or business relationships per se, he would not foresee a significant potential for conflicts of interest.

31. Sued: He was involved in an automobile accident in about 1974, which resulted in a lawsuit being filed against him in 1976. The plaintiff alleged negligence against him and sought damages. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict was returned in his favor, "unavoidable accident."

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in January of 1991 by Dr. Alex Patrick, 410-B Pelham Road, Greenville, South Carolina 29615, phone 232-0321.

34. Hospitalized: On November 5, 1989, he severely dislocated his ankle. He was out of work for approximately two weeks.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar; Greenville County Bar; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; American Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association; District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar; and a member of numerous Family Law Sections

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

Deacon, First Presbyterian Church of Greenville; President, Crimestoppers of Greenville; Chairman, Greenville City Civil Service Commission; Vice-President, Greenville Tech Foundation, Inc.; Member, Greenville Country Club; Member, Poinsett Club; Member, Governor's Committee on Crime, Criminal Justice and Delinquency; appointed by Governor to Joint Legislative Committee on Children

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

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

BB&T Company of South Carolina

P. O. Box 6807, Greenville, SC 29606-6807

(b) Frank F. Espey, M.D.

26 Southland Avenue, Greenville, SC 29601

(c) Cecil H. Nelson, Jr., Esquire

408 East North Street, Greenville, SC 29601-3098

(d) Honorable William W. Wilkins, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals

P. O. Box 10857, Greenville, SC 29603

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

P. O. Box 10045, Greenville, SC 29603

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED THAT NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF YOUR HOME COUNTY OF GREENVILLE ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE EXCELLENT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. YOUR NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS APPEAR SATISFACTORY. NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU OR DESIRING TO BE PRESENT TODAY TO TESTIFY. YOU HAVE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE NOW FOR HOW LONG?
A SEVEN YEARS, SIR.
Q SEVEN; THAT WAS AFTER YOUR CLERKSHIP?
A I CLERKED TWO YEARS FOR FEDERAL JUDGE BILLY WILKINS WHEN HE WAS FIRST NOMINATED TO BE A DISTRICT JUDGE. AND THEN WENT INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE SEVEN YEARS; AND ALONG WITH THAT, I WAS A PART-TIME ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 18 MONTHS.
Q RIGHT NOW YOU ARE DOING WHAT APPEARS TO BE OVER TWO-THIRDS OF YOUR WORK IS IN THE FAMILY COURT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND I ASSUME YOU HANDLE VIRTUALLY EVERY ISSUE IMAGINABLE IN THAT COURT THEN.
A YES, SIR.
Q TELL US YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND THE NEED FOR PERSONS ON THE BENCH TO TRY TO AVOID DEVELOPING WHAT THEY CALL ROBE-ITIS.
A I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT AND PROBABLY CANNOT ADEQUATELY ARTICULATE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. I HAVE PRACTICED--MOST OF MY PRACTICE HAS BEEN IN THE FAMILY COURT. I AM DOWN THERE EVERY WEEK, SOME COMPLEX CASES AND SOME NOT SO COMPLEX; AND I HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THOSE WITH ADVANCED CONDITIONS OF ROBE-ITIS AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO CLIENTS, AND THE TRUTH HURTS, IT HURTS THE LAWYERS, IT HURTS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. IT'S NOT ONLY A PERCEPTION PROBLEM; BUT ALSO A SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM. AND HAVING HEARD THE TERM "PIT," HAVING BEEN THERE, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO HAVING BOTH SIDES FULLY AND FAIRLY HEARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO TREAT LAWYERS AND LITIGANTS THAT WOULD APPEAR, IF I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ELECTED, AS I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED, AND I THINK LITIGANTS OUGHT TO BE TREATED--I THINK JUDGE FANNING SAID IT WELL WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES OF FAMILY COURT, AND I HAVE OFTEN HEARD THAT FAMILY COURT IS A COURT OF TRAGEDY; AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, VERY EMOTIONAL--OFTENTIMES YOU SEE PEOPLE ALMOST AT THEIR WORST AND WE NEED TO TREAT THEM WITH A GREAT DEAL OF UNDERSTANDING AND WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT SITUATION; AND I WOULD HOPE AND I WOULD--I WOULD BE WHO I AM. I WOULD NOT BECOME A POSITION. THOSE PEOPLE WHO I THINK HAVE ROBE-ITIS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF--AND I HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF EVERY FAMILY COURT JUDGE IN THE STATE--THEY BECOME THE POSITION, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE WHO I AM. I AM BASICALLY A LOW-KEY PERSON. I GENERALLY AM NOT AGGRESSIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE MY PERSONALITY AND THOSE CHARACTERISTICS IN WORKING WITH PEOPLE AND WORKING WITH SITUATIONS.
Q THANK YOU, SIR. IN TERMS OF THE WORK ETHIC REQUIRED OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, WOULD THE POSSIBILITY OF WORKING ON SOME WEEKENDS, WORKING LATE INTO THE EVENING, OR WORKING LONG HOURS WOULD PRESENT NO PROBLEM FOR YOU?
A THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM, SIR. IN FACT, I WOULD ECHO WHAT THE OTHER TRIAL LAWYERS HAVE SAID HERE TODAY. I AM PRESENTLY WORKING SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, VIRTUALLY EVERY WEEK; AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN TRIAL PRACTICE, KNOW YOU'RE IN COURT, YOU'RE TAKING DEPOSITIONS, OR YOU ARE ON THE PHONE; AND THE WORK THAT I DO IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, I DO ON THE WEEKENDS; THAT IS WHERE I GET THE WORK DONE. SO THAT WORKING HARD WOULD NOT BE FOREIGN TO ME AT ALL.

SENATOR POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. KITTREDGE?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT; THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE COMPLETED THAT POSITION, THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL FAMILY COURT POSITION; AND IF THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE, THEY CAN DO SO OR THEY CAN STAY WITH US. WE HAVE ONLY ONE CANDIDATE FOR THE FIFTEENTH CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, MR. BONNOITT. DID I PRONOUNCE IT RIGHT?

MR. BONNOITT: YOU GOT IT RIGHT.

SENATOR POPE: GOOD. IF YOU WOULD, GIVE US YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

MR. BONNOITT: H. E. BONNOITT, JR.

SENATOR POPE: AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE, SIR.
(HUGH E. BONNOITT, JR., FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. BONNOITT, YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q IS IT ACCURATE AND CORRECT?
A IT IS.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR; YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.

1. Hugh E. Bonnoitt, Jr.

Home Address: Business Address:

417 Prince Street 131 Orange Street

P. O. Box 464 P. O. Box 464

Georgetown, SC 29442 Georgetown, SC 29442

2. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina on July 2, 1943. He is presently 47 years old.

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

4. He was married to Kay McCormac on December 13, 1969. He has two children: Hugh E., III, age 16 (student), and John M., age 14 (student).

5. Military Service: USN, 1965-1969, Lt., 693660/1100, Resigned Commission; USNR, 1969-1978, LCDR, 693660/1105, Resigned Commission

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, September 1961 - May 1965, A.B., History, and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September 1970 - May 1973, J.D.

7. At the University of South Carolina he was in N.R.O.T.C., Battalion Adjutant.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1990 - 12.75 hours CLE completed

1989 - 12.5 hours CLE completed

1988 - 12.5 hours CLE completed

1987 - 12.0 hours CLE completed

1986 - 14.0 hours CLE completed

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

He began practice as a sole practitioner in November 1973, with a general practice; Georgetown County Public Defender (part-time), 1977-1985; formed a partnership with Kenneth L. Mitchum in February 1987; continues to practice in this partnership (general practice) to present.

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - seldom

State - often

Other - occasionally

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - 30%

Criminal - 30%

Domestic - 40%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - 50%

Non-jury - 50%

sole counsel - 98%

chief counsel - 1%

associate counsel - 1%

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

(a) State v. Horne, 282 S.C. 444, 319 SE2d 703 (1984). Represented the Defendant at trial wherein the "born alive rule" was attacked by the state and then modified prospectively on appeal. This case also helped crystalize the issue of transferred intent in assault cases.

(b) Estate of Mercer v. Bryant, 288 S.C. 313, 342 SE2d 591. Represented the executrix at trial in Probate and Circuit Court and on appeal. Supreme Court found Code Section 21-7-480 (bastardry statute) unconstitutional.

(c) State v. Grizzle, 293 S.C. 19, 358 SE2d 388 (1987). Chief defense counsel at trial. The State asked for the death penalty in this case. Sheriff's deputies took Defendant for polygraph test at SLED headquarters after he had spoken with an attorney. Case seems to limit Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477.

(d) Smith v. Georgetown County Council, et al., 292 S.C. 235, 355 SE2d 864 (1987). Represented the Georgetown County Board of Zoning Appeals at trial on appeal. This case established rule that zoning ordinances and amendments thereto do not require specific findings by the legislative body justifying same without a statutory requirement for such.

(e) Moore v. Moore, et al., 300 S.C. 75, 386 SE2d 456 (1989). Represented the Guardian at trial and on appeal. This case resulted in a modification of the bright line presumption of Kay v. Rowland, 285 S.C. 516 and set forth criteria which must be addressed by a natural parent in trying to reclaim custody from a third party who has established custody of a child.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Bryan v. Bryan, 296 S.C. 305, 372 SE2d 116 (1988) (Ct. App.)

(b) Higley v. Higley, 86-DR-22-480 (1987) settled during appeal and before Opinion issued (Sup. Ct.)

(c) Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 386 SE2d 456 (1989) (Sup. Ct.)

(d) Glover v. Glover, Memorandum Opinion No. 91-MO-001 (1/2/91) (Ct. App.)

22. Public Office: Chairman, Georgetown Board of Zoning Adjustments (1983-1985), appointed by City Council; Mayor, City of Georgetown (1986-present), elected by City electors; Vice-President, Municipal Association of South Carolina (1988-present), elected by Board of Directors of the Association

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: Ran for South Carolina House of Representatives, Seat 107, in 1974
24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: U. S. Naval Officer, 1965-1969

25. Officer/director or management of business enterprise: He currently serves as one of four directors for Turn-Key Realty, Inc., a local real estate agency in which his wife is a director and 50% stockholder. The owner of the remaining 50% of the stock and her husband make up the remainder of the board. He is a partner in two partnerships involving his law practice and management of the practice's office building.

27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

31. Sued: He was sued for $15,000,000 by a man he had been appointed to represent on three counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor. He pled guilty to one count, and while serving a 10-year sentence, he sued him claiming he had conspired with the Solicitor and Trial Judge and generally neglected to prepare his case for trial. The suit was ended when a Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

33. His health is very good. His last physical was in January of 1991 by Dr. C. Lide Williams.

35. He is required to wear reading glasses.

36. His cholesterol was up to 259 when examined in January of 1991, and Dr. C. Lide Williams, Black River Road, Georgetown, SC 29440, has prescribed medication and a diet to get it down.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

He is a member of the American Bar Association and the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association. He is a member of the South Carolina and Georgetown County Bar Association, and previously served as Secretary (1979-1981), President (1989-1990) and on the Law Library Committee (1976-1979) of the County Bar.

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

Duncan Memorial United Methodist Church; Georgetown County United Way, Campaign Division Chairman; Georgetown Marine Institute, BOD; Georgetown Breakfast Rotary Club; VFW Post 6444 (previously served as Vice-Commander)

41. He has served as Chairman of the Georgetown County Family Court Advisory Committee under Judge Maring and Judge Hearn during the past five years. He has actively participated in the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts sponsored by Duncan Memorial UMC, serving on the local advisory board. He previously served as Chapter and Campaign Chairman of the Georgetown County March of Dimes; Director, Coastal Big Brothers; and President of the Georgetown Jaycees.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Robert R. Martin, Jr., Vice President

First Citizens Bank

P. O. Box 637, Georgetown, SC 29440

(b) C. Claymon Grimes, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Drawer 459, Georgetown, SC 29442

(c) Robert N. Carlisle

Duncan Memorial United Methodist Church

P. O. Box 603, Georgetown, SC 29442

(d) Johnny Morant, Esquire

P. O. Drawer 437, Georgetown, SC 29442

(e) Betty L. Williams, Clerk of Court

Georgetown County, Georgetown, SC 29442

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS OF ANY KIND EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE GEORGETOWN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE GEORGETOWN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. I BELIEVE YOU REPORTED A SUIT BY A FORMER CLIENT AGAINST YOU AT ONE POINT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND IT WAS DECIDED ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN YOUR FAVOR?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q COULD YOU TELL US VERY BRIEFLY WHAT THAT RELATED TO?
A WELL, AFTER THE EXUBERANCE I FIRST FELT THAT SOMEONE COULD THINK THAT I COULD ANSWER A 15 MILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT, I REALIZED I WASN'T IN EXCLUSIVE COMPANY. THIS FELLOW, I HAD REPRESENTED AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND HE HAD ENDED UP SUING ME, THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, THE SOLICITOR, THE SHERIFF, THE TREASURER, THE HEAD JAILER; HE PROBABLY SUED SOME JANITOR AT THE JAIL ONE TIME; BUT, ANYWAY, IT WAS--IT INVOLVED A CASE WHERE HE PLEAD GUILTY ON ONE OF THREE CHARGES OF MOLESTING A CHILD AND GOT SENTENCED; AND HE APPARENTLY JUST LIKED TO GET OUT OF C.C.I. EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE AND COME DOWN TO GEORGETOWN SO HE WOULD SUE ONE OF US. I GOT SUED AND WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE COURT END THE CASE ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.
Q AND YOUR HEALTH IS VERY GOOD, I BELIEVE?
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS APPEAR SATISFACTORY. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PRACTICE AT THE PRESENT TIME IS FAMILY COURT?
A I BELIEVE I PUT DOWN AROUND 40 PERCENT, WHICH WOULD BE ACCURATE.
Q YOU HAVE, I GUESS, A GENERAL PRACTICE?
A I DO A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH INCOME TAXES IF I DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THAT'S KIND OF GETTING INTO THE FAMILY COURT WORK; YOU KNOW, PENSION PLANS AND INCOME TAXES, VARIABLE AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION. I FORTUNATELY HAVE A LAW PARTNER WHO IS A C.P.A. AND I KIND OF PICK ON HIM FOR THINGS.
Q THAT'S GOOD. ARE THERE JUST THE TWO OF YOU PRACTICING?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU REGARD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A WELL, AT TIMES WHEN A JUDGE HAS HAD ME ON THE CARPET I FELT IT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER TIMES; BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THE PERCEPTION THE COURT GIVES TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF IT BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, THIS IS THE PUBLIC'S COURT AND NOT THE JUDGES' AND LAWYERS.' THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO FEEL LIKE THAT THEY ARE GETTING JUSTICE DONE AND THAT THEY ARE BEING FULLY HEARD WHEN THEY GO TO COURT. AND SOMETIMES IMPATIENCE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST CAUSE OF THINGS THAT OCCUR THAT LEAD TO BAD PERCEPTION, EITHER THROUGH WORKLOAD OR WHATEVER OTHER REASONS, CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS THAT--AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE KEY TO IT. IF YOU GO IN REALIZING THAT YOU HAVE WORK TO DO, AND THAT EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD, AND THAT YOU ARE THERE UNTIL THE WORK IS DONE AND DEMONSTRATE PATIENCE TO LISTEN TO ALL VIEWS AND MAKE YOUR DECISION, I THINK YOU WILL BE ALL RIGHT.
Q AND THE HOURS REQUIRED OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE WOULD PRESENT NO PROBLEM FOR YOU AS FAR AS WORKING IN THE EVENING AND WEEKENDS?
A WELL, MY WIFE KIND OF THOUGHT IF I GOT THIS JOB THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK AFTER SUPPER EVERY NIGHT AND AFTER Y'ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT TODAY, SHE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT FEELING. I THINK ANYONE WHO HAS A TRIAL PRACTICE RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT YOU REALLY GET THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF YOUR LEGAL WORK DONE AFTER HOURS BECAUSE YOU JUST CANNOT DO IT; THE PHONE IS RINGING AND YOU'RE TALKING TO PEOPLE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND TRYING CASES; YOU WORK EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS ALMOST ALL THE TIME; AND, SO, HOPEFULLY, I DON'T THINK--WELL, I RECOGNIZE I WON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. I AM USED TO WORKING LONG HOURS.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. BONNOITT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION?

Q ARE YOU A SOLE PRACTITIONER OR DO---
A NO, SIR, I'M IN A FIRM. I SPENT ABOUT 12 OR 13 YEARS AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER AND I GOT INTO A FIRM, A PARTNERSHIP WITH A FELLOW THAT'S A C.P.A. AND AN ATTORNEY; AND WE HAVE GOT A PRETTY GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
SENATOR POPE: MR. BONNOITT, I KNOW YOU'RE
DELIGHTED THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS SIGNED UP FOR THIS POSITION. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME ENVIOUS CANDIDATES IN THIS ROOM PROBABLY TO SEE YOU COME IN HERE ALONE. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR. THE COURT REPORTER HAS TO CHANGE THE PAPER; WHY DON'T WE TAKE A SHORT RESTROOM BREAK, 5 MINUTES.

SENATOR POPE: WE WILL START BACK NOW. STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

MR. KEESLEY: MY NAME IS WILLIAM PAUL KEESLEY.

SENATOR POPE: IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(WILLIAM P. KEESLEY, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. KEESLEY, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE.
Q ALL RIGHT; IS IT CORRECT?
A THE ONLY THING THAT I SEE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED IS ON THE FIRST PAGE, PARAGRAPH NUMBER 7 THERE, THE THIRD LINE, AFTER IT SAYS I WAS ELECTED TO PHI BETA KAPPA, THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMMA THERE AND THEN PI, P.I., GAMMA MU; THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE HONOR FRATERNITIES. THE ONLY THING, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, I HAVE RECEIVED SINCE THIS APPLICATION WAS FILED A RESOLUTION, AN ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION. I NOTICE THAT THE APPLICATION SAID TO ATTACH COPIES OF RESOLUTIONS. I HAVE THAT HERE IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE TO FILE IT; AND IF IT'S NOT---
Q I THINK IT'S FINE FOR US TO INCLUDE IT IN THE RECORD. I THINK THE STAFF JUST SHOWED ME SOME RESOLUTIONS THEY HAD JUST GOTTEN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS ONE OF THEM OR NOT, BUT WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT RESOLUTIONS FROM BOTH OR ANY CANDIDATE; AND WE WILL INCLUDE IT FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU HAVE THE RESOLUTION---
A I HAVE THE ORIGINAL HERE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
Q ---THE PAGE WILL MAKE COPIES, IF YOU DON'T MIND, FOR EVERYBODY. AS SOON AS SHE COMES BACK, WE WILL PASS THAT OUT AND INCLUDE IT IN THE RECORD.
A THANK YOU.
Q SO YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION THEN IN MAKING YOUR SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY, WE WILL DO THAT.

1. William Paul Keesley

Home Address: Business Address:

P. O. Box 75 P.O. Box 66

(Stonehedge Circle) (Edgefield Highway)

Edgefield, SC 29824 Johnston, SC 29832

2. He was born in Augusta, Georgia, on May 10, 1953. He is presently 37 years old.

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

4. He was married to Linda Faye Black on May 22, 1976. He has one child, Kyliene Lee, age 11.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Wofford College, 1971-1975, B.A. in Government, Summa Cum Laude; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1975-1978, J.D.

7. At Wofford College he lettered in track, 1972-1975; member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Vice President, 1973-1975; lecturer in Residence Hall Education Program, 1974-1975; elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Gamma Mu honor fraternities, 1975. He worked in programs at the New Hampshire Presidential Primary in 1972 and for Chief Justice Bruce Littlejohn in 1975.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

During the past five years, his CLE has included courses on auto torts, attendance at an institute on matters related to municipal law, courses on public benefits law, criminal trial advocacy, property law and evidence law.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:

(a) Panel member at Continuing Legal Education program sponsored by the South Carolina Solicitor's Association Convention at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the fall of 1989, regarding proposals/new legislation in the area of criminal law

(b) Panel member at Pre-Trial Intervention Seminar in Destin, Florida, summer of 1989

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

11/78 - 10/80 Associate with John F. Byrd, Jr., Esquire, Edgefield, South Carolina. Primary practice was general and in real estate law.

10/80 - 6/83 Associate with J. Roy Berry, Esquire, Johnston, South Carolina. Practice was very general in nature, from 1982-1983, primarily in the area of domestic relations.

6/83 - present Sole practitioner in Johnston, South Carolina, general practice.

1983-1987 Served part time as Public Defender for Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda Counties

1988-1989 Served part time as Assistant Solicitor for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Town Attorney for the Town of Johnston

14. Frequency of appearance in court:

Federal - approximately 3

State - approximately 600

Other - approximately 300

15. Percentage of litigation:

Civil - approximately 5%

Criminal - approximately 65%

Domestic - approximately 30%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:

Jury - approximately 2%

Non-jury - approximately 98%

Generally he was sole counsel, but he began associating counsel more frequently during recent years. Some of these figures reflect service as Assistant Solicitor. On those which are related to service as Public Defender, he was sole counsel.

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

(a) State v. Mims, 335 SE2d 237, 286 S.C. 553 (1985). This case was handled as Public Defender and involved guilty but mentally ill issue and established that, where no battery occurs, it is improper to sentence a Defendant under statutes dealing with assault and battery with intent to kill. The case also defined the appropriate penalty.

(b) Calvin Jackson, et al. v. Johnston, South Carolina, U. S. District Court (1987). This was a challenge to the method of selection of members of the Town Council in Johnston, South Carolina, based upon allegations of violations of the U. S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. As Town Attorney, he associated Greg W. Anderson, Esquire, and they developed an acceptable single-member district plan which resulted in settlement of the case. This case was significant, because it involved a fundamental change in the election process and required several revisions using complicated data and law.

(c) Burnett v. Burnett, 347 SE2d 908, 290 S.C. 28 (1986), S. C. Court of Appeals. This was a domestic relations case in which he was associated with Joe F. Anderson, Jr., Esquire. It is significant, because it established the standard of review regarding Court approval of separation agreements: that they be "within the bounds of reasonableness."

(d) State v. Natha Lee Abney, General Sessions Court, Saluda County (1985). The Defendant was charged with murder for killing a voodoo practitioner. It involved a great deal of preparation regarding insanity, the then-new guilty but mentally ill law, illegal search and seizures, and black magic. It was significant because of the fascinating subject matter and the fact that the charge was reduced to involuntary manslaughter, with a probationary sentence.

(e) In Re the Estate of Herron, Aiken County Probate Court (1983-1987). This was a very protracted contest involving numerous hearings to establish the validity of a common law marriage, the right of his client to inherit from the deceased, and the extent and valuation of a small estate. He considered the case significant in his career, because it required the most tenacity to continue to persevere and prevail so many times.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

He does not recall any civil appeals that he has personally handled at the appellate level, though he has assisted with the preparation of briefs and has been trial attorney on non-jury civil post conviction relief actions which were handled on appeal by the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

He served for four years as Public Defender for Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda Counties. Thereafter, he served for one year as Assistant Solicitor for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Any criminal matters which he handled at that time that were pursued on appeal would have been under the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense or the Attorney General's Office. (See for example State v. Mims cited in question 17a).

22. Public Office: He has been a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives from District 82, 1989 to present.

23. Unsuccessful candidate: He was defeated in a special primary election in February, 1987, for the South Carolina House of Representatives, District 82, seeking to fill the unexpired term of the Honorable Joe F. Anderson, Jr.

24. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law: None other than part-time employment while going to school.
27. He has no potential conflicts of interest apparent in any financial arrangements or business relationships.

33. His health is good. His last physical was on 3/30/90 by Dr. Hugh Morgan, 605 Lee Street, Johnston, South Carolina 29832.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar, Criminal Law Section; Edgefield County Bar Association, President, 1985, Treasurer, 1983 - present; Tri-County Bar Association

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

Member of the Edgefield United Methodist Church, Sunday School Teacher and Associate Lay Leader; Mason, Concordia Lodge Number 50; March of Dimes, Chairman of 1990 WalkAmerica; American Cancer Society, Steering Committee for ACS Golf Tournament; Outstanding Young Men in America, twice selected; Board Member, Local Board of Boy Scouts of America; Dixie Youth Baseball coach; Edgefield County Bar Association, Treasurer; Tri-County Bar Association; Board Member, Greenwood, Edgefield, McCormick Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Jaycees: During the past five years, he has served on the state level as Vice-President of the South Carolina Jaycees and as state legal counsel. On the local level, he has been President of the Edgefield Jaycees twice, the last time being within the past five years, and during that time he served as Chairman of the Board and a member of the Board of Directors. He was selected as the only Edgefield Jaycee to ever receive the highest honor bestowed by Jaycees International, JCI Senator.

41. He has spent over 12 years in general legal practice, including serving as Public Defender, Assistant Solicitor and Town Attorney. Throughout his adult life, he has established a record of extensive public service through community organizations. Service in the South Carolina House of Representatives has required making decisions on the public record which had significant impact on the lives of individuals, and the fires of the political process have required an ability to successfully relate to people and their problems. He respectfully submits that this broad-based exposure to real life is a significant qualification to service in this esteemed judicial office.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Dorothy M. Baughcome, Assistant Vice President

Republic National Bank

Box 457, Johnston, South Carolina 29832

(b) Greg W. Anderson, Esquire

P. O. Box 507, Edgefield, SC 29824

(c) C. David Sawyer, Jr., Esquire

P. O. Box 1318, Lexington, SC 29072

(d) G. W. Rauton, III, DVM

P. O. Box 326, Johnston, SC 29832

(e) Donald V. Myers, Solicitor

Eleventh Judicial Circuit

Lexington County Courthouse Annex

105 South Lake Drive, Lexington, SC 29072

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED OF ANY KIND AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE EDGEFIELD CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF EDGEFIELD COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. WE HAVE SEEN THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND THEY APPEAR TO BE IN ORDER. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD ONE COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. WILLIAM R. WILCOX, WHO WOULD BE HERE.
REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: COULD YOU EXCUSE US FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES. WE HAVE A VOTE ON THE BOND BILL.
SENATOR POPE: YOU WOULD LIKE US TO BE IN RECESS?
REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. SENATOR POPE: WE'LL RECESS. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS.

SENATOR POPE: WE ARE BACK NOW AFTER A BRIEF RECESS.
Q YOU WANT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD THESE THREE RESOLUTIONS?
A YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. SUBMITTED WITH AN AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED, EDGEFIELD AND SALUDA COUNTIES AND MCCORMICK COUNTIES, RECEIVED BY ME AFTER THE DAY FOR THE FILING. THE ONE I AM SUBMITTING TO YOU TODAY IS THE MCCORMICK COUNTY RESOLUTION.
Q WE WILL MAKE THESE RESOLUTIONS PART OF THE RECORD.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )

) R E S O L U T I O N
COUNTY OF SALUDA )

WHEREAS, William P. Keesley has served the people of South Carolina with distinction in various elective and legal positions, and

WHEREAS, during his practice of law William P. Keesley has exhibited traits of fairness, compassion, patience, thoughtfulness, dedication, leadership and outstanding legal ability, and

WHEREAS, the Saluda County Bar appreciates the many professional courtesies which have always been shown them by Mr. Keesley, and

WHEREAS, the Saluda County Bar does highly and enthusiastically support the nomination of William P. Keesley for election as Resident Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Saluda County Bar Association that William P. Keesley is hereby publicly commended for his service as a member of the bar of this State and he is enthusiastically endorsed for election as Resident Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina.

AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.

SALUDA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

/s/Billy C. Coleman, President

March 1, 1991
(Larry E. Gentry, Esquire, was not asked to participate in the adoption of this Resolution because of his service on the Judicial Screening Committee.)
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
) R E S O L U T I O N
COUNTY OF EDGEFIELD )

WHEREAS, William P. Keesley is a candidate for judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, and

WHEREAS, the Edgefield County Bar is familiar with William P. Keesley and his background and qualifications, and

WHEREAS, the Edgefield County Bar believes that William P. Keesley would make an excellent circuit court judge and be a credit to the bench,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edgefield County Bar unanimously supports the candidacy of William P. Keesley for judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

THIS 1st day of March, 1991.

/s/John F. Byrd, Jr., President

Edgefield County Bar

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
) R E S O L U T I O N
COUNTY OF McCORMICK )

WHEREAS, William Paul Keesley has been a member of the South Carolina Bar since November, 1972, is an active General Practitioner practicing in the town of Johnston, Edgefield County, and

WHEREAS, Mr. Keesley served for four years as Public Defender for Tri-County Public Defender Association, consisting of Edgefield, McCormick and Saluda Counties, with distinction, and

WHEREAS, the said Mr. Keesley also served as Assistant Solicitor for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for a period of one year, and

WHEREAS, said Mr. Keesley has had extensive trial experience, both civil and criminal in the Circuit Courts of this State, practiced extensively before the Bar, and

WHEREAS, said Mr. Keesley has filed for election as the resident judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit because of the resignation of the Honorable Hubert E. Long, and

WHEREAS, the said Mr. Keesley is highly qualified for election to such position.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bar Association of McCormick County that the Bar Association highly supports and endorses the candidacy of William Paul Keesley and urges his election by the members of the General Assembly.

Q I THINK I MENTIONED JUST BEFORE WE BROKE THAT WE DID HAVE ONE COMPLAINT AND WE WILL FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE WE FOLLOWED EARLIER. WE WILL LET THE COMPLAINANT MAKE HIS STATEMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN WE WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND, RATHER THAN ASK YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THEM NOW, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
A THAT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME, YES.
Q MR. KEESLEY, ON THE QUESTION THAT YOU HEARD REPEATED MANY TIMES TODAY ABOUT ROBE-ITIS AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND HOW IMPORTANT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT IT IS TO OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WHAT OBSERVATIONS WOULD YOU MAKE ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO AVOID ROBE-ITIS IF YOU WERE ELECTED?
A MR. CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE WHO HAVE ENCOURAGED ME TO SEEK THIS SEAT HAVE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY DONE SO BASED UPON THEIR ASSERTION TO ME THAT THEY FEEL I HAVE THE PROPER TEMPERAMENT FOR THIS. I CAN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING I WOULD DO--I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE MYSELF INDEX CARDS. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT SORT OF THING--OTHER THAN BEING THE PERSON MY MAMA AND DADDY RAISED ME TO BE. I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE SHOWN PROPER RESPECT THROUGHOUT MY CAREER; AND I WOULD LIKE TO TELL THIS COMMITTEE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN VERY RARE EXCEPTIONS WHERE I WAS NOT SHOWN PROPER RESPECT; SO, I HAVE BEEN TREATED FAIRLY BY THE BENCH. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD DO IS CONTINUE TO BE MYSELF.
Q AS FAR AS THE WORKLOAD OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WITH THE BACKLOG WE SEE EVERYWHERE, EVEN IN THE RURAL COUNTIES NOW, AND NOT TO MENTION THE THOUSANDS OF CASES THAT SEEM TO BE BACKLOGGED IN THE METROPOLITAN COUNTIES, WHAT, OR WOULD YOU FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH WORKING LATE HOURS IF IT REQUIRED IT OR WORKING FRIDAYS IF THAT WERE NECESSARY?
A NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOU ALL WHO SERVE WITH ME IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY KNOW WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE FULL-TIME JOB NOW AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A CHALLENGE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CHALLENGE; BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH THAT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK WHEN MR. WILCOX GETS UP HERE TO TESTIFY, THE INSTANCE ABOUT WHICH HE IS TALKING OCCURRED AROUND LABOR DAY WEEKEND, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY; AND I WORKED THROUGH THAT ENTIRE WEEKEND TO PREPARE THE RESPONSE THAT HE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT.
Q YOUR PRACTICE NOW IS A GENERAL PRACTICE, I BELIEVE, IS IT NOT?
A YES, SIR, VERY GENERAL IN NATURE; AND SINCE I HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO THE HOUSE I RESIGNED AS A PART-TIME ASSISTANT SOLICITOR. I FELT THAT WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND I ALSO RESIGNED AS TOWN ATTORNEY. I STILL WORK WITH THEM ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS; SO, WHAT I HAVE IS A VERY GENERAL PRACTICE AND I HAVE, AS A RESULT, OF ASSOCIATING A LOT OF CASES BECAUSE OF THE FACT I AM JUST AWAY FROM THE OFFICE, AND I AM A SOLE PRACTITIONER.
Q YES, SIR; AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE DONE FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OF PUBLIC DEFENDER WORK?
A I SERVED AS PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR FOUR YEARS IN THREE COUNTIES, EDGEFIELD, SALUDA AND MCCORMICK COUNTIES; I WAS THE ONLY PUBLIC DEFENDER. I ULTIMATELY GOT TO THE POINT WHERE THAT WAS JUST TOO MUCH TO HANDLE AND RESIGNED THAT AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE SOLICITOR CALLED ME AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD COME TO WORK WITH HIM ON A PART-TIME BASIS AND I DID THAT IN THE THREE SMALLER COUNTIES OF THE CIRCUIT. THAT WAS FAMILY COURT AND GENERAL SESSIONS.

SENATOR POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. KEESLEY?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: IF NOT, MR. KEESLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL STATEMENT OR COMMENTS?
A NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, NOT NOW, OTHER THAN TO RESPOND TO MR. WILCOX'S ACCUSATIONS.

SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT, SIR, WE WILL GIVE YOU THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AS SOON AS MR. WILCOX HAS HAD HIS SAY.
A THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU.

MR. WILCOX, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, SIR, COME TO THE END OF THE TABLE AND HAVE A SEAT.

(MR. WILCOX COMPLIED.)

SENATOR POPE: WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD?

MR. WILCOX: MY FULL NAME, SIR, IS WILLIAM ROBERT WILCOX.

SENATOR POPE: ALL RIGHT, SIR, AND PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(WILLIAM R. WILCOX, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MR. WILCOX, WE HAVE YOUR AFFIDAVIT, SWORN STATEMENT; WE HAVE THE ATTACHMENTS YOU MADE WITH THAT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO JUST PLEASE TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT COMPLAINT YOU HAVE AGAINST MR. KEESLEY; AND IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, OF COURSE, WE WILL ASK YOU THOSE.
A SENATOR POPE, AS MY STATEMENT INDICATES, THE COURSES OF ACTION OR THE COURSE OF ACTION THAT REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY CHOSE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM OF AN APPOINTMENT TO THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, I BELIEVE, VIOLATED THE LAW; AND THE SPECIFIC LAW IS 337, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT OF THE ENABLING LEGISLATION WHICH IS 571 OF 1967. THE STEPS OF APPOINTMENT TO ME ARE UNDENIABLY CLEAR; AND STEP TWO IN THAT PROCESS, MR. KEESLEY FOUND HIMSELF IN A DILEMMA BECAUSE I FEEL, I SPECULATE, SIR, THAT HAD HE APPROVED THIS MAN FOR THIS APPOINTMENT AS CALLED FOR IN STEP TWO THAT I THEN WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE WITH A COMPLAINT.
Q LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING FACTUALLY. YOU WERE SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED TO THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY?
A AM I?
Q NO; AT THAT TIME, WERE YOU?
A NO, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN IT.
Q OH, OKAY.
A I AM A CUSTOMER OF THE AUTHORITY AND THAT'S MY ONLY RELATIONSHIP, OTHER THAN THE FACT I AM CRITICAL OF IT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND YOU ARE A RESIDENT--I KNOW IT'S A NORTH AUGUSTA ADDRESS, BUT DO YOU LIVE IN EDGEFIELD?
A YES, SIR, I LIVE IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I BELIEVE, SIR, THAT THERE WERE OTHER COURSES OF ACTION THAT REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE AND, PERHAPS, PLACED HIMSELF IN A BETTER POSITION; BUT THE ONE HE CHOSE BY GETTING GUIDANCE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL, TO ME, CONVOLUTES THE LAW.
Q WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MAN NAMED TOM DORN?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND HE SERVED ON THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY FOR THE BOARD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS?
A HE DID.
Q AND HIS TERM EXPIRED?
A HIS TERM EXPIRED IN AUGUST, I BELIEVE, IN 1967.
Q AND HE CONTINUED TO SERVE EVEN THOUGH HIS TERM ENDED?
A THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE LAW, HE IS THERE BY DEFAULT; UNLESS HE DIES OR RESIGNS, HE'S SITTING ON THE BOARD WITHOUT PORTFOLIO, SO TO SPEAK.
Q UNTIL HIS SUCCESSOR IS APPOINTED?
A UNTIL A SUCCESSOR IS NAMED.
Q YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT THE LETTER THAT MR. KEESLEY WROTE TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN OF EDGEFIELD?
A THE SPECIFIC LETTER, SIR, THAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT IS THAT ONE WHICH IS DATED THE 4TH OF APRIL, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF.
Q YES, SIR.
A 1990.
Q RIGHT, YES.
A IN WHICH HE RELAYS APPARENTLY INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S SENIOR LEGAL COUNCIL ON HOW TO GET THIS MAN APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR BY BYPASSING STEP TWO OF THE LAW.
Q WELL, IN LOOKING AT THE LAW, THE COPY OF THE STATUTE YOU ARE REFERRING TO, IT SAYS THAT THE MEMBERSHIP ON THAT AUTHORITY WILL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY COUNCIL AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSE DELEGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU INDICATED THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE OR THREE GROUPS INVOLVED IN THAT APPOINTMENT, THE APPROVAL OF THE DELEGATION AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL AND THEN THE GOVERNOR ACTING TO APPOINT---
A BY MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNCIL.
Q WELL, AFTER THIS LETTER WENT IN FROM MR. KEESLEY, DID THE COUNTY COUNCIL THEN FORWARD THE NAME ON?
A THIS LETTER WAS RECEIVED--I BELIEVE YOUR COPY OF THAT LETTER WAS RECEIVED BY THE EDGEFIELD COUNCIL ON THE 5TH OF APRIL AND THAT TIME FRAME IN THE AUGUSTA AREA EVERYTHING COMES TO A SCREECHING HALT AND EVERYBODY GOES TO THE MASTERS; EITHER THEY OR THEY LEAVE TOWN AND RENT THEIR HOUSES OUT TO MASTERS VISITORS; SO, THE COUNTY COUNCIL DID NOT MEET AT ITS REGULAR COUNTY ROOM ON THE 10TH OF APRIL, BUT MET IN THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE WHICH IS RATHER UNUSUAL BECAUSE THERE WERE ISSUES, OTHERWISE THAT MAY HAVE ATTRACTED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION. I WOULD SAY THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 100 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE, INCLUDING THE LOCAL PRESS, INCLUDING THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE. COUNTY COUNCIL CONSISTS OF FIVE PEOPLE; AND COUNCIL VOTED TO SEND MR. DORN'S NAME FORWARD AS INSTRUCTED BY THE GOVERNOR'S SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL WITH MR. KEESLEY AS THE CONDUIT FOR THOSE INSTRUCTIONS. COUNTY COUNCIL DID SO; BUT COUNTY COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE VOTE. COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED TWO TO ONE; AND I HAVE A COPY OF THOSE MINUTES.
Q SO THAT---
A THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OUT OF THAT GROUP OF FIVE AND ALL FIVE WERE PRESENT.
Q THE APPOINTMENT WAS MADE THEN?
A THE APPOINTMENT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE, SIR.
Q OH, IT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE. DID THE GOVERNOR NOT APPOINT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ONLY TWO COUNTY COUNCILMEN SIGNED ONTO IT?
A I BELIEVE THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION I HAVE FROM THE GOVERNOR, AND I HAVE IT WITH ME, CITES TWO REASONS, ONE OF WHICH IS THAT IT CALLS FOR A MAJORITY OF VOTE OF COUNCIL, WHICH WAS NOT THERE IN PLACE AS OF THE 10TH OF APRIL, AND DID NOT HAVE THE APPROVAL; AND THAT LETTER WAS SIGNED BY MR. GENE BECKMAN, WHO I BELIEVE IS IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
Q DID THE COUNTY COUNCIL, DID THEY HAVE TWO ABSTENTIONS OR THEY HAD TWO PEOPLE ABSENT, OR HOW DID THAT---
A THE COUNTY CHAIRMAN DID NOT VOTE. THERE WAS ONE ABSTENTION AND THAT WAS THE AUNT OF MR. DORN-- CORRECTION, THE NIECE OF MR. DORN. THERE WERE TWO VOTES FOR MR. DORN, AND ONE VOTE AGAINST.
Q YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. KEESLEY IS THAT HE DID NOT FOLLOW THE STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS, OR THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OR WHAT?
A WELL, I THINK I PROBABLY MADE MYSELF AS CLEAR AS I COULD, SENATOR POPE; THE LETTER OF THE 4TH OF APRIL, TO ME, INDICATES THAT REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO BYPASS STEP TWO AND GET HIMSELF OFF THE HOOK; AND I DON'T KNOW IF--AGAIN, I'VE BEEN EXERTING PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL, AND I SPECULATE FURTHER, SIR, THAT MR. DORN WAS PROBABLY PUSHING THE GOVERNOR AS HARD AS HE COULD BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, HIS PEERS KNOW HE IS NOT APPOINTED ON THE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY; AND THE GOVERNOR MAY HAVE SAID TO MR. ELAM, "CHECK THIS PROBLEM OUT AND GET IT TAKEN CARE OF," WHICH MAY HAVE GENERATED THIS LETTER; BUT THE POINT IS THAT THE GOVERNOR'S SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL, TO ME, IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY WITH WHICH TO TRY TO DEAL WITH A PROBLEM OF THIS NATURE. NOW HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADVISE THE GOVERNOR ON THE GOVERNOR'S LEGAL PROBLEMS, BUT HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TELL THE HOUSE MEMBER OR THE EDGEFIELD COUNTY COUNCIL TO IGNORE THE LAW AND STEP TWO, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT, THIS LETTER WAS SIGNED BY MR. KEESLEY. MR. KEESLEY HAS BEEN WELL-AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS I HAD AGAINST MR. DORN, BUT MR. DORN IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. I FEEL THAT THERE WERE OTHER STEPS THAT REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY COULD HAVE TAKEN. FOR EXAMPLE, I WOULD HAVE SOUGHT LEGAL COUNSEL FROM THE--AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE PLACE TO HAVE GOTTEN A PERFECTLY LEGAL DOCUMENT TO WAVE IN MY FACE OR THE FACE OF DORN OR THE FACE OF MARK ELAM AND HE IS OFF THE HOOK BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOW SAID, "THIS IS THE COURSE OF ACTION THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW," WHATEVER COURSE OF ACTION THAT MIGHT BE. BUT AT LEAST HE HAD AN ELECTED LEGAL OFFICIAL OF THE STATE GIVING HIM SOME GUIDANCE. I COULD NOT ARGUE WITH THAT APPROACH. ANOTHER APPROACH HE COULD HAVE TAKEN WAS NOT DO A DOGGONE THING. THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY WAY TO GET THE MAN OFF THE BOARD UNLESS HE DIES OR RESIGNS, SO THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS RIGHT THERE. I HAVE GOT ABOUT SEVEN OTHERS IN MY BRIEFCASE THAT I THINK MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED THAT TO MR. DORN AS QUIETLY AS I COULD THAT, YOU KNOW, "THIS AFFAIR HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH AND THAT THE PROBLEM THAT MR. WILCOX FOUND WITH YOU ISN'T GOING TO GO AWAY AND THAT MR. WILCOX IS GOING TO BE LURKING THERE IN THE BACKGROUND WAITING FOR YOU TO MAKE ANOTHER MISSTEP HERE, AND HE IS GOING TO COME ROLLING OUT AGAIN. TOM, WHY DON'T YOU RESIGN?" THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION. AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN QUIETLY TOLD ABOUT IT. MR. KEESLEY HAD THE COURTESY TO SEND ME A COPY OF THIS LETTER AT THE SAME TIME HE SENT IT TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL. THE POINT IS, SENATOR POPE, OR AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRYING TO--IN MY OPINION, MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT LETTER IS ADJUSTING THE LAW; AND TO ME, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. ANOTHER OPTION THAT MR. KEESLEY MIGHT HAVE WELL-FOLLOWED WAS TO CHANGE THE LAW. AFTER ALL, HE AND SENATOR MOORE ARE OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. SENATOR MOORE HAD BEEN HERE, I GUESS, FOR SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF, AT THAT TIME, 10 OR 11 YEARS. THE LAW, TO ME, IS POORLY WRITTEN BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE MISCONDUCT UNDER THE LAW JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S POORLY WRITTEN. CHANGE THE LAW. AND EXCISE THIS DEMON THAT'S LURKING AROUND HERE. "DEMON," QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "DEMON BILL WILCOX." I'M NOT OUT AFTER BILLY KEESLEY. BILLY KEESLEY AND HIS FAMILY HAVE A FINE REPUTATION IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY, EXCEPT AS AN ACQUAINTANCE; I KNOW HIM WHEN I SEE HIM. I MAY HAVE TALKED TO HIM TWO OR THREE TIMES PRIOR TO TODAY. BUT THE POINT IS, DOES THIS LETTER REPRESENT THE KIND OF A MAN WE WANT SERVING ON THE BENCH? AND IN MY OPINION IT DOES NOT.

SENATOR POPE: REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS.

A YOU SAID COUNCIL VOTED TWO TO ONE, EVEN THOUGH ALL FIVE OF THEM WERE THERE, AND THAT STILL CONSTITUTED A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING. AND YOU SAID STEP TWO, THE DELEGATION HAS TO APPROVE HIM?
A YES, SIR.
Q WELL, WHY DID THEY NOT APPROVE IT?
A WELL, YOU CAN ASK MR. KEESLEY.
Q IS HE THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION?
A HE IS THE ONLY HOUSE DELEGATION MEMBER FROM EDGEFIELD COUNTY.
Q THAT WAS PRIOR TO YOUR ELECTION TO THE HOUSE?
A SIR?
Q IS THAT PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION TO THE HOUSE? HE WAS THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION? I MEAN HE WAS THE DELEGATION?
A THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EDGEFIELD COUNTY IS A SINGLE HOUSE DELEGATION MEMBER, SIR.
Q HE SUBSEQUENTLY DID NOT RECOMMEND WHAT COUNCIL HAD VOTED BY A MAJORITY?
A NO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS COURSE OF ACTION HAD BEEN ON THAT, SIR. I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
Q YOU SAID WHILE AGO YOU QUESTIONED STEP TWO BEING LEFT OUT OF THE PROCEDURE?
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT WAS THE AUTHORITY OF THE DELEGATION?
A YES, SIR, THE APPROVAL.

Q CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT STEP TWO WAS THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSE MEMBER AND---
A YES, SIR.
Q ---HE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM BEING INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN THE ATTORNEY FOR THE WATER AUTHORITY AT SOME POINT IN TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?
A PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A BUT I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THE HOUSE MEMBER AT THAT TIME, JOHN PETTIGREW, DIDN'T APPROVE THE MAN EITHER, WHICH I POINTED OUT IN MY STATEMENT. SO BY POLITICAL PARTY AND BY HOUSE DELEGATION, THE MAN HAS YET TO BE APPROVED; SO, STEP TWO HAS NEVER BEEN COMPLETED AND YET HERE WE COME WITH THIS LETTER THAT SUGGESTS THERE IS A WAY TO OUT AND AVOID STEP TWO, AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN DO THAT.

SENATOR POPE: SENATOR MCCONNELL WANTS TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
A YES, SENATOR MCCONNELL.

Q MR. WILCOX, THE PROBLEM I GUESS I'M HAVING WITH YOUR EXPLANATION, AND I NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US, REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY HAD EXCUSED HIMSELF OR RECUSED HIMSELF BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST; SO, THERE WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY WITH HIS ABSENCE FOR THERE TO BE ANY VOTE BY ANY HOUSE MEMBER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS MY OPINION.
Q BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY ONE.
A THAT'S MY OPINION.
Q HE'S THE ONLY ONE. THE QUESTION YOU RAISED ABOUT THE COUNTY COUNCIL, THE TWO AND ONE, WHEN I LOOK AT THE STATUTE, THE STATUTE SEEMS TO SAY "A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS," AND NOT A MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT TAKES THREE VOTES AND NOT TWO VOTES IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NOMINATION FOR THE COUNTY.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BUT WHAT YOU NEED TO, I GUESS, EXPLAIN TO ME IS BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY ACTED VERY PROPERLY BY RECUSING HIMSELF FOR A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST; AND WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER HOUSE MEMBER TO VOTE, THERE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO HAVE THE HOUSE DELEGATION; SO, IF YOU HAD THREE VOTES IT THEN WOULD GO TO THE GOVERNOR'S HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE IT COULD BE DONE. THAT'S--AND I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR COMPLAINT BECAUSE HE HAS EXCUSED HIMSELF AND THAT IS WHAT HIS LETTER DOES? I'M NOT--AM I MISSING SOMETHING OR?
A WELL, THAT--IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT IN THAT DIRECTION, YES; BUT, TO ME, THE LAW IS CLEAR. STEP ONE IS THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNTY COUNCIL OF EDGEFIELD COUNTY RECOMMEND. IT THEN DOES NOT SAY THE HOUSE APPROVES UNLESS THERE IS SOME REASON THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE VALID THAT THE HOUSE MEMBER EXCUSE HIMSELF.
Q SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF HE COULDN'T VOTE ON IT, THAT HE COULDN'T SEND--NO NAME COULD BE SENT UP; THAT THERE HAD TO BE A NAME SENT UP THAT ONLY HE COULD VOTE ON? IS THAT--AM I UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY?
A THAT'S THE WAY I READ THE LAW.
Q ALL RIGHT; I JUST NEEDED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

Q BUT THEY DIDN'T SEND THE NAME UP; AS I READ IT, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A MAJORITY, THEY NEVER SENT A NAME UP; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, WE'RE NOT HERE--I'M NOT HERE TO CONDEMN EDGEFIELD COUNTY COUNCIL.
Q WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
A BECAUSE I DO THAT WITH THEM AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THEY DID SEND THE NAME FORWARD.
Q OKAY.
A AND RIGHT AFTER THAT I SENT 34 PAGES OF MATERIAL TO THE GOVERNOR.
Q SO THAT IS WHEN THE GOVERNOR'S RESPONSE CAME.
A THE GOVERNOR AND MARK ELAM HAVE NEVER RESPONDED AS FAR AS I KNOW. I GUESS I BUGGED MR. ELAM SO MUCH ABOUT IT THAT--AND MR. DORN IS PROBABLY BUGGING THE GOVERNOR--AND I WAS BUGGING THE COUNTY COUNCIL--THAT ELAM PROBABLY TURNED AROUND AND SAID, "THIS THING IS GETTING CRAZY, MR. BECKMAN," WHICH IS PROBABLY WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO BEGIN WITH; SO, MR. BECKMAN IS NOW INVOLVED. AND I COUNTED 140 SOME ODD DAYS OF NO ACTION AND NO ACTIVITY FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: WE NEED TO BE EXCUSED TO VOTE ON THE BOND BILL, IF WE CAN.

SENATOR POPE: EXCUSE ME; WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS, MR. WILCOX.

(RECESS FROM 12:57 P.M. TO 1:10 P.M.)

SENATOR POPE: LET'S GO BACK ON THE RECORD.

A HAS THIS GENTLEMAN, HAS HE BEEN APPOINTED NOW?
A NO, SIR, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: MR. HENDRICKS.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: MR. CHAIRMAN,

MR. WILCOX SOUNDS LIKE HE SHOULD BE RUNNING FOR COUNCIL OR THE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY. I PROPOSE MAYBE MR. KEESLEY CAN PUT THIS THING MORE IN PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

SENATOR POPE: MR. WILCOX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? I THINK WE HAVE COVERED ALL THE POINTS.
A NO. I MEAN, CAN I LISTEN TO REPRESENTATIVE KEESLEY'S RESPONSE?

SENATOR POPE: SURE, YES, SIR.
A I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT, IF I MAY. IN MY LETTER WHERE I HAVE GIVEN GRADES, THE LAST PAGE, I WANT YOU TO READ THAT SENTENCE BEFORE THOSE GRADES ARE ISSUED, IF YOU WOULD. MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD THERE TO ME IS THE WORD "SINGULAR." THANK YOU.
SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT MR. KEESLEY, PLEASE.

RESPONSE BY MR. KEESLEY:

MR. KEESLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE; I HAD HOPED TO AVOID GOING THROUGH THIS ENTIRELY BUT I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED, SO, FACTUALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH YOU FIRST TO TELL YOU ALL WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS AND TO RELAY TO YOU THAT MOST OF THE INFORMATION YOU HEARD TODAY IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER HEARD IT. OF ALL THE THINGS I HAVE EVER DONE IN MY PUBLIC, PRIVATE, OR PROFESSIONAL LIFE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEAST THING I EXPECTED TO BE DEFENDING BEFORE YOU TODAY. WELL OVER A YEAR BEFORE I WAS ELECTED TO THE WATER AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY HIRED ME TO REPRESENT THEM IN THIS MATTER. MR. DORN'S APPOINTMENT HAD COME UP AND THE PROCEDURE NORMALLY WAS FOR THE WATER AUTHORITY BOARD TO RECOMMEND A PERSON TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL, AND IN THIS CASE THEY HAD ALREADY RECOMMENDED MR. DORN FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO A SIX-YEAR TERM. WHEN THAT MATTER CAME BEFORE COUNTY COUNCIL, MR. WILCOX APPEARED AND ACCUSED MR. DORN OF CONSISTENTLY VIOLATING THE LAW AND USING HIS OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN. I MET WITH VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING TALKING AT LENGTH WITH MR. DORN ABOUT THIS VERY MATTER. I REVIEWED THE RECORDS; I LISTENED TO THE TAPES; I TALKED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR; AND I CALLED AND TALKED WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION. WITHIN FIVE DAYS, AND THAT INCLUDES THE LABOR DAY HOLIDAY, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, BUT WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF COUNTY COUNCIL'S LETTER TO THE WATER AUTHORITY, I HAD A DETAILED RESPONSE--I THINK IT WAS SIX OR SEVEN PAGES--TO THEM OVER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE RESPONDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS WHICH MR. WILCOX HAD MADE AGAINST THE AUTHORITY AND AGAINST MR. DORN. OBVIOUSLY MR. DORN'S INTERESTS IN SOME RESPECTS WERE SEPARATE, BUT I DID TALK WITH HIM AT LENGTH ABOUT THE MATTER, AND HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD. COUNTY COUNCIL REVIEWED THAT RESPONSE AND MR. WILCOX'S REBUTTAL AND THEY DECIDED TO RECOMMEND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF MR. DORN. NOW I AM NOT IN THE LEGISLATURE NOW. IT'S BEEN WELL OVER A YEAR BEFORE I AM ELECTED. AND SO FAR AS I KNEW, THAT WAS THE END OF THE MATTER. AFTER I WAS ELECTED TO THE HOUSE, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, AND I CANNOT TELL YOU EXACTLY WHEN, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY---

MR. KEESLEY: I HAVE ALL THAT, THANK YOU, SIR. ---IN WHICH I LEARNED THAT THIS APPOINTMENT HAD NEVER BEEN FINALIZED. NOW MR. WILCOX ASSERTS TO YOU THAT MR. PETTIGREW DISAPPROVED THAT APPOINTMENT, DID NOT APPROVE IT. MR. WILCOX ASSERTS TO YOU THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS IN SOME RESPECTS DISAPPROVED THAT APPOINTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE EVER HEARD ANYBODY DISAPPROVED THE APPOINTMENT. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION ON IT. AND I THINK MR. WILCOX MADE REFERENCE TO POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS AND REASONS WHY THEY MIGHT JUST WANT TO BE SITTING ON THIS APPOINTMENT; BUT THAT IS JUST CONJECTURE. I IMMEDIATELY TOLD THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER FOR ME AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE TO PURSUE THAT APPOINTMENT OR TO DISAPPROVE THAT APPOINTMENT BECAUSE I HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT WAS DIRECTLY ON POINT AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF INTERVENING CONVERSATIONS, BUT NOW I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW THIS LETTER CAME ABOUT TO MARK ELAM AND TO COUNTY COUNCIL. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT IN EARLY 1990 MR.-- APPARENTLY MR. WILCOX WAS EXERTING A GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE ON COUNTY COUNCIL AND I DID NOT KNOW HE WAS DOING THAT, EXCEPT JUST SPECULATION AGAIN. I HAD A CONVERSATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL--EXCUSE ME, IT WAS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH HE QUESTIONED THE STATUS OF THE APPOINTMENT AND I TOLD HIM ABOUT THE CONFLICT AND TOLD HIM WHAT I KNEW; AND HE SAID MR. WILCOX HAD BEEN QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT THAT. LATER, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, MR. WILCOX HIMSELF CALLS ME AND I TELL HIM THE SAME THING: I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I CANNOT GET INVOLVED. I TELL HIM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT. HE TELLS ME, AND THIS IS ALMOST A VERBATIM QUOTE, HE SAYS, "I AM GLAD TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF MY CALL WAS TO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU GET INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION." AND I TELL MR. WILCOX HE HAS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE I HAVE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THAT CONFLICT POSITION AND I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT, AND I WILL KEEP HIM ABREAST OF ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. VERY, VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I BELIEVE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL CONTACTED ME AND HE KNEW OF MY CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITUATION, BUT WE WERE AT SQUARE ONE; THIS WAS A 1987 APPOINTMENT. WE WERE IN 1990 NOW. ALL HE WANTED TO KNOW WAS WHAT HAD TO BE DONE PROCEDURALLY TO GET THIS THING OFF OF SQUARE ONE, AND ASKED ME TO DO WHATEVER I COULD, WITH THE CONFLICT SITUATION IN MIND, IN THAT REGARD. SO I CONTACTED THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND WAS REFERRED TO THE SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL. IF THE GOVERNOR HAD TALKED TO ME, I WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO TALK TO HIM. IF MR. WHATEVER THE OTHER GENTLEMAN'S NAME HE SAID WAS REFERRED TO ME, I WOULD BE GLAD TO TALK TO HIM; BUT I WAS REFERRED TO THE SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL. AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM MY CONFLICT AND THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE SOME DIRECTION AS TO WHAT TO DO. BECAUSE OF THE LAPSE OF TIME, AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT I DID WAS I DRAFTED THAT LETTER THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. MR. WILCOX HAS SAID I SENT HIM A BLIND COPY OF THAT LETTER SO HE WOULD KNOW THAT HE COULD GO TO COUNTY COUNCIL AND RAISE CAIN, AND HE COULD GO TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND RAISE CAIN. I EXPLAINED IN THE LETTER THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT AND I COMMUNICATED TO COUNTY COUNCIL WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE HAD TOLD ME. NOW THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I KNOW ABOUT THAT IS THAT I RECEIVED A COPY OF A LETTER DATED APRIL 17, 1990, THAT I HAVE IN WHICH THE COUNTY COUNCIL NOTIFIED THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE THAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDING REAPPOINTMENT OF MR. DORN. I HAD NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS TWO AND ONE BUSINESS UNTIL TODAY. I ASSUMED THAT THE NIECE OF MR. DORN EXCUSED HERSELF QUITE PROPERLY, AND THAT THE PROCEDURE GENERALLY IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY IS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DOES NOT VOTE EXCEPT IN CASES OF A TIE; SO, BUT THAT ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. MR. WILCOX REMINDS ME OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE I GET APPOINTED TO ON POST-CONVICTION RELIEF CASES; AND I'M NOT IN ANY WAY ASSERTING THAT HE HAS ANY ASSOCIATION WITH THEM AS FAR AS BEING CRIMINAL OR ANYTHING; BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE SO WEDDED TO AN ISSUE THAT THEY FIND ONE LITTLE SENTENCE IN THE LAW AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF OTHER LAWS. NOW YOU ALL KNOW I SERVE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE; YOU ALL KNOW WE HAVE BEEN LOCKED UP PRETTY MUCH IN THE ETHICS BILL SINCE MR. WILCOX'S REPORT CAME; AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HE CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO--THAT HE FELT COMPELLED TO COME OVER HERE AND TESTIFY AGAINST ME; BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TO DO ANY RESEARCH, BUT I HAVE DONE A LITTLE LAST NIGHT, AND IF THE AIDE WOULD HELP ME. GIVE ONE TO MR. WILCOX, TOO. (DOCUMENT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TO MR. WILCOX.)
MR. KEESLEY: THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT TO PASS OUT TO YOU, AND I KNOW THAT THESE ARE NOT CURRENT RULES THAT WE OPERATE UNDER, BUT THEY WERE AT THE TIME; THESE ARE THE CANNONS OF ETHICS FOR LAWYERS AND THEY ARE RULES OF DISCIPLINE. NOW IF YOU WOULD PLEASE READ WITH ME ETHICAL CONSIDERATION 8-8: LAWYERS OFTEN SERVE AS LEGISLATORS DESIRABLE, AS LAWYERS ARE UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM. A LAWYER WHO IS A PUBLIC OFFICER, WHETHER FULL OR PART-TIME, SHOULD NOT ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES IN WHICH HIS PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS ARE OR FORESEEABLY MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES. IF THAT IS NOT ON POINT, GENTLEMEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. I WAS PROHIBITED AS A LAWYER/LEGISLATOR FROM PARTICIPATING IN THAT PROCESS TO ANY DEGREE OTHER THAN WHAT I DID. THE DISCIPLINARY RULE WHICH Y'ALL KNOW IS MANDATORY WHICH FOLLOWS, THE CLOSEST THING I CAN GET TO THAT 8-101A SUB 2 WOULD READ, PARAPHRASED, THAT A LAWYER WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE SHALL NOT USE HIS PUBLIC POSITION TO INFLUENCE OR ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE A TRIBUNAL TO ACT IN FAVOR OF HIMSELF OR A CLIENT. IF I HAD TAKEN THAT ACTION, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO EXERT INFLUENCE IN FAVOR OF A CLIENT. THE POSITION--IF YOU TAKE THE POSITION THAT MR. DORN WASN'T MY CLIENT, THE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY CERTAINLY WAS; AND THAT WAS THEIR POSITION AND THEY HAD NO INTENT OF BACKING OFF OF IT. YOU ALSO ARE AWARE THAT CANNON 9 OF THESE SAME RULES PROVIDES THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY TO AVOID IMPROPRIETIES, BUT APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETIES AND THE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONTAINED IN CANNON 9 TELL YOU THAT IF THERE IS NO EXPLICIT ETHICAL FORMULA--THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD--EXPLICIT ETHICAL DIRECTION, THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CONDUCT YOURSELF IN A MANNER WHICH BRINGS HONOR TO THE PROFESSION AND RESPECT FOR THE PROFESSION. NOW AS A HOUSE MEMBER, I ALSO OPERATE UNDER THE HOUSE RULES AND IF YOU WILL ASSIST ME ONCE AGAIN. (DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TO MR. WILCOX.)
MR. KEESLEY: THESE HOUSE RULES ARE DRAWN IN THE MINDSET OF US VOTING ON VARIOUS MATTERS, SO THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED; BUT THE RULE 3.1, IF YOU WOULD READ WITH ME, AND I'M SKIPPING DOWN TO WHERE THE WORD "EXCEPT" BEGINS ON LINE 2: EXCEPT THAT NO MEMBER SHALL BE PERMITTED TO VOTE ON ANY QUESTION IMMEDIATELY CONCERNING HIS PRIVATE RIGHTS AS DISTINCT FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IF YOU INTERPRET "VOTE" IN THIS INSTANCE TO MEAN TAKING ACTION UPON AN APPOINTMENT, THEN I THINK CLEARLY I AM PROHIBITED UNDER RULE 3.1 FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONDUCT BECAUSE MY PRIVATE RIGHTS AS AN ATTORNEY AND MY PRIVATE OBLIGATIONS AS AN ATTORNEY WOULD BE IN CONFLICT, AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO AND, FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAND TO YOU ALL THE ETHICS LAW THAT WE ALL OPERATE UNDER AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS. (DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND TO MR. WILCOX.)
MR. KEESLEY: AND, AGAIN, IN INTERPRETING--THERE HAS TO BE SOME INTERPRETATION OF THIS BECAUSE IT HAS A MINDSET THAT WE ARE BEING DRAFTED TO PROHIBIT US FROM BEING INVOLVED IN MATTERS WHERE WE HAVE A DIRECT PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL INTEREST, BUT I POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THIS IS PRECISELY THE CODE SECTION THAT MR. WILCOX CHALLENGED MR. DORN ON; AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT MR. DORN--EXCUSE ME--MR. WILCOX'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL WHICH WAS WRITTEN CONTAINED THE STATEMENT BY HIM THAT HE IS PROBABLY THE ONLY PERSON IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE ETHICS LAWS. THIS SAYS SECTION 8-13-460, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU HOW I INTERPRET WHAT I SHOULD DO; THIS SAYS THAT IF WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING OUR BUSINESS THAT WE SHOULD DELIVER A COPY AND WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THAT, AND THIS SAYS TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE LEGISLATIVE--WELL, THAT MAKES NO SENSE IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, HAS NO AUTHORITY TO APPOINT; THE GOVERNOR DOES. SO IT SAYS YOU SHOULD DELIVER A WRITTEN STATEMENT EXPLAINING YOUR CONFLICT AND THEN YOU EXCUSE YOURSELF. NOW, GENTLEMEN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ETHICAL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MR. WILCOX IS HERE TODAY QUESTIONING MY JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER; BUT THAT'S FOR YOU ALL TO DECIDE AND NOT ME. I WILL BE GLAD TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. KEESLEY; I THINK YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THE MATTER FACTUALLY AND OTHERWISE AND THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THIS LETTER YOU FELT THAT YOU HAD A CONFLICT; YOU EXPRESSED THAT CONFLICT IN THE LETTER AND DECLINED TO GET INVOLVED FOR THE REASONS YOU JUST GAVE US. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR SCREENING?

(NOTHING INDICATED.)

SENATOR POPE: IF NOT, WE WILL PROCEED WITH JUDGE MARC H. WESTBROOK.
(MARC H. WESTBROOK, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q JUDGE, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND IT WAS TOTALLY ACCURATE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR; YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q WE WILL DO SO.

1. Marc Herbert Westbrook

Home Address: Business Address

115 Cedar Lane Parkway Lexington County Courthouse

W. Columbia, SC 29169 Lexington, SC 29072

2. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on October 3, l946. He is presently 44 years old.

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

4. He was married to Linda Louise Lawhon on August 23, l969. They have 2 children: Thadeous Herbert, III, age 16, and Richard Neal, age l3.

5. Military Service: None.

6. He attended Anderson Junior College, l964-l966, A.A. Degree; the University of South Carolina, l966-l968, B.A. Degree; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, l968 - l970, no degree--left for law school; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1970-l973, J.D. Degree.

7. At Anderson College he was involved in Student Government, Debate Team, Track Team, Baptist Student Union (President), Annie Denmark Society, Graduation Marshall, Honor Society, and Who's Who in American Junior Colleges. At the University of South Carolina he was involved in the Baptist Student Union (State President), Concert Choir, and Alpha Phi Omega. At the University of South Carolina School of Law, he was on the Moot Court Team and the Prince Court Competition (2nd place).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

A minimum of 18 hours per year

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

Seminar on Domestic Abuse Act (1985)

Seminar for South Carolina Social Workers Association (1989)

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1973-1979 Bryan, Crosby & Bates - Associate, general practice

l979-1980 Turnipseed, Dew & Westbrook - Partner, general practice

l980-1983 Sole Practitioner, general practice

l983 Westbrook & Dolce - Partner, general practice

l983-present Family Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit

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

(a) Smith v. Smith. Strongly contested equitable distribution case which pivoted around the level of contribution of a housewife who did not work outside the home. It was significant in the late 1970's when the question of a housewife's contributions was still being debated extensively. The trial lasted two days on this issue.

(b) Tollison v. Tollison. Another equitable distribution case, this time involving a housewife whose husband had an extensive business network and substantial investment properties. The two major questions were the value of his assistance in acquiring the businesses and the impact of adultery on equitable distribution.

(c) George v. D.S.S.. A case in which a non-custodial parent sought the return of a child after the child had been removed from the home of the custodial parent. The more interesting question, however, was the rights of foster parents and whether they had a right to intervene.

(d) D.S.S. v. Bowman. This was a termination of parental rights case. The major issue here was the level of rehabilitation of the parents and whether it was enough to order the children not separated from the parents legally. One matter that kept popping up was that of problems with some of the terminology in the old termination statute.

(e) State v. Baughman, et al.. This was a criminal case in which 11 men were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The trial listed a week and a half and involved close questions in the area of conspiracy.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Hendrix v. Mason, et al.. This appeal involved the question of a circuit judge handling a domestic issue when it was wrapped in other issues. The Supreme Court, without hearing, remanded it to the Family Court to hear the domestic issues.

(b) _______________ v. _______________. This case involved the nature of contempt (civil v. criminal) in the Family Court.

(c) Murphy v. Goff. This case involved the question of approval of an agreement, particularly as to areas relating to the children which had been left out in an earlier hearing. Disposed of by the old Rule 23.

20. Judicial Office: He was Deputy Recorder for the Town of Springdale, l975-l976, (jurisdiction limited to the town). He has been an Eleventh Circuit Family Court Judge from 1983 to the present.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Griffin v. Inman (not appealed): This case involved the question of grandparent visitation in a situation where the natural parent were still intact, i.e., had never been separated or divorced, nor had marital problems of any kind. His Order denied the visitation.

(b) In Re ___________: This was a juvenile case in which the Defendant was charged with the murder of her brother. This was a waiver hearing where the question of mental illness played a major factor in deciding whether to waive the case to General Sessions. The Order denied the waiver and ordered the juvenile tried in Family Court. (Name can be supplied to the Committee confidentially, if needed for verification purposes).

(c) Hall v. Fleming: This involved the question of deceased mother's parents (i.e., the maternal grandparents) requesting visitation rights with child. The complicating factor was the fact that the father was a Jehovah's Witness and the grandparents were Lutherans. Serious religious difference were involved.

(d) Wood v. Wood: This case involved questions of equitable distribution and alimony, particularly pivoting around the question of the father's ability to continue working two jobs in addition to his profession as a professor.

(e) Byrd v. D.S.S., et al.: This was a termination of parental rights and adoption case which involved parents who were admittedly unable to maintain parental rights for their children, along with the question of whether to allow grandparents or foster parents to adopt.

22. Public Office: He was elected to Lexington County Council, serving as Chairman, l976-1978, and was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, l978-1983.

23. He was an unsuccessful candidate in l974 for the South Carolina House of Representatives.

30. Tax Lien: A South Carolina tax lien was filed in error in November, l983, but was withdrawn.

31. Sued: He has been sued in his capacity as Chairman of the Lexington County Council and as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. They were filed neither personally nor professionally against him.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in January of 1991, by Dr. David Hobbs, #7 Clusters Court, Irmo, South Carolina.

35. He wears glasses to correct slight nearsightedness.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

South Carolina Bar; Lexington County Trial Lawyers; Lexington County Bar; American Trial Lawyers; South Carolina Family Court Judges' Council; and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Springdale Anderson College, Board of Trustees; Springdale Baptist Church, Deacon; Congaree Baptist Church, Music Director; Dixie Youth Baseball, President, Coach; Recreation League Football, President; Recreation League Basketball, Coach; Woodmen of the World; and Masons.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Robert N. Hubbs, Executive Vice President

The Lexington State Bank

P. O. Box 8, Lexington, South Carolina 29072-0008

(b) H. Hugh Rogers, Esquire

P. O. Box 396, Lexington, SC 29071

(c) Preston H. Callison, Esquire

P. O. Box 6009, West Columbia, SC 29171-6009

(d) Carroll E. McGee

McGee Auction Company

1458-F 560 Meeting Street, West Columbia, SC 29169

(e) Wendell W. Pace

Minister of Music and Education

Springdale Baptist Church

153 Grimsby Lane, West Columbia, SC 29169

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SITTING JUDGE, HAS RECORDED NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE WEST COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND THE F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS AGAINST YOU, ALSO. AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A HOUSE MEMBER AND AS A CHAIRMAN OF COUNTY COUNCIL; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU JUST TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT THOSE SUITS WERE?
A WELL, I BELIEVE THE SUIT ON COUNTY COUNCIL WAS WHEN I WAS CHAIRMAN OF COUNTY COUNCIL OF LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR TWO YEARS. IN FACT OF THE TWO YEARS THAT I SERVED, I WAS CHAIRMAN BOTH YEARS; SO, I GOT A RATHER JAUNDICED VIEW OF COUNTY COUNCIL TO BE HONEST. BUT AS I RECALL, WE WERE SERVED BY A--WE WERE SUED BY A FIREMAN WHO WAS FIRED BY THE COUNTY; AND WHAT HE DID WAS JUST NAMED EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL AND EVERYBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS WHO WERE INVOLVED; AND I THINK THAT CASE WAS SETTLED, AS I RECALL.
Q YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A HEARING OR A DEPOSITION IN THAT MATTER OR ANYTHING?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS. I DON'T RECALL FOR SURE, BUT I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS. THE ATTORNEYS HANDLED MOST OF THAT.
Q THIS HAS BEEN SOME YEARS AGO?
A YES, SIR, IT WAS 1977, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE OTHER SUIT WAS--I BELIEVE IT WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST THE ENTIRETY OF THE LEGISLATURE AND I WAS SIMPLY NAMED BECAUSE I WAS A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE; AND I, FRANKLY--THIS POPS UP EVERY TIME I COME UP FOR CHAIRMAN, I STILL DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE EXCELLENT.
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS APPEAR TO BE SATISFACTORY. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE WRITTEN COMPLAINTS THAT ARE IN THE RECORD. I THINK TWO OF THE PEOPLE WHO SENT IN COMPLAINTS SAID THEY WOULD NOT BE HERE. MS. BENSON: TWO ARE HERE TODAY AND ONE ASKED THAT HIS COMPLAINT BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE OF LETTING THE COMPLAINANT TESTIFY AND GIVING YOU A CHANCE TO REBUT WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. AS FAR AS THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE BEEN ASKING ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, DO YOU CONCUR ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT AS A SITTING JUDGE?
A YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE SEEN THIS QUESTION INVOLVED MORE IN FAMILY COURT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A FAMILY COURT JUDGE. I HAVE SEEN IT PROBABLY AS MUCH AS ANY JUDGE. WHEN PEOPLE WALK INTO MY COURTROOM AT THE END OF A PERIOD OF DOMESTIC LITIGATION, THEY PRETTY-WELL HAVE BEEN THE GAMUT OF EMOTIONS. THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE ANGER AND THE FEAR AND THE HURT AND REJECTION, AND THEY COME INTO THAT COURTROOM AND THEY BRING THOSE EMOTIONS INTO MY COURTROOM, AND I TRY TO REALIZE THAT. EACH TIME THEY COME IN, I REALIZE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT SORT OF THING. NOW I TRY TO MAKE MY COURTROOM A COMFORTABLE PLACE FOR THEM TO BE. SOME LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU THAT FROM TIME TO TIME I WILL SMILE AT LITIGANTS. IF THEY SMILE AT ME, I'LL SMILE BACK TO THEM. IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING PARTICULARLY. IT MEANS THAT I SIMPLY WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN MY COURTROOM AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR SAY. I TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE CONCEPT THAT THAT IS THEIR DAY IN COURT AND THAT WHEN THEY COME TO COURT, THEY HAVE GOT THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR SAY, AND I WANT THEM TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. A LOT OF THE LAWYERS THAT PRACTICE BEFORE YOU WILL TELL YOU THAT I TEND PROBABLY TO BE A LITTLE MORE LIBERAL ON THE RULES OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE I WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR SAY, TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST WHEN THEY HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM, WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH WHAT I DO OR NOT, TO BE ABLE AT LEAST TO SAY THEY HAD THEIR SAY IN MY COURTROOM. SO I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. NO MATTER HOW BRILLIANT OR INTELLIGENT WE MAY BE, NO MATTER HOW WELL WE KNOW THE LAW, IF WE DON'T POSSESS THE TEMPERAMENT TO APPLY IT, THEN IT DOES US NO GOOD. SO I DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO DO THAT.
Q THE WORK ETHIC ASPECT OF THE JUDGESHIP REQUIRING WORKING, I'M SURE IN FAMILY COURT YOU SEE A NEED FOR EMERGENCY HEARINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS OR SUCH THINGS AS THAT, LATE ON A WEEKDAY, PERHAPS ON THE WEEKENDS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT HAS NEVER PRESENTED A PROBLEM FOR YOU?
A NO, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, AS I WAS LISTENING TO THE QUESTION BEING ASKED A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THE THING THAT STRUCK ME--THAT OCCURRED TO ME WAS THAT--AND I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE THIS SOUND THE WRONG WAY; YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROBLEM WITH ME. THERE WAS A TIME, AND SOME OF THESE LAWYERS FROM LEXINGTON WILL TELL YOU, THERE WAS A TIME IN MY JUDICIAL--EARLIER IN MY JUDICIAL CAREER THAT I HAD THE ACYLATION OF "JUDGE MIDNIGHT" BECAUSE I HAD A HABIT OF GOING LATE IN THE EVENING TO BE SURE TO GET CASES FINISHED. THAT BECAME A PROBLEM AS WE WENT ALONG AND I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT IT WAS TAXING ON PEOPLE TO GO, YOU KNOW, LATE HOURS; AND IT REACHED THE POINT WHERE WE DIDN'T DO THAT ANY LONGER. AS YOU KNOW, I SPENT FIVE YEARS IN THE LEGISLATURE AND DURING THOSE FIVE YEARS I WAS HERE, MY WIFE WAS A HOMEMAKER; SO, I WAS THE SOLE SUPPORT FOR MY FAMILY AND I KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO PRACTICE ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND LATE AT NIGHT, AND I HAD TO DO THAT, AND SO I CARRIED THAT WORK ETHIC TO THE BENCH WITH ME, AND I STILL TRY TO DO IT. I SAY THIS NOT BOASTFULLY AND NOT ASHAMEDLY, IF YOU CALL MY OFFICE ON LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON, YOU WILL FIND ME THERE; IF I AM ASSIGNED TO LEXINGTON, YOU WILL FIND ME IN MY OFFICE. AS YOU KNOW, ANY OF YOU WHO MAY HAVE HELD COURT IN LEXINGTON COUNTY OR BEEN IN COURT IN LEXINGTON COUNTY KNOW THAT WE SCHEDULE OUR CASES FROM 9:00 TO 5:00 AND IT'S USUALLY A PRETTY THOROUGH 9:00 TO 5:00, AND THAT INCLUDES FRIDAY AFTERNOONS. WE SET CASES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS IN LEXINGTON COUNTY AND WE HEAR THOSE CASES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON; SO, WE GO PRETTY THOROUGHLY. THIS PAST TUESDAY I HEARD 92 CONTEMPT HEARINGS JUST IN THE MORNING. THAT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DO AND I WOULD NOTE THAT--AND I AM SURE THAT ALL OF YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME POINT THAT IS WHERE THESE TWO TOPICS BEGIN TO OVERLAP. JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS SEVERELY TESTED WITH CROWDED COURT DOCKETS; AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN MY TEMPERAMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD, TOO, AGAIN, IN LEXINGTON COUNTY SOME RATHER SEVERE DOCKETS. I KNOW I SEE SOME OF YOU FROM SOME OTHER COUNTIES AND I AM NOT SURE THAT THERE IS ANY COUNTY THAT IS IMMUNE TO THAT RIGHT NOW. IN FAMILY COURT WE HAVE JUST GOT SOME VERY STIFF DOCKETS. SO, YES, SIR, I FEEL LIKE I MEET THAT STANDARD.
Q PRIOR TO GOING ON THE BENCH, THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF COURSE, INVOLVES A LOT OF CRIMINAL WORK AND WITH THE CRIMINAL BACKLOG BEING WHAT IT IS, WHAT BACKGROUND DID YOU HAVE IN CRIMINAL LAW AS A PRACTITIONER?
A I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT FIGURES THAT I HAD ON MY APPLICATION AT THAT TIME; I'M SURE IT'S BACK IN THE OFFICE AND IF I HAD KNOWN THIS QUESTION WAS COMING, I WOULD HAVE HAD IT. I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE ABOUT 20 TO 25 PERCENT WERE IN CRIMINAL CASES; SOMEWHERE AROUND THE SAME FIGURE IN CIVIL CASES; AND ABOUT 40 OR 50 PERCENT IN FAMILY COURT CASES; SO, IN CRIMINAL COURT I THINK I DID THE SAME THINGS THAT A LOT OF THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS ROOM DID, I TRIED A NUMBER OF CASES AND I PLEAD A NUMBER OF CASES; SO, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE HAD THE FULL RANGE OF EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT.

SENATOR POPE: DOES ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF JUDGE WESTBROOK? REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: I DO.

SENATOR POPE: REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN.

Q YOU SAID LAST WEEK, TUESDAY, YOU HAD 92 CONTEMPT CASES?
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT WAS JUST IN THE MORNING?
A YES, SIR, WE WENT FROM 9:00 O'CLOCK UNTIL 1:00 O'CLOCK WITH ABOUT--AT ONE POINT I HAD TO GO TO THE BOY'S ROOM AND WE TOOK ABOUT 5 MINUTES; TO BE VERY HONEST, WE TOOK ABOUT 5 MINUTES FOR THAT AND THAT WAS IT.
Q AND YOU DID THEM ONE BY ONE?
A YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SOME JUDGES WILL DO THEM IN A LUMP, YOU KNOW, A GROUP LUMP SUM WHEN THEY HAVE PAID UP OR SOMETHING, BUT I DIDN'T DO THAT. WE DID EVERY ONE OF THEM.

SENATOR POPE: MR. HODGES.

Q JUDGE, LOOKING AT YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST UNDER THE SECTION DEALING WITH BENEFITS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES THERE IS A NOTATION ABOUT CONGAREE BAPTIST CHURCH.
A NO, SIR.
Q AND I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.
A NO, SIR, I'M SORRY; THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HASN'T COME UP IN THESE BEFORE AND I HAVE PUT IT ON THERE EACH TIME. WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE, MR. HODGES, I BEGAN BASICALLY SORT OF A PART-TIME JOB AS A PART-TIME MUSIC DIRECTOR IN THE BAPTIST CHURCHES AND THAT IS WHAT I DID FOR AWHILE. I THINK FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS I WAS A PART-TIME MUSIC DIRECTOR AT CONGAREE BAPTIST CHURCH; THAT'S WHERE THE INCOME CAME FROM. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PUBLIC AGENCY; I PROBABLY JUST PUT IT IN THE WRONG PLACE.
Q THAT IS WHAT IT IS?
A YES, SIR, THAT IS WHAT THAT IS. I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM NOT DOING THAT NOW. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MEMBERS OF ANOTHER BAPTIST CHURCH AND I HAVE A SON WHO IS GETTING READY TO GO TO COLLEGE BEFORE LONG; SO, I WANTED TO GET BACK AND SPEND SOME MORE TIME WITH HIM. SO BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE. WE WILL LET MRS. NEELY COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR FULL NAME, PLEASE, MA'AM.

MRS. NEELY: ANNE L. NEELY.

SENATOR POPE: MRS. NEELY, WILL YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
(ANNE L. NEELY, FIRST HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL, TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q MRS. NEELY, WE WANT YOU TO GIVE US IN YOUR ON WORDS WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS AS TO JUDGE WESTBROOK.
A BETWEEN LAST CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S MY DAUGHTER, WHO IS KATHY FREEMAN, WROTE TO ALL OF YOU EXCEPT TO REPRESENTATIVE HODGES AND REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS. I WROTE IN MY LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE THAT I WAS A LITIGANT'S MOTHER, SO I AM A SECONDHAND WITNESS. SHE WAS TOLD BY HER APPEAL LAWYER THAT APPEARING HERE TODAY MIGHT PREJUDICE HER CASE.
Q HER CASE IS ON APPEAL NOW?
A YES. AS I SAID, KATHY FREEMAN IS MY DAUGHTER. SHE IS A FULL-TIME STUDENT AT U.S.C. PLANNING TOWARDS A TEACHING DEGREE IN HISTORY. SHE HAS A 4.0 GRADE POINT AVERAGE. TUESDAY NIGHT SHE WILL BE INDUCTED INTO AN HONOR SOCIETY AT U.S.C. SHE WORKS PART-TIME AT THOMPSON DENTAL COMPANY WHERE SHE WORKED BEFORE HER MARRIAGE AND TWO YEARS INTO HER MARRIAGE. SHE QUIT WHEN HER DAUGHTER WAS BORN. SHE HELPED EARN THE MONEY FOR THEIR STARTER HOME. SHE CHOSE TO STAY HOME WITH THE CHILDREN AND MAKE ENDS MEET WITH MR. FREEMAN'S SALARY ALONE. SHE DID NOT PURSUE HER EDUCATION UNTIL THE CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL ALL DAY. MRS. FREEMAN--NO, MR. FREEMAN, EXCUSE ME, REFUSED TO PAY FOR HER SCHOOLING; SO, SHE WENT BACK TO THOMPSON DENTAL COMPANY. SHE TOOK CLASSES MORNINGS; SHE WORKED AFTERNOONS; AND SHE STILL MADE IT HOME BEFORE THE CHILDREN RETURNED FROM SCHOOL. SHE WAS THE CHILDREN'S PRIMARY CARE-GIVER. SHE ALONE SAW TO IT THAT THE PAST THREE YEARS, UNTIL MR. FREEMAN WAS GIVEN CUSTODY, THEY HAD PERFECT ATTENDANCE. MRS. FREEMAN HAS TAUGHT SUNDAY SCHOOL FOR YEARS AND IS CHAIRMAN OF THE CHILDREN'S COUNCIL, IS ON THE PASTOR/PARRISH RELATIONS COMMITTEE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD, AND THE COUNCIL ON MINISTRIES, AS I AM ON THOSE COMMITTEES, ALSO. SHE WAS THE ONE WHO TOOK THEM TO DANCE LESSONS, SOCCER PRACTICE, AND T-BALL PRACTICE. SHE WAS THE CLASS MOTHER, THE TEAM'S MOTHER. SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT A GOOD MOTHER SHE WAS. MR. FREEMAN'S WITNESSES WERE SCE&G CLONES THAT DIDN'T KNOW MY DAUGHTER AT ALL. THEY HAD NEVER EVEN BEEN IN HER HOME, EXCEPT FOR ONE AND THAT WAS HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW. THE CHILDREN WANT TO BE WITH THEIR MOTHER. THREE EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO THIS BUT JUDGE WESTBROOK IGNORED IT. THE LITTLE BOY WAS ONLY SIX YEARS OLD AND HE NEEDS HIS MOTHER. THE LITTLE GIRL WILL SOON BE REACHING THE AGE WHEN SHE WILL BEGIN HER PERIODS AND SHE ALSO NEEDS HER MOTHER. MY DAUGHTER FIRST APPEARED BEFORE FAMILY COURT JUDGE MARC H. WESTBROOK ON JANUARY 16, 1990, IN A DIVORCE AND CUSTODY HEARING. AS HER TRIAL PROGRESSED, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT JUDGE WESTBROOK, ALONG WITH THE GUARDIAN APPOINTED BY JUDGE WESTBROOK, WAS EXTREMELY BIASED IN FAVOR OF MR. FREEMAN WHO WAS REPRESENTED BY HENRY DENEEN. THE PSYCHIATRIST'S TESTIMONY WAS IN FAVOR OF MY DAUGHTER, SO MR. FREEMAN OBTAINED ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST. FOLLOWING A RULING OF SEPTEMBER 4 AND 5, 1990, WHERE CUSTODY OF A SIX-YEAR-OLD SON AND AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER WAS GIVEN TO MR. FREEMAN, MY DAUGHTER WROTE TO HER LEXINGTON COUNTY CONGRESSMAN AS SHE FELT SHE HAD BEEN A VICTIM OF GROSS UNFAIRNESS. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF HER EVER BEING AN UNFIT MOTHER. AT THE TIME SHE WROTE THE LETTER, SHE WAS UNAWARE THAT MR. FREEMAN'S ATTORNEY WAS SENATOR ADDISON "JOE" WILSON'S LAW PARTNER. ON NOVEMBER 15TH AT ANOTHER HEARING, AGAIN BEFORE JUDGE WESTBROOK, HENRY DENEEN BROUGHT UP HER LETTER TO SENATOR WILSON IN AN EFFORT TO FURTHER PREJUDICE THE JUDGE AGAINST HER. MY DAUGHTER'S ATTORNEY, SANDRA RAY, CAN VERIFY THESE EVENTS, AS WELL AS TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARINGS. I BELIEVE JUDGE WESTBROOK CHOSE TO TRY THIS CASE IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN HE SAW MR. FREEMAN'S ATTORNEY WAS SENATOR WILSON'S LAW PARTNER. I BELIEVE HE SOUGHT TO OBTAIN THE VOTE AND THE INFLUENCE OF SENATOR WILSON FOR THIS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGESHIP. MRS. FREEMAN WAS TOLD AT THE VERY FIRST HEARING THAT THE JUDGE WAS SUPPOSED TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY HER REQUEST FOR A LEGAL SEPARATION AND SEPARATE MAINTENANCE, AND THAT WAS ALL. INSTEAD, MR. FREEMAN PRESENTED A COUNTER-MOTION THAT WAS BY LAW SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN 10 DAYS IN ADVANCE, BUT IT WASN'T. JUDGE WESTBROOK GAVE MR. FREEMAN THE CHILDREN, THE HOME, AND TOLD HER IF SHE LEFT, SHE COULD ONLY TAKE HER CLOTHING. THEY TRIED IMMEDIATELY FOR A REVERSAL. JUDGE WESTBROOK WAITED FOUR MONTHS TO DENY THE REVERSAL ON APRIL 20TH. THE CHILDREN WANT DESPERATELY TO BE WITH THEIR MOTHER. AS I SAID BEFORE, THREE EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO THIS, BUT JUDGE WESTBROOK IGNORED THEM. I BELIEVE CHILDREN AGES SIX AND EIGHT NEED THEIR MOTHER. I BELIEVE JUDGE WESTBROOK DESTROYED THE LIVES OF MY DAUGHTER AND HER CHILDREN FOR A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGESHIP.
Q MRS. NEELY, WERE YOU PRESENT IN THE COURT PROCEEDINGS?
A NO, I COULD NOT BE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM. I WAS OUTSIDE.
Q YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE WITNESSES TESTIFY IN YOUR DAUGHTER'S CASE?
A DO I KNOW WHO THEY WERE?
Q NO, YOU DID NOT SEE ANY OF THEM TESTIFY?
A NO, I DIDN'T TESTIFY. I KNOW WHO THEY WERE. I WAS IN THE WAITING ROOM.
Q AND I ASSUME THAT MR. FREEMAN HAD EXPERT WITNESSES, ALSO?
A HE HAD WITNESSES AS TO HIS CHARACTER FROM SCE&G. MY DAUGHTER'S WITNESSES WERE A MINISTER, HER FORMER MINISTER, HER FATHER, AND NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS OF CHILDREN OR THAT HAVE CHILDREN THAT HER CHILDREN PLAY WITH.
Q THE FINAL DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN ABOUT WHEN APPROXIMATELY?
A I GUESS IT WAS SEPTEMBER 4TH AND 5TH THAT HE GAVE THE CHILDREN---
Q THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY EITHER THE SUPREME COURT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE?
A YES.
Q EXCUSE ME, GO AHEAD.
A WELL, I WANTED TO SAY AGAIN THAT THERE WAS NOWHERE IN ANY OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY ANY OF THE WITNESSES, EITHER COURT-APPOINTED OR VOLUNTEER, THAT KATHY WAS NOT A GOOD CHRISTIAN MOTHER AND THE PRIMARY CARE-GIVER OF HER CHILDREN. SHE WAS GIVEN SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS STOCK WORTH ABOUT $16,000. WE FEEL THIS WAS IN NO WAY A FAIR DIVISION OF THE HOME. SHE WAS GIVEN $150 A MONTH REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY. HER SALARY PRESENTLY RIGHT NOW RUNS ABOUT $400 A MONTH TAKE-HOME PAY, AND SHE JUST WORKS AFTERNOONS. MR. FREEMAN'S SALARY IS IN THE 40'S--4,000 SOMETHING, EXCUSE ME. HE--AT ONE TIME JUDGE WESTBROOK TOLD HER SHE COULD TAKE A SMALLER AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME OR SHE COULD TAKE A LARGER AMOUNT FOR UNTIL OCTOBER OF '94; SO, SHE CHOSE TO TAKE THE LARGER AMOUNT AS SHE HOPES TO BE OUT OF U.S.C. BY THIS TIME AND IN A TEACHING POSITION. THE LARGER AMOUNT TURNED OUT TO BE $150. I'D HATE TO SEE WHAT A SMALLER AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN. IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WORTH GOING TO THE BANK WITH. SHE LOST HER CHILDREN, THAT IS THE MAIN THING. SHE LOST HER HOME. HE HAS NOT--MR. FREEMAN HAS NOT YET SIGNED OVER HER CAR. SHE HAS NOT YET RECEIVED ALL THE ITEMS IN THE HOME THAT WERE HERS BEFORE THE MARRIAGE. SHE WAS PUT OUT OF THE HOME WITH LITTLE MONEY AND NO FURNITURE; AND THEN THE PSYCHIATRIST SAID, "YOU HAVE GOT OR YOU LIVE IN A TWO-BEDROOM MOBILE HOME AND MR. FREEMAN HAS THIS LOVELY, FINE HOME, AND WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT HE GETS THE CHILDREN." JUDGE WESTBROOK'S ARGUMENT FOR GIVING THE CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHER WAS "SHE COULDN'T AFFORD THEM." THAT'S WHAT CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR. HE SAID, ALSO, SHE COULDN'T POSSIBLY GO TO SCHOOL, WORK, AND RAISE THEM. SHE HAD DONE JUST THAT FOR TWO SEMESTERS. AND THE OTHER THING WAS THAT SHE LIVED IN A TRAILER AND MR. FREEMAN HAD THE FINE HOME. LOSING CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN HOLDS A TERRIBLE STIGMA IN SOCIETY. THE ONLY PERSONS WHO REALLY FEEL SHE GOT A BAD DEAL WERE THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HER. OTHERS JUST FEEL THAT SHE IS AN UNFIT MOTHER OR THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

SENATOR POPE: WE APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIFYING. THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: MR. HENDRICKS.

Q YOU SAID THERE WAS NO ONE WHO TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS AN UNFIT MOTHER; DID THEY TRY TO ESTABLISH THAT IN ANY WAY?
A THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS AN UNFIT MOTHER, NONE AT ALL.

SENATOR POPE: SENATOR.

Q WAS THIS A CUSTODY PROCEEDING OR A DIVORCE PROCEEDING?
A BOTH.
Q WHO WAS SEEKING THE DIVORCE?
A SHE WAS. SHE DID NOT--NO LONGER WANTS TO BE MARRIED TO MR. FREEMAN. SHE DEFINITELY WANTS HER CHILDREN.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GROUNDS WERE?
A I GUESS A YEAR'S SEPARATION.
Q A YEAR'S SEPARATION?
A YES.
Q HOW LONG HAD THEY BEEN MARRIED?
A THEY HAVE BEEN MARRIED 11 YEARS, APPROXIMATELY.

SENATOR POPE: MR. HODGES.

Q YOU MENTIONED SOME EXPERT TESTIMONY; HAD YOU READ THE REPORTS THAT WERE PREPARED FOR YOUR DAUGHTER WITH REGARDS TO THE CUSTODY BY THE PSYCHOLOGIST OR WHOEVER THE EXPERT WITNESSES WERE?
A HAD I READ THEM?
Q YES, MA'AM.
A NO, I JUST HAVE HER WORD FOR WHAT THEY SAID.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MRS. NEELY. WE APPRECIATE IT. JUDGE, IF YOU WOULD COME BACK UP. JUDGE WESTBROOK: YES, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO TESTIFY ON THAT MATTER, IS THERE?

JUDGE WESTBROOK: ARE YOU TESTIFYING, SIR? (UNIDENTIFIED RESPONSE BY JUDGE WESTBROOK:

JUDGE WESTBROOK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS KIND OF LIKE MR. KEESLEY, I WAS HOPING WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GET INTO A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TO SOME DEGREE, AND I THINK VERY FRANKLY, I NEED TO SAY TO YOU THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT MRS. NEELY HAS SOME OF THE FACTS BADLY MISPLACED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, AND I HAVE GOT SOME THINGS, COPIES OF ORDERS AND THINGS HERE, IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM. AS SHE INDICATED, THERE WAS AN ACTION FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT--AT WHAT LIBERTY I AM TO DISCUSS THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO PROBLEM IF THAT IS WHAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS ME TO DO. THERE WAS ANOTHER ACTION BROUGHT IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING FORUM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS THAT HERE; AND IF THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO, YOU CAN SAVE THAT FOR THE END OR SOMETHING, BUT I WILL--LET ME NOTE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT I JUST MUST CATEGORICALLY SAY TO YOU THAT THE FACT THAT SENATOR WILSON'S FIRM WAS INVOLVED IN THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION. SENATOR WILSON'S FIRM HAS SEVERAL LAWYERS. THEY HAVE APPEARED BEFORE ME NUMEROUS TIMES. THEY HAVE WON IN MY COURT AND THEY HAVE LOST IN MY COURT. THE LAST CASE THAT WAS APPEALED FROM ONE OF MY ORDERS WAS FROM SENATOR WILSON'S FIRM; SO, THAT--YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO BE IN THERE. THEY ARE BEFORE ALL THE JUDGES. AND I SUPPOSE TO SOME DEGREE THAT BECAUSE SENATOR WILSON IS A SENATOR THAT THERE IS--YOU KNOW, WE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS SORT OF THING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. CUSTODY CASES, FOR ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE--AS ALL OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHO HAVE TRIED CUSTODY CASES, ARE EXTREMELY TRAUMATIC. THEY ARE TRAUMATIC FOR THE LITIGANTS. THEY ARE TRAUMATIC FOR THE CHILDREN. THEY ARE TRAUMATIC FOR THE LAWYERS. THEY ARE EVEN TRAUMATIC SOMETIMES FOR THE JUDGE. SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS DEEPLY HURT, DEEPLY UPSET BY WHAT GOES ON IN A CUSTODY CASE BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE MOST VALUABLE TO ALL OF US, AND THAT IS OUR CHILDREN. SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT. YES, SIR, THE GUARDIAN WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, AND I WOULD NOTE THE GUARDIAN IS SITTING ON MY LEFT, MR. CHEWNING HERE IN THE CORNER WAS THE GUARDIAN IN THE CASE; I APPOINTED THE GUARDIAN IN THE PENDENTE LITE HEARING. I DID SO BECAUSE MR. CHEWNING HAS AN IMMACULATE REPUTATION IN LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR BEING A STRAIGHTFORWARD AND A STRAIGHT-SHOOTER AND THOROUGH GUARDIAN; AND I WOULD NOTE THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT BEGUN, THAT WAS GOING ON BEFORE I WAS EVER ON THE BENCH; HE HAS HAD THAT REPUTATION FOR YEARS. IT BECAME OBVIOUS EARLY-ON THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A RATHER BITTERLY CONTESTED CASE. FROM THE VERY FIRST TIME THE LAWYERS AND THE PARTIES CAME INTO THE COURTROOM, IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE AND THAT'S WHY I FELT MR. CHEWNING WAS AN APPROPRIATE GUARDIAN. I HAVE ASKED HIM TO BE HERE TODAY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS; I ASKED HIM TO BE AVAILABLE IF THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF HIM. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ANYTHING THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO KNOW, THAT I WANT TO TRY TO SHARE IT WITH YOU, WHATEVER I CAN. BUT HE EXHIBITED NO BIAS IN MY VIEW. HE DID A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. HE IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CHILDREN AND VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTIES; EVEN IN HIS TESTIMONY HE WAS ABLE TO DESCRIBE IN GREAT DETAIL THE HOMES OF THE PARTIES, THE THINGS HE LIKED AND DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT THEM. SO, HE DID--I THOUGHT HE DID EXACTLY THE JOB THAT A GUARDIAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO. AND HE RECOMMENDED CUSTODY FOR THE FATHER IN THIS CASE AFTER HIS INVESTIGATION. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THERE WERE NOT THREE EXPERT WITNESSES. I HAVE REVIEWED MY NOTES IN IT. THERE WERE TWO EXPERT WITNESSES, DR. MANDEL, WHO HAS A PH.D., I THINK, IN COUNSELING; AND DR. MASSEY, WHO IS A PSYCHIATRIST. DR. MANDEL HAD A LITTLE CONTACT WITH THE PARTIES, BUT NOT VERY MUCH, AND RECOMMENDED CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER. DR. MASSEY HAD THOROUGH CONTACT WITH THE PARTIES, INCLUDING GOING TO THE HOMES, BOTH OF THE HOMES, AND INCLUDING MORE CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN, INCLUDING VARIOUS TESTS, AND HE RECOMMENDED CUSTODY TO THE FATHER. SO WHEN I MADE THE DECISION, IT CAME ON THE HEELS OF THESE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. I WANT TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND ONE THING; IN READING HER LETTER, I REALIZE I THINK SHE INADVERTENTLY GAVE THE IMPRESSION--DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THIS, I DON'T THINK--THAT WE HAD A HEARING JANUARY 16TH AND I RULED SEPTEMBER 4TH AND 5TH. THESE WERE TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS. THE FIRST HEARING ACTUALLY WAS NOT THE 16TH. I THINK THAT WAS THE DATE IT WAS FILED. IT WAS, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW, ACTUALLY FEBRUARY 1ST. I ISSUED AN ORDER FROM THAT--WHAT I ROUTINELY DO, AND I THINK MANY OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY BEEN IN PENDENTE LITE HEARINGS AND, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DO THOSE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOU DO OTHER HEARINGS. WHAT I ROUTINELY DO IN ANY CONTESTED PENDENTE LITE HEARING IS, I TAKE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND ALL THE AFFIDAVITS AND I TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND I TELL THE ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES THAT I WILL READ ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND I WILL GET A DECISION BACK TO THEM. SO I HAVE A FRAME FORM ORDER THAT I SOMETIMES USE, AND I USED THAT ORDER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I MADE THAT DECISION ON DECEMBER THE 6TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, OR MAYBE PERHAPS IT WAS DECEMBER THE 8TH. I'M TRYING TO BE SURE I GET THESE IN THE RIGHT ORDER. I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE ANY KIND OF CONFUSION. THEY DID ASK FOR ANOTHER HEARING IN THE MATTER. NOW THE ORDER WAS ISSUED DECEMBER THE 8TH, WHICH WAS SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING AND IT WAS THE 8TH ACCORDING TO MY NOTES HERE; AND I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING TO MY NOTES; BUT, AGAIN, THIS WAS A RATHER EXTENSIVE CASE. THE TRIAL WAS A DAY-AND-A-HALF. ON DECEMBER THE--ON FEBRUARY THE 20TH, BOTH OF THE PARTIES FOR SOME REASON, THE SAME DAY, FILED MOTIONS ASKING TO COME BACK FOR VARIOUS REASONS. THEY CAME BACK ON MARCH THE 2ND. BRIEFS WERE SUBMITTED ON MARCH THE 19TH AND APRIL THE 23RD WE DID DO THE ORDER. THAT WAS ABOUT RIGHT AROUND 30 DAYS OR SO AFTER THE BRIEFS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED; SO, TECHNICALLY, I THINK MRS. NEELY IS RIGHT IN THAT ACTUALLY IT WAS TWO-AND-A-HALF MONTHS AFTERWARDS BUT IT WASN'T A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY IMMEDIATELY ASKED FOR REVERSAL AND WE WAITED FOUR MONTHS LATER; THAT WAS NOT CORRECT. THERE WERE SOME HEARINGS; AND, AGAIN, THESE HEARINGS WERE BEING SET IN THE NORMAL PROCESS; AND I THINK AS EACH OF YOU MAY KNOW, IN FAMILY COURT THROUGHOUT THE STATE WE USE A CENTRALIZED DOCKET; I DON'T CONTROL THE DOCKET AND I HAVE NO INPUT INTO IT. IT IS DONE BY A CENTRALIZED SYSTEM AND WHEN A MOTION IS FILED, IT IS SET ON MY DOCKET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND THEN I HEAR IT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO GET TO IT. SO THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. SHE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MRS. FREEMAN'S UNFITNESS; I DIDN'T FIND HER UNFIT. SHE WAS NOT UNFIT. MR. FREEMAN WAS NOT UNFIT. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH IN OUR SOCIETY, AND I SEE THIS ROUTINELY, IS THAT WITH THE EVER- CHANGING ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR SOCIETY, SOMETIMES WOMEN ARE BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS THAT WE ONCE THOUGHT WERE RESERVED FOR MEN, AND MEN ARE NOW DOING THINGS THAT ONCE WERE THOUGHT TO BE RESERVED FOR WOMEN; AND IT'S A RATHER DIFFICULT PROCESS; IT'S A TRAUMATIC PROCESS TO GO THROUGH, PARTICULARLY ON THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I, FRANKLY, SYMPATHIZE BECAUSE I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. BUT THE ISSUE HERE, AS ANY OF YOU MAY KNOW, IN A CUSTODY CASE IS NOT, FIRST OF ALL A QUESTION OF THE MOTHER'S FITNESS; WHEN THE PARTIES COME IN, THEY COME IN ON AN EQUAL BASIS TO BE ABLE TO ASK FOR CUSTODY. THEY BOTH HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE THAT TESTIMONY OR THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THEN DO WHAT WE FEEL IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. I GRANT YOU THAT IT IS A SUBJECTIVE CALL, AND IN CUSTODY CASES IT IS ROUTINELY A VERY CLOSE CALL, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE NOT MANY CUSTODY CASES THAT I DON'T AGONIZE OVER JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I TAKE SERIOUSLY THE FACT THAT WHEN I MAKE A CUSTODY DECISION, I AM DETERMINING THE WAY THAT CHILD IS GOING TO BE RAISED. YOU MAY HAVE A MOTHER AND FATHER WHO HAVE BEEN MARRIED FOR SOME YEARS AND WHO DO A LOT OF THINGS THE SAME, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RAISING THOSE CHILDREN AND THEY HAVE SEPARATED, THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY RAISE THEM DIFFERENTLY TO SOME DEGREE; SO, I TAKE SERIOUSLY THAT FACT. AND THE QUESTION OF WHO SOMEONE'S LAWYER MAY BE OR WHO SOMEONE MAY BE IS NOT IMPORTANT. IT PALES IN SIGNIFICANCE NEXT TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS BEST FOR THESE CHILDREN. AGAIN, I TAKE THAT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. THAT I CHOOSE TO TAKE THE CASE. AGAIN, AS YOU KNOW, I COULD NOT CHOOSE TO TAKE THE CASE. WE OPERATE FROM CENTRALIZED DOCKETING. THE LADY WHO HANDLES IT IS EMPLOYED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND SHE SIMPLY PUTS THE CASE, WHATEVER CASE IS REQUESTED, ON WHICHEVER JUDGE'S DOCKET COMES UP NEXT. ONE JUDGE MAY HEAR A PENDENTE LITE HEARING AND ANOTHER HEAR THE FINAL HEARING. IN THIS CASE BY COINCIDENCE, I HEARD BOTH OF THEM, AND IT JUST HAPPENS. I THINK THE PRE-TRIAL HEARING ACTUALLY WAS HEARD BY JUDGE GRIFFITH, I THINK. SO, I HAD NO INPUT. I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO TRY THIS CASE. IT CAME BEFORE ME AND IT IS SIMPLY DONE THAT WAY. THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT IN THAT FIRST HEARING ABOUT THE CUSTODY ISSUE; YES, SHE RAISED THE QUESTION OF CUSTODY; I DID NOT MAKE HER LEAVE. I WAS KIND OF BLANCHING A LITTLE BIT, WONDERING WHAT SORT OF REACTION THIS COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE TO THINK THAT I WOULD TAKE A LADY LIKE THIS AND ORDER HER TO LEAVE HER HOME WITH NO CLOTHES. WHAT HAPPENED WAS, WHEN THEY CAME IN THE FIRST HEARING IT WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE; SHE ASKED ME TO KICK HER HUSBAND OUT. HER HUSBAND HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. THERE WERE NO FAULT GROUNDS INVOLVED. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CRUELTY INVOLVED. THERE WAS NO ALCOHOL INVOLVED. THERE WAS NO ADULTERY INVOLVED. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THEY JUST--THE MARRIAGE APPARENTLY HAD NOT WORKED WELL, AND THEY JUST WEREN'T GETTING ALONG WELL; AND IT CAME BEFORE ME AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WAS NOT WILLING TO KICK EITHER OF THEM OUT OF THE HOME. I WASN'T GOING TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, I REALIZE THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT IS DEBATED BY JUDGES BOTH WAYS; BUT WHEN THEY CAME INTO COURT, THEY WERE STILL LIVING TOGETHER. WE HAD THE ARIAL PROBLEM; SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE ARIAL VERSUS ARIAL AND THE BROWN VERSUS BROWN CASES. WE HAD THE ARIAL AND THE BROWN PROBLEM INVOLVED. AND AS I TOLD YOU A MOMENT AGO, THIS THING WAS STICKY FROM THE MOMENT THEY WALKED INTO THE COURTROOM AND I TRIED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT, AND I REALIZED IT WAS STICKY; AND I KNEW THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE GOING THROUGH A DIFFICULT TIME; SO, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I DID NOT DO THAT, I DID NOT ORDER HER TO LEAVE THE HOME. WHAT I DID WAS IN THE PENDENTE LITE HEARING WHEN PENDENTE LITE CUSTODY WAS GIVEN TO MR. FREEMAN, HE WAS GIVEN, IN ESSENCE, POSSESSION OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; AND WHAT I DID, THE REASON I DID THAT, AND I TOLD THE ATTORNEYS, I THINK, DID A CONFERENCE CALL LATER AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT EITHER OF THEM HAD TO LEAVE; IT WAS SIMPLY DONE SO THAT WE COULD BE SURE THAT THE CHILDREN COULD BE ABLE TO STAY IN THE MARITAL RESIDENCE. THAT WAS THE MAIN THING I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. THE QUESTION, I THINK I RESOLVED EVERYTHING; THE ONLY OTHER THING WAS, AGAIN, THE PSYCHIATRIST'S TESTIMONY; IT WAS INCORRECT THAT THE ONLY WITNESSES WERE, I THINK, MRS. NEELY REFERRED TO THEM AS SCE&G CLONES, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE FROM SCE&G WHO WORKED WITH HIM. AS BEST I CAN RECALL, I THINK SOME NEIGHBORS TESTIFIED FOR MR. FREEMAN, TOO; I THINK THEY TESTIFIED BOTH WAYS. AND I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I CANNOT SAY; I'VE PROBABLY GOT MY NOTES BACK HERE AND I CAN PROBABLY CHECK THAT TO BE SURE. BUT, AGAIN, IN TERMS OF THE EXPERT TESTIMONY, THERE WERE NOT THREE EXPERTS UNLESS THERE IS ONE WHO SIMPLY DID NOT COME TO TESTIFY; AND IF AN EXPERT DIDN'T COME TO TESTIFY, I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THEM ANYWAY. I ONLY KNEW ABOUT THE TWO WHO DID. THE BOTTOM LINE, MR. CHAIRMAN, SIMPLY WAS THIS, WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE CASE I HAD AN EXPERT WITNESS WHO SUGGESTED OR RECOMMENDED CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER AND I HAD AN EXPERT WHO RECOMMENDED CUSTODY TO THE FATHER AND I HAD A GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO HAD DONE A THOROUGH JOB WHO WAS SUBJECTED, ALSO, TO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE PARTIES WHO RECOMMENDED CUSTODY TO THE FATHER; AND BASED ON THAT, THAT WAS THE RESULT THAT I CAME UP WITH AND, AS MRS. NEELY INDICATED TO YOU, IT HAS BEEN APPEALED. ONE QUESTION I DID NOT COVER; SHE INDICATED THAT A LETTER TO SENATOR WILSON WAS BROUGHT UP AND THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP. WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IN THE NOVEMBER HEARING, THE NOVEMBER 15TH HEARING, WHICH WAS A HEARING FOR RECONSIDERATION, MR. DENEEN, IN ESSENCE, AS I RECALL, SAID EARLY IN THE HEARING THAT MRS. FREEMAN HAD MADE ALLEGATIONS OF SOMEBODY BEING PAID OFF; AND I TOLD THEM WHAT WE WILL DO IS LET'S HEAR THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; I WILL THEN TAKE THAT UP AT THE END AND AT THE END OF IT, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING, IF SHE WANTED TO MAKE ANY ALLEGATIONS AND SHE DID NOT. AND THE TRANSCRIPT--I HAVE NOT SEEN THE TRANSCRIPT AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT WAS READ TO ME FROM THE TRANSCRIPT AND I DIDN'T KNOW THIS UNTIL IT WAS READ TO ME, I ALSO ADVISED HER AT THAT TIME THAT IF SHE WAS NOT HAPPY OR COMFORTABLE WITH TELLING ME THAT, THAT THERE WAS A JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND SHE COULD CONTACT THEM IF SHE WOULD LIKE, AND I LET HER KNOW THAT SHE COULD DO THAT. I TRIED IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE DURING THIS WHOLE SITUATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO EXTEND EVERY COURTESY TO BOTH OF THE PARTIES BECAUSE, AGAIN, I KNOW AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH, AND I CERTAINLY SYMPATHIZE WITH BOTH OF THEM. IT WAS A VERY PAINFUL SITUATION AND I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT WE ARE--THAT IN THE WAKE OF THE CASE THAT WE ARE NOW IN THIS PARTICULAR FORUM BECAUSE OF THE PAINFULNESS OF THE SITUATION. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I WENT ON TOO LONG, BUT I THINK THE BEST THING I CAN DO IS JUST OPEN MYSELF FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

SENATOR POPE: WHAT QUESTIONS WOULD THE COMMITTEE HAVE?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.

Q YOU ALLUDED TO THE ARIAL CASE WHICH IS JURISDICTION.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU SAID THE PARTIES WERE LIVING TOGETHER AT THE TIME?
A YES, SIR.
Q SO WHAT WAS YOUR RULING ON THE ARIAL?
A WE HAD--WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IN THE FIRST HEARING WHEN THEY CAME IN THEY--THAT QUESTION DIDN'T COME UP, AS I RECALL, AND I'M GOING FROM MEMORY AT THIS POINT, MR. MARTIN; AS I RECALL, IT DIDN'T COME UP AT THAT POINT. IT CAME UP, I THINK, DURING THE SECOND HEARING. AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT WAS THAT WE WENT THROUGH--BOTH OF THE ATTORNEYS AND I DEBATED ARIAL; THEY BOTH SUBMITTED BRIEFS; AND IN LOOKING AT ARIAL AND READING ARIAL, I COULDN'T IN ALL HONESTY GET A DEFINITIVE FINDING THAT IT MEANT THAT WE COULDN'T GO FORWARD ON THE CUSTODY ISSUES AND THESE OTHER ISSUES; SO, I LET THE CASE GO FORWARD AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THE CUSTODY AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WERE JUST--THERE WAS A REAL BATTLE GOING ON WITH THESE FOLKS AT THAT POINT AND I FELT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO GO ON AND KEEP THE COURT INVOLVED IN IT AND THAT'S WHAT I DID; I COULD NOT GET THE--YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AND SO FORTH; AND I WOULD NOTE, INCIDENTALLY, THAT THE ISSUE OF DIVORCE, I THINK, CAME UP THAT THERE WAS NOT A DIVORCE GRANTED IN THIS CASE; THERE WERE NO GROUNDS AT ALL; I THINK IT CAME UP SOMEWHERE LATER ON, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT HAD COME UP AT THAT POINT.
Q WAS IT THE DIVORCE ASPECT OF THE PETITION THAT GAVE YOU JURISDICTION, THAT CAUSED YOU TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION UNDER ARIAL?
A NO, SIR, IT WAS THE--WHAT I DID WAS, I ACCEPTED IT ON THE BASIS OF THE CUSTODY ISSUES AND THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE INVOLVED AND I FELT LIKE THOSE ISSUES HAD TO BE--HAD TO GO FORWARD ON IT. AND I REALIZE---
Q YOU FELT THAT ARIAL ALLOWED YOU TO TAKE JURISDICTION ON THE CUSTODY?
A YES, SIR, ON THOSE ISSUES I DID; AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS DEBATE BOTH WAYS ABOUT THAT; AND I READ THAT ARIAL CASE THREE OR FOUR TIMES AND EVERY TIME I READ THAT ARIAL CASE, I CAME UP WITH SOME DIFFERENT IDEA ON WHAT IT SAYS; AND THERE IS NO QUESTION--YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR POINT MAY BE, BUT IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE TO INTERPRET AND IT'S A DIFFICULT CASE TO UNDERSTAND; AND, SO, THAT'S WHY I WENT FORWARD BASICALLY ON THE OTHER ISSUES.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

(NOTHING INDICATED.)

SENATOR POPE: WE APPRECIATE IT.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THE OTHER TWO; THERE ARE TWO CITIZENS WHO FILED OTHER COMPLAINTS AND DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE?

JUDGE WESTBROOK: YES, I APPRECIATE THAT; AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE TAKEN UP. I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: WELL, IT'S IN THE RECORD AND I THOUGHT---

SENATOR POPE: IT'S IN THE RECORD AND YOU SHOULD ADDRESS THAT.

March 20, 1991

Senator Thomas H. Pope, III
Chairman, Judicial Screening Committee
402 Gressette Building
P. O. Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Dear Tommy,

In 1983 I began the arduous task of divorcing my former wife.

This is 1991 and I have been in Family Court more times than to the grocery store; no less than four of those appearances were in front of Marc Westbrook.

The entire experience has left me feeling as if I have been raped by the Court system, due in no small part to the irrational, unprofessional and irascible behavior of Judge Westbrook. If I am felt scared by my experiences in a civil suit, how will the victims of the violent crimes that might come before this man feel if treated in a like manner.

I have watched Judge Westbrook fall asleep during crucial junctures of a Court proceeding. Will you let this lack of respect for our legal system take place in the Circuit Court system as well?

I would hope to have the opportunity to air my feeling before the screening committee. It is imperative that they explore this matter fully.

Sincerely,
/s/J. Maurice Smith, Jr.

March 21, 1991

Senator Thomas H. Pope III
Chairman, Judicial Screening Committee
402 Gressette Building
P.O. Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202

Dear Sir,

This is a request to appear before the screening committee for Judicial Circuit Court Judge, District 11. It is my contention that Judge Marc Westbrook is not a viable candidate for the position due to my experiences in his courtroom. I found him uncaring and not in control of his courtroom.

I am seventy-nine years old and have sat on many juries in my lifetime. Rarely have I seen a judge who exhibited such bias and who allowed himself to be so conspicuously manipulated by a selected attorney.

In my opinion his candidacy does not even bear serious consideration by the committee and I would hope to make this a matter of record.

Sincerely,
/s/Frank Berry

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: I THOUGHT YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

JUDGE WESTBROOK: YES, I DO, YES. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW TO ADDRESS THEM. BOTH OF THESE, I THINK, AS YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND FROM LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS, THAT APPARENTLY THEY WERE FAXED IN TO THE COMMITTEE, I THINK, ABOUT 11:30, LITERALLY THE ELEVENTH HOUR TUESDAY MORNING BY TWO MEN BOTH FROM, I THINK IT WAS EDGEFIELD OR JOHNSON, BOTH WHO APPARENTLY HAVE HAD SOME--KNOW EACH OTHER; THEY BOTH APPARENTLY CAME IN THE SAME PACKET; AND ONE, I THINK, INDICATED HE WOULD NOT BE HERE AND I THOUGHT THE OTHER ONE INDICATED HE WOULD BE HERE, MR. BERRY, I THINK, AND I ASSUME HE IS NOT. MR. SMITH'S CASE WAS A CONTEMPT HEARING IN WHICH HE, IN ESSENCE, TRIED TO GET THE COURT TO MODIFY A NON-MODIFIABLE AGREEMENT. HE AND HIS WIFE AT THE TIME OF DIVORCE HAD REACHED A NON-MODIFIABLE AGREEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND I FOUND HIM IN CONTEMPT, BUT I GAVE HIM SOME TIME TO DO THE PAYING. THE ONE THING IN THAT LETTER THAT I WILL NOTE THAT DOES BOTHER ME A LITTLE BIT, AND I HAVE GOT NOTES HERE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OTHERWISE, THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE ABOUT FALLING ASLEEP DURING THE HEARING AND THAT BOTHERED ME A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS JUST BEEN READING THE PAPERS OR WHAT THAT IS; I TOOK 20 PAGES OF NOTES IN THIS THING AND THOSE ARE RATHER COPIOUS NOTES AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM IF ANYBODY WANTS TO EXAMINE THEM; AND I DON'T THINK I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT KIND OF NOTES HAD I FALLEN ASLEEP DURING THAT HEARING; SO, THAT BOTHERED ME AND I DID WANT TO ADDRESS PARTICULARLY THAT POINT. ON MR. BERRY'S CASE--AND LET ME NOTE THAT WHEN I GOT THESE, I SORT OF GOT UPSET TUESDAY AFTERNOON WHEN I FOUND THESE--THAT THINGS HAD COME IN BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING LIKE THIS COMING. LATE IN THE AFTERNOON I GOT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND GOT DOWN TO EDGEFIELD BASICALLY AT THE LAST MINUTE AND THEY LET ME SPEND A FEW MINUTES UNDER THE SUPERVISION, I MIGHT NOTE, OF ONE OF THE CLERKS IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE THERE REVIEWING THE ORDERS IN THE FILE. AND THIS--MR. BERRY'S, IT INDICATES THAT I HEARD TWO HEARINGS IN THAT CASE AND IN BOTH THE HEARINGS WE SIMPLY APPROVED ROUTINE AGREEMENTS. THERE WERE SOME--HE HAD 12 HEARINGS IN ALL AND I HAD 2 OF THOSE 12 AND WE SIMPLY DID THOSE; AND MY NOTES REFLECT THE SAME THING AND I DON'T HONESTLY KNOW WHAT MR. BERRY'S CIRCUMSTANCE WAS AND WHY IT WAS BECAUSE THE RECORDS INDICATE THAT, I THINK--I FORGET WHAT HIS TERMINOLOGY ABOUT ME WAS, THAT I WAS BIASED AND UNCARING, AND I DON'T SEE HOW I COULD HAVE SHOWN THAT IN A ROUTINE AGREEMENT HEARING. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR LETTING ME--THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I KNOW TO ADDRESS THEM, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I DON'T WANT TO BORE YOU.

Q I HAVE ONE QUESTION. HE MAKES SOME REFERENCE TO A SELECTED ATTORNEY IN HIS LETTER; WHO WAS THE ATTORNEY? DO YOU KNOW IN MR. BERRY'S CASE?
A IN MR. BERRY'S CASE; ALL RIGHT, ACCORDING TO THIS, LET'S SEE, DEFENSE, HERE IT IS; THE ATTORNEYS WERE F. GLENN SMITH AND O. LEE STURKEY. AND I BELIEVE MR. SMITH REPRESENTED MRS. BERRY AND MR. STURKEY REPRESENTED MR. BERRY. I DON'T KNOW WHY HE CALLED MR. SMITH A "SELECTED ATTORNEY."
Q I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HIS CHOICE OF WORDS.
A YES, SIR; AND, AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SPECULATE THAT HE MAY HAVE CONFUSED ME WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. THAT'S ALL I CAN FIGURE BECAUSE, AGAIN, THESE INDICATE A COUPLE OF ROUTINE HEARINGS WHERE WE TOOK UP AGREEMENTS. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING MORE SPECIFIC, BUT THESE WERE LIKE 1987 AND I DON'T RECALL THAT WELL.

SENATOR POPE: DID ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. BERRY'S COMPLAINT OR MR. MAURICE SMITH, JR.,'S COMPLAINT?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: NO, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

JUDGE WESTBROOK: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, AGAIN, MR. CHEWNING IS HERE. HE WAS THE GUARDIAN IN THE CASE AND HE CAME FORWARD; I DID NOT SUBPOENA HIM; HE CAME UP HERE WILLINGLY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE. MR. DENEEN, WHO WAS THE ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE, I HAD CONTACTED HIM; HE WAS HERE FOR A FEW MOMENTS AND HAD TO BE IN COURT AND IS GOING TO TRY TO GET BACK HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ALSO. I TRIED, AGAIN, TO MAKE EVERYBODY AVAILABLE TO THIS COMMITTEE.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

JUDGE WESTBROOK: THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR POPE: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY NEEDS TO BRING TO THE COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT IN OPEN SESSION? IF NOT, WE---

REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM ONE QUESTION.

SENATOR POPE: SURE, COME ON UP, MR. CHEWNING. DO YOU WANT US TO SWEAR HIM?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN: NO.

Q I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, WHAT WAS THE SALIENT POINT OR REASON WHY YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE FATHER WAS THE BETTER PERSON TO HAVE THE CHILDREN, AS OPPOSED TO THE MOTHER?
A STABILITY.
Q YOU FOUND THAT THE MOTHER WAS NOT STABLE, OR NOT AS STABLE AS THE FATHER?
A AS IS IN MOST CASES IN CUSTODY BATTLES THIS DAY AND TIME, I FEEL THAT WE HAVE PROGRESSED TO WHERE BOTH SIDES, MEN AND WOMEN, ARE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT, WE'RE EDUCATED, WE--MOST OF US KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE DO THE THINGS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO; AND IT'S UNUSUAL ANYMORE FOR ME TO FIND LITERALLY THAT ONE PARENT IS TRULY UNFIT AS COMPARED TO ANOTHER. THESE TWO PEOPLE, MR. AND MRS. FREEMAN, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION--I USE MY OWN TECHNIQUE BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO IS THAT I SIT DOWN AND LIST MR. AND MRS.: HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN AND MATCH THEM TO EACH OTHER. AND THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE VERY COMPATIBLE ALL THE WAY DOWN AS TO ABILITY TO CARE FOR THE CHILDREN'S NEEDS, COOK, AND THOSE TYPE THINGS. AS JUDGE WESTBROOK HAS INDICATED, IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE TO CALL; BUT AT THE TIME THIS CASE WAS HEARD, AT THE TIME THIS WOMAN AND HER LAWYER CHOSE TO BRING THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT, AT THAT TIME THE BEST INTERESTS OF THOSE CHILDREN WERE WITH THE FATHER IN THE STABLE ATMOSPHERE OF THE HOME THAT THEY WERE RAISED IN, THE SAME NEIGHBORS, THE SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE MOTHER, AS HONORABLE AS IT IS, WAS LIVING IN A MOBILE HOME PARK OUT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN AN AREA THAT THE FIRE TRUCKS AND THE AMBULANCES GO TO ROUTINELY THREE OR FOUR TIMES A NIGHT. THAT IS THE BEST THAT WOMAN COULD DO WITH THE DIRECTION SHE WANTED TO GO, WHICH WAS TO ATTAIN HER COLLEGE EDUCATION, WHICH I ADMIRE; BUT THAT DAY AND THAT TIME IT WASN'T THE PLACE TO PUT THOSE CHILDREN OUT THERE. AND THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN SAID, AND I USE IT AS A LAWYER ALL THE TIME, WELL, PAY THIS WOMAN A LOT OF MONEY AND IT WILL PUT HER IN A BETTER HOUSE SO SHE CAN KEEP THESE CHILDREN AND GO TO SCHOOL; BUT THE FINANCES OF ALL THE PEOPLE WASN'T ENOUGH, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "TO FLOAT" THIS TYPE OF A DEAL AND THE DIRECTION THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE GOING IN.
Q I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WERE TOGETHER WHEN THIS WAS HEARD. THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD HIM TO SAY.

SENATOR POPE: THAT WAS AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING.
A AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING WHEN THEY FIRST CAME INTO THE COURT, THEY WERE TOGETHER. AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, I DIDN'T GET APPOINTED UNTIL SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE AFTER THAT.
Q SO WHEN YOU GOT INVOLVED, THEY WEREN'T TOGETHER?
A RIGHT.
Q I MISUNDERSTOOD. NO PROBLEM.
A NOT TO BELABOR--Y'ALL HAVE BEEN THE MOST PATIENT MEN AND WOMEN I HAVE SEEN IN GIVING THESE WITNESSES Y'ALL'S ATTENTION. THIS IS A CASE THAT I CAME CLOSE TO CONVINCING THE COURT TO GIVE JOINT CUSTODY OF THESE CHILDREN TO MR. AND MRS. FREEMAN. I REALLY WANTED MRS. FREEMAN TO BE ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL AND DO WHATEVER SHE WAS GOING TO DO BECAUSE I BELIEVED THAT SHE WASN'T GOING TO LIVE WITH MR. FREEMAN ANYMORE; BUT I WANTED HER IN A LOT OF CONTACT WITH THESE CHILDREN AND I CONVINCED JUDGE WESTBROOK TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEYS TO SEE IF WE COULD WORK OUT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THIS; AND ALL I NEEDED WAS ABOUT THAT MUCH COOPERATION (INDICATING) FROM MRS. FREEMAN AND HER ATTORNEY AND WE NEVER COULD WORK IT OUT. WE MET TWO HOURS ONE AFTERNOON. I WAS GOING TO MOVE HER OVER, RELOCATE HER OVER NEAR THE MARITAL HOME AND THEN SHE COULD PICK THE KIDS UP FROM SCHOOL; I HAD THE MOST DEVISED PLAN YOU'VE EVER SEEN BUT BECAUSE OF ONE OR ANOTHER REASONS, AND HER ATTORNEY REPRESENTED HER, IT WASN'T MRS. FREEMAN IN THERE, WE JUST NEVER COULD GET IT DOWN.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, MR. CHEWNING. WE APPRECIATE IT.

JUDGE WESTBROOK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I NOTE THAT MR. DENEEN HAS JUST COME IN. HE APPARENTLY HAS GOTTEN THROUGH WITH WHAT HE IS DOING; AND, AGAIN, I ASKED HIM DO BE HERE. HE'S NOT UNDER SUBPOENA, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMITTEE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

SENATOR POPE: DID Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. DENEEN?

(NO QUESTIONS INDICATED.)

SENATOR POPE: I THINK WE HAVE GONE OVER EVERYTHING, MR. DENEEN, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU COMING. I THINK WE'VE COVERED EVERYTHING; BUT IF ANYBODY HAS ANY? SENATOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY?

SENATOR MCCONNELL: NO.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU.

MR. DENEEN: THANK YOU.

SENATOR POPE: WE NEED TO GO INTO A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: SO MOVED.

(OFF THE RECORD EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 2:10 P.M.; THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS CONCLUDED AT 2:15 P.M; WHEREUPON THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and makes certain findings of fact.

The following candidates were unanimously found by the Committee to be qualified to serve:

Walter M. Bailey, Jr., candidate for Judge of the First Judicial Circuit;

W. Newton Pough, candidate for Judge of the First Judicial Circuit;

Charles W. Whetstone, Jr., candidate for Judge of the First Judicial Circuit;

James C. Williams, Jr., candidate for Judge of the First Judicial Circuit;

The Honorable Donald A. Fanning, candidate for Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit;

T. Reeve Sams, candidate for Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit;

Gerald C. Smoak, Sr., candidate for Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit;

Abigail R. Rogers, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Lynne W. Rogers, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Tommy B. Edwards, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;

Sanford E. Haley, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;

Honorable Stephen S. Bartlett, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;

John W. Kittredge, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; and

H. E. Bonnoitt, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1.

In the Screening of James H. Messervy, candidate for Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, Mr. Ronnie F. Judy testified that Mr. Messervy, while serving as Assistant Solicitor in Dorchester County, did not investigate certain alleged irregularities concerning a competency hearing. Mr. Messervy did not recall being approached about an investigation. In addition, Mr. Messervy testified that he could not have conducted such an investigation because his brother, Dr. Thomas Messervy, had been a witness at the hearing.

It is the finding of the Committee that Mr. Messervy did not have any responsibility to investigate any alleged irregularities in this matter and the testimony concerning Mr. Messervy was based upon Mr. Judy's disappointment in the outcome of judicial proceedings over which Mr. Messervy had no control or ability to influence. Upon review of the cumulative evidence presented to the Committee in regard to the Screening of James H. Messervy, the Committee unanimously finds him qualified as a candidate for the Circuit Court.

In the Screening of the Honorable William P. Keesley, candidate for Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Mr. William R. Wilcox testified that Representative Keesley failed to fulfill his statutory obligation because he did not make a recommendation regarding an appointment to the Edgefield County Water and Sewer Authority Board. Pursuant to Act No. 337, 1973 S.C. Acts 415, members of the Authority are "appointed by the Governor, upon recommendation of a majority of the members of the Edgefield County Council with the approval of the House Delegation." Representative Keesley was the sole member of the House Delegation charged with approving the appointment. Prior to his election to the House, he represented the Authority by conducting legal research concerning the same appointment. He informed the Governor's office and the chairman of the Edgefield County Council that he could not participate in the approval process because he had a conflict of interest.

It is the finding of the Committee that by disclosing his conflict of interest and recusing himself from the approval process, Representative Keesley acted responsibly in the only manner available to him for attempting to discharge his statutory duty. Upon review of the cumulative evidence presented to the Committee in regard to the Screening of the Honorable William P. Keesley, the Committee unanimously finds him qualified as a candidate for the Circuit Court.

In the Screening of the Honorable Marc H. Westbrook, candidate for Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Mrs. Anne L. Neely testified that Judge Westbrook mishandled a child custody action in which Mrs. Neely's daughter was a party. Specifically, she charged that Judge Westbrook favored her former son-in-law's attorney because he was the law partner of Senator Addison G. "Joe" Wilson and, as a result of the Judge's alleged bias, her daughter was treated unfairly. The guardian ad litem in the action testified that the case was a difficult one and that both parents were equally deserving of being awarded custody.

Two additional affidavits were submitted which complained of Judge Westbrook's conduct in the courtroom. Those affiants did not appear to testify.

It is the finding of the Committee that the unfavorable testimony regarding Judge Westbrook arose out of hotly contested domestic disputes in which emotions often run high and that Judge Westbrook presided over these matters in an appropriate manner. Upon review of the cumulative evidence presented to the Committee in regard to the Screening of the Honorable Marc H. Westbrook, the Committee unanimously finds him qualified as a candidate for the Circuit Court.

/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE FOR JUDICIARY SCREENING

TO: The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House

FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee

DATE: April 16, 1991

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of the candidate seeking election to the position of Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

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. Instead, it is the Committee's role to determine whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge. Under the statute, the Committee's determination in regard to each candidate is not binding on the members of the General Assembly.

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 Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held at the State House on April 11, 1991, and the portions of the documents submitted by the candidate which were made part of the record.

The candidate's file includes an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. These documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 402 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidate was present at the screening and testified under oath.

SENATOR POPE: I'M GOING TO CALL THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER AND THANK Y'ALL FOR BEING HERE. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975, IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES--OF COURSE, IN THIS INSTANCE WE HAVE AN UNCONTESTED RACE--BUT TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR A POSITION ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING A CANDIDATE FOR THE VACANCY OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. AND NOTICE OF THE VACANCY WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED AND NO CANDIDATE HAS COME FORWARD OTHER THAN SITTING JUSTICE DAVID WALKER HARWELL. NO CITIZENS HAVE ASKED TO BE HEARD WITH RESPECT TO THIS CANDIDACY. I WOULD NOW ASK IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, JUSTICE HARWELL.

(THE HONORABLE DAVID WALKER HARWELL, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN BY PAULA BENSON, STAFF COUNSEL TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:)

Q THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, JUSTICE HARWELL. YOU WERE SCREENED LAST ONLY, I THINK, THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, DECEMBER 10, 1987, I BELIEVE?
A '87 OR '88; I WAS ELECTED TO A NEW TERM IN '88.
Q AND YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES.
Q IS IT CORRECT? DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A IT'S CORRECT. THERE MAY BE SOME MINOR CHANGES, YOU KNOW, IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT BUT THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO.
Q ALL RIGHT; I KNOW HOW THOSE ARE. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.

1. David Walker Harwell

Home Address: Business Address:

GG#10, Tower South P. O. Drawer 2459

Ocean Creek Plantation 1201 21st Avenue North

Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578

2. He was born in Florence, South Carolina on January 8, 1932. He is presently 59 years old.

Social Security Number: ***-**-*****
4. He was divorced on August 16, 1971, in the Civil Court of Florence County on the ground of habitual drunkenness. He was divorced on November 20, 1979, in the Family Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit on the ground of one year's continuous separation. He has two children: Robert Bryan, age 31 (attorney), and William Baxter, age 30 (law school student).

5. Military Service: 1952-1954; U.S. Navy; Aviation Ordinance Man; 450-09-77; Honorable Discharge.

6. He attended Sewanee University in Sewanee, Tennessee, 1950-1951, transferred to University of South Carolina; the University of South Carolina, 1951, transferred to Texas; the University of Texas, 1951-1952, entered U. S. Navy; the University of South Carolina, 1954-1958, Law Degree (L.L.B. and J.D.).

7. He was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity, 1955-1958 and on the Editorial Board, S. C. Law Review, 1957-1958.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

He has attended and participated in many CLE and JCLE programs. He is constantly reading briefs and new cases.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

He has participated in CLE and JCLE programs on various subjects.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1958-1973 General Practice

1973-1980 Resident Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit

1980-1991 Associate Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court.

20. Judicial Office:

1973-1980 South Carolina Circuit Court Resident Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Court of General Jurisdiction.

1980-1991 South Carolina Supreme Court (the highest Appellate Court in South Carolina).
21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Aviation Associates and Consultants, Inc. v. Jet Time, Inc., et al.

(b) Chris Weston and Multimedia, Inc., d/b/a The Greenville News-Piedmont Company v. Carolina Research and Development Foundation, et al.

(c) James Medlin v. Greenville County and State Workers'

Compensation Fund

(d) Sheryl W. Evans and W. Lawton Evans, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, et al.

(e) The State v. Darryl Rochester

22. Public Office: He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from Florence County, 1963-1973.

23. He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1960 to the South Carolina House of Representatives from Florence County.

24. In 1954 and 1955 he collected accounts for the Universal CIT Credit Corporation.

31. Sued: He has been sued by defendants, but all such cases have been dismissed.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1990 by Dr. Tommy Hearon, 2709 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

34. He was hospitalized in 1981 and 1986 for a heart attack.

36. He is currently being treated by Dr. Tommy Hearon, 2709 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina, for cardiovascular disease.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

American Bar Association and South Carolina Bar Association.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations: Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Florence, South Carolina; recipient of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Portrait and a Scholarship at USC Law School; Honorary Doctor of Humanities, Francis Marion College, Florence, South Carolina.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Stan F. Gibson, Executive Vice President

C & S National Bank of South Carolina

P. O. Box 807, Myrtle Beach, SC 29577

(b) Honorable George T. Gregory, Jr.

P. O. Box 99, Chester, SC 29706

(c) Honorable A. Lee Chandler

P. O. Drawer 9, Darlington, SC 29532

(d) Ernest A. Finney, Jr.

P. O. Drawer 1309, Sumter, SC 29151

(e) Honorable Jean Hoefer Toal

P. O. Drawer 12456, Columbia, SC 29211

Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, LET ME GO THROUGH OUR LIST. WE HAVE CHECKED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE AND THEY REPORTED THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, LIKEWISE, REPORTS THAT IT HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT'S RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE HORRY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE MYRTLE BEACH CITY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE. OF COURSE, SLED AND THE F.B.I. RECORDS ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF HORRY COUNTY WERE CHECKED AND THEY'RE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU. YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN FIVE CIVIL SUITS ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT; AND I BELIEVE THESE CASES WERE DISMISSED OR STIPULATION TO DISMISSAL WAS ENTERED IN ALL OF THOSE, I BELIEVE.
A WE HAVE ALL BEEN SUED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER IN OUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. MOST OF THEM, I THINK, HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, IF NOT ALL.
Q AND, JUDGE, YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE GOOD.
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; AND YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION IS IN ORDER. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. WE HAVE HAD NO WITNESSES REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY. YOU HAVE CERTAINLY DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB ON THE BENCH, JUSTICE HARWELL. AND THIS IS AS CLEAN AS YOU CAN GET. EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMITTEE OR TELL THE COMMITTEE, ANY STATEMENTS?
A NO. NO, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK; BUT IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE ALL OF YOU, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT.

SENATOR POPE: ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO ASK JUSTICE HARWELL ANYTHING?

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: JUST A COMMENT, SENATOR POPE. I NOTICE YOUR TWO SONS, WELL, YOUR OLDER SON IS AN ATTORNEY, OF COURSE; AND I SEE YOUR SECOND SON IS IN LAW SCHOOL; I KNOW YOU ARE PROUD OF THAT.

JUSTICE HARWELL: MY SECOND SON WAS A LATE BLOOMER. HE DECIDED WHEN HE FINISHED SCHOOL THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL; HE WANTED TO GET OUT IN THE WORLD AND GET RICH; SO, HE WORKED FOR C&S BANK FOR AWHILE AS A BRANCH MANAGER AND HE DIDN'T THINK HE MADE ENOUGH MONEY THERE; SO, HE WENT WITH EDENS & AVANT IN LEASING SHOPPING CENTERS OVER THE SOUTHEAST AND DECIDED THAT HE COULDN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY THERE; SO, THAT'S WHEN HE DECIDED TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL. HE IS MY BABY AND HE IS 30 YEARS OLD, AND IF I CAN EVER GET HIM OFF MY PAYROLL, I WILL BE VERY THANKFUL.

SENATOR POPE: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I HAVE A COMMENT. JUDGE HARWELL ADMITTED AWHILE AGO THAT HE AND I ARE ABOUT THE ONLY TWO LEFT WHO WERE IN THE HOUSE WHEN HE SERVED IN THE HOUSE. I THINK WE HAVE A RECORD OF HIS TERMS AS A JUSTICE AND IT'S BEEN GREAT.

JUSTICE HARWELL: THANK YOU.

SENATOR LOURIE: WELL, I'M LEFT; I SERVED WITH Y'ALL IN THE HOUSE.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: PARDON?

SENATOR LOURIE: I'M LEFT AND I SERVED WITH Y'ALL IN THE HOUSE.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: THAT'S RIGHT.

JUSTICE HARWELL: HE HAS BEEN IN THE SENATE SO LONG WE SORT OF FORGOT ABOUT HIM.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: WHEN?

SENATOR LOURIE: FROM '65 TO '73.

REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT, BUT I REMEMBER TRAVIS WAS OVER THERE.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU SIR.

JUSTICE HARWELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ENJOYED IT.

SENATOR LOURIE: IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ONE THAT'S NOT ACRIMONIOUS TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE, JUDGE. IT'S NICE TO HAVE PEACEFUL TIMES ONCE IN AWHILE.

REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY: IT SURE IS.

SENATOR POPE: JUDGE, WE HAVE PROBABLY--WE CAN TAKE THIS UP VERY QUICKLY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE WILL HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

JUSTICE HARWELL: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

(OFF THE RECORD EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:38 A.M.; BACK ON THE RECORD AT 9:40 A.M.)

SENATOR POPE: JUDGE HARWELL, THAT WAS STRICTLY A FORMALITY. WE DO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER EACH SCREENING AND AFTER ABOUT 11 SECONDS OF DEBATE, YOU WERE CERTAINLY FOUND QUALIFIED. WE COMMEND YOU FOR ALL THE GREAT SERVICE TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND WE ARE GOING TO ISSUE A REPORT, OBVIOUSLY, FINDING YOU QUALIFIED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME. WE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO TAKE UP IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT DOES NOT RELATE TO YOUR CANDIDACY AT ALL. WE ARE DELIGHTED TO FIND YOU EXTREMELY QUALIFIED AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SERVICE ON THE BENCH FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
A THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE ELECTION WILL BE MAY THE 9TH OR 8TH.

SENATOR POPE: I THINK IT'S THE 8TH.

MS. SATTERWHITE: IT'S THE 8TH.

SENATOR POPE: JUST ONE MINUTE.

MS. SATTERWHITE: WEDNESDAY THE 8TH.

SENATOR POPE: WEDNESDAY THE 8TH, JUDGE.
A WILL I NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE NOW, OTHER THAN AWAIT THAT?

SENATOR POPE: NO, SIR. WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR ELECTION ON THE 8TH.
A THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SENATOR POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.

SENATOR LOURIE: GOOD LUCK, JUDGE.

(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDING WAS CONCLUDED AT 9:45 A.M.)

The Preamble of Rule 502, SCACR, the Appellate Court Rule on Judicial Discipline and Standards states:

"The assumption of the office of judge imposes upon the incumbent duties in respect to his personal conduct which concerns his relation to the state and its inhabitants, the litigants before him, the principles of law, the practitioners of law in his court, and the witnesses, jurors and attendants who aid him in the administration of its functions. In every particular his conduct should be above reproach. He should be conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless of public clamor, regardless of public praise, and immune from private, political or partisan pressures. He should administer justice according to law, and deal with his appointments as a public trust. He should not allow other affairs or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and proper performance of his judicial duties, nor should he administer the office for the purpose of advancing his personal ambitions or increasing his popularity."

This Committee affirmatively and unanimously finds that Justice David Walker Harwell meets these high standards in every respect and finds him qualified as a candidate for the position of Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

March 26, 1991
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and is, therefore, submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.

Initial Appointment, Member, Board of Examiners Nursing Home & Community Residential Care Administrators, with term to expire December 31, 1993:

Nursing Home Administrator - Non-Profit:

Mr. C. William Trawick, Executive Director, Bishop Gadsden Episcopal Community, 1873 Camp Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412

Referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

April 2, 1991
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am transmitting herewith appointments for confirmation. These appointments are made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and are, therefore, submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.

Initial Appointment, Member, Board of Examiners for Nursing Home and Community Residential Care Facility Administrators, with term to expire on December 31, 1993:

Residential Care Administrator:

Dr. Walter E. Hickman, Jr., Administrator, Presbyterian Home of South Carolina, 2350 Lucas Street, Florence, South Carolina 29501

Referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

Initial Appointment, Member, Board of Examiners for Nursing Home and Community Residential Care Facility Administrators, with term to expire on December 31, 1992:

Residential Care Administrator - 10 beds or less:

Mrs. Catherine H. Beard, Beard's Residential Care, 123 Warren Street, Timmonsville, South Carolina 29161

Referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

Initial Appointment, Member, Board of Examiners for Nursing Home and Community Residential Care Facility Administrators, with term to expire on December 31, 1991:

Nursing Home Administrator - Proprietary:

Mrs. Ethel L. Hughes, Abbeville Nursing Home Inc., Post Office Box 190, Abbeville, South Carolina 29620

Referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:

Document No. 1299
Promulgated By Health and Human Services Finance Commission
Medicaid/Medically Needy
Received By Lt. Governor July 9, 1990
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
Original 120 day expiration date May 7, 1991
Withdrawn March 20, 1991
Resubmitted April 19, 1991
Recalculated 120 day expiration date July 8, 1991

The following was received and referred to the appropriate committee for consideration:

Document No. 1386
Promulgated By Board of Funeral Services
Examinations, Continuing Education, and Reciprocity
Received By Lt. Governor April 18, 1991
Referred to Senate General Committee
120 day review expiration date August 17, 1991

Senator WILLIAMS introduced Dr. G. Preston Cone of Orangeburg, S.C., Doctor of the Day.

On motion of Senator HAYES, Senator HELMLY was granted a leave of absence for the entire week.

H. 3743 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO ENACT "THE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS', PUBLIC MEMBERS', AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' CONDUCT ACT OF 1991" SO AS TO AMEND CHAPTER 17, TITLE 2, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LOBBYISTS AND LOBBYING, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS AND LOBBYING AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 7-3-10, RELATING TO THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, SO AS TO CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 27 TO TITLE 7 SO AS TO ENACT "THE SOUTH CAROLINA CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT"; TO AMEND CHAPTER 13, TITLE 8 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO ETHICS, CONDUCT, CAMPAIGN PRACTICES, AND DISCLOSURES, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF ETHICS, CONDUCT, FORMS AND REPORTS BY CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND DISCLOSURES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, PUBLIC MEMBERS, AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-9-210 AND 16-9-220, RELATING TO OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES FOR THE GIVING, OFFERING, OR ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBES.

Senator WILLIAMS asked unanimous consent to make a motion to set a time certain for 11:30 A.M. on Wednesday, April 24, 1991, to consider H. 3743, to the exclusion of all other matters.

There was no objection.

Senator THOMAS made a Parliamentary Inquiry as to the status of S. 494.

The PRESIDENT stated that S. 494 would remain in the status of Interrupted Debate.

Senator WADDELL asked unanimous consent to make a motion that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 25, 1991, that it stand adjourned to meet on Friday, April 26, 1991, at 11:00 A.M. for local and uncontested matters; and that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, April 26, 1991, that it stand adjourned to meet on Monday, April 29, 1991, at 1:00 P.M.

Senator McCONNELL objected.

S. 393 -- Senators Martschink, Shealy and Passailaigue: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT FOR TAXPAYERS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND TRUSTEES WHO ARE IN THE REGULAR MILITARY, RESERVES, OR NATIONAL GUARD AND STATIONED OVERSEAS AS A RESULT OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD, THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION SHALL CONFORM TO THE ACTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND TO AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 WITH RESPECT TO TIME FOR FILING INDIVIDUAL AND FIDUCIARY INCOME TAX RETURNS AND PAYING INDIVIDUAL INCOME AND FIDUCIARY INCOME TAXES, TO EXTEND THIS CONFORMITY TO CORPORATE INCOME AND LICENSE TAX RETURNS AND CORPORATE INCOME AND LICENSE TAXES WHERE ALL CORPORATE OFFICERS ARE STATIONED OVERSEAS AS A RESULT OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD AND TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAXES AND FILING PROPERTY TAX RETURNS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

The House returned the Joint Resolution with amendments.

On motion of Senator MARTSCHINK, the Senate concurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly. Ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification.

S. 667 -- Senator Washington: A BILL TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLETON COUNTY MUST BE ELECTED BEGINNING IN 1992, INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEVEN SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN MEMBERS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS OF THESE MEMBERS ELECTED.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator WASHINGTON, the Senate concurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly. Ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification.

S. 388 -- Senators Moore, Bryan, Hinds, Courson, Washington, Wilson and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 95 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE POLICY OF THIS STATE REGARDING SOLID WASTE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-11-700, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LITTER LAWS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-720 SO AS TO ASSIGN POINTS FOR THE DUMPING OF LITTER ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY OR WATERS; TO AMEND CHAPTER 7 OF TITLE 12 RELATING TO THE TAX LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-1255 TO PROVIDE A TAX CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED RECYCLING EQUIPMENT; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 7 OF TITLE 12 BY ADDING AN APPROPRIATELY NUMBERED SECTION SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A CHECKOFF ON STATE TAX RETURNS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate non-concurred in the House amendments, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

S. 906 -- Senator Mullinax: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING DR. CHRISTIE W. WINKLER FOR HIS SACRIFICE AND GALLANT ANSWERING OF HIS COUNTRY'S CALL TO WAR AND TO WELCOME DR. WINKLER HOME FROM SAUDI ARABIA.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 907 -- Senator Mullinax: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JAMES CLAUDE MOORE FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF FAITHFUL SERVICE AND THANKING HIM FOR THE DEDICATION TO THE PROTECTION OF HIS COMMUNITY.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 914 -- Senators Bryan, Hayes, Peeler and Fielding: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE ON MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION CITIZENS' PANEL ON MENTAL HEALTH FOR THEIR DEDICATED SERVICE.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

On motion of Senator WADDELL, with unanimous consent, the Senate agreed that when it adjourns on Thursday, April 25, 1991, that it stand adjourned to meet on Friday, April 26, 1991, at 11:00 A.M. for local and uncontested matters; and that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, April 26, 1991, that it stand adjourned to meet on Monday, April 29, 1991, at 11:00 A.M.

The following were introduced:

S. 913 -- Senator Nell W. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE JUNE 10-16, 1991, AS "PEDIATRIC AIDS AWARENESS WEEK" AND TO REQUEST THE GOVERNOR TO CALL UPON THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE TO OBSERVE THE WEEK WITH APPROPRIATE CEREMONIES AND ACTIVITIES.

Senator NELL W. SMITH spoke on the Resolution.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 914 -- Senators Bryan, Hayes, Peeler and Fielding: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE ON MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION CITIZENS' PANEL ON MENTAL HEALTH FOR THEIR DEDICATED SERVICE.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 915 -- Senators Drummond and Land: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-540, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ASSIGNED RISKS, SO AS TO PROVIDE ASSIGNED RISK POOLS SHALL ACCEPT WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE POLICIES ON THE BASIS THAT THEY PROVIDE COVERAGE TO VENDORS PROVIDING LOGGING SERVICES TO THE NAMED INSURED.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 916 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMINERS, RELATING TO PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1369, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 917 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, RELATING TO REGISTRATION, EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATE FEES, AND CODE OF ETHICS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1365, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

S. 918 -- Senators Fielding, Passailaigue, McConnell, Washington, Martschink and Rose: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE BRIDGE OVER THE ASHLEY RIVER WHICH IS PART OF THE MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY IN CHARLESTON AS THE GENERAL WILLIAM C. WESTMORELAND BRIDGE.

Whereas, General William Childs Westmoreland was born in Spartanburg County on March 26, 1914; and

Whereas, after being educated in the public schools, he graduated from United States Military Academy, West Point, and distinguished himself with many honors; and

Whereas, his long and distinguished military record includes Superintendent of the United States Military Academy; Commander, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam; and Chief of Staff of the Army; and

Whereas, he served as Chairman of the Governor's Task Force for Economic Growth for this State; and

Whereas, General Westmoreland has distinguished himself and his native State in ways too numerous to mention; and

Whereas, the members of the General Assembly, recognizing his many accomplishments and outstanding contribution to our State, wish to name a well- known landmark in this State in his honor. Now, therefore,

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

That the Department of Highways and Public Transportation is requested to name the bridge over the Ashley River which is part of the Mark Clark Expressway in Charleston as the General William C. Westmoreland Bridge.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Department of Highways and Public Transportation Commission.

Referred to the Committee on Transportation.

H. 3937 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE GRATITUDE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE ON MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION CITIZENS' PANEL ON MENTAL HEALTH FOR THEIR DEDICATED SERVICE.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3942 -- Rep. Bruce: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF MR. BOYD S. RAGAN OF CAMPOBELLO WHO DIED ON APRIL 17, 1991.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3943 -- Reps. Tucker, Townsend, Ross, T.C. Alexander, Shirley, P. Harris, Chamblee and Cooper: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS AND ADMIRERS OF RALPH FRANKLIN KING OF ANDERSON WHO DIED THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1991.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 3076 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris, Whipper, Waites and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 24 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

Senator BRYAN spoke on the Bill.

Read the first time and on motion of Senator BRYAN, ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

Senator HOLLAND, from the General Committee, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 40 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 43, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-1-55 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES IS EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED TO REDISTRIBUTE ANNUALLY EMPLOYEES ADMINISTERING MANDATED SERVICES AMONG THE COUNTIES ACCORDING TO THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY'S POPULATION AND CASE LOAD.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MACAULAY, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 220 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 48-1-85 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM OPERATING OR FLOATING A VESSEL HAVING A MARINE TOILET UNLESS IT DISCHARGES ONLY INTO A HOLDING TANK, DEFINE TERMS, REQUIRE CERTIFICATION OF THE DISCHARGE, AND PROVIDE PENALTIES.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator GIESE, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 380 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Hayes, Fielding and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 24 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN IN NEED OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator HOLLAND, from the General Committee, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 617 -- Senators Helmly and Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 30-15-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RECORDATION OF VETERANS' DISCHARGE RECORDS, SO AS TO PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY GOVERNING BODY AND THE COUNTY VETERANS' AFFAIRS OFFICER, THE CLERK OF COURT TO TRANSFER ALL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE COUNTY VETERANS' AFFAIRS OFFICER TO RECEIVE, RECORD, AND MAINTAIN DISCHARGE RECORDS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MOORE, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 636 -- Senators Rose and Reese: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AWARD TO BE PRESENTED ANNUALLY TO A PERSON EXEMPLIFYING EXTRAORDINARY DEDICATION TO THE CONSERVATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY A COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, THE STATE COMMISSION OF FORESTRY, WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION, AND THE WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator NELL W. SMITH, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 741 -- Senators Hayes, Bryan, Fielding, Matthews, Hinds, Nell W. Smith, Wilson, Gilbert, Moore, Leatherman, Holland, Mitchell, Thomas, Helmly, Russell, Waddell, Lourie, Land and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-2975 SO AS TO REQUIRE CHILD DAY CARE FACILITIES TO HAVE ON ITS PREMISES AT LEAST ONE CAREGIVER WITH A CURRENT CERTIFICATE FOR THE PROVISION OF BASIC FIRST AID AND CHILD-INFANT CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator NELL W. SMITH, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 790 -- Senator Nell W. Smith: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE UNITED NATIONS "CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD" AND TO REQUEST AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO CHILDREN TO AIM TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE CONVENTION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MOORE, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 853 -- Senators Saleeby and J. Verne Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-56-200, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE FEDERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP LAW, SO AS TO INCLUDE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL LAW WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT'S ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MOORE, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 881 -- Senators Pope, Martin, Lourie and McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 1991, AT 12:00 NOON AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1992, AND JUNE 30, 1994; AND TO ELECT SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE FAMILY COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1995.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3073 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 22 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE RIGHTS OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 44-17-820, 44-23-230, 44-23-1010, 44-23-1020, 44-23-1030, 44-23-1040, 44-23-1050, 44-23-1060, 44-23-1070, 44-23-1090, 44-52-170, AND 44-52-190 RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator BRYAN, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3081 -- Reps. M.O. Alexander, Manly, Cork, Keyserling, Neilson, Baxley, McKay, Houck, Jaskwhich, Cato, Whipper, J. Bailey, Holt, Barber, Rama, Hallman, Fulmer, Faber, Koon, Wilder, McElveen, McLeod, Harrison, D. Williams, T.C. Alexander, L. Martin, Stoddard, Haskins, Corning, Hayes, Hodges, Sheheen, McGinnis, Wells, Phillips, Clyborne, Mattos, Littlejohn, Bruce, Corbett, M. Martin, Klapman, Cromer, Waites, J. Williams, Keegan, J. Rogers, Short, Waldrop, Burch, Wilkins, Kinon, Kempe, P. Harris, G. Brown, J. Harris, T. Rogers, A. Young, Meacham, Harvin, Altman, Marchbanks, Rudnick and J. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-53-50 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF CLEANING AGENTS CONTAINING PHOSPHATES, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3623 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO WIC VENDOR REGULATIONS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1236, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MOORE, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3916 -- Reps. Gentry, D. Martin, Hendricks and Hodges: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 1991, AT 12:00 NOON AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1992, AND JUNE 30, 1994; AND TO ELECT SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE FAMILY COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1995.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MOORE, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from S.C. Society of Ophthalmology to attend a reception at the Capital City Club on Wednesday, May 8, 1991, from 6:00 - 8:00 P.M.

The invitation was accepted.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

The following Bill was read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act and same enrolled for Ratification:

H. 3838 -- Reps. Jennings and Beasley: A BILL TO CREATE THE MARLBORO COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION AND TO ABOLISH THE MARLBORO COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND MARLBORO COUNTY REGISTRATION BOARD AND DEVOLVE THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES UPON THIS NEW BOARD.

(By prior motion of Senator SALEEBY)

The following House Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 3120 -- Rep. Harwell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-700, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF USING ARTIFICIAL LIGHTS TO OBSERVE OR HARASS WILDLIFE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE OFFENSE TO OCCUR AT ANYTIME INSTEAD OF AFTER 11:00 P.M., LIMIT THE OFFENSE TO GAME ZONE 10, AND PROVIDE A PRIVATE PROPERTY EXCEPTION.

(On motion of Senator McGILL)

The following Bill was severally read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 341 -- Senators Wilson and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-9-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE COMMITTEES OF POLITICAL PARTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEES, THE PRESIDENTS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA FEDERATION OF REPUBLICAN WOMEN AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA FEDERATION OF DEMOCRATIC WOMEN ARE EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE COMMITTEES.

S. 756 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-375 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL PERSONS HUNTING DEER MUST WEAR A HAT, COAT, VEST, OR OTHER OUTER GARMENT WITH THE SOLID, VISIBLE COLOR OF INTERNATIONAL ORANGE.

Senator DRUMMOND asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator McGILL proposed the following amendment (RES756.001), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, Section 50-11-375, line 22, by adding after the word /deer/ the following:

/, except still hunters and bow hunters in game zones 9 and 10,/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

The following Bills having been read the second time were passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 610 -- Senators Rose, McGill, Reese and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-520, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY OBTAINED THROUGH OR USED FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ILLEGAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PROPERTY SEIZED AND TO PROHIBIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM USING FORFEITED PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS OF SALES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR DOCUMENTATION AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE USE OF SEIZED PROPERTY.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, all amendments were carried over to third reading.

H. 3002 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-15-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF A COUNTY AS A RESULT OF AN ELECTION AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THEM, SO AS TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS FROM THREE TO FIVE YEARS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD IS TOLLED WHILE LITIGATION CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION IS PENDING.

Senator POPE explained the Bill.

H. 3086 -- Rep. Rama: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-11-105 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GOVERNING BOARD OF A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT PROVIDING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES MAY PLACE AN EMERGENCY BAN ON THE BURNING OF TRASH OR DEBRIS WITHIN THE DISTRICT FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME IF CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

H. 3382 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AND SECTION 9-11-50, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THESE SYSTEMS AT RETIREMENT, AFTER MARCH 31, 1991, SHALL RECEIVE CERTAIN RETIREMENT SERVICE CREDITS FOR NOT MORE THAN NINETY DAYS OF THEIR UNUSED SICK LEAVE.

S. 554 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 22, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MAGISTRATE'S POWERS AND DUTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 11 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF A FIRST OFFENSE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE'S COURT MAY HAVE HIS CRIMINAL RECORD FOR THIS OFFENSE EXPUNGED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary Committee (JUD554.2) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, beginning on line 30, in Section 22-5-910, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /under Article 5, Chapter 3 of this title/ and inserting therein /in a magistrate's court or a municipal court/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 33, in Section 22-5-910, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /magistrate's/ and inserting therein /circuit/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 37, in Section 22-5-910, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /conviction under Article 5/ and inserting therein /first offense conviction in a magistrate's court or a municipal court/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 37, in Section 22-5-910, as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting /circuit/ before /court/ .

Amend title to conform.

Senator POPE explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading with notice of general amendments.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions having been read the second time were passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 540 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-15-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR A SURETY COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO GUARANTEED ARREST BOND CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY AN AUTOMOBILE CLUB OR ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO INCREASE THE LIMIT OF THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATION FROM FIVE HUNDRED TO ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, S. 540 was ordered to receive a third reading on Wednesday, April 24, 1991.

H. 3021 -- Rep. Gentry: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 14-23-610, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A JUDGE OF PROBATE TO FILE A DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR.

Senator POPE explained the Bill.

H. 3069 -- Reps. Farr, Haskins, Short, Sheheen, Waites, Wilkins and Rama: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF PARTY CONVENTIONS OR PARTY PRIMARY ELECTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A CERTIFIED POLITICAL PARTY TO HOLD A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION, AND TO REQUIRE THE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY TO SET THE DATE AND THE HOURS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION AND THE FILING REQUIREMENTS.

H. 3083 -- Rep. Manly: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-11-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES WHEN A PARTY NOMINEE DIES, BECOMES DISQUALIFIED, OR RESIGNS FOR LEGITIMATE NONPOLITICAL REASONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE NOMINEE WAS NOMINATED BY PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION AND TO REVISE CERTAIN ELECTION PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE SECTION; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 7-11-55, SO AS TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL PRIMARY ELECTION TO FILL A VACANCY IN CASES WHERE A PARTY NOMINEE WHO WAS NOMINATED BY A PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION DIES, BECOMES DISQUALIFIED, OR RESIGNS FOR LEGITIMATE NONPOLITICAL REASONS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROCEDURES AND ELECTION DATES IN REGARD TO THIS PROVISION.

H. 3145 -- Rep. Rama: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE BARRIER FREE DESIGN STANDARDS LAW, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT IN THE DEFINITION OF "RENOVATION" THAT THE CHANGES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE STRUCTURAL TO COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION AND TO AMEND SECTION 10-5-273, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR UPPER FLOORS UNDER THESE STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS OF A CERTAIN SIZE, SO AS TO REVISE THIS EXCEPTION.

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.

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.

S. 912 -- Senator Saleeby: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION ACT, SO AS TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-40, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATIONS AND REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ORGANIZATION'S PROPOSED PLAN OF OPERATION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-90, RELATING TO ORGANIZATION REPORTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT OF A COPY OF THE REPORTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-110, RELATING TO THE COMPLAINT SYSTEM, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-170, RELATING TO EXAMINATIONS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE TO EXAMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT TO COMMISSION AND DELETE THE REFERENCE TO EXAMINATION OF PROVIDERS WITH WHOM AN ORGANIZATION HAS CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-180, RELATING TO SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS UNABLE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS TO FURNISH HEALTH CARE SERVICES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-270, RELATING TO CONTRACTUAL POWERS TO FULFILL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ACT, SO AS TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE TO DEPARTMENT TO COMMISSIONER AND PROVIDE FOR EXPENSES ASSESSED AGAINST AN ORGANIZATION TO BE REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER.

On motion of Senator SALEEBY, S. 912 was ordered to receive a third reading on Wednesday, April 24, 1991.

S. 379 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 40-79-10, 40-79-30 AND 40-79-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA REGULATION OF BURGLAR ALARM SYSTEM BUSINESSES ACT OF 1986" SO AS TO INCLUDE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM BUSINESSES WITHIN THE REGULATION AND LICENSURE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.

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 Committee (LCI379.1) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION ___. Section 40-79-140 of the 1976 Code is further amended to read:

"Section 40-79-140. (A) The board shall provide by regulation for an alarm system business license. Applicants for an alarm system business the license shall comply with one of the following requirements: successfully shall pass an oral or written examination considered by the board to measure an applicant's knowledge and competence in the alarm system business or establish to the board's satisfaction three years' experience, within the immediately preceeding five years, in alarm systems installation and service."

Amend title to conform.

Senator MOORE explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

H. 3257 -- Reps. Rudnick, Wilder, Baxley, Klapman, Rama, Wright, Waites and Corning: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 39-41-290 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SERVICE STATION TO DISPENSE GASOLINE OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TO A DISABLED DRIVER UPON HIS REQUEST WHEN HE IS PROPERLY IDENTIFIED BY EITHER A PLACARD OR DISABLED LICENSE TAG AND HAVE THE GASOLINE OR OTHER FUEL DISPENSED TO THE DISABLED DRIVER AT THE SAME PRICE OTHERWISE CHARGED FOR GASOLINE OR OTHER FUEL PURCHASED ON A SELF-SERVICE BASIS.

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 (LCI3257.1) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all of SECTION 2 and inserting:

/SECTION 2. This act takes effect ninety days after approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Senator LEATHERMAN explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

H. 3140 -- Rep. Rama: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-446, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMATICALLY DIALED ANNOUNCING DEVICES, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEVICES.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary (JUD3140.1) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, line 27, in Section 16-17-446(A), as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /also/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 33, in Section 16-17-446(B)(2), as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting /when/ before /primarily/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 36, in Section 16-17-446(B)(3), as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting /in response/ before
/to a person/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 1, line 39, in Section 16-17-446(C), as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting /which are/ before /not prohibited/ .

Amend title to conform.

Senator POPE explained the committee amendment.

Senator LOURIE proposed the following amendment (JIC\5635.HC), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 16-17-446(A), as contained in SECTION 1, page 1, by inserting before /calls/ on line 27 /automatically announced/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

S. 194 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-601 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A JUVENILE MAY NOT BE INCARCERATED IN A JAIL OR OTHER PLACE OF DETENTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR COMMITTING OR VIOLATING A COURT ORDER PROHIBITING THE COMMISSION OF A STATUS OFFENSE, AND BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-602 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TERMS "JAIL OR OTHER PLACE OF DETENTION" AND "DETENTION FACILITIES" INCLUDE A LAW ENFORCEMENT LOCKUP OR HOLDING CELL FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW PROHIBITING THE PLACING OF A JUVENILE IN JAIL FOR A STATUS OFFENSE OR THE PLACING OF A JUVENILE LAWFULLY IN JAIL IN THE SAME CELL WITH ADULTS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Corrections and Penology.

Senator BRYAN explained the amendment.

On motion of Senator GIESE, the amendment was carried over to third reading.

H. 3368 -- Reps. Fair, Sharpe, Rama, J. Bailey, Huff, Cork, Wells, Quinn, Harvin, Haskins, Jaskwhich, Holt, Wright, Neilson, Littlejohn, Fulmer, G. Bailey, Phillips, Gonzales, Vaughn, Burriss, H. Brown, Koon, M. Martin, McGinnis, McCain, Bruce and Marchbanks: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-410 SO AS TO CREATE THE CRIME OF THIRD DEGREE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR FOR POSSESSION OF MATERIAL THAT CONTAINS A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF A MINOR ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO SECTIONS 16-15-385 THROUGH 16-15-425, SO AS TO INCLUDE SECTION 16-15-410.

On motion of Senator POPE, the Bill was carried over.

S. 918 -- Senators Fielding, Passailaigue, McConnell, Washington, Martschink and Rose: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE BRIDGE OVER THE ASHLEY RIVER WHICH IS PART OF THE MARK CLARK EXPRESSWAY IN CHARLESTON AS THE GENERAL WILLIAM C. WESTMORELAND BRIDGE.

On motion of Senator FIELDING, with unanimous consent, the Concurrent Resolution was recalled from the Committee on Transportation.

Senator FIELDING asked unanimous consent to take the Concurrent Resolution up for immediate consideration.

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 803 -- Senators Shealy, Waddell and Martschink: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO LOTTERIES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE LOTTERIES CONDUCTED ONLY BY THE STATE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE LOTTERIES.

Senator SHEALY asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Joint Resolution from the Senate Finance Committee.

Senator MACAULAY objected.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.

S. 494 -- Senators Lourie, Leventis, McConnell, J. Verne Smith, Macaulay, Passailaigue, Long, Fielding, Helmly, Thomas, Russell, Rose, O'Dell, Mitchell and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLES 1, 3, AND 5, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 57, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE DESIGNATION OF HIGHWAY DISTRICTS, THE ELECTION OF HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT BY PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS TO BE USED IN CHAPTER 3, BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BY PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF CERTAIN DIVISIONS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE APPOINTMENT OF DIVISION MANAGERS, BY PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT LARGE AND THEIR TERM OF OFFICE, BY PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF SEVEN HIGHWAY DISTRICTS, AND BY PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF OTHER DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL; TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 11, TITLE 57, RELATING TO FINANCES OF THE DEPARTMENT SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MUST PROCESS ALL VOUCHERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF GOODS, SERVICES, AND PERSONNEL SERVICES THROUGH THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S OFFICE; TO PROVIDE FOR NEW TERMS OF OFFICE FOR COMMISSIONERS ELECTED FOR TERMS BEGINNING IN 1992; TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-45(B), RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT'S LUMP SUM STATUS BY ELIMINATING THE DEPARTMENT'S LUMP SUM STATUS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE CODE COMMISSIONER CHANGE CERTAIN REFERENCES IN THE 1976 CODE; TO REPEAL SECTION 124.20, PART I, ACT 612 OF 1990 RELATING TO BUDGET TRANSFERS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF AN OMBUDSMAN WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senator LAND argued contra to the second reading of the Bill.

Senator GILBERT rose to a Point of Personal Privilege.

Senator LAND continued arguing contra to the second reading of the Bill.

Senator WILLIAMS asked unanimous consent to make a motion that the Senate stand adjourned, with Senator LAND retaining the floor.

Senator LEATHERMAN objected.

Senator WILLIAMS moved that the Bill be continued.

A roll call vote was ordered.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved to table the motion to continue.

Senator LAND raised a Point of Order that under Rule 14, the motion to continue was not subject to a tabling motion.

The PRESIDENT sustained the Point of Order.

Senator LOURIE made a Parliamentary Inquiry as to whether or not the motion to continue was a debatable motion.

The PRESIDENT stated that the motion was nondebatable.

Senator LOURIE asked unanimous consent to make brief remarks.

Senator WILLIAMS objected.

Senator LEATHERMAN raised a Point of Order that Rule 35 empowered the Presiding Officer to entertain brief remarks on the motion to continue.

Senator LAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion that the Senate stand adjourned, with Senator LAND retaining the floor.

Senator LEATHERMAN objected.

The question then was the motion to continue.

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Bryan Fielding Hinds
Hinson Holland Land
Macaulay Martin Matthews
Mullinax Pope Saleeby
Washington Williams

Courson Drummond Giese
Hayes Leatherman Long
Lourie Martschink McConnell
McGill Mitchell Moore
O'Dell Passailaigue Peeler
Reese Rose Russell
Setzler Shealy Smith, J.V.
Smith, N.W. Thomas Waddell
Wilson

The Senate refused to continue the Bill.

Debate was interrupted by adjournment.

At 1:00 P.M., on motion of Senator MOORE, 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.