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, the Book of Revelation was written to give encouragement in difficult times. Hear 21:3:

"I heard a loud voice speaking from the throne,

`Now God's home is with men! He will live

with them, and they shall be His people. God

Himself will be with them, and He will be their

God.'"
Let us pray.

Lord God, we thank You for the lovely picture that John gives us of heaven, where God is no longer the transcendent God... far off, but a God who dwells with his people.

But we thank You that it is not necessary to wait for heaven to have God dwell with His people. He longs to dwell with us... and in us... by faith. Not in some by-and-by... but in the here and now!

So... today... and in all our days... let us lift up our hearts as we hear the Lord's words, "Lo, I am with you always."
Amen.

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

April 28, 1992
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, South Carolina State Fire Commission, with term to expire January 15, 1995:

1st Congressional District-F:

Chief Richard G. Waring, 433 West Carolina Avenue, Summerville, South Carolina 29483 VICE Chief Wilmont Guthke (retired)

Referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

Initial Appointment, Member, South Carolina Public Railways Commission, with term to expire November 1, 1992:

At-Large:

Mr. Christopher C. Merrill, 922 Preston Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412 VICE F. Eugene Williams (resigned)

Referred to the Committee on Transportation.

April 28, 1992
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

We are submitting Governor Campbell's nomination of Mr. Christopher C. Merrill for confirmation for appointment to the South Carolina Public Railways Commission with the initialed assent of the Senators from Charleston County, with the exception of Senator FIELDING.

The opportunity was provided Senator FIELDING on several occasions but at each he declined.

Sincerely,
Gene Beckman
Boards and Commissions

TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: April 8, 1992

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/Senator 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. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of the candidates seeking election to the positions of Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit; Judge of the Circuit Court at Large, Seat #5; Judge of the Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; Judge of the Family Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seats #1 and #4; Judge of the Family Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #3; Judge of the Family Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; and Judge of the Family Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #2. One retired Family Court Judge was also screened.

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 in the Third Floor Conference Room of the State House on April 2, 1992, and the portions of the documents submitted by the candidates which were made part of the public record.

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. These documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 211 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

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

CHAIRMAN POPE: I'LL FORMALLY CALL THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER NOW. MY NAME IS TOM POPE; I'M FROM NEWBERRY, AND A MEMBER OF THE SENATE. WITH ME IS THE VICE-CHAIRMAN LARRY GENTRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SALUDA COUNTY, AND REPRESENTATIVE HODGES FROM LANCASTER COUNTY; SENATOR LOURIE IS HERE ON MY RIGHT. AND WE WELCOME EVERYONE HERE. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE CROWDED ROOM. THIS IS THE BEST WE COULD DO. WE ARE IN SESSION TODAY, BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. THE SENATE GOES IN SESSION AT 11:00; YOU GO IN AT --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: 10:00.
CHAIRMAN POPE: -- 10:00, AND WE NEEDED TO BE IN THIS BUILDING, AND THIS IS THE BIGGEST ROOM WE HAVE. I KNOW IT'S CRAMPED. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MOVE ALONG AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. THIS ROOM DOES NOT HAVE A SOUND SYSTEM, SO WE DO NOT HAVE AMPLIFICATION. WE WILL ASK ALL OF YOU TO TRY TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK DURING THE SCREENING, SO THAT YOU SPEAK UP LOUDLY. THE COURT REPORTER IS VERY GOOD; SHE'LL PICK IT UP, IF YOU'LL JUST SPEAK IN A REASONABLE VOICE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS WE NEED TO TEND TO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION -- THAT'S OUR TRADITION -- SOME THINGS WE WILL NEED TO DISCUSS PRIVATELY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OF Y'ALL. WE'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION; AND WHEN WE DO, THE COMMITTEE WILL GO ACROSS THE HALL TO A SMALLER ROOM, WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF MEETING, AND WE'LL COME BACK AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. WHILE WE'RE GONE, WE'LL JUST ASK Y'ALL TO FEEL FREE TO COME HAVE COFFEE AND JUST STAND AT EASE, CHIT-CHAT, WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO. THE BATHROOMS ARE AROUND. WE HAVE STAFF-PERSONS HERE; MS. SATTERWHITE IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND SHE WILL HELP YOU IN ANY WAY THAT YOU NEED. AT THIS TIME, IS THERE A MOTION?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: SO MOVED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: A SECOND?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SECONDED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL IN FAVOR?
ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS: AYE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO ACROSS THE HALL FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND THEN COME RIGHT BACK.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I'M GOING TO OFFICIALLY CALL THE COMMITTEE BACK IN ORDER. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE 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 WHICH WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY SLED, 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 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. WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING CANDIDATES FOR THE TERM EXPIRATIONS IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1; FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1; FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEATS #1 AND #4; SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3; AND THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2. WE ALSO WILL BE EXAMINING CANDIDATES FOR THE VACANCIES IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CIRCUIT COURT AT LARGE, SEAT #5; FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1; AND FAMILY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; ALONG WITH ONE RETIRED FAMILY COURT JUDGE. ONE THING WE TRY TO DO -- THERE ARE SEVERAL POSITIONS WHICH ARE CONTESTED TODAY, AND WE TRY TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYONE ABOUT THE NO-PLEDGING RULE. THE POLICY IS THAT NO COMMITMENTS OR PLEDGES CAN BE SOUGHT UNTIL AFTER OUR REPORT, THE SCREENING COMMITTEE REPORT, HAS BEEN ISSUED; AND THAT MAY BE A FEW DAYS FROM NOW. SO I KNOW A SENATOR ASKED ME ABOUT IT YESTERDAY, AND I TOLD HIM I WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO ALL Y'ALL; AND THE REASON I'M SAYING IT NOW IS BECAUSE AFTER YOU ARE SCREENED, YOU'RE FREE TO JUST LEAVE, AND THIS IS THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO HEAR THIS. SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO JUST BE MINDFUL OF THAT, IF YOU'RE IN A CONTESTED RACE, THAT YOU CAN SEEK COMMITMENTS AND PLEDGES, BUT NOT UNTIL AFTER OUR REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED; AND OF COURSE, MS. SATTERWHITE WILL NOTIFY YOU AS SOON AS THE REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED. THE SCHEDULE HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE DOOR. I GUESS MOST OF YOU SAW IT COMING IN. WE'RE GOING TO DEVIATE SLIGHTLY BECAUSE JUDGE WARSHAUER IS SCHEDULED SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, AND HE IS A RETIRED JUDGE, SO OUR LAW REQUIRES THAT HE BE RESCREENED. SO, JUDGE WARSHAUER, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND LET YOU GO FIRST, AND LET YOU GET OUT OF HERE, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU.

WHEREUPON, B.J. WARSHAUER, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN MARCH OF 1988, I BELIEVE. AND WHEN WAS YOUR RETIREMENT?
A MY RETIREMENT WILL BE JUNE 30 OF THIS YEAR.
Q YOU HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY AMENDMENTS?
A I DON'T THINK SO.
Q ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT WE CAN MAKE IT A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THEN?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE WILL DO SO.

1. Bernard Jerome Warshauer
Home Address: Business Address:
629 Periwinkle Court P. O. Box 1816
Sumter, SC 29150 108 N. Magnolia Street
Sumter, SC 29151

2. He was born in Wilmington, North Carolina on December 3, 1920. He is presently 71 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Alice Eugenia Hatcher Means on December 10, 1977. He was previously divorced from Jean O'Neal Warshauer; Durham, North Carolina; County Civil Court; one year separation; September 8, 1965. He has three children: Donna Warshauer Boone-Caldwell, age 39 (Town Clerk; Christiansburg, Virginia); Michael Jerome, age 33 (attorney with firm of Burge & Wettermark; Atlanta, Georgia); and Wendy Warshauer Davidow, age 31 (nurse; Ferndale, Michigan).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army; 1942-1947; Lt. Col. (Res.) (Retired); Honorable Discharge; Serial Number 0433970; Social Security Number ***-**-****

6. He attended The Citadel, B.S. in Business Administration, 1941; and the University of North Carolina School of Law, LLB, 1965.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended practically all of the judicial CLEs and most of the CLEs dealing with Family Court.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

He has been a visiting lecturer at St. Leo's College, giving an annual lecture on the history of the Family Court.

He has also spoken to Civics classes at Mayewood High School.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Admitted to North Carolina Bar, 1965
South Carolina Bar and Federal Courts, 1966
Private law practice, 1971-1976
Master-in-Equity for Sumter County, 1972-1976
Acting Judge, Civil & Domestic Relations Court, Sumter County,
November-December, 1972 and February-March, 1975
Judge, Civil & Domestic Relations Court, Sumter County,
September, 1976 - June, 1977
Judge, Family Court, Third Judicial Circuit, July, 1977 to present
20. Judicial Office:

Master-in-Equity for Sumter County, 1972-1977, appointed
Acting Judge, Civil & Domestic Relations Court; Sumter County;
November-December, 1972 and February-March, 1975; appointed by Governor West
Judge, Civil & Domestic Relations Court; Sumter County;
September, 1976 - June, 1977; appointed by Governor Edwards
Judge, Family Court, Third Judicial Circuit; July, 1977 to present;
elected by South Carolina Legislature

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Nienow v. Nienow, 268 S.C. 161, 232 S.E. 2d 504 (1977).
He heard this matter as a Special Master in Equity. His Master's Report was reversed by the Honorable Frank Epps, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. But his Order was, in fact, reinstated by the Supreme Court in the above cited appellate opinion.

(b) Rouse v. Rouse, Court of Appeals, Unpublished Opinion No. 91-UP-118 (heard April 9, 1991; filed June 24, 1991).
In this case, the wife's mother had voluntarily supported the parties during their marriage in an amount exceeding $20,000. He found that she expected payment if and when the parties were able to make such repayment. Once the debt was established, he found, over the husband's objection, that the debt was marital and was subject to equitable apportionment.

An interesting feature is that the husband alleged that the ordered support was above his means while, at the same time, he was providing substantial support for his paramour.

(c) Lineberger v. Lineberger, 303 S.C. 248, 399 S.E. 2d 786 (1990).
This case was originally heard by Judge Patterson who refused to approve an agreement voluntarily entered into between the parties, and he gave the parties 30 days to amend their pleadings.

An interesting feature in this case was that he granted permanent alimony substantially in excess of the original agreement and, more interestingly, he also gave her 15% of his annual bonus as additional alimony.

The parties to this action were both successful. After marriage, the husband had completed his B.S. in accounting and had advanced to the position of chief financial officer for one of the world's largest construction companies. Also during the marriage, the wife had completed her undergraduate and graduate degrees in social work and was employed as a counselor by the Department of Social Services.

The husband had historically received substantial annual bonuses. These bonuses were based upon the corporation's performance and were in no way connected to his individual services. The bonuses had been used for family purposes the same as the normal salaries of the parties.

(d) Layton v. Layton, Court of Appeals, Unpublished Opinion No. 91-UP-042 (heard January 17, 1991, filed February 26, 1991).

In this case, unlike Lineberger, the husband worked for an automobile dealership. He had received but one year-end bonus at the time of the hearing. Unlike Lineberger and considering the state of the economy (especially as regards the sale of American automobiles), the possibility of future bonuses was speculative at best. In this case, he refused to consider the possibility of future bonuses as an item of future support. The appellate court agreed.

(e) Martin v. Martin, 296 S.C. 436, 373 S.E. 2d 706 (1988).
This case was a landmark in the area of equitable division. It was the first case that decided once and for all that military retirement benefits were marital property subject to equitable division.

The Court of Appeals approved of the methods he used to apportion the retirement benefits; i.e., that is, he used approved accounting methods to determine the present value of the wife's 20% share.
In addition, Judge Warshauer gave him the entire pension and offset her share against other marital property.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
President & Treasurer of Carolina Dry Goods Company in Wilmington, North Carolina, 1948-1963

33. His health is very good. His last physical was by medical staff at Shaw Air Force Base.

36. He has diabetes which is controlled by diet. He is treated by the medical staff at Shaw Air Force Base.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, member; South Carolina Bar, member; Representative for Third Judicial Circuit on South Carolina Bar Council, 1971-1975; Initial Member of the Board of Governors, 1975; Chairman, Judicial Grievance and Discipline Commission, 1976 (appointed by Governor Edwards); Sumter County Bar, member; North Carolina Bar, inactive member

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Temple Sinai, Congregation President-Elect; American Contract Bridge League, National Board of Directors for District 7, Board of Directors of ACBL Educational Foundation; Sumter Rotary Club; Sumter Citadel Club; Mason; B'Nai B'rith

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Robert N. Boykin, Jr., Vice President and City Executive
The National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 1798, Sumter, SC 29151-1798

(b) Richard M. Leviton, D.D., Rabbi
Congregation Sinai
P. O. Box 1673, Sumter, SC 29151

(c) Linda L. Jones, Director of Community Programs II
Third Judicial Circuit
S. C. Department of Youth Services
P. O. Box 1235, Sumter, SC 29151-1235

(d) Ronald H. Smith, Director
Sumter County Department of Social Services
P. O. Box 68, Sumter, SC 29151-0068

(e) G. E. Myers, Principal
Wilder Elementary School
Floral Drive, Sumter, SC 29150

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I., AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT, AND ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH TO BE VERY GOOD, JUDGE?
A PRETTY GOOD, YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. THERE ARE NO COMPLAINTS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU. NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY IN ANY WAY AGAINST YOU. JUDGE, YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY MADE AN ELECTION THAT YOU WANTED TO STAY ON THE BENCH AND HELP OUT, AND I THINK THE STATE IS GRATEFUL FOR THAT DECISION. WHAT MADE YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, AS OPPOSED TO GOING BACK INTO PRACTICING LAW?
A WELL, IN ALL CANDOR, I REALLY DIDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION YET.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I'VE JUST MADE THIS AN OPTION THAT I COULD USE IT, IF OTHER PLANS DON'T WORK OUT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. I NOTICE THIS SAYS YOU WERE A VISITING LECTURER AT ST. LEO'S COLLEGE?
A YEAH, THAT'S JUST A ONCE-A-YEAR THING.
SENATOR LOURIE: WHERE IS THAT SCHOOL?
WITNESS: IT'S AT SHAW FIELD. IT'S AN EXTENSION COLLEGE TYPE THING.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE WARSHAUER?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) JUDGE, BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A SENIOR JURIST, WE USUALLY ASK CANDIDATES SOMETHING ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, BECAUSE I THINK MOST PEOPLE TEND TO REGARD THAT AS VERY IMPORTANT. BASED ON YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU REGARD THAT QUALITY?
A WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT IT IS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE, ACTUALLY. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. I THINK THE LITIGANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS AND THE PUBLIC ARE ENTITLED TO A COURT THAT IS CALM, COLLECTED, AND GIVES EVERYBODY A FAIR SHAKE. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T PICK SIDES, AND YOU CAN'T MAKE FRIENDS. IT'S JUST -- IT'S REALLY NOT THAT DIFFICULT. IT'S NOT, FOR ME, THAT DIFFICULT; BUT MAYBE THAT'S MY TEMPERAMENT.
Q JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? I THINK YOUR APPLICATION IS PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
A I WOULDN'T THINK SO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE. ANYTIME YOU WANT TO LEAVE, FEEL FREE TO DO SO.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT POSITION WE WILL BE SCREENING FOR IS THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, BERKELEY AND CHARLESTON COUNTIES, AND OUR FIRST APPLICANT IS STEVE DAVIS. MR. DAVIS, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE COME TO THE END OF THE TABLE.

WHEREUPON, STEVE C. DAVIS, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY, MR. DAVIS?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION OR AMENDMENT?
A NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, I DON'T.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE WILL DO SO.

1. Steve Christopher Davis
Home Address: Business Address:
P. O. Box 411 300 California Avenue
Bonneau, SC 29431 Moncks Corner, SC 29461

2. He was born in Bonneau, South Carolina, on August 22, 1957. He is presently 34 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Rose Marie Wright on February 6, 1982. He has four children: Kenya Lasonya, age 17 (student); Steve Christopher, II, age 8; Todd Robert, age 5; and Drayton Savage, age 5 months.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Chowan Junior College, 1975-1977, A.A. in Education; the University of South Carolina, 1977-1979, B.S. in Social Studies; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979-1982, J.D. Degree.

7. In college he tried out for the football team, was an intramural's official, and was a member of the Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society. In law school he was vice president of the Black Law Student Association and was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
For the past nine years, he has attended the Solicitor's Association Conference. He has attended CLE Seminars on Criminal Law. He subscribes and reads the Advance Sheets weekly.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

June, 1982 Immediately upon graduation from law school, he was briefly associated with the Thomas Broadwater and Associates Law Office in Columbia, South Carolina. His primary responsibilities involved legal research and screening interviews.

December, 1982 Law Clerk for Circuit Court Judge Ernest Finney. His responsibilities involved legal research, drafting court orders and holding conferences with attorneys. He clerked until June of 1983.

July, 1983 to present Ninth Judicial Circuit Solicitor's Office. He began as an Assistant Solicitor in the Family Court handling the Department of Social Services cases until May, 1986. In May, 1986, he was assigned to the prosecution of all criminal cases involving adults. In May of 1988, he was appointed Deputy Solicitor for Berkeley County to be responsible for the Berkeley County Office and all criminal prosecution in that County.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -
State - **
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 20%
Criminal - 80%
Domestic -
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 65%
Non-jury - 35%

Of those cases he was sole counsel for approximately 90%.

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

(a) State v. Mark Cameron (Murder Trial). The Defendant was tried for the death of his wife. The State's key witness was a 17-year-old prostitute who was employed at an escort service in which the Defendant was a part-time driver. Mark Cameron, who at the time was an Air Force Officer, utilized his job as an Alibi Defense due to the fact that he was on restricted duty at the time of the murder. He was found guilty and the case was appealed. The case was dismissed pursuant to Rule 23; Advance Sheet No. 23.

(b) State v. Janie M. Duberry (Murder Trial). The Defendant was tried for the death of her husband. At the trial the defense was that Janie Duberry suffered from Battered Wife Syndrome and was forced to kill her spouse. The Defendant was found not guilty of the charges. During the preliminary plea negotiations, the Defendant was prepared to plead guilty to Involuntary Manslaughter; however, after a very emotional conference with the deceased's 84-year-old mother, he refused to accept the plea and proceeded to trial. This experience would prove invaluable in later years when confronted with similar type cases.

(c) State v. Jesus Zamora (Murder Trial). The Defendant was tried for the death of a homeless man who was found in a wooded area with seven gunshot wounds to the head. The Defendant was a 22-year-old male who had previously served time in prison for a violent crime. The defense argued that the victim approached the Defendant for sex, and due to the fact that the Defendant was raped while in prison, he lost control and shot the victim seven times. The Defendant was found guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter. It reaffirmed his belief that you will never know what a jury will do.
(d) State v. Brian Howard (Murder Trial). The Defendant, a 19-year-old black male, was tried for the death of an 18-year-old black male. The victim was scheduled to enter the Air Force a few weeks after his untimely death. The Defendant argued at trial that he acted in self-defense, due to the fact that the victim struck him with a chair approximately three months earlier. The victim was shot while exiting his vehicle. The Defendant was found guilty. This case was appealed, and the conviction stands. This case depicts the outrageous situation today of black on black crimes.

(e) State v. Thomas Moose (DUI Trial). The Defendant, a 23-year-old sailor was charged with Driving Under the Influence. At trial, the defense argued successfully to have the BA result suppressed due to the police officer's failure to follow mandated procedures. The Defendant was found guilty. The case was appealed and conviction was upheld (Case No. 88-GS-08-695). This case was significant in two instances. On a personal note, this was his first jury trial before the Honorable Richard E. Fields. Secondly, what seemed to be a simple DUI trial, lasted for four days with the Defendant represented by an outstanding attorney, Reese Joye.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

None

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

None

28. Arrested or Charged: He was arrested in 1989 in the State of New Jersey for a gun/bullet violation. He had an emergency involving his sister's family (Elizabeth Moore). His sister requested that he come to the State of Connecticut as soon as possible to assist her son in a legal matter and also to assist them morally. He immediately left in his pickup truck, unaware that he failed to remove a registered weapon from the glove compartment of the vehicle. He was stopped for speeding and was asked to see his license and registration. Upon attempting to get his registration, he saw the weapon and immediately advised the trooper of the weapon's presence. He was advised that this was illegal and was booked and released. The matter was thrown out of court by the prosecutor due to the nature of the circumstances.

30. Tax Lien:
He made a settlement arrangement, because he was unable to fully comply with the terms of a student loan due to financial hardships. The matter is now resolved.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in April of 1989, by Dr. John Swicord, P. O. Box 907, Moncks Corner, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Berkeley County Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Black Prosecutors Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Trident United Way Board; Berkeley County Mental Health Board; President of Booster Club Macedonia High School; Advisory Board for Forty-One Rural Fire Department; Improvement Council for Macedonia High; Chairman of Bethel United Methodist Church Advisory Board; Concerned Citizens Board; Citizen of the Year (1990) Phi Beta Omega Chapter; State Executive Committeeman for Berkeley County Democratic Party.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Donna M. Rhew, Branch President
Fleet Financenter
P. O. Box 3038, Summerville, SC 29484

(b) Rev. Albert Middleton
Bethel United Methodist Church
Route 1, Box 835, Moncks Corner, SC 29461-9136

(c) Charles M. Condon, Solicitor
Ninth Judicial Circuit
P. O. Box 70100, North Charleston, SC 29415-0100
(d) Ethel G. Davis
P. O. Box 783, Moncks Corner, SC 29461

(e) George B. Bishop, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 848, Moncks Corner, SC 29416

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MONCKS CORNER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF BERKELEY COUNTY; ALL OF THEM ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU; AND I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST YOU, AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR. IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q JUST TELL US, GENERALLY, WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.
A WELL, IN FACT, TWO OF THEM WERE BROUGHT AGAINST ME. ONE WAS BROUGHT WITH REFERENCE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CURRENTLY SERVING LIFE IN PRISON, WITH REFERENCE TO PLEA NEGOTIATION THAT HE FELT HE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE COURTESY DEMANDING OF A DEFENDANT. HE WAS REPRESENTED BY A FELLOW RUNNING, FROM A CHARLESTON BAR. AND HE SUED MYSELF, JUDGE HOWARD, THE CLERK OF COURT, AND A FEW MORE COURT PERSONNEL. BUT I THINK --
Q YOU PROSECUTED THAT INDIVIDUAL?
A YES, I DID. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT CONCERN IS. ALSO, I'VE BEEN SUED IN REFERENCE TO MY CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY SOLICITOR IN BERKELEY COUNTY. IT DEALT WITH A SITUATION WHERE A LOCAL MERCHANT IN BERKELEY COUNTY HAD ALLOCATED FUNDS TO A CONTRACTOR, WHO, HAVING RECEIVED THE FUNDS, AFTER COMPLETING THE PARTICULAR BUILDING THAT WAS CONTRACTED UPON, REFUSED TO PAY. THE LOCAL MERCHANT THEN WENT AND TOOK OUT A WARRANT FOR FAILURE TO PAY MATERIAL. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BARRING THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE FROM GOING FORWARD. I TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE CASE NEEDED TO BE PROSECUTED. WE WERE TAKEN INTO FEDERAL COURT; I WAS PUT ON THE WITNESS STAND, I TESTIFIED, AND WE PREVAILED. AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BERKELEY COUNTY AND WAS FOUND GUILTY OF FAILURE TO PAY FOR MATERIAL.
Q NOW, WHAT TYPE OF CIVIL EXPERIENCE -- I REALIZE YOU'VE BEEN PROSECUTING AS DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS -- ALMOST TEN YEARS.
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT ABOUT YOUR CIVIL EXPERIENCE, MR. DAVIS?
A MY CIVIL EXPERIENCE WOULD HAVE TO COME IN REFERENCE TO WHEN I STARTED OUT WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE IN BERKELEY COUNTY. I WAS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAMILY COURT DIVISION; AND BEING SO DELEGATED, I HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FILING CIVIL ACTION TYPE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO CHILDREN WHO WERE ABUSED AND NEGLECTED, FLOWING FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. I HELD THAT POSITION FOR APPROXIMATELY SOME THREE AND A HALF YEARS, AND AT THE SAME TIME, I WAS INVOLVED IN ACTIVE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT, SO THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR MY CIVIL EXPERIENCE THAT I BRING TO THIS COMMITTEE.
Q HAVE YOU ACTUALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN, SAY, CONTRACTUAL LITIGATION OR TORT LITIGATION? THAT TYPE OF THING?
A NO, I'VE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH TORT LITIGATION, IN THE SENSE OF PERSONAL INJURY, OR THAT SORT.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE VERY GOOD?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, MR. DAVIS, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT.
A (NODS HEAD.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF MR. DAVIS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) MR. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A JUST TO SAY THAT TO BE HERE THIS MORNING IS JUST AN HONOR. I FEEL AS THOUGH THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SITTING IN THIS SEAT COME FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS, HAVE TRAVELED DIFFERENT ROADS TO GET TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT; AND I JUST BRING TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT TO HAVE MY FAMILY PRESENT AND TO BE HERE, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS AN HONOR. IT BEING AN HONOR, ALSO, THOUGH, I AM ALSO COMMITTED TO MAKING A REALITY FOR BERKELEY COUNTY CITIZENS THAT WE DO OBTAIN A RESIDENT CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, BASED ON THE NEED, BASED ON MY LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR THE CITIZENS OF BERKELEY COUNTY, BASED ON MY PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT AND OBSERVATION OF THE NEEDS IN BERKELEY COUNTY, AND BASED ON THE CURRENT SITUATION WHEREIN CHARLESTON COUNTY HAS THREE RESIDENT JUDGES. WE HAVE A POPULATION OF 142,000 PEOPLE. WE ARE A COUNTY THAT IS THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. WE'RE THE SIXTH INDUSTRIAL COUNTY IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ALSO, WITH THE RECENT ADDITION OF NINE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT POSITIONS BEING ALLOCATED IN THIS GREAT STATE, I DO NOT FORESEE THAT, IN THIS CENTURY, OR PROBABLY IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THAT THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ALLOCATION OF JUDGES. THEREFORE, THE BERKELEY COUNTY FINE CITIZENS WOULD BE LOCKED OUT OF A RESIDENT JUDGE THAT THEY SO SEVERELY NEED. BUT ALSO, I COME AND I HAVE OFFERED NOT FOR SELFISH INTENT, BUT MY LIFE HAS BEEN ONE OF COMMITMENT, AND MY PROFESSION HAS PAID ME TO SERVE IN ONE CAPACITY AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT. THEREFORE, I HAVE OFFERED MYSELF FOR THE JUDGESHIP IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. I WOULD PRAY AND HOPE THAT AS YOU, AS INDIVIDUAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND EVENTUALLY AS REPRESENTATIVES IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, WILL TAKE MY CANDIDACY VERY SERIOUSLY. I HOPE THAT I HAVE NOT OFFENDED ANYONE IN THIS PROCESS OF OFFERING FOR THIS JUDGESHIP. I DO SO WITH UTMOST RESPECT AND DIGNITY FOR MY OPPONENT, DANNY MARTIN, WHO, IF IT WERE NOT FOR THIS SITUATION, WOULD BE SITTING AMONG YOURSELVES. SO I JUST ASK THAT EACH ONE OF YOU GIVE ME THE UTMOST COURTESY, WHICH YOU HAVE DONE UP TO THIS POINT, IN ULTIMATELY MAKING THAT DECISION REGARDING THE JUDGESHIP FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.
Q MR. DAVIS, I MEANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF THE SAME QUESTIONS I ASKED JUDGE WARSHAUER, AND I NEGLECTED TO DO SO. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS, FOR A JUDGE?
A VERY IMPORTANT. I HAVE HAD THE OCCASION OF BEING IN THE TRENCHES FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS, MEANING THE TRENCHES IN FAMILY COURT, MEANING THE TRENCHES IN CIRCUIT COURT, PARTICULARLY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT, AND HAVING THE PLEDGE TO PERSONALLY OBSERVE DIFFERENT CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES COME TO OUR FINE COUNTY AND HOW THEY HAVE DISPLAYED THEMSELVES IN THE COURSE OF SEEKING JUSTICE. IT IS A GREAT THING, AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, TO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU COME BEFORE A PARTICULAR JUDGE, THAT FIRST OF ALL, YOU BE TREATED WITH RESPECT, THAT THE SLATE IS CLEAN, THAT WE ALL ARE STARTING OFF AT THE SAME STARTING POINT. AND ALSO, THAT YOU CAN BE ASSURED THERE IS SOME CONSISTENCY; THAT THE FACT THAT YOU WOKE UP ON A DIFFERENT SIDE OF THE BED THE NIGHT BEFORE WOULD HAVE NO BEARING, WHEN THE GAVEL IS SOUNDED, AND THE PROCEEDING IS STARTED; THAT YOU WILL BE TREATED WITH UTMOST RESPECT, AS THE PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE ON. NOT ONLY THAT. I THINK MY BACKGROUND, COMING FROM A FAMILY OF NINE AND BEING THE ELDER -- THAT'S NEXT TO THE YOUNGEST -- YOU JUST CAN'T LIVE IN THAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT AND DON'T CREATE OR BE A PART OF GIVE-AND-TAKE. I THINK, COMING FROM A FAMILY OF NINE, AND FROM WHERE WE STARTED AND HOW WE HAD TO WORK TOGETHER IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE DID, I THINK IT HAS EMBODIED ME WITH THE TEMPERAMENT TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE. BEING A CIRCUIT DEPUTY SOLICITOR IS A LOT LIKE A JUDGE SOMETIMES, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, SEEKING DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR CLIENTS; AT THE SAME TIME, I REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, FIRST OF ALL, OF BERKELEY COUNTY AND OF THIS GREAT STATE, WHEN I WALK INTO THAT COURTROOM, AS DEPUTY SOLICITOR. AND SO, GOING FORWARD WITH MY RESPONSIBILITIES, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE COULD ATTEST THAT I HAVE ACTED IN A MANNER THAT IS UNPROFESSIONAL OR IN SUCH A MANNER THAT WOULD CAUSE DISRESPECT AS A DEPUTY SOLICITOR IN BERKELEY COUNTY, DURING THE PAST YEARS.
Q MR. DAVIS, ONE FINAL QUESTION, CONCERNING OUR NO-PLEDGE RULE. I GUESS, SUFFICE IT TO SAY, YOU HAVE NOT OBTAINED ANY PLEDGES IN THIS RACE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING --
A I HAVE NOT. I HAVE SENT OUT LETTERS OF INTEREST --
Q YES, SIR.
A -- AND I HAVE STOOD AT THE VICTORY LANE, THEY CALL IT, AND I'VE SHOOK HANDS. I'VE TRIED TO LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS DECISION IS IMPORTANT --
Q THAT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE.
A -- AND WILL TOUCH EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. BUT NO, I HAVE NOT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT, MR. DAVIS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: -- WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US.
SENATOR LOURIE: WELL SAID, MR. DAVIS.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SENATOR.

SENATOR LOURIE: CAN WE OPEN THAT DOOR? WE'RE NOT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION; LET'S LET SOME AIR IN HERE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YOU WANT SOME AIR CONDITIONING?
SENATOR LOURIE: THAT'D BE GOOD.
CHAIRMAN POPE: SENATOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE AIR CONDITIONING IS ON FULL-BLAST.
MR. DAN MARTIN.

CHAIRMAN POPE: BEFORE I START, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL Y'ALL, SINCE WE LAST INTRODUCED THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER IS HERE WITH US NOW, AND ALSO SENATOR McCONNELL, SO YOU'LL KNOW WHO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE. WHEREUPON, DANIEL E. MARTIN, SR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:
Q MR. MARTIN, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q ARE THERE ANY CLARIFICATIONS OR AMENDMENTS NEEDED?
A NONE.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
Home Address: Business Address:
117 Gordon Street 61 Morris Street
Charleston, SC 29403 P. O. Box 21830

Charleston, SC 29413

2. He was born in Bluffton, South Carolina, on April 14, 1932. He is presently 59 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Ruby Mae Nesbitt in Charleston, South Carolina on April 16, 1960. He has two children: Daniel E., Jr., age 29 (attorney; part-time magistrate for the City of Charleston and in private practice with candidate); and Max Maurice, age 23 (presently applying for admission to law school).

5. Military Service: United States Army (active duty), October, 1955 to October, 1957. He obtained the Rank of Corporal. His Serial Number was ER 52 406 382. He served in the Active Reserve for two years and served on standby for two years and was Honorably Discharged on September 30, 1961.

6. He attended Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina from 1951 to 1954, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Health and Physical Education.

He attended Howard University School of Law in Washington, DC, from 1954 to 1955. He was deferred from military service to attend college for four years and was called to the service in October of 1955.

He did graduate studies at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan in 1958, in Shakespeare Major Plays and Contemporary British and American Drama; certified to teach in Michigan Public Schools.

He attended the Math and Science Institute for High School Teachers at Claflin College in Orangeburg, South Carolina, during the summer of 1963. (Modern Mathematics)

He received the Juris Doctor Degree from South Carolina State College in Orangeburg, South Carolina in May, 1966.

7. At Allen University, 1951 to 1954, he sang in the college choir, played saxophone in the marching band, was treasurer of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and served on the school paper, "Yellow Jacket" Staff. At South Carolina State Law School, 1965, he served on the Moot Court Team, and their case was argued at the University of Virginia School of Law.

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

Insurance and Tort Law Update, September 6, 1991
Family Law in South Carolina ("Winning for your client),
September 17, 1991
Election Laws, February 23, 1990
Family Law Issues, November 9, 1990
Federal and State Tort Claims Acts, June 16, 1989
Model Civil Trial, September 15, 1989
Hurricane Seminar, October 27, 1989
Probate for General Practitioners - The Basics, April 15, 1988
S. C. Uninsured and Underinsured, October 20, 1988
Land Use Planning and Zoning, June 26, 1987
How to Evaluate and Settle Personal Injury Claims in S. C.,
October 23, 1987
Corporation, Banking and Securities/Real Estate Practices, Family
Law, January 10, 1986
A Judicial CLE Seminar, June 20, 1986

9. Courses Taught: He lectured on Family Law Legislation at the Family Court Judges Conference held in Charleston, South Carolina in 1988. He lectured several times to senior citizens and church groups on the importance of having a Will, benefits for senior citizens and basic legal matters pertaining to the indigents and senior citizens.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1966-1968 In private practice with Attorney Richard E. Fields (now, Circuit Court Judge)

1968-1973 Director of the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program for Charleston County - providing free legal services for the indigent

1974-1984 Part-time Assistant Solicitor for the Ninth Judicial Circuit and in the general practice of law

1984-present Elected to the House of Representatives and still in private practice

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - two to three times per year
State - 20 to 25 appearances per year
Other - in various state courts

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 70%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 25%
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 60%
Non-jury - 40%
Mostly sole counsel - associated Daniel E. Martin, Jr., in the last two years

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

(a) State v. William A. Stokely, Criminal Action No. 80-1173, Spartanburg County.
This was a case in which he was appointed Special Prosecutor by the late Attorney General Dan McCloud, due to the racial tension connected with a white policeman's (Defendant) killing of a black woman in an attempt to arrest her.

The local prosecutor did not feel comfortable prosecuting the case, and the Attorney General deemed it prudent to appoint him in an effort to ensure justice and fair play for all parties concerned.

At the conclusion of the case, the family of the deceased as well as the community were pleased, even though the Defendant was acquitted.

(b) Mattie Graham, Administratrix of the Estate of Adrianne Graham, Deceased v. Charleston County School Board, Case No. 14483, 1974.
Adrianne Graham, an 8-year-old child was kept in after school by her teacher, causing her to miss her school bus ride home. When she was excused by her teacher, and tried to walk home, she was killed by a truck while trying to cross the highway. The South Carolina Supreme Court dismissed the case on the grounds of "sovereign immunity," but the school policies were drastically changed in Charleston County concerning the transportation of students and the protection of students in general.

(c) Bernard Fielding v. The South Carolina Election Commission, et al., Supreme Court Opinion No. 23443, Filed July 23, 1991.
Bernard Fielding was declared the winner in the 1990 race for Probate Court for Charleston County, having received 29,492 votes to 29,038 votes for his opponent, Chris Merrill. The case was appealed by his opponent to the State Election Commission, which overturned the election and ordered a new one. Allegations of wine being traded for votes and whiskey being sold at the polling places along with other voting irregularities were unsubstantiated and unfounded. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the South Carolina Election Commission decision and declared Judge Bernard Fielding the winner, indicating that frivolous and unsubstantiated claims should not be tolerated.

(d) The United States v. Larry Blanding, et al., Case No. 3:90-434.
Larry Blanding was charged with extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion in the "Legislative Sting Operation." The case lasted two weeks after which Larry Blanding was found guilty. The case is presently on appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It was interesting to observe that after a two-week trial and a voluminous amount of exhibits, the jury took less time to deliberate than the judge took to charge them the law.

(e) During his employment at the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, he participated in numerous lawsuits in the Federal Court in the successful effort to desegregate the housing projects in the City of Charleston, in revamping the Welfare Program in Charleston County and securing the Food Stamp Program for the indigent citizens of Charleston County. He doesn't recall the exact names of those cases.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Mattie Graham, Administratrix of the Estate of Adrianne Graham v. Charleston County School Board, Supreme Court Opinion No. 19801, Filed April 3, 1974.

(b) Bernard Fielding v. South Carolina Election Commission, Supreme Court Opinion No. 23443, Filed July 23, 1991.
(c) United States v. Larry Blanding, Case No. 3:90-434.
This case is presently on appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

None

22. Public Office:
He is a member of the House of Representatives. He was elected May 15, 1984.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

He headed the Physical Education Department at Wallace High School, Charleston, South Carolina, from 1959 to 1962.

He taught Mathematics at W. Greshem Meggett High School, Charleston, South Carolina, from 1962 to 1963.

31. Sued: In 1990, he was named in a lawsuit by Patricia R. Schultz along with 17 other people, relative to a closing that he did for her on her home. The case is identified as Patricia R. Schultz v. Great Southern Builders of Charleston, Inc., et al., Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, File No. 90-CP-10-2485. He was dismissed as a Defendant in this case by the Circuit Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court of South Carolina by Order dated July 18, 1991. No legitimate claim was lodged against him.

In 1980, he was sued along with Benjamin Brooks by Ella Mae Buie, who fell while being in his office and injured her leg. Mr. Brooks was the owner of the building, and he was the tenant at the time. She sued them for $15,000.00, and the case was settled for $425.00, representing payment for medicals and filing fees. The case was identified as Ella Mae Buie v. Benjamin Brooks and Danny E. Martin, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas No. 79-CP-10-3207.

33. His health is very good. His last physical examination was on January 24, 1992, by Dr. G. T. Little, 2317 W. Palmer Drive, Charleston, South Carolina 29407.

34. Hospitalized: He was hospitalized for the removal of his appendix in St. Francis Xavier Hospital on December 2, 1987, and discharged December 15, 1987. The operation was a success.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Charleston County Bar Association; American Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Former Finance Chairman, Palmetto District of the Coastal Carolina Boy Scouts of America; former member of the Board of Directors, Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce, 1971-1975; former Vice-President of the Democratic Party for Charleston County, 1968-1976; a Board Member and Legal Advisor for Project Pride, Inc., 1970 to present; former Vice-Chairman of Charleston County Bicentennial Committee, 1975-1977; represented the First Congressional District on the State Committee for Judicial Reform, 1976; Founder-10/4/73 and former member of the Board of Directors of the Public Defender Corporation of Charleston County; former member of the Board of Directors of the Greater Charleston YMCA (served three years); former member of the Board of Directors of the Carolina Low Country Chapter of the American National Red Cross (served two years); former Board Member of the South Carolina State Agency of Vocational Rehabilitation, 1970-1984; former Board Member of the Trident United Way (Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties), served two years; Selective Service Advisor to registrants for Local Board #10, Charleston County, 1972 to present; former member of Governor's Committee on Energy Council; founder and for four years Director of the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Inc., 1967-1972; former Assistant Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit (Charleston and Berkeley Counties); special Homicide Prosecutor, 1974-1984

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Harold J. Petterson, Vice President
First Federal of Charleston
P. O. Box 10968, Charleston, SC 29411-0968
(b) A. Arthur Rosenblum, Esquire
P. O. Box 777, Charleston, SC 29402-0777

(c) Robert B. Wallace, Esquire
P. O. Box 388, Charleston, SC 29402-0388

(d) Honorable Bernard R. Fielding
Judge of Probate, County of Charleston
P. O. Box 70398, Charleston, SC 298115-0398

(e) Capers G. Barr, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 1037, Charleston, SC 29402

Q WE'VE CHECKED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE; THEY REPORT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. HAVING CHECKED THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS AND THE RECORDS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I., AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY, ALL OF THOSE RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH, MR. MARTIN, IS STILL VERY GOOD?
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT YOU FILED, AND THE CREDIT REPORTS. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT. MR. MARTIN, I THINK YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWS THAT YOU DO A MIXED PRACTICE, BUT PROBABLY MORE HEAVILY INTO THE CIVIL AND DOMESTIC THAN IN THE CRIMINAL?
A YES, SIR.
Q TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR CRIMINAL EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE.
A WELL, I STARTED MY LAW PRACTICE IN 1966, AFTER GRADUATING FROM LAW SCHOOL, WITH ATTORNEY RICHARD FIELDS, WHO IS NOW JUDGE FIELDS. AND AFTER A YEAR OF PRACTICE, I WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENDERING FREE LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIGENTS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY. AND I WAS DIRECTOR OF THAT PROGRAM UNTIL I LEFT IN 1973, AND WENT INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE. AND IN '74, I WAS APPOINTED ASSISTANT SOLICITOR FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHERE I SERVED UNTIL '84, WHEN I GOT ELECTED TO THE HOUSE. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR 26 YEARS; I HAVE PRACTICED IN ALL OF THE COURTS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURT, AND BEFORE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
Q SO FOR A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS THERE, YOU WERE DOING EXCLUSIVELY CRIMINAL WORK, AND NOW YOUR PRACTICE IS ORIENTED A LITTLE MORE TOWARD CIVIL?
A I STARTED OFF DOING DEFENSE CRIMINAL WORK, AND THEN I BECAME AN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, AND I WAS PROSECUTOR FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME. REALIZING THE STRENUOUSNESS AND THE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE TO CRIMINAL LAW, I NEVER REALLY CONCENTRATED IN THAT AFTER I GOT OUT OF THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE IT'S SO TIME-CONSUMING, AND SO I CONCENTRATED BASICALLY ON CIVIL PRACTICE.
Q YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE MADE REFERENCE TO TWO LAWSUITS. WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THOSE?
A ONE LAWSUIT, A YOUNG LADY BY THE NAME OF -- I THINK I'VE GOT IT HERE -- WELL, ANYWAY, SHE WAS ENTERING MY OFFICES. MOST PEOPLE FALL LEAVING THE OFFICE, BUT SHE WAS ENTERING MY OFFICE, AND SHE MISSED HER STEP AND FELL. AND SHE CAME IN, AND I ASKED HER HOW SHE FELT; SHE FELT FINE. I THINK SHE WENT BACK HOME AND SOMEBODY TOLD HER, "YOU FELL IN A LAWYER'S OFFICE. YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME MONEY OUT OF THIS." ANYWAY, SHE SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT A LAWSUIT; AND I DID NOT OWN THE BUILDING AT THAT TIME, SO SHE BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AND MYSELF. AND THE LAWYER BROUGHT THE SUIT FIRST, AND INVESTIGATED SECOND. AFTER HE HAD INVESTIGATED, HE FOUND OUT THERE WAS REALLY NO MERIT TO IT, SO HE ASKED US IF WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO PAY SOMETHING LIKE 400-SOME DOLLARS. WE PAID IT, AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. THERE WAS ANOTHER CASE --
Q AND THAT WAS BACK IN 1980?
A THAT WAS BEFORE THEN, IF I RECALL.
Q YEAH, I BELIEVE IT HAS A COMMON PLEAS NUMBER OF 79-, SO IT WAS PRIOR TO 1979?
A YES. I'M TRYING TO SEE THE DATE ON HERE (INDICATING), BUT IT WAS QUITE SOME TIME AGO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A THERE WAS ANOTHER SUIT THAT WAS BROUGHT. A LADY GOT ME TO BE THE CLOSING ATTORNEY ON A NEW HOUSE SHE WAS HAVING BUILT, AND AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, SHE MOVED IN, AND SOMEONE TOLD HER THAT, "YOU BUILT YOUR HOUSE IN A FLOOD ZONE. YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD FLOOD INSURANCE." AND SHE SAID, "WELL, NOBODY TOLD ME THAT," AND SHE DECIDED THAT SHE WOULD SUE 17 PEOPLE, AND SHE INCLUDED ME SINCE I WAS THE CLOSING ATTORNEY. THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CLAIM AGAINST ME, SAID THERE WAS NO MERIT TO IT. I THINK THE REST WERE ULTIMATELY DISMISSED, AS WELL, BUT MINE WAS THE FIRST TO BE DISMISSED. THERE WAS NO SORT OF MERIT.
Q AND THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY AFFIRM THAT?
A PARDON ME?
Q YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWS THAT THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THAT DISMISSAL?
A YES, SIR. SHE -- THE CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSED IT, AND SHE WAS DISSATISFIED AND APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED IT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A AND I HAVE A COPY OF THAT.
Q MR. MARTIN, ON THE QUESTION OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO THE COURT, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO INSURE THAT YOU DON'T DEVELOP THE ROBITIS SYNDROME THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON THESE COMMITTEES IN THE PAST?
A WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF HAVING ICE WATER IN MY VEINS, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, SO IT'S VERY SELDOM THAT THINGS EXCITE ME, BUT IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF CONCENTRATION ON MY PART, AND ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS SUCH AS COURT PROCEEDINGS. I COULD THINK OF NO REASON WHY I WOULD EVER GET THE ROBITIS SYNDROME, BECAUSE AS A JUDGE, AS I HAVE BEEN AS AN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, I COULD THINK OF NO FRIENDS THAT I WOULD HAVE TO REWARD, NOR ENEMIES THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PUNISH. I WOULD BE SITTING AS A JUDGE FOR THE PURPOSE -- I GUESS, IN THE ROSCOE POUND PHILOSOPHY -- AND THAT IS TO DISPENSE JUSTICE TEMPERED WITH MERCY TO ALL WHO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT.
Q WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK A JUDGE OUGHT TO PLAY IN SETTLEMENT OF CASES, CIVIL CASES, WHEN A CASE IS ABOUT TO COME TO TRIAL AND THE PARTIES HAVE TALKED ABOUT SETTLEMENT, BUT HAVEN'T SETTLED IT? WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK A JUDGE SHOULD PLAY IN THAT, IF ANY?
A I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN THE CONSTANT SEARCH FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND FAIR PLAY; AND WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT DICTATE THAT PARTICULAR END, I THINK THAT A JUDGE SHOULD PURSUE IT WITH ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.
Q MR. MARTIN, ON THE SUBJECT OF SOLICITATION AND OUR NO-PLEDGE RULE, OF COURSE, YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. YOU HAVE NOT SOLICITED OR OBTAINED ANY COMMITMENTS IN THIS RACE, HAVE YOU?
A NONE WHATSOEVER. EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE VOLUNTEERED TO ME, I ASSURED THEM THAT I COULD NOT ACCEPT THOSE PLEDGES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR. THANK YOU.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A ONLY THAT, AS I STATED BEFORE, I HAVE SERVED IN ALL OF THE VARIOUS CAPACITIES OF LAW, AND I ASSURE YOU THAT IF I AM PRIVILEGED TO SERVE THIS STATE IN THE CAPACITY AS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, THAT I WOULD DO IT WITH THE HONOR, INTEGRITY, AND WITH ALL THE VIGOR AND VITALITY I HAVE, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BENCH AND THE BAR WILL ALWAYS REPRESENT THE BEST THERE IS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
SENATOR LOURIE: IT WILL BE A LOSS TO THE LEGISLATURE, MR. MARTIN, IF YOU GET ELECTED.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.
SENATOR LOURIE: WE'LL MISS YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: AS WE HAVE SAID, Y'ALL ARE FREE TO LEAVE AT ANY TIME. I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME FOLKS STANDING, WHO WOULD LIKE YOUR SEATS IF YOU DO. THE NEXT POSITION WE WILL BE SCREENING FOR IS THE CIRCUIT AT LARGE, SEAT #5. WE'VE GOT SIX PEOPLE TO SCREEN AND WE ARE PROCEEDING ALPHABETICALLY. MR. GARY CLARY WILL BE THE FIRST PERSON. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE COME AROUND.

WHEREUPON, GARY E. CLARY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR. I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION?
A THE ONLY MODIFICATION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD BE THAT MY SON HAS NOW ACHIEVED AGE 12 INSTEAD OF AGE 11.
Q ALL RIGHT, PRETTY MINOR. WE WILL NOTE THAT CLARIFICATION. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT A PART OF THE RECORD THEN?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Gary E. Clary
Home Address: Business Address:
328 Vernon Street P. O. Box 789
Gaffney, SC 29340 212 E. Floyd Baker Boulevard

Gaffney, SC 29342

2. He was born in Gaffney, South Carolina (Cherokee County) on January 5, 1948. He is presently 44 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Patricia Mae Brumbach on September 5, 1970. He has two children: Patricia Adair, age 16; and Lawson Brumbach, age 12.

5. Military Service: United States Air Force Reserve; August, 1968 through November, 1969; ROTC Cadet; ***-**-****; Honorable Discharge.

6. He attended Clemson University, August, 1966 through May, 1970, Bachelor of Arts; and the University of South Carolina, August, 1971 through May, 1974, Juris Doctor.

7. In college he was selected Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities, 1969-1970; Tiger Brotherhood; Student Body Vice-President; Sports Editor, THE TIGER, Student Newspaper; Student Senate; and South Carolina State Student Legislature.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has fully complied with all continuing legal education requirements during this period. He has engaged in a wide range of study topics which have been highly informative to him in practice. His areas of study have been in construction law, domestic relations, family law, hospital and health care, real estate/title law, medical devices law, legal ethics and professional responsibility, case management and eminent domain litigation.

9. Courses Taught: He was Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Limestone College, Gaffney, South Carolina, with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1991-Present Currently, he is engaged in private practice as a sole practitioner. His areas of emphasis include administrative, worker's compensation, insurance, public utility, hospital and health care, corporate, real estate law, and civil and criminal trials. He is experienced in complex contract drafting and negotiation, construction arbitration, and trial and appellate practice in state and federal courts. In the hospital and health care field, he is experienced in certificates of need, physician contracts, and medical staff/peer review issues. He has extensive experience in the area of worker's compensation and insurance matters as plaintiff and defense counsel. He is currently counsel for a public utility and experienced in regulatory matters concerning wastewater, water and power with appearances before the S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, the S. C. Public Service Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

1975-1991 He was engaged in private practice as an associate of J. P. Askins, Hemingway, South Carolina (1975-1976); a sole practitioner in Gaffney, South Carolina (1976-1980); and as a partner in the firm of Hall, Daniel, Winter and Clary, Gaffney, South Carolina (1980-1991). His areas of emphasis included administrative, worker's compensation, hospital and health care law, corporate, real estate law and civil and criminal trials.

1976-1986 Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Limestone College, Gaffney, South Carolina, with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law.

1974-1975 Minority Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Strom Thurmond, Washington, D.C. Duties performed included legal counsel, management of all Judiciary Committee responsibilities and preparation of speeches and position papers.
1972-1974 Law Clerk, South Carolina Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina. As a law student, his duties included legal research and preparation of opinions for staff attorneys. (Part-time law school employment)

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 5%
State - 90%
Other - 5%

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 65%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 30%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 30%
Non-jury - 70%
In cases that have been tried, he has been sole counsel except for one anti-trust case in federal court in which he served as associate counsel.

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

(a) State v. Tanner. In 1976, he served as co-counsel for the Defendant who was charged with night hunting of deer. Due to the serious penalties involved regarding the confiscation and forfeiture of property used in connection with the charge, this case was significant in that the not guilty verdict was the first one returned in favor of a defendant in more than 20 years.

(b) Thomas v. Bryson Chevrolet Olds, Inc., (80-CP-11-82). This was an action wherein the Plaintiff alleged misrepresentation in the purchase of an automobile from the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that he signed a blank installment contract and related documents which resulted in him paying substantially more than the parties had agreed upon. As attorney for Defendant, he relied upon the case law of the State which does not allow an individual to void a contract upon the ground he did not read the contract or that he took another party's word as to what it contained. This case was significant in that the Defendant received a directed verdict at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case.

(c) Sossamon Construction Company v. General Signal, a Division of BIF Corporation, (81-CP-11-304) JR 15,472. This was a very complicated case in which the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant had failed to supply in a timely manner certain valves and related equipment in the construction of an elevated water tank. The Defendant counterclaimed alleging that all equipment had been properly supplied and that any delays were the fault of the Plaintiff. The Defendant's counterclaim further alleged that the Plaintiff had not paid for the equipment received. During the course of the trial, the officers of the Plaintiff corporation admitted on cross examination that they owed the Defendant for the goods delivered. This case was significant in that the small verdict returned for the Plaintiff due to delays in shipment was offset by the Defendant's counterclaim, and resulted in his client obtaining a $12,000 judgment against the Plaintiff.

(d) Hambright v. Peeler, (82-CP-11-68) JR 15,810. This case involved a boundary line dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. This case was significant in that the line in question had been in dispute for a number of years and involved a tremendous amount of work and research in preparing for trial. The jury verdict affirmed his client's position as to the true location of the property line.

(e) Newton v. Clement Brothers, (84-CP-11-84). In representing the Plaintiff in this worker's compensation case, a novel issue was presented to the Court. Plaintiff contended that a severe leg injury was causally related to his subsequent heart attack five days after surgery to his leg. A single commissioner held there was no causal relationship. The full commission overturned the single commissioner's decision. The matter was appealed to the Circuit Court where the Circuit Court affirmed the full commission's decision in favor of the worker. This matter was appealed to the Supreme Court but was settled prior to arguments.
18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Roper Hospital v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Op. No. 23490 (S. C. Sup. Ct. filed October 7, 1991).

(b) In re: Zaman, 329 S.E. 2d 436, 285 S.C. 345 (Sup. Ct. 1985).

(c) National Health Corporation d/b/a National Health Care Center of Charleston, Appellant v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, North Charleston Convalescent Center, Inc., and Cadam Corporation d/b/a Southeastern Geriatric and Rehabilitation Hospital, Respondents. (S.C. Ct. App. not reported) (87-CP-40-4387). Settled prior to final hearing.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

None

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

Sales Representative, Georgia Pacific Corporation, August, 1970 through August, 1971

Minority Counsel, United States Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Strom Thurmond, Washington, D.C. Duties performed included legal counsel, management of all Judiciary Committee responsibilities and preparation of speeches and position papers, 1974-1975

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

He is a joint owner of a lot of real estate located in Gaffney, South Carolina, with two former law partners. This ownership could present a potential conflict of interest which could be resolved by selling his interest in the real estate.

Further, since he has been actively involved in the practice of law for approximately 16 1/2 years, he feels potential conflicts could occur in hearing matters involving former clients. He would propose to reveal his previous representations of any parties to any attorneys and clients involved in litigation to determine any possible conflicts of interest.

He currently rents office space to an attorney. In order to avoid any conflict of interest, this lease arrangement would be terminated.

31. Sued: He has never been sued professionally. In 1989 in the State of Texas, he was sued individually while serving as a member of the Board of Directors of a small, closely held corporation. The Plaintiffs in the action owned 42.5% of the common stock of the corporation. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged mismanagement of the corporation and requested the appointment of a receiver and preliminary injunction due to financial problems of the corporation. The company was placed in bankruptcy, and no action was pursued by the Plaintiffs in the suit which was filed on February 24, 1989. He has been represented by Brooke Farnsworth, Esquire, 333 North Belt, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77060. Mr. Farnsworth's telephone number is 713-931-8902. The corporation was operated by a co-Plaintiff and Victoria Clary, his sister-in-law, who also owned 42.5% of the stock. To his knowledge, the Plaintiffs have never attempted to pursue this cause of action since filing, and it appeared to be a frivolous action at the time it was filed.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in October of 1990 by Dr. Charles P. Stroup, 1341 N. Limestone Street, Gaffney, South Carolina 29341.

35. He wears corrective lens, but suffers from no impairment of his eyesight as it is fully corrected.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; American Academy of Hospital Attorneys; National Health Lawyers Association; and Cherokee County Bar Association (President, 1983-1985)

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
S. C. Mock Trial Competition, Attorney-Coach, Gaffney, Senior High School (1990-); Cherokee District Chairman, Palmetto Council, Boy Scouts of America (1991-); Habitat for Humanity Advisory Board (1990-); Board of Directors, Gaffney Youth Baseball, Inc. (1990-); Scouting for Food, Chairman, Cherokee District (1989-1990); Cherokee Pastoral Counsel Center, Secretary (1987-); Cherokee County Meals on Wheels (1986-), President (1989); Cherokee County Development Board (1983-), Treasurer (1989-); Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce, President (1983); Vice Chairman of Deacons, First Baptist Church of Gaffney; Sunday School teacher, Young Adult Class, First Baptist Church of Gaffney

41. During his law practice, he has been involved in a wide range of cases involving many areas of the law. The variety of his practice has enabled him to be familiar with a wide range of problems which are not limited to one or two particular areas. Further, he believes he has the necessary traits of character which would be beneficial to him in serving in this position.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Barry S. Morgan, Vice President and City Executive
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 580, Gaffney, SC 29342

(b) Dr. J. W. Sanders, Sr.
Bethel Baptist Church
P. O. Box 44, Gaffney, SC 29342

(c) H. Fulton Ross, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 308, Gaffney, SC 29342

(d) Jack E. Millwood
200 W. Baker Boulevard, Gaffney, SC 29340

(e) Charles P. Stroup, M.D.
1341 North Limestone Street, Gaffney, SC 29340

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. WE'VE CHECKED RECORDS AT THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GAFFNEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, AND ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. YOU INDICATED IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU HAD A SUIT AGAINST YOU IN WHICH YOU WERE A NAMED PARTY. WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
A YES, SIR. I'VE NEVER BEEN SUED PROFESSIONALLY; HOWEVER, I WAS SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A SMALL CLOSELY-HELD CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN WHICH MY SISTER-IN-LAW WAS A MAJORITY OWNER ALONG WITH ANOTHER LADY. AND THEY DEVELOPED A PROBLEM IN THE OPERATION OF THE CORPORATION, AND THERE WAS A SUIT BROUGHT IN ORDER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER AND TO TRY TO CLEAR UP SOME MATTERS THERE. THE COMPANY WAS PLACED IN BANKRUPTCY AND I WAS NAMED AS A DEFENDANT MERELY BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE SUIT WAS FILED IN 1989. I'VE NEVER APPEARED IN COURT OR HEARD ANYTHING FROM IT.
Q DO YOU KNOW THE STATUS OF IT?
A THE STATUS OF IT NOW FROM MY LAST CONVERSATION WITH AN ATTORNEY OUT THERE, IS THAT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IT IS STILL PENDING, BUT THEY CAN BE ON THE DOCKET OUT THERE FOR ANY NUMBER OF YEARS. THE CORPORATION HAS GONE INTO BANKRUPTCY AND I ASSUME THAT THE SUIT, WHICH APPEARED TO ME TO BE FRIVOLOUS INSOFAR AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WAS CONCERNED AT THAT TIME, HAS BEEN DROPPED, INSOFAR AS THE PLAINTIFFS ARE CONCERNED.
Q THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL --
A NO, SIR.
Q -- OBLIGATIONS AT ALL. YOU WERE NOT A LAWYER IN ANY WAY OR --
A NO, SIR. I WAS MERELY IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Q ALL RIGHT. THE SUIT -- ARE THEY TRYING TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL IN ANY WAY, IN THAT SUIT?
A NO, SIR. I THINK THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THAT LAWSUIT WAS MERELY TO PLACE IT INTO BANKRUPTCY AND GET COURT APPROVAL TO DO THAT.
SENATOR LOURIE: YOU ANY KIN TO THE GALLOPING GHOST?
WITNESS: DISTANTLY.
Q MR. CLARY, YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE ASSIGNED FIVE PERCENT OF THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR LITIGATION AS BEING CRIMINAL, AND THE REST PREDOMINANTLY CIVIL AND SOME DOMESTIC.
A YES.
Q TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR EXPERTISE IN THE CRIMINAL AREA.
A WHEN I STARTED PRACTICING LAW IN 1976 IN HEMINGWAY, SOUTH CAROLINA, I WAS INVOLVED IN A GENERAL PRACTICE AND HANDLED A NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES THERE. WHEN I WENT BACK TO GAFFNEY LATER IN 1976, I ALSO DID CRIMINAL WORK. PROBABLY ABOUT 30 PERCENT OF MY PRACTICE AT THAT TIME WAS CRIMINAL. I WENT INTO A PARTNERSHIP IN 1980 WITH A GENTLEMAN WHO WAS THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR; AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS UNABLE TO DO ANY CRIMINAL DEFENSE WORK FOR 11 YEARS BECAUSE OF HIS CAPACITY. AND SINCE I HAVE GONE OUT ON MY OWN WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, I AM GETTING BACK INTO DOING SOME CRIMINAL WORK AND HAVE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE CASES PENDING AT THIS TIME, BUT THE PERCENTAGE HAS NOT COME UP. I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL AREA, ALTHOUGH MY PRACTICE FOR 11 YEARS WAS PREDOMINANTLY CIVIL BECAUSE OF HIS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR'S POSITION.
Q I SEE. ON THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, WOULD YOU TELL US HOW YOU BELIEVE, AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS AS A QUALITY A JUDGE SHOULD HAVE.
A MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT THAT IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY THAT A JUDGE CAN POSSESS. I THINK THAT, HAVING BEEN A PRACTICING ATTORNEY NOW FOR ALMOST 17 YEARS, AND HAVING BEEN ON THE SIDE OF THE BAR ON WHICH YOU RECEIVE THE BRUNT OR THE SATISFACTION OF THE MOOD OF A JUDGE, I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DISPLAY PATIENCE, COMPASSION, ATTENTIVENESS, AND UNDERSTANDING, NOT ONLY TO THE LITIGANTS INVOLVED BUT THE ATTORNEYS. I THINK THERE IS SO MUCH PRESSURE AND STRESS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION, THAT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS AT ONE TIME AND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE OUT THERE TRYING TO PRESENT YOUR CLIENT'S CASE. I THINK THAT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THE FACT THAT MY BAR ASSOCIATION KNOWS ME WELL AND THEY'VE ENDORSED ME FOR THIS POSITION -- AND ALSO THE SPARTANBURG BAR ASSOCIATION HAS ENDORSED ME FOR THIS POSITION -- THAT THEY KNOW ME VERY WELL AND THE FACT THAT, THE KIND OF PERSON I AM, I WOULD TAKE THOSE CHARACTERISTICS AND QUALITIES TO THE BENCH IF I AM ELECTED.
Q IT'S A FACT THAT JUDGING IS SOMETIMES A VERY BORING BUSINESS BECAUSE YOU GET INTO LONG TRIALS AND SOMETIMES THE LAWYERS ASK REPETITIVE QUESTIONS AND WITNESSES RAMBLE ON AND ON. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO INSURE THAT ROBITIS DIDN'T SET IN, SAY, IN FIVE OR TEN YEARS, IF YOU WERE ELECTED? WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING, OR WOULD YOU
JUST --
A ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT EVERY DAY THAT I PUT ON THAT ROBE, IF I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO DO THAT, I WOULD ALWAYS WANT TO REMEMBER, NUMBER ONE, THAT I WAS AN ATTORNEY -- AM AN ATTORNEY -- AND THE FACT THAT I CAN REMEMBER DAYS THAT I HAVE GONE INTO COURT AND KNEW THAT A CERTAIN JUDGE WAS GOING TO BE THERE AND ACTUALLY DREADED GOING, BECAUSE THAT ROBITIS HAD SET IN. SO, I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR PEOPLE TO, WHEN THEY COME INTO COURT, FEEL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. AND I THINK THE ROLE OF A JUDGE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS STAY ON TRACK, BUT TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEYS TO DO THEIR JOB AND TO ALLOW THE LITIGANTS TO FEEL THEY HAVE CERTAINLY HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT.
Q MR. CLARY, CONCERNING THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, YOU HAVE NOT SOLICITED OR OBTAINED ANY COMMITMENTS OR PLEDGES IN THIS RACE?
A NO, SIR. EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE VERY FIRST DAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE CONVENED, I HAVE NOT.
Q AND OF COURSE, THIS COMMITTEE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT RULE, BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE YOUR INTENTIONS KNOWN -- YOU AND ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES -- BUT WE DO THINK THE RULE IS IMPORTANT. AND I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU. I'VE ASKED, AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO ASK THAT IN EVERY CONTESTED RACE, WHETHER PEOPLE HAVE ABIDED BY THAT RULE AS WE EXPECT THEM TO, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN A UNANIMOUS POSITION THAT WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND OF COURSE, WHEN THE REPORT IS ISSUED, THEN THAT RULE IS LIFTED.
A (NODS HEAD.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. CLARY?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS?
A ALL I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT I AM VERY HUMBLED TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THIS POSITION. IT'S NOT ONE THAT, AT ANY POINT IN MY LEGAL CAREER, I EVER ENVISIONED OFFERING FOR. I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY A TIME-AND-CIRCUMSTANCE SITUATION THAT HAS DEVELOPED, BUT I FEEL THAT I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE THROUGH MY LEGAL CAREER IN DOING A WIDE VARIETY OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PRACTICE -- I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN LITIGATION; I HAVE HANDLED ANY NUMBER OF CASES BEFORE BOARDS, INFERIOR COURTS ON THE WAY TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT; I'VE APPEARED IN FEDERAL COURT -- AND I FEEL THAT I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE ATTORNEYS AT WORK, JUDGES AT WORK, AND TO HOPEFULLY TAKE THE VERY BEST CHARACTERISTICS THAT I HAVE SEEN EXHIBITED THERE AND TO APPLY THEM TO MY OWN PRACTICE AND CAREER.
Q THANK YOU, MR. CLARY. WE APPRECIATE IT.
A THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT APPLICANT IS MR. T. LOUIS COX.

WHEREUPON, T. LOUIS COX, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR. I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION OR MODIFICATION?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT A PART OF THE RECORD THEN?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q OKAY, WE'LL DO THAT.

1. T. Louis Cox
Home Address: Business Address:
217 Woodburn Place 247 Magnolia Street
Spartanburg, SC 29302 P. O. Box 1463

Spartanburg, SC 29304

2. He was born in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 1929. He is presently 63 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Edith Livesay G. Cox in 1958. He and his wife have been separated for approximately 15 years. He has two children: Angel J., age 30 (employed at Theatre Productions, New York, New York); and Chris, age 21.

5. Military Service: U. S. Navy; 1946-1949; Electrician 3rd Class; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended Spartanburg Methodist College, 1951-1952, transferred to Wofford College; Wofford College, 1952; Cumberland University School of Law (now Samford University), 1952-1953, transferred to University of South Carolina Law School; University of South Carolina Law School, 1954, LL.B. (changed to J.D. in 1970).

7. He was a member of the Legal Honor Society, Cumberland School of Law (now Samford University School of Law), 1952-1953.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended the following seminars held by C.L.E.:
(1) Criminal (attended practically all held at U.S.C. Law School and all Trial Lawyers Association meetings);
(2) Bankruptcy;
(3) Civil procedure and tort law.
(exempt from mandatory C.L.E. for several years, but continues attending seminars)

9. Courses Taught: He taught Criminal Justice courses at Spartanburg Methodist College from July 1, 1971 to present; teaching primarily in-service police officers and other law enforcement personnel.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1955 until 1969, general practice of law - civil, criminal and domestic

1969 to present - Spartanburg County Public Defender (part-time); private practice of civil, domestic and bankruptcy (part-time)

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none, except Federal Bankruptcy
State - almost daily
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil -
Criminal -
Domestic -

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury -
Non-jury -
17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Trent, 234 S.C. 26, 106 S.E. 2d 527. This case involved the taking of notes by jurors on the Judge's charge and on the testimony.

(b) State v. Worthy, 239 S.C. 449, 123 S.E. 2d 835. This case involved the Judge's charge on mercy. The Supreme Court decided that a jury could return a verdict recommending a defendant to mercy without any evidence on which to base their decision. In other words, the jury could recommend mercy in a death penalty case without any evidence to proceed, merely grant mercy because they wanted to do so.

(c) State v. Griffin, 262 S.C. 447, 205 S.E. 2d 186. This case involved anticipatory search warrants. The Magistrate could issue a search warrant based on probable cause if the police could swear that an automobile containing narcotic drugs would be at a certain place at a certain time.

(d) State v. Johnny Ray High, Spartanburg County General Sessions Court. Defendant was last seen with the deceased person, and his billfold was found a few feet from the body. The body had been stabbed several times and left on a dirt road. The defendant was found not guilty.

(e) Eastern Business Forms, Inc. v. James E. Kistler. This case involved the "Blue Pencil Theory" in an employment contract case and held that a judge could not rewrite a contract for the parties.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Eastern Business Forms, Inc. v. James E. Kistler, 258 S.C. 429, 189 S.E. 2d 22.

(b) Juanita Coker v. United Insurance Co. of America, 247 S.C. 271, 146 S.E. 2d 868.

(c) Sandra Welchel, et al. v. Geddes C. Boyter, et al., 196
S. E. 2d 496, 260 S.C. 416.

(d) Wen Chow International, Inc. v. J. J. Lawter Plumbing, 331 S.E. 2d 789, 286 S.C. 49.

(e) Mitchell Supply Co. v. Beverly E. Gaffney, et al., 375 S.E. 2d 321, 297 S.C. 160.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) State v. Trent, 234 S.C. 26, 106 S.E. 2d 527.

(b) State v. Worthy, 239 S.C. 449, 123 S.E. 2d 835.

(c) State v. Griffin, 262 S.C. 447, 205 S.E. 2d 186.

(d) State v. Mallory, 270 S.C. 519, 242 S.E. 2d 693.

Since 1978, all his criminal appeals have been handled by the Appellate Board in Columbia.

22. Public Office:
He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1966. He served from January, 1967 until August, 1969. He resigned from the South Carolina House of Representatives to become Public Defender for Spartanburg County and has served in this capacity since that time.

25. Officer or Director: He is presently vice-president of Spartan Investors, Inc. This is an investment group comprised of three other lawyers and one outside individual.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He holds stock and some bonds in several public corporations and would excuse himself from hearing any case in which he was a stockholder in that particular company.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was on December 6, 1991, by Dr. D. Mark Hicklin, 391 E. Henry Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302.

34. Hospitalized: He had a hemorrhoidectomy approximately four years ago. He was incapacitated only two weeks.

35. He wears glasses for reading.

36. He takes medication for Diabetes Type II. He is treated by Dr. D. Mark Hicklin, 391 E. Henry Street, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29302.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Spartanburg Bar Association, President 1989; South Carolina Bar Association since 1955; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association since 1960; and South Carolina Public Defenders Association since 1989

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Masonic Lodge, Duncan Lodge #309, Master of Lodge 1969; Scottish Rite Mason 32_, Assistant Class Director; and Shriner, Hejaz Temple

41. Considering his 37 years of experience in trial work of civil and criminal cases, he feels that he could make a contribution in clearing up the congested dockets in Spartanburg County and other counties. His teaching of criminal law, primarily police and probation officers, for the past 21 years has given him an incite into law enforcement and criminal law at different levels.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) John T. Poole, Jr., Vice President
The Palmetto Bank
P. O. Box 5067, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(b) Charles E. Sanders
Deputy Public Defender
Courthouse, Spartanburg, SC 29301

(c) Larry D. Smith
208 Groce Road, Spartanburg, SC 29302

(d) Dwight F. Patterson, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 1655, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) David E. Turnipseed, Esquire
P. O. Box 1904, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE. WE CHECKED ALSO WITH SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, AND THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, BECAUSE THE INDEX SHOWED SOME ACTIONS HAD BEEN BROUGHT. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THOSE?
A YES, SIR. ALL OF THOSE ACTIONS ARE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES WHERE I HAD EITHER A SECOND MORTGAGE AND WAS MADE A PARTY, OR I HAD A LIEN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
Q LET ME GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE. DO YOU HAVE THAT COMPUTER PRINTOUT THAT CAME FROM THE DEFENDANT INDEX?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE FIRST ONE ON THERE EITHER HAS YOUR NAME SPELLED WRONG OR -- COULD YOU TELL US? IT SPELLS IT L-E-W-I-S, COX. T. LEWIS COX.
A YEAH.
Q THE PLAINTIFF IS WILLY JAMES LADSON. IS THAT YOU?
A IT PROBABLY IS, BUT IN '89 -- I'M NOT SURE. I THINK THAT WAS A CRIMINAL MATTER IN WHICH -- OF COURSE, I'M PUBLIC DEFENDER.
Q YES.
A AND I GET NAMED IN A LOT OF ACTIONS. P.C.R.'S MAINLY, POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
Q IT APPEARS TO BE A P.C.R. MATTER, BECAUSE DELBERT SINGLETON IS YOUR LAWYER AND HE'S A DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
A YES, SIR.
Q SO, WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT'S A P.C.R. MATTER?
A YES, SIR. I HAVE THOSE EVERY WEEK OR TWO.
Q THE NEXT ONE, THE PLAINTIFF IS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE GOVERNMENT.
A THAT WAS AN ACTION IN WHICH THEY FORECLOSED A MORTGAGE AND MADE ME A PARTY ON THAT, I BELIEVE. IT WASN'T AGAINST ME. I JUST HAD A LIEN.
Q BENNY WAYNE KIMBRELL, JR.?
A YES, SIR. HE OWED ME AN ATTORNEY'S FEE, AND THEY MADE ME A PARTY.
Q MADE YOU A PARTY BECAUSE YOU HAD A SECOND LIEN?
A THAT'S CORRECT. COULDN'T GET ANYTHING OUT OF IT, BUT THEY DID.
Q THE NEXT ONE IS CITY OF SPARTANBURG, WHICH APPEARS TO BE SOME TYPE OF -- IS IT A NUISANCE ACTION? THE PROPERTY --
A WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT I BOUGHT SOME PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN SOLD FOR TAXES, AND THEN THE CITY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO TEAR THE HOUSES -- THERE WERE OLD HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY TORE DOWN THE HOUSES AND THEN THEY FILED A LIEN ON THOSE. ON THE LAND. NOT AGAINST ME PERSONALLY, BUT ON THE LAND ITSELF.
Q WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE, IT WAS NOT UP TO CODE STANDARDS OR WHATEVER?
A NO, SIR. THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS NOT.
Q DID YOU DESTROY THE BUILDING OR DID THE CITY DESTROY IT AND THEN YOU HAD TO PAY THEM?
A THE CITY DESTROYED IT AND I HAD TO PAY THEM.
Q AND I THINK THAT WAS 200-AND-SOMETHING DOLLARS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU PAID THAT?
A UH-HUH.
Q THE NEXT ACTION IS CRAWFORD AND THOMPSON AND SOME OTHER FOLKS AS PLAINTIFFS AGAINST HERBERT LANFORD, ELLEN LANFORD, AND T. LOUIS COX, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
A ALL RIGHT. BEFORE THEY PASSED THE PRESENT BANKRUPTCY STATUTE, THEY APPOINTED PEOPLE, LAWYERS, TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY. AND I SERVED AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY ON MANY, MANY OCCASIONS. AND OF COURSE, IF ANYONE BROUGHT AN ACTION, THEY NAMED ME AS A PARTY. AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE ARE.
Q THIS REALLY RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THE NEXT ONE IS -- THAT LAST ONE WAS IN 1973. IN '77, THERE WAS FIRST STATE SAVINGS & LOAN AGAINST T. LOUIS COX, AND THAT'S ALSO AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY?
A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, YES, SIR.
Q THE NEXT ONE IS HAROLD EMANUEL. THAT APPEARS TO BE A P.C.R.; IS THAT WHAT IT IS?
A YES, SIR. THAT'S A P.C.R.
Q DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, SPECIFICALLY?
A NO, SIR, I DON'T. I'VE BEEN IN PROBABLY 300 OF THOSE, AND I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER THOSE.
Q YOU HAVE BEEN PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR HOW LONG?
A 22 YEARS.
Q IS IT FULL TIME DURING THAT TIME?
A PART TIME.
Q PART TIME, NOW?
A THE ENTIRE TIME, IT'S BEEN PART TIME, AND THE OTHER PART I PRACTICE CIVIL LAW IN SPARTANBURG. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 37 YEARS. SO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LITIGATION IN THAT TIME.
Q YES, SIR. BUT EVEN RIGHT NOW YOU'RE A PART-TIME PUBLIC DEFENDER?
A THAT'S RIGHT. PART-TIME PUBLIC DEFENDER.
Q AND YOU HAVE ASSISTANTS, I GUESS.
A SIX.
Q AND THEY ARE ALL PART TIME ALSO?
A NO, SIR. I'M THE ONLY ONE. THE REST OF THEM ARE FULL TIME. AND I MIGHT SAY, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EITHER. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE.
Q I WISH I COULD HELP YOU.
SENATOR LOURIE: WE TRIED TO GET YOU SOME MORE MONEY LAST NIGHT.
WITNESS: APPRECIATE THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YEAH, A LITTLE BIT.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) THE NEXT ONE IS A LIS PENDENS.
A THAT'S --
Q IT'S ON 5.9 ACRES, JAMES RUBEN.
A THAT WAS AN ACTION BROUGHT FOR PARTITIONING OF THE PROPERTY THAT I OWNED 20 PERCENT OF, AND IT WAS DISMISSED. I STILL OWN IT AND THE SAME PEOPLE STILL OWN IT. WE DID NOT PARTITION.
Q YOU STILL OWN IT WITH THOSE FOLKS AS TENANTS IN COMMON NOW?
A YES.
Q WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT ACTION? LOURIE SMITH, 1978?
A MR. SMITH BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST SEVERAL PEOPLE AND HE JUST NAMED THE LAW FIRM. THAT WAS DISMISSED, BUT HE NAMED IT.
Q IT APPEARS HE NAMED TOM WHITESIDE, HORACE SMITH, CLAUDE TAYLOR, JR., AND YOU. ALL Y'ALL ARE LAWYERS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S RIGHT, ALL LAWYERS.
Q WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE ACTION?
A IT WAS INVOLVING A DIVORCE ACTION AND THIS FELLOW WAS DISSATISFIED THE WAY IT TURNED OUT, AND SUED EVERYBODY. NOW, I WAS NOT PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN IT AT ALL, BUT I WAS JUST IN THE LAW FIRM AND GOT NAMED. THAT'S ALL. THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED.
Q IT WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT AN APPEAL.
A NO APPEAL, NO.
Q NEXT ONE IS ANOTHER CRAWFORD AND THOMPSON. AGAIN, THAT WAS IN YOUR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY YOU?
A NO, SIR.
Q STEVE AND CHARLES CROOM, AGAINST YOU.
A I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SAME THING. I THINK THAT IS.
Q THAT WAS AN ACTION FOR COURT APPROVAL TO SELL A MINOR'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY, WASN'T IT? IS THAT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE?
A IT MAY HAVE BEEN. IS THERE A THING IN HERE ON THAT? IF I LOOK AT IT, I CAN TELL.
Q IT'S PART OF THE FILE, THE ORDER.
A YES. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS, THE SALE OF A MINOR'S INTEREST, AND I WAS MADE A PARTY IN THAT.
Q NO ALLEGATION OF WRONGDOING BY YOU?
A NO, SIR.
Q THE LAST ONE IN HERE IS JAMES RUBEN, JR. IS THAT THE SAME ACTION WE SAW EARLIER?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE SAME ACTION ON THAT PROPERTY, WHICH WE OWNED 20 PERCENT OF IT APIECE. FIVE OF US OWNED 20 PERCENT OF IT.
Q THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WARRANTS FOR DISTRAINT IN THIS PACKAGE. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THOSE?
A THAT'S ON TAXES. WE HAD A DISPUTE WITH THE TAX COMMISSION ON $92. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S BEEN SATISFIED?
A OH, YES. YES, SIR,
Q HOW IS YOUR HEALTH, MR. COX?
A GOOD.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED. NO ONE HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY AND NO ONE HAS COMPLAINED OR FILED ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU. WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR TIME NOW, MR. COX, IS SPENT ON PUBLIC DEFENDER MATTERS, CRIMINAL MATTERS.
A ABOUT 50 PERCENT, AND SOMETIMES MORE THAN THAT. IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF WEEKS THAT WE HAVE IN COURT. IT RUNS GENERALLY MORE THAN 50 PERCENT, BUT I GET PAID FOR WORKING 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME AS PUBLIC DEFENDER, BUT OF COURSE I HAVE TO BE THERE AT ALL TIMES. SO, IF YOU HAVE 35, 40 WEEKS OF COURT, I'VE GOT TO SPEND THAT MUCH TIME OVER THERE.
Q AND THE REST OF YOUR TIME IS SPENT IN THE REGULAR CIVIL PRACTICE?
A REGULAR CIVIL PRACTICE.
Q YOU DIDN'T COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN MUCH DETAIL ABOUT THE PERCENT OF LITIGATION YOU DO. WHAT TYPE OF CIVIL MATTERS DO YOU DO?
A I HANDLE ALL KINDS OF PERSONAL INJURY CASES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, A GREAT DEAL OF DIVORCE CASES, ALL KINDS IN THE FAMILY COURT. I HANDLE SOME BANKRUPTCY CASES. I DO ABOUT ALL KINDS OF WORK IN THE COURTS, OF ALL THE COURTS. I ALSO -- YOU'LL PROBABLY NOTICE THAT I TEACH CRIMINAL LAW AT SPARTANBURG METHODIST COLLEGE, AND I'VE DONE THAT FOR TWENTY YEARS. I DO THAT AT NIGHT.
Q MR. COX, HOW DO YOU REGARD THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IN A JUDGE?
A I THINK IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A JUDGE. I'VE BEEN IN THERE LONG ENOUGH IN CRIMINAL COURTS TO HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY THAT DID NOT HAVE THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT THAT I THOUGHT THEY OUGHT TO HAVE. AND LITIGATION IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH, IF EVERYTHING WORKS PERFECTLY; IF THE JUDGE IS PERFECT AND EVERYTHING IN THERE IS PERFECT, IT'S STILL A DIFFICULT BUSINESS. IT'S HARD WORK. AND IF YOU'VE GOT AN OVERBEARING JUDGE OR AN OBNOXIOUS FELLOW UP THERE, IT MAKES IT DOUBLY DIFFICULT, SOMETIMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. AND I HAVE SEEN A GOOD MANY OF THEM.
Q IF YOU WERE ELECTED TO THE BENCH, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT WORKING LATE HOURS, HOLDING A COURT LATE TO FINISH BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK, AND, YOU KNOW, THE WEEKENDS IN SOME EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES?
A OF COURSE I WOULD DO THAT, IN ORDER TO FINISH CASES OR WHATEVER HAD TO BE DONE. YOU HAVE TO DO THE WORK, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE AND EVER HOW LONG THAT TAKES. AND IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS IN OTHER COUNTIES -- IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, WE ARE CERTAINLY USED TO THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE SOME 9,000 CRIMINAL CASES ON THE DOCKET UP THERE. SO, IT TAKES A GOOD DEAL OF WORK ON EVERYBODY'S PART TO TRY TO JUST STAY EVEN WITH IT, WITH THE CASES COMING UP. SO, WE ARE USED TO WORKING WEEKENDS AND ALL OTHER TIMES UP THERE. IF Y'ALL KNOW JUDGE BURNEY, HE WORKS A GOOD BIT. IF Y'ALL HAVE HAD ANY CASES BEFORE HIM.
Q MR. COX, CONCERNING THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, HAVE YOU ABIDED BY THAT RULE AND NOT SOLICITED OR RECEIVED ANY COMMITMENTS?
A YES, SIR. I HAVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q TELL ME A LITTLE ABOUT SPARTANBURG BAR'S ENDORSEMENT. HOW DO THEY ARRIVE AT THAT, OR HOW DO THEY GO ABOUT THAT PROCESS?
A THEY JUST TOOK A VOTE ON EVERYBODY THAT WAS IN THIS THING; AND I GOT 33 VOTES, MR. CLARY GOT 37, AND MR. DILLARD GOT SEVEN. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS. IT WAS A SECRET VOTE, BY THE WAY.
Q WAS IT A FORMAL CALL MEETING OR WAS IT --
A IT WAS JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE. IT WAS NOT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION.
Q HOW MANY MEMBERS WERE PRESENT FOR THE VOTE?
A IT WAS JUST CALLED, FOR THAT; AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WAS PROBABLY A TOTAL OF MAYBE 70, 75 MEMBERS THERE. WE HAVE PROBABLY 200, 225 MEMBERS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS?
WITNESS: NO, SIR. I DON'T. I APPRECIATE YOUR ALL'S INDULGENCE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE CLERK OF THE SENATE HAS PUT SOMEBODY IN THE BALCONY TO MONITOR WHAT'S GOING ON AND REPORT TO US WHENEVER WE'RE NEEDED.
SENATOR LOURIE: WE'RE LIABLE TO BE NEEDED ABOUT EVERY MINUTE DOWN THERE TODAY.
SENATOR McCONNELL: THAT'S RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO BE ON THE SAME SIDE SOME AND ON OPPOSITE SIDES SOME.
(SENATOR LOURIE TEMPORARILY DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. CULLEN.

WHEREUPON, THOMAS P. CULLEN, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED CLARIFICATION?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.
Q OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Thomas P. Cullen
Home Address: Business Address:
6625 Dorchester Road, Lot 9 3251 Landmark Drive, Suite 241-F
North Charleston, SC 29418 North Charleston, SC 29418

2. He was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, on July 11, 1939. He is presently 52 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Rony Castiglioni on September 1, 1990. He has five children: Tammy Lynn, age 29 (sales clerk); Thomas P., II, age 27 (forklift driver); John L., age 25 (carpet installer); Joselyn Perley, age 14 (student, seventh grade, stepchild); and Daniel Perley, age 11 (student, fifth grade, stepchild).

5. Military Service: June 1, 1961 to March 15, 1963; 2LT, A03118643; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, September, 1957 to June, 1961, BA in Political Science; the University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, South Carolina, September, 1968 to June, 1971, JD; and The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, August, 1985 to May, 1987, Med.

7. In college he was a member of Phi Sigma Alpha and the National Political Science Honor Society. In law school he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Continuing Education units in Ethics, Family Law and Bankruptcy

10. Published Books or Articles:

How to do Your Own Uncontested Divorce
Suwanee River Press, Live Oak, Florida, 2-92

How to do Your Own Bankruptcy
Suwanee River Press, Live Oak, Florida, 2-92

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Attorney Advisor, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1971-1976. Wrote decisions for Commissioners as a Division of the Commission.

Sole practitioner, North Charleston, South Carolina, 1987 to present. Primary areas of practice - Family Law and Bankruptcy - with some Real Estate, Corporate and Criminal Law.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 40
State - 80
Other - 0

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 65%

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

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

(a) Harold Wildman Phyliss Wildman d/b/a Wildman Express Wildman Produce, 91-02853.
Highly contested Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case

(b) Metzger v. Duncan, 91-DR-08-604.
Termination of Parental Rights
Rights not terminated, Defendant incarcerated with Department of Corrections

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
Candidate for Charleston County Council; November, 1990; 26,000 votes; lost to incumbent

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Self-employed, 1977-1987, various

30. Tax Lien or Other Collection:
Chapter 13 filed July 12, 1991.

33. His last physical examination was on December 25, 1991, by Dr. Benjamin K. McInnes, 9275 Medical Plaza Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina 29418.

35. He wears a hearing aid.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Charleston Bar

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Kathleen R. Cowart, Assistant Vice President
P. O. Box 700, Charleston, SC 29402

(b) Horace E. Curry, Jr.
Curry & Nester
3236 Landmark Drive, Suite 100, North Charleston, SC 29418

(c) Clarke W. Olson
3369 Ashley Phosphate Road, North Charleston, SC 29418

(d) Raymond Nester
Curry & Nester
3236 Landmark Drive, Suite 100, North Charleston, SC 29418

(e) Ronald L. Nester, Sr.
Curry & Nester
3236 Landmark Drive, Suite 100, North Charleston, SC 29418

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THERE ARE NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. WHAT ABOUT YOUR HEALTH, MR. CULLEN? I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING ON THE REPORT ABOUT THAT.
A I BELIEVE I'M IN GOOD HEALTH, SIR.
Q NOW ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, THE PERCENTAGE OF CASES IN TRIAL COURT, YOU NOTED NON-JURY WAS 100 PERCENT OF YOUR EXPERIENCE.
A IN MY PRACTICE?
Q YES, SIR.
A TO DATE.
Q RIGHT NOW?
A RIGHT NOW, YES.
Q WHAT JURY EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD?
A NO JURY EXPERIENCE.
Q THE PERCENT OF LITIGATION YOU HAVE IS 30 PERCENT CIVIL. WHAT TYPE OF CIVIL PRACTICE DO YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW?
A I'M REPRESENTING ONE DEFENDANT IN SEVEN CIVIL ACTIONS, MONETARY JUDGMENTS. I'VE DONE FORECLOSURES. I HAVE SEVERAL --
Q I'M SORRY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP JUST A LITTLE MORE. SHE AND I ARE BOTH STRUGGLING TO HEAR YOU.
A I HAVE SEVERAL CASES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. I'M REPRESENTING A DEFENDANT -- SEVERAL DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT FOR MONEY JUDGMENTS.
Q YOU FORMERLY WORKED FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, I THINK?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT TYPE OF WORK WAS THAT?
A I WORKED IN THE OFFICE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE SECTION OF RATES. I WROTE CASES FOR THE COMMISSION.
Q YOU WORKED IN WASHINGTON THEN?
A WASHINGTON, D.C., YES.
Q IS THAT LIKE A STAFF ATTORNEY POSITION?
A IT WAS A STAFF ATTORNEY POSITION. I DID NOT APPEAR IN COURT. I WOULD GET BOTH SIDES OF THE DECISION AND WRITE IT FOR THE COMMISSION. I WOULD REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DECISIONS.
Q NOW WHAT ABOUT THE NOTATION IN YOUR APPLICATION THAT A CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS FILED IN JULY?
A YES, IT WAS. I FILED THAT -- I HAD -- SOMEBODY STOLE A VAN FROM ME AND THE INSURANCE PAID IT OFF AND THE REMAINDER -- I MAKE A PAYMENT TO THE COURT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.
Q YOU ARE PRESENTLY IN CHAPTER 13. THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL THE WAGE-EARNER BANKRUPTCY.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT'S WHERE YOU MORE OR LESS PUT A HOLD ON ALL OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS AND WORK OUT A PAYMENT PLAN?
A IT IS.
Q SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
A IT IS.
Q DO YOU HAVE BANKRUPTCY COUNSEL REPRESENTING YOU IN THAT?
A PHYLLIS CLAYTON WAS MY ATTORNEY.
Q WHEN IS THAT PAYMENT PLAN SUPPOSED TO BE CONCLUDED AND THE BANKRUPTCY LIFTED OR WHATEVER? WHAT DOES THE PLAN INCLUDE, IN OTHER WORDS, FOR TERMINATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY?
A SECURED CREDIT -- BASICALLY IT'S -- WHAT I HAVE IN THE PLAN ARE MY AUTOMOBILES.
Q WHAT IS THAT? WHAT I'M SAYING, ARE YOU GOING TO BE UNDER CHAPTER 13 INDEFINITELY OR --
A NO. IT'S FOR -- I BELIEVE IT'S 57 MONTHS.
Q SAY, WHAT?
A 57 MONTHS.
Q 57 MONTHS? SO THAT'S ALMOST FIVE YEARS?
A YES.
Q FROM JULY OF '91 OR FROM --
A CORRECT.
Q -- NOW? WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PERSON HOLDING JUDICIAL OFFICE AND BEING UNDER A CHAPTER 13 ORDER, OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD CALL IT?
A I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
Q WELL, I MEAN IF SOMEONE CAME BEFORE YOU AS A JUDGE AND IT WERE A COLLECTION ACTION, OR ACTION ON AN ACCOUNT FOR MONEY OWED, HOW WOULD YOU THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT THE LITIGANT'S ATTITUDE ABOUT THE JUSTICE THEY WERE RECEIVING IF YOU WERE UNDER CHAPTER 13 PROTECTION AT THE MOMENT YOU WERE PRESIDING?
A I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON WHAT TYPE OF DECISION I WOULD RENDER, BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
Q GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT YOUR TRIAL EXPERIENCE, YOU INDICATED YOU HAD NO JURY TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q HOW DO YOU THINK -- IF YOU WERE SITTING AS AN AT-LARGE CIRCUIT JUDGE, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRESIDE OVER JURY TRIALS EVERY WEEK, IF NOT EVERY DAY; AT LEAST SOME WEEKS, THE ENTIRE WEEK. HOW WOULD YOU ADAPT TO THAT NEW ENVIRONMENT?
A I BELIEVE I COULD ADAPT TO IT FAIRLY WELL.
Q WOULD YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOME SPECIAL STEPS TO DO THAT OR DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT YOU COULD JUST ASSUME THE BENCH AND DO THOSE AUTOMATICALLY?
A I THINK THAT I WOULD NEED TO TAKE SOME STEPS AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT BEFORE I DID IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: WELL, ONE QUESTION, PLEASE. CHAIRMAN POPE: GO AHEAD.

Q I NOTICE IN YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE THAT YOU WEAR A HEARING AID. IS THAT CORRECT? TELL US ABOUT YOUR HEARING.
A I HAVE A HEARING LOSS IN ONE EAR. AND IF I HAVE THE HEARING AID AND A BATTERY THAT'S GOOD, I'M OKAY; I HEAR FINE.
Q SO, IT'S JUST ONE EAR, IS THAT CORRECT?
A MY LEFT EAR, YES.
Q AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE NOW IN CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY, YOURSELF?
A PERSONALLY.
Q HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN BANKRUPTCY?
A SINCE JULY OF '91.
Q JULY OF 1991, AND IT'S FOR 57 MONTHS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THANK YOU.
A YES, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

Q HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A GROUP OR PARTNERSHIP? YOU ARE A SOLE PRACTITIONER NOW; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I'M A SOLE PRACTITIONER.
Q SINCE YOU'VE BEEN IN CHARLESTON, HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAW PARTNERSHIP AT ALL?
A NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, MR. CULLEN?
A I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT. IN THE JUDGE'S POSITION, I WOULD LIKE TO HANDLE IT WITH COMPASSION, PATIENCE, AND TOLERANCE. I'VE BEEN IN ENOUGH COURTROOMS THAT I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
Q CONCERNING THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, HAVE YOU ABIDED BY THAT RULE AND OBTAINED NO PLEDGES OR COMMITMENTS TO VOTE FOR YOU IN THIS RACE?
A YES, I HAVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, MR. CULLEN?
A NO. I'M GRATEFUL TO THE COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO COME UP HERE TODAY.
Q THANK YOU, SIR.
A THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS THOMAS DILLARD.

WHEREUPON, THOMAS C. DILLARD, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q LET'S SEE. MR. DILLARD, YOU WERE SCREENED ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO, FOUR MONTHS AGO.
A YES, SIR.
Q IN DECEMBER OF '91.
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY NEED ANY MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION?
A NOT THAT I CAN TELL.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.

1. Thomas C. Dillard
Home Address: Business Address:
667 Stafford Avenue 258 North Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29301 Spartanburg, SC 29301

2. He was born in Whitmire, South Carolina on October 23, 1942. He is presently 49 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Brenda R. Dillard on October 19, 1986. He was previously divorced on July 13, 1984, on the grounds of one year's separation. Thomas C. Dillard was the moving party. He has three children: Anna Ruth, age 26, (R. N., Baptist Hospice); Deborah S. Maness, age 27, (Production Assistant, Felter's Inc.); and Hope S. Davis, age 25, (Secretary, Cone Mills).

5. Military Service: None.

6. He attended Newberry College from l961-1963 and from 1968-1970, B.A. (He left school in 1963 to work and returned in 1968); and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1971-1973, J.D.

7. He worked full time while attending college.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended Trial Lawyers Association Convention Seminars since 1986. Prior to 1986, he attended regular CLE Seminars at the University of South Carolina Law School.

12. Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1973-1981 Associate with Robert C. Lake, Jr. - General Civil and Criminal Practice

1981-1986 Sole Practitioner at Union, South Carolina - General Civil and Criminal Practice

1986-present Spartanburg County Assistant Public Defender, Criminal Practice

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - monthly
Other - none

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 55%
Domestic - 20%

Since 1986, 100% Criminal

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 30%
Nonjury - 70%

Sole Counsel

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

(a) State v. Sole Dowlinton - Tried for murder. After two days, the trial jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to three years. It was significant, because he was able to convince a jury that the Defendant had no malice.

(b) State v. Margarito Guiterrez - Tried for murder. He was able to have most of the State's evidence excluded during the trial. After the State rested its case, they agreed to let the Defendant plead to involuntary manslaughter which reduced the Defendant's sentence from life to three years.

(c) Nickey B. Toby v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. This was a case which he carried from the Administrative Level to the U. S. District Court on Appeal. This case was significant because of the time involved to secure the Claimant's retroactive benefits. From the time of filing to the last appeal was seven years.

(d) State v. Jerry Wood - Tried for murder. This case was significant as it gave him more experience in trying felony cases.

(e) State v. Richard Longworth - Tried for capital murder. This case was significant in giving him experience in trying death penalty cases.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

As a Public Defender, all appeals are handled by the Office of Appellate Defense. The last appeal in which he participated was more than ten years ago when he was an associate with Robert C. Lake, Jr.

20. Judicial Office:

1981-1986 Judge, Town of Whitmire Municipal Court. He was appointed by the Town Council. It was limited to crimes which carried maximum penalty of 30 days or $200.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He worked for the City of Newberry as a water plant operator while attending college from 1968-1970. He also worked for the City of Newberry, 1965-1968. He worked as a page in the South Carolina State Senate while attending law school, 1971-1973.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He is aware of none. If there were any such conflicts, he would recuse himself if he were the sitting Judge.

30. Tax Lien: South Carolina tax liens were filed in 1983. The liens were paid in 1983.

33. His health is good in general. He has mild angina which is familial and which is controlled by medication. His last physical was in March of 1988 by Dr. E. J. Dickert, Kinard Street, Newberry, South Carolina 29108.

36. Current Treatment for Illness or Physical Condition: He is presently taking Inderal for high blood pressure. He was diagnosed for mild angina in 1976.

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

40. Civic, Charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Masons, Amity Lodge #87, Newberry, SC, and York Rite Bodies, Newberry, SC; Shrine, Hejaz Shrine Temple, Greenville, SC; Union Elk Lodge, Union, SC

41. He has been placed on the Register to be eligible for an appointment to Administrative Law Judge with the Federal Government. To be placed on the registry, he was rated on experience, references, written exam, personal interview and FBI check for security clearance.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) O. Dennis Campbell, Vice President and Trust Officer
Arthur State Bank
P. O. Drawer 769, Union, SC 29379

(b) Charles W. Jones, Esquire
P. O. Box 1144, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) Gerald G. Wilson, Esquire
P. O. Box 6189, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) David E. Turnipseed, Esquire
P. O. Box 1904, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) H. Carlisle Bean, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 81, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q THE REPORT FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS AND THE RECORDS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOWED A SUIT AGAINST YOU WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NEWBERRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. THAT WAS DISMISSED, I BELIEVE.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOU HAD A PRIOR TAX LIEN AGAINST YOU, BUT THAT HAS BEEN LONG SINCE PAID OFF, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THIS IN THE LAST SCREENING.
A YES. WITHIN A FEW MONTHS OF IT BEING FILED.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD?
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT. YOU ARE PRESENTLY WORKING -- I GUESS YOU WORK WITH MR. COX --
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q -- AS A FULL-TIME ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY.
A YES.
Q SO AT THE PRESENT TIME, YOUR PRACTICE, I GUESS, IS 100 PERCENT CRIMINAL?
A AT THE PRESENT.
Q IN THE PAST, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE DONE CIVIL, CRIMINAL, AND DOMESTIC?
A YES, SIR. I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE FOR A TOTAL OF 13 YEARS, IN WHICH I ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF PERSONAL INJURY AND CIVIL MATTERS, AND FAMILY MATTERS, SOME WORKMEN'S COMP, BEFORE DIFFERENT BOARDS, A.B.C. COMMISSION. PRACTICALLY EVERY -- EVERY FORM, EXCEPT VERY LITTLE FEDERAL WORK.
Q I KNOW THAT YOU'VE BEEN ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE IN THE PREVIOUS SCREENING, BUT WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER WITH US THAT DIDN'T SIT IN ON THIS BEFORE. SO, WHAT WOULD YOU DO, MR. DILLARD, TO INSURE THAT YOU DIDN'T GET ROBITIS AFTER FOUR OR FIVE YEARS OF SITTING ON THE BENCH?
A WELL, SENATOR, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT ROBITIS, AS YOU CALL IT, IS A DORMANT FEATURE OF A PERSON. I THINK IT'S ALWAYS THERE, IF IT CAME OUT. I THINK THAT ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THAT I'M KIND OF -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD -- KIND OF LAID BACK. I'M OPEN-MINDED; I CAN SEE DIFFERENT SIDES OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I KNOW THAT THE TEMPERAMENT OF A JUDGE SETS THE SCENE FOR ANY COURT, BE IT PLEAS OR TRIAL IN CRIMINAL COURT OR CIVIL COURT. THAT SETS THE MOOD FOR HOW THAT COURT IS GOING TO OPERATE. AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT A JUDGE CONSIDER THAT HE IS THERE AS A JUDGE AND NOT AS A PARTICIPANT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND THAT HE'S THERE MORE OR LESS AS A REFEREE AND TO INSURE THAT THINGS GO SMOOTHLY, ACCORDING TO LAW, AND THE WAY THEY SHOULD GO, AND THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED WITH COURTESY AND DEFERENCE SO FAR AS POSSIBLE; AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAINING DECORUM IN THE COURTROOM.
Q MR. DILLARD, YOU ARE AWARE OF THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, I'M SURE.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE ABIDED BY THAT AND HAVE OBTAINED NO COMMITMENTS OR SOLICITED ANY COMMITMENTS.
A YES, SIR. I HAVE NOT SOLICITED ANY AND I HAVE ABIDED BY THE RULE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. DILLARD?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, OR ANYTHING?
A NO, SIR. THE ONLY THING, I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S TIME. AS YOU SAID, I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
Q YES, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US HERE AGAIN. THANK YOU.
A THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MS. MARTHA McELVEEN HORNE.
(SENATOR McCONNELL DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)

WHEREUPON, MARTHA McELVEEN HORNE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MS. HORNE YOU WERE ALSO SCREENED DECEMBER 5TH, I THINK, OF 1991.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION?
A YES, IF I MAY. IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION NUMBER 25 WHERE I INDICATED THAT I WAS CANDIDATE FOR RE-ELECTION TO A SEAT THAT I CURRENTLY HOLD ON THE SAFE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION BOARD, I WAS, IN FACT, RE-ELECTED IN MARCH AND AM AGAIN A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD.
Q OKAY.
A I WOULD ALSO ASK TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AS TO QUESTION 39, WHICH IS PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION, THAT LAST FRIDAY, MARCH 27TH, I HAD THE VERY GREAT HONOR OF BEING ONE OF SIX SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEYS WHO RECEIVED THE FIRST COMPLETE LAWYER AWARD FROM THE LAW SCHOOL ASSOCIATION. THE CRITERIA, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FOR THAT AWARD, WAS TO RECOGNIZE LAWYERS OF THE HIGHEST PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, AND ETHICS; AND THAT THE RECIPIENTS WOULD BE OUTSTANDING MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION WHO HAD DEMONSTRATED LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO THEIR COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS EXTRAORDINARY PROFESSIONALISM. I WAS EXTREMELY HUMBLED BY THAT, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE OTHER RECIPIENTS INCLUDED SENATOR POPE'S FATHER, THOMAS POPE, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER VERY DISTINGUISHED LAWYERS.
Q THAT WAS A FINE AWARD. I WAS THERE, OF COURSE. WE CONGRATULATE YOU. WE WILL SO AMEND YOUR SUMMARY TO INCLUDE THE AWARD AND ALSO TO MODIFY THAT OTHER ANSWER ON QUESTION 25.
A THANK YOU.
Q AND OTHERWISE, WE WILL MAKE THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS.

1. Martha McElveen Horne
Home Address: Business Address:
710 Reynolds Road 107 East Hampton Street
Sumter, SC 29150 Sumter, SC 29150

2. She was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on December 4, 1953. She is presently 38 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to Terrell Thomas Horne on May 21, 1983. She has one child: Elizabeth McElveen, age 3.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Clemson University at Sumter, 1971-1973 (transfer to University of South Carolina); the University of South Carolina, B.A., May, 1975, cum laude; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D., May, 1978.

7. In law school she was a law clerk with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, 1976-1978; Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity, 1976-1978; and Law School Graduation Committee, 1978.

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

1983-1990 Attended the annual three-day Solicitors' Conference Seminars each year

1984 Completed Northwestern University Law School's 39th Annual Short Course for Prosecuting Attorneys

1985 South Carolina Bar "Child Sexual Assault Seminar" and "Criminal Trial Advocacy"; Attorney General's Office "Civil Forfeiture Seminar" and "Law Enforcement Leadership Conference"

1986 South Carolina Bar Seminar on "Law and the Art of Living"

1987 South Carolina Bar Seminar "Personal Financial Considerations for Lawyers"; South Carolina Bar Trial and Appellate Advocacy Section Seminar "How to Win Your Case before the Evidence is Presented"; South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section Seminar "Homicide, Criminal Sexual Conduct, Mitigation of Assault Cases, and Death Penalty Update"

1988 South Carolina Bar Seminar "How to Deal with the Press"; South Carolina Bar Employment and Labor Law Seminar

1989 South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section Seminar "Nuts and Bolts of Juvenile Law"; South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Seminar "Accident Reconstruction: Getting the Facts from Your Expert"

1991 "Reducing the Risks of Law Enforcement Operations" three-day course at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy with emphasis on City of Canton v. Harris civil lawsuits; South Carolina Bar Employment and Labor Law/Military Law Section Seminar on Employee Handbooks, Disclaimers, Reemployment of Veterans and Related Issues; South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section BAC Data Master Seminar

9. Courses taught of lectures given:

April, 1989: Speaker on Evidence and Trial Preparation at the South Carolina Council on Welfare Fraud Conference

1983-1991: Sumter County Reserve Officer Training Class Instructor. Courses taught include Constitutional Law, Evidence and Testifying in Court

1985-1990: Paralegal and Criminal Justice Instructor at Sumter Area Technical College. Courses taught include Torts, Workmen's Compensation, Professional Responsibility, South Carolina Legal Systems, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law, Domestic Law, and Government

10. Published Books or Articles:

1986-1987: Domestic Violence Handbook, Published by the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Committee on Spouse Abuse of which she was a member. The project was conceived by her and the approved American Bar Association (ABA) grant request was prepared by her. The publication won an ABA First Place Public Service Award and is still being used by service providers.

June, 1986: Ethical Considerations, Published by the Disciplinary Newsletter Committee of the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division of which she was Chairman and Editor.

1985: You and the Law, 1985 WRJA-ETV Television Series where local attorneys appeared to discuss legal topics of general interest. The program was created, organized, coordinated and scripted by her with assistance from the program host and WRJA staff.
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Judicial Research Aide, Circuit Court
Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr.
P. O. Drawer 1309, Sumter, SC 29151
August, 1978 - April, 1979

State Attorney
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Child Support Division
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
April, 1979 - March, 1981

Assistant Attorney General
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Criminal Appeals Division
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
March, 1981 - May, 1983

Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Full-time prosecutor in Third Circuit Courts of General Sessions and Family Courts
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC
May, 1983 - August, 1984

Deputy Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Chief Assistant Solicitor for Third Judicial Circuit, prosecuting cases in General Sessions Court, supervising Family Court cases
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC 29150
August, 1984 - January, 1987

Part-Time Instructor, Criminal Justice and Paralegal Programs
Sumter Area Technical College
506 Guignard Drive, Sumter, SC 29150
September, 1985 - December, 1990

Sumter County Prosecutor
Part-time contract with Sumter County Council to prosecute jury trial Criminal cases in Sumter County Magistrate Court
October, 1986 - December, 1990

Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Part-time prosecutor assigned to Sumter County and Lee County
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC
January, 1987 - December, 1990

Attorney at Law
Sole practice limited to civil matters
621 West Liberty Street, Sumter, SC 29150
January, 1987 - present

Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Sumter
Part-time contract with Sumter City Council to prosecute jury trial criminal cases in Sumter City Court
January, 1988 - present

Attorney and Legal Advisor, City of Sumter Police Department
Sumter Law Enforcement Center
107 East Hampton Street, Sumter, SC 29150
January 7, 1991 - present

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - 1985-1990: 15-25 weeks per year in General Sessions; 10-15 weeks in Magistrate Court, City Court, Family Court, and non-jury Common Pleas
Other - 0

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 1%
Criminal - 98%
Domestic - 1%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 98% - Sole Counsel or Chief Counsel
Non-jury - 2% - Sole Counsel

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

(a) State v. Edmundo Rodriguez, 279 S.C. 106, 302 S.E. 2d 666 (1983). State Appellate Counsel. The case addressed state jurisdiction over federal land and whether the South Carolina Code Section 16-17-490, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, requires proof that Defendant's conduct caused the victim to willfully injure her morals.

(b) State v. James Paul Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 S.E. 2d 329 (1983). State Appellate Counsel. Case of first impression declaring possession with intent to distribute marijuana a crime of moral turpitude.

(c) State v. Alfred Augustus Green aka Muhammad Isa Muniyr and Nathaniel Zuell aka Islam Zuell, 83-GS43-703 (Judgment Roll Number 14974). Sole trial counsel for State. Defendants were convicted in April, 1984, of armed robbery and conspiracy. According to a non-indicted, testifying Co-Defendant, Defendants were the leaders of a Muslim gang responsible for a number of Sumter armed robberies and were apprehended on their way to a planned armed robbery. The trial involved working with the testifying Co-Defendant and numerous eyewitnesses as well as preparation of expert witnesses. It also involved unique Fourth Amendment search and seizure motions as to the admissibility of the gun and other evidence seized on the date of their apprehension. The Defendant Green's internal FBI sheet reflected numerous New York arrests for violent crimes with no convictions (i.e., assault on a police officer, armed assault, armed robbery, etc.). The Defendants were hostile toward the Court and law enforcement throughout the trial. Because of their religious beliefs, they were particularly hostile toward a woman prosecutor. It was significant to the safety of the Sumter community and law enforcement in general to obtain this conviction. Convictions were affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.

(d) State v. Calvin Stansbury, 86-GS43-508. (Judgment Roll Number 16347). Sole Trial Counsel for State. Defendant, a convicted child molester, was charged with molestation of the 2 1/2 year old granddaughter of his girlfriend. The incident was alleged to have occurred at grandmother's home. When the child returned home, she complained to her mother of the attack. The case involved preparation of an extremely non-verbal toddler, res gestae testimony of mother, and expert medical testimony from Charleston, South Carolina child abuse expert Sara Schuh, M.D. The State had an uphill battle because of the child's limited ability to explain what happened and the time lapse between outcry and the offense. (It was the State's position that she was too young to fabricate her complaint, that she could not give outcry to the grandmother/girlfriend who was seated at defense table during trial and listed as a defense witness, and that expert medical testimony substantiated the abuse.) Extensive pre-trial motions and in camera testimony from the child and her mother resulted in favorable rulings as to competence and res gestae admissibility. However, at the conclusion of the State's case, the Court reversed its previous rulings and directed a verdict in favor of the Defendant. She believes that statewide attention afforded this directed verdict contributed to significant legislative changes that have improved the courtroom for child victims while preserving the constitutionally protected rights of criminal defendants. She also believes this is a good example of the difficult decisions that our trial courts face each day.

(e) State v. Walter Brunson and Chris Idlett, 90-GS43-508. Sole Trial Counsel for State. These 17-year old Defendants were convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Both Defendants had juvenile records and were reportedly members of a group that calls itself "The Sumter Junior Black Mafia." While on bond and awaiting trial for this offense, Idlett participated in unprovoked gun-play at a Lee County night club that resulted in the death of a young woman. While on bond and awaiting trial for this offense, Brunson was caught with an adult cooking crack in a known crack house. It was clear from the Defendants' actions while on bond and their courtroom demeanor that they believed that their youth would protect them from criminal accountability. This successful prosecution assisted in the disposition of the Lee County murder charges. It also sent a message to the young people of the community who have "bought" the adult drug dealers' line that young people will not be held accountable for selling drugs. Perhaps this will compel some young person to reevaluate the risks associated with the big money promised for drug dealing. After conviction, the Court sentenced the Defendants to 15 years each. The convictions have been affirmed, but the cases were remanded for resentencing consideration. Each Defendant received youthful offender incarceration on October 8, 1991.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

She has handled numerous criminal appeals during her two-year tenure as an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Criminal Appeals Division and has taken the liberty of listing five of these published opinions under Question 19. Also, her duties as Judge Finney's Judicial Research Aide and as an Attorney General Student Law Clerk required extensive research, brief writing, and trial preparation in both civil and criminal matters. Her current responsibilities as a City Attorney and as Executive Chairman of the South Carolina Bar Resolution of Fee Disputes Board requires knowledge and use of both civil and criminal law.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) In the Interest of Jessie Smith, 277 S.C. 187, 284 S.E. 2d 586 (1981): Res Gestae Ruling.

(b) State v. Barrett and Olson, 278 S.C. 92, 292 S.E. 2d 590 (1982) cert. den.
103 SCt 388: Constitutionality of State Pornography Law.

(c) State v. Sloan, 278 S.C. 435, 298 S.E. 2d 92 (1982): Death Penalty Appeal.

(d) State v. Donald Ray Perry, 278 S.C. 490, 299 S.E. 2d 324 (1983) cert. den.
103 SCt 1881: Murder Conviction Appeal.

(e) State v. Dean, et al., 282 S.C. 136, 317 S.E. 2d 744 (1984): Appeal from Trafficking Conviction on arrest/search and seizure issues.

22. Public Office:

1979-1983: Appointed to serve as State Attorney and Assistant Attorney General at the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General. Primary responsibilities were to the Child Support Division (1979-1981) and the Criminal Appeals Division (1981-1983). She also served as counsel to a number of boards and agencies, including the Commission on Women, the South Carolina Board of Cosmetology, and the South Carolina Children's Bureau.

1983-1990: Appointed to serve as Third Judicial Circuit Assistant Solicitor

1987-1990: Appointed by Sumter County Council to serve as County Prosecutor for jury trials in Magistrate Court

1988-present: Appointed by Sumter City Council to serve as City Prosecutor for City Court jury trials

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: In 1991-1992, she filed and was qualified by the Joint Screening Committee for a Third Judicial Circuit Court judgeship. She withdrew her name prior to the election on
February 5, 1992.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Her parents own Empire Cycle Company, 621 West Liberty Street, Sumter, SC 29150. During her school years, she worked with them after school, on weekends, summer break and Christmas vacation (1966-1978). She continued to help them at the shop during the Christmas season as her Court schedule permitted until the birth of her daughter in 1988. She still occasionally assists, primarily to spend time with her parents and to interact with the customers -- people from all walks of life. She was a student law clerk, South Carolina Attorney General's Office, 1976-1978.

25. Officer or Director:

(1) SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union Board of Directors.

(2) Fifth Congressional District Representative on the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors, term expiring June, 1993.
(3) American Red Cross Sumter County Chapter Board of Directors, term expiring 1992.

(4) 1991-1992, Sumter United Way Campaign, Professional Donations Chair.

(5) Sumter Crimestoppers Board (ex-officio, non-expiring).

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
She is a member of the SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union Board of Directors and the Fifth Congressional District Representative on the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors. If she is appointed to the bench, she will resign from these policy-making boards. She is an ex officio member of the Crimestoppers Board. If appointed to the bench, she will resign because this board discusses matters upon which she may be called to act. She will also resign from the United Way Board as its primary purpose is the direct solicitation of charitable pledges and contributions. She knows of no other conflicts. However, she is fully prepared to follow the direction of the Chief Justice and the Code of Judicial Conduct, resigning from activities deemed to have an appearance of impropriety.

31. Sued: One case was reported on the SLED report dated October 17, 1991. She was not served or noticed at the time the cases were filed and learned of these lawsuits during the judicial screening noted at Question 23. The civil actions stemmed from the successful prosecution of an armed robbery and conspiracy case against the Plaintiffs. Details of the criminal case are provided at Question 17(c).

33. Her health is good. Her last physical examination was August 5, 1991 with Dr. James Stands, Palmetto Ob/Gyn Associates, P.A., 1333 Taylor Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 254-1300.

34. Hospitalized: Her only hospitalization or over ten-day absence from work was hospitalization and maternity leave related to the birth of her daughter in 1988.

35. She wears contact lens/eyeglasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Young Lawyer of the Year, 1989-1990; Member, South Carolina Bar Board of Governors, 1990-present; Member, South Carolina Bar House of Delegates, 1988-1990; Chairman, Executive Council of the South Carolina Bar Resolution of Fee Disputes Board, 1989-present; Member, South Carolina Bar Long-Range Planning Committee, 1991-92; Member, South Carolina Bar Lawyer/Physician Relationship Committee, 1991-92; Member, South Carolina Bar Board of Governors, 1987-1988; South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Executive Council, Immediate Past President 1987-1988, President 1986-1987, President-Elect 1985-1986; Secretary 1984-1985, Treasurer 1983-1984, Second Congressional District Representative 1982-1983; Member, Domestic Violence Publication Project, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 1986-1987 (publication received an American Bar Association First Place Award in 1987); Chairman and Editor of Ethical Consideration, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Divisions disciplinary newsletter, 1985-1986; Member, Sumter County Bar Association Committee on Professional Problems, 1986; Member, Sumter County Bar Association Law Day Committee, 1985; Chairman/Co-Chairman, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Sumter County Community Law Week, 1985 and 1986; Columbia Young Lawyers Club, President 1982-1983, Treasurer 1981-1982; Member, American Bar Association; Member, South Carolina Bar; Member, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Member, South Carolina Bar Family Law Section; Member, South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section; Member, South Carolina Bar Trial/Appellate Advocacy Section; and Member, Sumter County Bar Association. She was recently chosen as one of six South Carolina attorneys who received the first complete lawyer award from the Law School Association. The criteria for this award was to recognize lawyers of the highest professional competence, integrity and ethics. Recipients are outstanding members of the legal profession who had demonstrated leadership and service to their communities, as well as extraordinary professionalism.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, Crimestoppers Advisory Board, 1983-present; Member, Board of Directors, American Red Cross, Sumter County Chapter, 1986-present; Member, Board of Directors, SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union, 1989-present, Chair of Nominating Committee 1990-1991, Chair of Personnel Committee, 1991-1992; Sumter United Way Campaign, 1991-1992; Sumter County Alliance for Law Enforcement, President 1987-1988; Vice-President 1986-1987; Chairman, Sumter County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, August 1985 - August 1989; Speaker, 1991 Career Day, St. John's Elementary School (Sumter School District 2); Speaker, 1991 D.A.R.E. Graduations at St. Jude's Elementary, Alice Drive Elementary School (Sumter School District 17) and Lemira Elementary School (Sumter School District 17); Speaker, Mayor's Annual Prayer Breakfast, 1990; Volunteer, Habitat for Humanity, 1988-1989; Member, Board of Directors, The Forum, 1987-1988; Sumter County Legal Auxiliary, Vice President 1991-present, Chairman Publicity Committee 1987-1988, Chairman Membership Committee 1986-1987; Co-Chairman, Education and Funds Crusade, American Cancer Society, Sumter Division, 1983-1984; Sumter County YWCA Tribute to Women and Industry honoree, 1986; Member, Criminal Justice Advisory Board and Paralegal Advisory Boards, Sumter Area Technical College, 1985-1990; Member, Sumter County Child Abuse and Neglect Treatment Advisory Team, 1983-1987; Member, YWCA Domestic and Sexual Violence Advisory Board, 1985; Member, Daughters of the American Revolution; Member, Sumter Junior Welfare League, Co-Editor Light of the Lantern (newspaper); Member, Sumter United Way $500 Plus Club for Leadership Giving; Member, University of South Carolina Gamecock Club; Member, Camellia Ball, Sumter, SC, Publicity Chairman 1990; Member, Sunset Country Club, Sumter, SC; Member, YMCA of Sumter; Member, Grace Baptist Church, Sumter, SC, Nursery Duty Volunteer and Bereavement Committee; Member, South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers' Association; Member, Cheers! (social club)

41. She believes that the court system should serve the people. She also believes that every lawyer or litigant who comes before the court is entitled to as much courtesy, consideration and respect as the situation and the people involved will allow. The powers afforded a judge are not to be arbitrarily invoked. These powers are not for the personal whim of the court but for the purpose of promoting fairness, order and equality in the courtroom.

She believes in representative government. The judiciary is a separate and equal branch of government. Currently only one of the 40 Circuit Court judges is a woman.

She believes that the judicial system should address the needs of society. The current backlog in Criminal Court suggests that there is a need for judges with a strong background in criminal law. She has focused on the criminal courtroom at both the appellate and lower levels. She believes that her experiences as a prosecutor has prepared her for the awesome responsibility of making decisions that will affect the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

Her experiences as a courtroom attorney and as a prosecutor also have enforced her belief that our courts must function in a manner that promotes justice and respect for the legal rights of all citizens -- victims, witnesses, Plaintiffs and Defendants. Judges must carefully guard against any conduct that may suggest partiality. Judges must also guard against conduct that treats the time and needs of jurors, litigants and lawyers in a cavalier or callous manner. A judgeship carries with it a commitment to serve the public in fact and in appearance.

As a lawyer, she has devoted her career to public service. She also devotes a great deal of personal time to volunteer work for her profession and community. As a public servant, she is well aware of the commitment and sacrifice involved in an appointment to the bench. She believes that service as a judge is the pinnacle of public service and very much wants to serve her state and its citizens in this capacity.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Don F. Teseniar, President
SAFE Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 1008, Sumter, SC 29151-2008

(b) I. S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire
P. O. Box 1431, Columbia, SC 29202

(c) S. Anne Walker, Executive Director
Alston Wilkes Society
2215 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205
(d) Howard P. King, Esquire
P. O. Box 2038, Sumter, SC 29151

(e) Marie A. Hodge
Sumter County Victim Assistance Officer
107 East Hampton Avenue, Sumter, SC 29150

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. IN CHECKING THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SUMTER CITY POLICE, SLED, AND F.B.I., THOSE RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENTS ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. WE, I THINK, DISCUSSED THIS AT THE PREVIOUS SCREENING. YOU WERE SUED TWICE IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT SOLICITOR.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THOSE WERE INMATES, 1983 ACTIONS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
A YES. AS I INDICATED AT THE LAST SCREENING, I BECAME AWARE OF THOSE LAWSUITS AS A RESULT OF FILING FOR THE JUDGESHIP AND THE HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 5TH. THE TWO DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND CONSPIRACY. THEY WERE PART OF A GROUP OF ARMED ROBBERS IN SUMTER, THAT I PROSECUTED THE CASE. THEY CALLED THEMSELVES -- IT'S ACTUALLY AN INTERESTING STORY AND I CITED IT AS ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT CASES. THEY CALLED THEMSELVES MUSLIM ROBBERS AND SAID IT WAS THE PURPOSE -- ONE OF THEIR PURPOSES WAS TO ROB LIQUOR STORES BECAUSE LIQUOR STORES SHOULD NOT BE IN EXISTENCE. THEY WERE EXTREMELY UNHAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT A WOMAN WAS PROSECUTING THEIR CASE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THE PLACE OF WOMEN. THEY WERE EXTREMELY UNHAPPY ABOUT THEIR ATTORNEYS ON THE OTHER SIDE, EVERYONE INVOLVED. I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THESE SUITS, BUT AS A RESULT OF THE LAST HEARING, I DID LEARN THAT I WAS A CO-DEFENDANT AND THAT THE CASE WAS FILED AND DISMISSED WITHIN A THREE-MONTH PERIOD, AS TO EACH DEFENDANT. I BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL CURRENTLY SERVING THE 25 YEARS THAT JUDGE MACK MORRIS GAVE THEM BACK IN 1985.
Q OKAY. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU AND NOBODY HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT. I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, BUT YOU WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT, I THINK.
A YES, SIR, IF I MAY. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT A LOT OF IT PROBABLY GOES TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. I GUESS I HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK A LOT ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I AM AWARE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS THIS BODY AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. AND THE STATEMENT THAT I ASK TO BE ALLOWED TO MAKE IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OR THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING A JUDGE IS. AND I DO BELIEVE VERY MUCH THAT THE COURT SYSTEM SHOULD SERVE THE PEOPLE. I BELIEVE EVERY LAWYER OR LITIGANT WHO COMES BEFORE THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO AS MUCH COURTESY, CONSIDERATION, AND RESPECT AS THE SITUATION AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WILL ALLOW. I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT THE POWERS AFFORDED A JUDGE ARE NOT TO BE ARBITRARILY INVOKED; THAT THE POWERS ARE NOT FOR THE PERSONAL WHIM OF THE COURT, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING FAIRNESS, ORDER, EQUALITY, AND ULTIMATELY JUSTICE IN THE COURTROOM. I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SHOULD ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF SOCIETY. THE CURRENT BACKLOG IN CRIMINAL COURT SUGGESTS THERE IS A NEED FOR JUDGES WITH A STRONG BACKGROUND IN CRIMINAL LAW. I AM WELL AWARE THAT MY PARTICULAR FOCUS HAS BEEN A LOT ON CRIMINAL LAW, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED FOR THAT. MY EXPERIENCES AT BOTH THE APPELLATE AND TRIAL LEVELS HAVE PREPARED ME FOR THE GENERAL SESSIONS COURTROOM AND THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF THAT COURT. I DO BELIEVE THAT MY EXPERIENCES AS A PROSECUTOR HAVE PREPARED ME FOR THE AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING DECISIONS THAT WILL AFFECT THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. MY EXPERIENCES AS A COURTROOM ATTORNEY AND AS A PROSECUTOR ALSO HAVE REINFORCED MY BELIEF THAT OUR COURT MUST FUNCTION IN A MANNER THAT PROMOTES JUSTICE AND RESPECT FOR THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS AND, THEREBY, THE SYSTEM. AND BY THAT I MEAN VICTIMS, WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS, AND DEFENDANTS. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT JUDGES MUST CAREFULLY GUARD AGAINST CONDUCT THAT TREATS THE TIME AND NEEDS OF JURORS, LITIGANTS, AND LAWYERS IN A CAVALIER OR A CALLOUS MANNER. A JUDGESHIP CARRIES WITH IT A COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC IN FACT AND IN APPEARANCE. I BELIEVE IN REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. AND AS THIS BODY KNOWS, THE JUDICIARY IS SEPARATE AND EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. AT THE PRESENT TIME, ONLY ONE OF OUR 40 CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES IS A WOMAN. AS A LAWYER, I'VE DEVOTED MY CAREER TO PUBLIC SERVICE. I HAVE ALSO DEVOTED A GREAT DEAL OF MY PERSONAL TIME TO VOLUNTEER WORK FOR BOTH MY PROFESSION AND MY COMMUNITY. AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, I AM VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE COMMITMENT AND SACRIFICE INVOLVED IN AN APPOINTMENT TO THE BENCH. I BELIEVE THAT SERVICE AS JUDGE IS THE PINNACLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND I VERY MUCH WANT TO SERVE MY STATE AND ITS CITIZENS IN THE CAPACITY OF CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) THE ONLY THING I HAVE REALLY
IS: YOU HAVE ABIDED BY THE NO-PLEDGE RULE?
A I HAVE.
Q AND YOU HAVE NOT SOLICITED OR RECEIVED ANY COMMITMENTS?
A I HAVE NOT.
Q THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I THINK YOU'VE PROBABLY SAID ALL YOU --
A I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN IN WITH THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE INDICATED WHAT AN HONOR IT IS TO BE HERE, AND WE THANK EACH OF YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO AGAIN SAY THAT YOUR STAFF IS OUTSTANDING, AND I'M MOST APPRECIATIVE OF THE HELP I'VE RECEIVED FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. WALTON J. McLEOD, III.

WHEREUPON, WALTON J. McLEOD, III, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. McLEOD, YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT?
A NO, SIR. IT'S SATISFACTORY.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD THEN?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THAT THEN.

1. Walton J. McLeod, III
Home Address: Business Address:
Pomaria Street 2600 Bull Street
Route 1, Box 2X Columbia, SC 29201
Little Mountain, SC 29075

2. He was born in Walterboro, South Carolina, on June 30, 1937. He is presently 54 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Julie Hamiter on February 15, 1969. He has one child: Walton James, age 13.
5. Military Service: U. S. Navy, 1959-1961; June-September, 1963; July-August, 1990; Honorable Discharge; presently, Captain, U. S. Naval Reserve; *** ** ****; member, Naval Reserve VTU; Law Unit 0705; Columbia, South Carolina

6. He attended Yale University, 1955-1959, B.A.; the University of South Carolina Law School, 1961-1964, LL.B.; Wofford College, summer, 1956 (returned to Yale); and the University of Minnesota Public Health School, summer, 1972 (returned to work at SC DHEC).

7. At Yale he was Varsity Football Manager, 1958; Assistant Football Manager, 1955-1958; Student Deacon, 1958-1959; Secretary, Yale Undergraduate Athletic Association, 1958-1959; and Naval ROTC, 1955-1959. At the University of South Carolina Law School, he was on the Honor Council, 1962-1964; President, Clariosophic Debating Society, 1963-1964; and Business Manager, 1964 Placement Annual.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Each year he has substantially exceeded the mandatory number of continuing legal education hours of instruction. The majority of the CLE courses he has undertaken has been environmental CLE, but he has also taken a considerable number of courses in public health law, employment law, military justice and ethics.

9. Courses Taught:

Adjunct Faculty Member, Golden Gate University, Shaw AFB,
S. C., Campus, Summer, 1976 (part-time) - taught environmental law.

Assistant/Associate Adjunct Professor, Public Health School, University of South Carolina, 1978-1991 - taught public health and environmental law, Summer, 1982, and intermittent lectures.

"Administrative Procedures Act - Agency Regulations." Administrative Law, South Carolina Bar, CLE, August, 1980.

"Appellate Procedure," Practice in Magistrates Court, South Carolina Bar, CLE, May, 1981.

"State Environmental Enforcement and Permit Programs," Practical Environmental Law for the General Practitioner, South Carolina Bar, CLE, August, 1985.

10. Published Books or Articles:

Casenote, 14 South Carolina Law Quarterly 439 (1962)
Casenote, 15 South Carolina Law Review 718 (1963)
Note, The Flags-of-Convention Problem, 16 South Carolina Law
Review 409 (1964)
Book Review, 18 South Carolina Law Review 362 (1966)
Legal Perspectives of Environmental Health in South Carolina,
S. C. State Board of Health, 1973
Environmental Quality Law - A South Carolina Casebook, S. C.
Department of Health and Environmental Control, 1975
Hospital Franchising Law and Regulation - A South Carolina
Casebook, S. C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control, 1979
"Little Mountain Municipal Code of 1988," Town of Little Mountain,
S. C., December, 1988

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1964-1965 Law Clerk to Chief Judge Clement F. Haynsworth of the U. S. Court of Appeals - federal criminal law appeals

1965-1967 Associate attorney with Thomas H. Pope - general practice focusing on real estate and trial practice

1967-1968 Assistant U. S. Attorney - federal criminal law

1968-present General Counsel, SC DHEC - environmental law, public health regulatory law, administrative law

1987-1988 Deputy Attorney General

Part-time Legal Experience:

Judge, Little Mountain Municipal Court, 1981-1983
Judge, Newberry County Magistrates Court, Little Mountain, South
Carolina, 1973-1981
Adjudicatory Hearing Officer, South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, 1968-1978
Acting Newberry County Coroner, July-December, 1975

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - approximately 2 times per year
State - approximately 8 to 10 times per year
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation: (during last five years)
Civil - 100%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 0%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 0%
Non-jury - 100%

As a magistrate and a municipal judge, he presided over approximately 10 to 12 jury trials.

Most of the time he appeared as the supervising attorney, but as second chair. Occasionally, he served as sole attorney or as chief counsel.

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

(a) Suber v. S. C. State Board of Health, et al. Handled trial and appeal.
259 S.C. 558, 193 S.E. 2d 520 (1972). First appeal under State Controlled Substances Act.

(b) Earle v. Aycock (I), 270 S.C. 326, 242 S.E. 2d 402 (1978) and Earle V. Aycock (II), 276 S.C. 471, 279 S.E. 2d 402 (1978). Trials and two appeals - First appeals under State Employee Grievance Act.

(c) U.S. and S.C. DHEC v. S.C. Recycling and Disposal Co. Inc., 653 F. Supp. 984 (D.S.C., 1984-1986); sub nom U.S. and SC DHEC v. Monsanto, 858 F. 2d 160. (4th Cir. 1988); cert. den. 109 S.Ct. 3156 (1989). Trial and two appeals - One of the landmark cases in America involving cost recovery for cleanup of a hazardous waste site.

(d) S.C. Pollution Control Authority v. Piedmont Food Processors, Inc., Legal Perspectives of Environmental Health, p. 25 - Laurens County Common Pleas Court -(August-September, 1968). First judicial enforcement of State Pollution Control Act.

(e) State v. Bobby Floyd a/k/a Bobby Dawkins, Newberry County General Sessions Court (March, 1967). Successful acquittal of a defendant charged with murder. He was second chair on this case, but did all the workup and the trial. Jury heard case, but trial judge directed a verdict for defendant.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Brokaw v. U.S., 368 F. 2d 508 (4th Cir. 1966).
cert. den. 386 U.S. 996 (1967).

(b) Suber v. S.C. State Board of Health, et al., 259 S.C. 558, 193 S.E. 2d 520 (1972) (S.C. Sup. Ct.).

(c) Earle v. Aycock (I), 270 S.C. 326, 242 S.E. 2d 402 (1978) (S.C. Sup. Ct.).

(d) Earle v. Aycock (II), 276 S.C. 471, 279 S.E. 2d 614 (1984) (S.C. Sup. Ct.).

(e) Pawley's Island Civic Association v. Johnson, et al. and S.C. DHEC, 292 S.C. 208, 355 S.E. 2d 541 (S.C. App. 1986).

20. Judicial Office:

Law Clerk of Judge Clement F. Haynsworth, U. S. Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit, appointed, 1964-1965, federal civil and criminal appeals.

Adjudicatory Hearing Officer; S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control; appointed; 1968-1978; heard and recommended dispositions of appeals involving certificates of need, control substances registrations, health facility licenses, environmental permit applications.

Judge, Newberry County Magistrates Court; Little Mountain, South Carolina; appointed; 1973-1981; small claims and minor crimes; $1,000; 30 days or $200.

Judge, Little Mountain Municipal Court; appointed; 1981-1983; minor crimes; 30 days or $200.

Acting Newberry County Coroner; appointed; July-December, 1975; investigated deaths to ascertain whether a homicide had been committed.

21. Five (5) significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Bibb v. Boles, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir.
Memorandum Order filed May 12, 1965. (10 pages)

(b) In Re: Application of Saint Francis Xavier Hospital, Charleston, hearing officer's report dated July 20, 1977; and DHEC Board's order affirming that report, dated August 13, 1977. Hospital Franchising Law and Regulation, pp. 192-216. (24 pages)

(c) In Re: ________________, M.D., Controlled Substances Registration, hearing officer's report dated May 24, 1978. (12 pages)

(d) In Re: Bio-Medical Applications, Inc., for a certificate of need, hearing officer's report dated March 24, 1977; DHEC Board's order dated April 12, 1977, confirming hearing officer's report; Supreme Court order of February 6, 1979, affirming Board's decision.

(e) Maxwell Home Furnishings v. Newberry Housing Authority, Order of Magistrate, dated August 31, 1978 (14 pages). Circuit Court Order dated December 1, 1978, affirming Magistrates Circuit Order. (1 page)

22. Public Office:

Mayor of Little Mountain, 1983-1989 (elected) (non-partisan)

Council Member, Town of Little Mountain, 1991-present (elected) (non-partisan)

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
In 1981, the Merit Selection Panel for the S. C. Public Service Commission chose him as one of three finalists for a seat on the Commission. Shortly after being nominated, he withdrew because Commissioner Guy Butler had enough committed votes in the General Assembly to win.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law: None except for active duty in the U. S. Navy.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He does not envision any conflicts of interests, but he would recuse himself if a corporation or bank, in which he has stock, appeared as a litigant before him. Supreme Court rules require disqualification.

31. Sued: Harrison v. Wolfson, O'Leary, McLeod, Atria, Wolfson Investment, Inc. and Moyer, Richland County, 83-CP-40-1213, Consent Order of Dismissal, dated April 17, 1984.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was on July 14, 1990; CAPT Wagner, MC; USNR - Naval Reserve Readiness Center; Naval Base; Charleston, South Carolina.

35. He wears glasses.

37. He was hospitalized for three weeks in October, 1967, for nervous exhaustion and anxiety at Chatham Memorial Hospital, Savannah, Georgia. The physician was Dr. A. H. Center of Savannah. He has had no subsequent recurrence of any nervous or emotional difficulties since those described above. His present health is excellent.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association, Chair, Rural Courts Committee, 1974-1975; Federal Bar Association; Judge Advocates Association, National President, 1991-present; South Carolina Bar, Chair, Military Law Section, 1988-1989, Member of House of Delegates, 1989-1990; Richland County Bar Association; Fellow, S. C. Bar Foundation; South Carolina Magistrates Association, State President, 1976-1977

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Little Mountain Ruritan Club; Masons; President, South Caroliniana (history) Society, 1990-present; Columbia YMCA; 1991 Howell Award as the Outstanding Naval Reserve Judge Advocate on the East Coast

41. Except for two years in the private practice of law, his entire professional career has been devoted to public service. He is a Captain in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U. S. Naval Reserve and has had three tours as a commanding officer of legal units. Also, he has been the law program manager for the Naval Reserve Command which includes North and South Carolina. In this capacity he has provided the management for approximately 60 lawyers in 7 legal units.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) G. Von Wessinger, Assistant Vice President
The Lexington State Bank
P. O. Box 8, Lexington, SC 29071-0008

(b) Roxanne S. Bedenbaugh
Mayor of Little Mountain
P. O. Box 154, Little Mountain, SC 29075

(c) Rev. John E. Pless
Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church
P. O. Box 196, Little Mountain, SC 29075

(d) Arthur L. Jayroe, Sr.
P. O. Box 57, Little Mountain, SC 29075

(e) R. Lewis Shaw, P.E., Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Control
S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201
Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS THAT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, NEWBERRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NEWBERRY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF NEWBERRY COUNTY. ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. I THINK IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, QUESTION NUMBER 31, YOU NOTED THAT YOU WERE SUED IN 1983. WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT DID THAT INVOLVE?
A I WAS A ONE-FIFTH PARTICIPANT IN A JOINT VENTURE ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER IN LEXINGTON COUNTY. AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL SAYS, "WHEREAS THE DEFENDANTS RELIED UPON THE PLAT AFORESAID AND REFERRED TO SAID PLAT WHEN ENTERING INTO AND CONTRACTING WITH THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID LOT..." LIKE ONE OF MY PREDECESSORS IN THIS CHAIR, I THINK THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE LAWYER BROUGHT THE SUIT FIRST AND INVESTIGATED IT SECOND. AS A RESULT OF THAT, IT CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF ALL INVOLVED THAT THE LAND SURVEYOR MADE A MISTAKE OF ONLY ONE ACRE, WHICH SOMEONE HAD BOUGHT A 3.7 ACRE TRACT AND FOUND OUT IT WAS 2.78. NET RESULT IS: WE HAD ANOTHER SURVEY; MONEY WAS REFUNDED; AND THE LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BY ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ON APRIL 17, 1984, BY JUDGE WALTER COX. THAT WAS NOT IN MY CAPACITY AS AN ATTORNEY, BY THE WAY. THAT WAS IN MY CAPACITY AS A JOINT VENTURER.
Q IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR LEGAL POSITION AT ALL.
A NONE AT ALL. NEITHER AS AN ATTORNEY OR AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, MR. McLEOD, OF COURSE, YOU STARTED -- AFTER LAW SCHOOL, YOU CLERKED FOR CHIEF JUDGE CLEMENT HAYNSWORTH ON THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHAT TYPE OF INSIGHT DID THAT GIVE YOU, IF ANY, INTO THE BUSINESS OF JUDGING, AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE OR AS ANY TYPE OF JUDGE?
A FIRST INSIGHT IS THAT, IF YOU ARE AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES, IT IS A VERY LONELY LIFE. JUDGES MAKE YOU EAT LUNCH WITH THEM SOMETIMES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO EAT LUNCH WITH. IN TERMS OF MY JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE THERE, I'VE LEARNED THERE AND HAVE TRIED SINCE TO MAINTAIN AN EVENHANDED JUDICIAL TYPE TEMPERAMENT. I THINK JUDGE HAYNSWORTH WAS A FINE MODEL. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, AS YOU KNOW; AND MANY OF US WERE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN, DUE TO SOME QUIRK OF FATE, THAT WAS NOT ORDAINED. BUT AS RESULT OF MY WORK WITH HIM, I'VE HAD A CONTINUING INTEREST IN THE JUDICIARY AND HAVE SERVED AS A MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, AS A COUNTY MAGISTRATE FOR EIGHT YEARS, AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER FOR A LARGE STATE AGENCY FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS. I'VE BEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION AND GRADUATED FROM THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE'S SHORT COURSE FOR JUDGES ON THE CODE FOR INITIAL JURISDICTION. AND I HAVE AT ALL TIMES TRIED TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT AND DECENCY, TRIED TO BE COURTEOUS, TRIED TO BE ATTENTIVE TO LAWYERS AS THEY PRESENT AND ATTEMPT TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE MANNER. SO, I WOULD SAY SIMPLY THAT THE MAN FOR WHOM I BEGAN WORK WAS A MIGHTY FINE MODEL AND I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO LIVE UP TO HIS CREDENTIALS.
Q AND AT THE PRESENT TIME YOU ARE THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR DHEC --
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q -- WHICH IS PROBABLY THE SECOND OR THIRD BIGGEST AGENCY IN THE STATE, IF NOT HIGHER?
A THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q AND YOU DON'T DO ANY CRIMINAL WORK NOW. COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION?
A WELL, MY CRIMINAL WORK ACTUALLY STARTED WITH JUDGE HAYNSWORTH BECAUSE I WAS HIS CRIMINAL LAW CLERK, WITH PROBABLY 85 PERCENT OF THE WORK I DID INVOLVING CRIMINAL LAW. THEREAFTER, I WAS AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL -- ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR A YEAR, AND HANDLED SOME CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. I REPRESENTED A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS DENIED. WHEN I WAS A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER IN NEWBERRY, I HANDLED CRIMINAL MATTERS ROUTINELY. I HAD ONE CAPITAL CASE WHICH RESULTED IN AN ACQUITTAL. DURING MY TENURE AT DHEC, I'VE FROM TIME TO TIME PROSECUTED CASES IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BUT NO GENERAL SESSIONS PROSECUTION. AND AS MAGISTRATE, I HEARD PROBABLY 10 TO 12 JURY TRIALS INVOLVING THE CRIMINAL SIDE. SO, WHILE I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF SPARTANBURG, I'D SAY I HAVE MORE THAN MY SHARE OF CRIMINAL WORK.
Q DID YOU DEAL WITH COURT MARTIALS AT ALL? I KNOW YOU ARE STILL ACTIVE AS A CAPTAIN IN THE NAVY, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S COURT.
A THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Q DO Y'ALL DO SOME COURT MARTIAL WORK IN THAT?
A WELL I HAVE DONE SOME OF THAT. I DID SOME OF IT IN THE SUMMER OF 1990, IN NAPLES, ITALY, WHERE I WAS ON DUTY FOR A MONTH. BUT BASICALLY THE UNIT I WAS WITH FOR SOME YEARS INVOLVED THE REVIEW OF -- IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE REPRESENTING PERSONS CONVICTED IN COURT MARTIALS AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL, REVIEWING THE RECORD, ASCERTAINING WHETHER THEY HAD A LEGITIMATE CASE OR WHETHER THE CASE WAS FRIVOLOUS, AND THEN WRITING A BRIEF OR ASKING TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL IN THE EVENT IT WAS FRIVOLOUS. SO I HAVE SOME MILITARY JUSTICE EXPERIENCE AS WELL.
Q NOW, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION NOW IN THE MILITARY, IN YOUR RESERVE, NAVY RESERVE? WHAT'S YOUR TITLE?
A I AM A CAPTAIN IN THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE AND HAVE BEEN, UP UNTIL THIS PAST OCTOBER, COMMANDING OFFICER OF A NAVY RESERVE LAWYER'S UNIT IN OKLAHOMA CITY. AT THE PRESENT TIME, I AM ASSIGNED TO A LAWYER UNIT IN COLUMBIA WHICH HAS GOT FOUR PEOPLE, ALL OF WHOM ARE LOOKING FOR JOBS SOMEWHERE ELSE, BECAUSE IT'S A NON-PAY STATUS.
Q WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IN A JUDGE?
A WELL, I HEARD YOUR QUESTION AT THE OUTSET IN WHICH YOU REFERRED TO ROBITIS, AND I KIND OF REFER TO THAT AS BEING GOD-LIKE BEARING AND DEMEANOR; AND I HAVE TRIED VERY HARD THROUGH MY LIFE TO AVOID THAT PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC. AS I SAID, I'VE TRIED TO BE COURTEOUS IN DEALING WITH LITIGANTS. I'VE TRIED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AT ALL TIMES. IN MATTERS BEFORE ME WHEN I WAS ACTING AS A JUDGE AND OF COURSE, WHEN I WAS ACTING AS A REGULATOR FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT, I'VE TRIED TO MAINTAIN THAT SAME ATTITUDE. I THINK LITIGANTS OUGHT TO BE -- AND THEIR LAWYERS OUGHT BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND DECENCY, AND I TRY TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THE POSITIONS TAKEN BY THE ATTORNEYS. I THINK JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS A CRITICAL CHARACTERISTIC TO MAINTAIN. PERHAPS THE ONLY OTHER ONE MORE IMPORTANT WOULD BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT; AND OF COURSE, A JUDGE MUST SET AN EXAMPLE. AND I'VE TRIED, WITH SOME SUCCESS, TO SET AN EXAMPLE THERE AS WELL. SO, YOUR QUESTION IS AN EXCELLENT ONE AND I HAVE TRIED TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE USE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AT ALL TIMES IN MY CAREER.
Q MR. McLEOD, THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO ASK --
A COULD I MAKE TWO MORE POINTS?
Q SURE.
A I PRESENTED TO MS. SATTERWHITE A RESOLUTION OF THE NEWBERRY COUNTY BAR, DATED APRIL 1, 1992, WHICH ENDORSES ME FOR CIRCUIT JUDGE AT LARGE, SEAT #5, WHICH IS SIGNED BY 14 MEMBERS OF THE NEWBERRY COUNTY BAR.
Q YES, SIR. WE GAVE THAT TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE'VE INCLUDED THAT IN THE INFORMATION AND WE WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE RECORD ALSO. THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE THAT.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVE, THAT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE TOUCHED ON? IF YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL --
A WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR ONE THING: AND THAT IS THE LETTER THAT THE COMMITTEE SENT OUT, DATED MARCH 19TH, WHERE YOU REMINDED MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT THE NO-PLEDGE, NO-COMMITMENT LAW WAS IN EFFECT AND HAD BEEN FOR SOME TIME. I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THAT LETTER. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT THE DATE HAD BEEN SOONER THAN MARCH 19, 1992, THOUGH. I WISH IT HAD BEEN IN JANUARY. SO, I DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOU SENDING THAT LETTER.
Q YES, SIR. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO BE SENT SO THAT IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE NO-PLEDGE RULE NOT ONLY WAS PASSED ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES, BUT IT'S PART OF THE ETHICS REFORM ACT. AND THE WAY WE CONSTRUE IT, IT WOULD CARRY ANY PENALTIES THE ETHICS REFORM ACT WOULD CARRY, IF IT WERE VIOLATED. AND OF COURSE YOU ARE TELLING US, I'M SURE, THAT YOU HAVE ABIDED BY THE NO-PLEDGE RULE?
A I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER TO EACH LEGISLATOR, STATING THEREIN THAT I DID NOT REQUEST OR SOLICIT A PLEDGE OR COMMITMENT AND I HAVE TRIED -- I HAVE SUCCEEDED IN COMPLYING WITH THAT LAW AT ALL TIMES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL WORDS? YOU'RE FREE TO MAKE A STATEMENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE, OR COMMENT, OR ANYTHING.
A I APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION OF THIS COMMITTEE AND COMPLIMENT YOU ON THE TASK THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. I GUESS I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO SAY THAT I LIKE PEOPLE. I LIKE TO BE OF SERVICE TO PEOPLE. BUT FOR TWO YEARS OF PRIVATE PRACTICE, MY ENTIRE LEGAL CAREER HAS BEEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE. I'VE HAD A MODEST JUDICIAL CAREER AS A SIDELINE FOR SOME YEARS, AND I WOULD BE HONORED TO SERVE AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE IN OUR STATE. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. McLEOD.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I THINK THAT IS EVERYONE THAT NEEDED TO BE SCREENED FOR THE AT-LARGE POSITION. WOULD Y'ALL LIKE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK? I THINK EVERYBODY'S BEEN SITTING HERE A GOOD WHILE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: 10 MINUTES?
CHAIRMAN POPE: WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10- OR 15-MINUTE BREAK. IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, WE'RE GOING TO RECESS.
(RECESS FROM 11:30 A.M. TO 11:52 A.M., DURING WHICH TIME REPRESENTATIVE HODGES TEMPORARILY DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO RESUME THE HEARING AND THE NEXT CANDIDATE IS JUDGE ALVIN C. BIGGS.

WHEREUPON, ALVIN C. BIGGS, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN 1988, I BELIEVE?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY NEED ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS?
A I BELIEVE SO. I DIDN'T KNOW I GOT SUED, LIKE MS. HORNE, UNTIL I GOT THE REPORT BACK FROM SLED AND I THINK I NEED TO ADD THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT QUESTION IT WOULD GO TO, OR WHAT RESPONSE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED THAT I GOT SUED IN 1988 OR '89, IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, AND IT WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE CATOE AND RETURNED BY JUDGE ANDERSON.
Q JUST BRIEFLY, WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT LAWSUIT?
A I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I JUST GOT THIS LAST WEEK AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GET UP THERE AND TO CHECK ON IT. BUT MOST PROBABLY, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHILD-SUPPORT WHERE I PUT SOMEBODY IN JAIL.
Q BUT YOU NEVER WERE SERVED WITH ANY FEDERAL COURT PAPERS?
A IF I DID, I DON'T REMEMBER IT. AND I'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD MEMORY. I THINK I WOULD REMEMBER GETTING SUED ON SOMETHING.
Q BUT YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS DISMISSED?
A THE REPORT YOU GAVE ME SAID IT WAS DISMISSED BY JUDGE CATOE AND JUDGE ANDERSON.
Q OKAY, WE'LL NOTE THAT ONE AMENDMENT. WITH THE AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.
Q WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Alvin C. Biggs
Home Address: Business Address:
Route 2, Box 219 500 North Main Street
Gaston, SC 29053 Summerville, SC 29483

2. He was born in Washington, North Carolina on August 16, 1942. He is presently 49 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Rita Karen McKay on April 22, 1972. He has two children: Kelly, age 14; and Eason, age 8.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1960-1966, B.A., Political Science; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1966-1969, J.D. Law.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended almost all of the CLE programs.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Associate of Furman R. Gressette, 1969-1972
Private Practice of Law, 1972-1977
Assistant Solicitor, 1977-1979
Family Court Judge, 1979-present

20. Judicial Office:
Family Court Judge; June, 1979-present

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Bobby Rutherford v. Carol Rutherford; Opinion 23576; Filed February 10, 1992; South Carolina Supreme Court.
Was mental illness a defense to a divorce and bar of alimony.

(b) Donahue v. Donahue, (1989), 299 S.C. 353, 384 S.E.2d 741.
Set the standard for reimbursement alimony

(c) Sinclair v. Sinclair, App. 287 S.C. 20, 336 S.E.2d 485.
Jurisdiction issue under the UCCJA. There was an alleged conflict between South Carolina and New Hampshire.

(d) Mears v. Mears, 406 S.E.2d 376.
This case dealt with whether or not an award for damages due a husband was a marital asset. The husband received an award of money for being terminated from his job while he was married to his first wife. This matter is now going before the Supreme Court.

(e) The State, et al. v. The Times and Democrat, et al., 276 S.C. 26, 274 S.E.2d 910.
This was a First Amendment question.

22. Public Office:
House of Representatives for Calhoun County, 1972-1974

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
County store with his family, 1969-1978; Engine business, 1985-1986
28. In 1958 he was charged with hunting without a license.

31. Sued: He was sued in 1988 or 1989 in Greenville County. The case was dismissed by Judge Catoe and returned by Judge Anderson. He believes the suit involved a child support case where he put somebody in jail.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in August of 1990, by Dr. Hutto.

35. He is nearsighted and uses glasses.

36. He is currently being treated for high cholesterol by Dr. Krystan. He takes Mevacor, 20 mg.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association, 1969-present; South Carolina Bar Association, 1969-present; Phi Delta Phi, 1966-present

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

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Russell D. Zimmerman, Vice President and Senior Officer
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 216, St. Matthews, SC 29135

(b) Fred L. Day
Broad Acres Farm, 78 Day Road, Ladson, SC 29456

(c) Charles H. Williams, Esquire
P. O. Box 1084, Orangeburg, SC 29116-1084

(d) Dale Nevins
105 Partridge Circle, Summerville, SC

(e) F. Lee Prickett
P. O. Box 437, St. Matthews, SC 29135

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CALHOUN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE ST. MATTHEW'S CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CALHOUN COUNTY. ALL THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THAT SUIT THAT YOU REFERENCED, WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN YOUR FAVOR. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. AND NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BE PRESENT. HAVING BEEN ON THE BENCH A GOOD MANY YEARS NOW, WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, AND HOW IT PLAYS A ROLE IN YOUR EVERYDAY WORK?
A I BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS PRETTY WELL SUMMED IT UP, SENATOR. BUT I TRY TO TREAT PEOPLE LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED, AS A LAWYER, WHO COME BEFORE ME. THAT'S WHAT I TRY OR ATTEMPT TO DO.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, ANY STATEMENT YOU WANT TO MAKE?
A NO, SIR. I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE, VERY MUCH.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT POSITION WILL BE THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1. AND WE ARE PROCEEDING ALPHABETICALLY TODAY, AND THE FIRST APPLICANT IS WENDELL O. BROWN.

WHEREUPON, WENDELL O. BROWN, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. BROWN HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATIONS?
A I THINK THE ONLY MODIFICATIONS THAT COME TO MIND MIGHT BE UNDER ITEM 24, WHERE THE QUESTION IS ASKED IF ANY OCCUPATION, BUSINESS, OR PROFESSION OTHER THAN LAW IS PRACTICED, AND I HAD LISTED MY PRIOR SERVICE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AT THE PRESENT TIME -- AND I DID NOT LIST THIS -- I DO SOME LIMITED FARMING.
Q TOBACCO?
A AS A MATTER OF FACT, I LIVE ON A FARM. AND I RAISE A FEW CATTLE, SOMETIMES PLANT SOME CORN AND SOY BEANS, BUT IT'S VERY LIMITED.
Q ARE YOU IN PARTNERSHIP, OR IS IT A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP?
A NO, SIR. IT'S -- ACTUALLY, MY WIFE OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WE DO THE FARMING. IT'S MORE OF A WEEKEND OPERATION, I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT.
(REPRESENTATIVE HODGES REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
Q OTHER THAN NOTING THAT YOU DO SOME FARMING, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE WE NEED TO AMEND ON THE SUMMARY?
A NO, SIR. ALSO, I THINK IT'S TYPOGRAPHICAL, PROBABLY, ON NUMBER 40. UNDER THE CIVIC, CHARITABLE, AND SO FORTH --
Q UH-HUH.
A -- IT SAYS, UNDER WHERE I LIST MY CHURCH "VARIOUS OFFICES" AND IT SAYS "CURRENTLY LAW LEADER." THAT SHOULD BE LAY LEADER.
Q LAY LEADER?
A YES.
Q OKAY, SIR. WE'LL NOTE THAT TYPO. WITH THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS, THEN, IS THE QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETE?
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT AMENDED SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Wendell Orvin Brown
Home Address: Business Address:
No. 2 Courthouse Square

P. O. Box 708

Kingstree, SC 29556

2. He was born in Williamsburg County, South Carolina, on September 21, 1935. He is presently 56 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Erma Jean Tisdale on June 18, 1961. He has three children: Wendell Lawrence, age 29 (lawyer, assistant solicitor, Aiken, South Carolina); James Edward, age 25 (weaver, Kingstree Manufacturing Company); and Jean Marie, age 20 (Spartanburg Methodist College).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army Reserve; Commissioned 2nd Lt. June 2, 1957; Honorable Discharge 1966 with Rank of Captain; Active Duty: April, 1958 - October, 1958; Serial No. 05 300 989

6. He attended Clemson University, September, 1953 - June 2, 1957, B.S. Degree in Agronomy; the University of South Carolina Law School, September, 1963 to January 29, 1966, J.D. (Cum Laude - First Honor Graduate in the Class of January, 1966).

7. At Clemson University he was a member of the Kappa Alpha Signa Agricultural Fraternity, 1956 and 1957; Alpha Zeta Honorary Agricultural Fraternity, 1957; Senior Drill Platoon, 1956 and 1957; ROTC, 1953-1957; Advertising Manager of "The Agrarian" (Magazine published by School of Agriculture), 1956-1957. At the University of South Carolina Law School, he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, 1963-1966; Editorial Board, South Carolina Law Review; author of two articles; Order of Wig & Robe; and winner of four American Juris Prudence Awards in Contracts, Sales, Municipal Corporations and Mortgages.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Attended CLE Seminars to complete all required hours including at least six hours Legal Ethics; also included at least six hours Family Law

10. Published Books or Articles:

Comment: Competency of Spouses to Testify Against Each Other in Criminal Trial - Compelling the Wife to Testify. 16 S.C. Law Review, 615 (1964)

Note: Specific Performance of Oral Contracts to Devise; 17 S.C. Law Review, 540 (1965)

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of law, Kingstree, South Carolina - April 14, 1966 to present; included civil, criminal, probate, real estate and domestic relations matters

Attorney for Town of Kingstree - 1978 to present

Attorney for The Exchange Bank of Kingstree - 1978 to present

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - infrequent
State - frequent
Other - occasionally

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 40%
Criminal - 30%
Domestic - 30%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 50%
Non-jury - 50%

Sole counsel - 50%
Associate or co-counsel - 50%

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

(a) F. J. Anderson, Jr. v. Town of Hemingway, 269 S.C. 351, 237 S.E. 2d 489 (1977).
Declaratory Judgment action which determined street right-of-way claimed by Town was not dedicated or accepted.

(b) Harold T. McGill, Jr. v. Outboard Marine Corporation, 74-CL-45-44.
Defended action for alleged breach of warranty and negligent manufacture of inboard boat motor.

(c) Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Travelers Insurance Co. v. John D. Floyd and Jimmy D. Floyd, d/b/a J & J Grocery Store No. 2 - U.S. Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit, Unpublished Opinion No. 86-3859 and 86-3886 (July 9, 1987).
Defense of suit to void insurance policies (with other attorneys)

(d) State v. Nathaniel Williams, 87 GS-45-270, 90-MO-045 (1990).
Significant Death Penalty Case (tried with other attorneys by appointment)

(e) Orie Grannison v. Tony Graham, Jr., M.D., Case No. 88-CP-21-738; Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion No. 91-UP-044.
Medical malpractice action

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Joyce N. Stroud v. Kenneth W. Stroud, 80-DR-45-70, Court of Appeals Docket No. 81-161. Dismissed by Settlement Order of Court of Appeals; January 4, 1984.
Divorce action

(b) S. C. Department of Social Services v. Ruby Nesmith, Nathaniel Gamble and James Curtis Mack IN RE: Priscilla Ann Nesmith and Cynthia Rochelle Mack, 88-DR-45-94, Supreme Court Docket No. 89-180. Order of Lower Court vacated and appeal dismissed by Consent Order of Chief Justice dated June 8, 1989.
Child neglect case

(c) Frances Gibbons McCutchen v. Woodrow Liston McCutchen, Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion No. 76-52 filed July 13, 1976.
Child custody and visitation case following divorce case

20. Judicial Office:
Acted as Special Referee on numerous occasions when appointed.

21. (a) Betty Lou G. Epps v. Leroy S. Epps, Jr., Williamsburg County Judgment Roll No. 11,729 (1975).
Divorce and property settlement action

(b) Rita McFadden, et al. v. Samuel Burgess, et al., Case No. 85-CP-45-334.
Adverse partition action and claim of ownership by adverse possession

(c) Kenneth Fulton v. Melvin McFadden, Case No. 89-CP-45-270.
Action to set aside tax deed

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He was an inspector with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Atlanta, Georgia, 1957-1962. He was resident inspector, Norfolk, Virginia, 1962-1963. He did the inspection of food, drug and cosmetic, etc., manufacturing and distribution facilities and investigation of illegal sale or distribution of prescription drugs. He also does some limited farming.

25. Officer or Director: He is the Director of The Exchange Bank of Kingstree, 1978 to present.

31. Sued: In about 1954, he was in an auto accident when he struck a pedestrian on the highway at night. It was never tried; apparently settled by the insurance company.

33. His health is good. His last physical examination was in January of 1991 (checkup December, 1991), by Dr. E. C. O'Bryan, Florence Diagnostic Associates, Coit Street, Florence, South Carolina 29501.

34. Hospitalized: He had a light heart attack about March 9, 1989. He was in the hospital one week and was out of the office about three weeks. He had a full recovery with no complications.

35. He wears glasses for reading.

36. He is presently under treatment by Dr. E. C. O'Bryan, Florence Diagnostic Associates, Coit Street, Florence, South Carolina 29501. He is on medication for blood pressure, and it is under control.

He is also under treatment by Dr. Joseph Zealberg, MUSC, 171 Ashley Avenue, Charleston, SC 29425-0742. He has follow-up checkups for panic disorder experienced in 1988. It is under control.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:

Williamsburg County Bar Association; South Carolina State Bar; Chairman, Resolution of Fee Disputes Board for Third Judicial Circuit, 1982-1988

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

Member, Mt. Vernon United Methodist Church
Various Offices: Currently lay leader and Chairman of the Finance Committee
Lay Speaker, United Methodist Church
Instructor of Advance Course of Lay Speakers, Florence District, United Methodist Church, 1988

Member and Past President, Kingstree Camp, The Gideons International

Member and Past President of Kingstree Rotary Club (served two years as Chairman of Easter Seal Campaign)

Served as Member of Board of Directors, Williamsburg Academy

Past Master, Kingstree Lodge #46 A.F.M. (Master 1987)
32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason
Member of Omar Shrine Temple
President, Masters and Wardens Club for 30th Masonic District for South Carolina (1987)

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) R. L. Arnette, President
The Exchange Bank of Kingstree
P. O. Box 1087, Kingstree, SC 29556

(b) W. C. Cottingham, D.V.M.
309 East Main Street, Kingstree, SC 29556

(c) Leonard B. Burgess, Esquire
P. O. Box 571, Kingstree, SC 29556

(d) George R. Cannon, Minister Emeritus
Duncan Memorial United Methodist Church
Georgetown, SC 29440

(e) William H. Chandler, Esquire
P. O. Box 218, Hemingway, SC 29554

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, KINGSTREE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. THEY WERE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE RECORDS ALSO WERE CHECKED AND IT SHOWS THAT YOU WERE A -- WERE YOU A PLAINTIFF IN THE CIVIL ACTION, OR THAT WAS ANOTHER WENDELL BROWN?
A YES, SIR. THAT WAS NOT -- I WAS NOT A PLAINTIFF IN THAT ACTION. THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN -- IT WAS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, I GATHER, FROM THE LETTER. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT WENDELL BROWN. IT WAS NOT ME --
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A -- WHO WAS PLAINTIFF IN THAT CIVIL ACTION.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q I THINK YOU HAD A LIGHT HEART ATTACK ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO?
A YES, SIR. 1989.
Q ANY PROBLEMS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT?
A NO, SIR. I HAVE A REGULAR CHECKUP WITH DR. O'BRYAN IN FLORENCE.
Q DO YOU TAKE ANY --
A FULL RECOVERY.
Q ARE YOU ON A DIET OR MEDICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
A I TAKE MEDICATION FOR THE BLOOD PRESSURE, AS A FOLLOW UP ON THE HEART ATTACK, I GUESS; BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICATION, THAT'S PRESCRIBED BY DR. O'BRYAN.
Q BUT AFTER YOUR PERIOD OF RECUPERATION, YOU HAVE A FULL SCHEDULE NOW, WITH NO DEBILITATING PROBLEMS? NO CAUSE FOR REST OR ANY SUCH THING AS THAT?
A NO, SIR, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q NOTHING TO PROHIBIT YOU, IN OTHER WORDS, FROM HAVING A FULL DAY'S SCHEDULE, AND THAT SORT OF THING?
A NOT A THING.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT YOU FILED, AND CREDIT REPORTS. NO PERSON HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY, AND NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. MR. BROWN, I NOTE YOU WERE THE FIRST HONOR GRADUATE IN YOUR LAW CLASS; IS THAT CORRECT?
A JANUARY OF 1966. A LOT OF YEARS AGO, YES, SIR.
Q THAT IS AN HONOR. AND YOU ARE A RECIPIENT OF SOME ACADEMIC HONORS IN LAW SCHOOL?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE NOTES THAT ABOUT 30 PERCENT OF YOUR WORK, NOW, IS DOMESTIC.
A YES, SIR. WELL, I ESTIMATE THAT THAT WOULD BE TRUE OVER THE SPAN OF MY PRACTICE, AND PROBABLY TRUE -- I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE THAT MUCH AT THE PRESENT TIME, OR NOT. COULD BE LESS. IT VARIES FROM TIME TO TIME.
Q I TAKE IT, YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE FULL RANGE OF ISSUES THAT COME UP IN FAMILY COURT?
A I THINK SO; YES, SIR.
Q INCLUDING JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS, AND CHILD-SUPPORT ISSUES --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, ALIMONY, ATTORNEY'S FEES, THE DIVORCE ITSELF, AND ALL OF THAT?
A YES, SIR. OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN A VERY GENERAL PRACTICE OVER THE WHOLE RANGE OF THE LAW, AND WE HAVE NOT -- I DO NOT SPECIALIZE, OF COURSE, IN FAMILY COURT PRACTICE.
Q WHAT WOULD YOU DO, MR. BROWN, IF YOU WERE ELECTED, TO INSURE THAT YOU DIDN'T DEVELOP ROBITIS TEN YEARS FROM NOW, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW?
A TO BEGIN WITH, SIR, I DON'T THINK IT'S PART OF MY NATURE TO DO THAT. I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT I'M A NORMAL PERSON. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT ROBITIS IS, AND I SEE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME WITH NOT DEVELOPING IT. I WOULD NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DO IT. I THINK, IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IN THE SAME WAY, THEN THAT'S WHAT I THINK ROBITIS IS: THE LOSS OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. WE'VE ALL PROBABLY BEEN VICTIMS OF IT IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF FOLLOWING THE GOLDEN RULE, AND IT'S A MATTER OF TREATING PEOPLE FAIRLY AND EVENHANDEDLY THAT YOU DEAL WITH. AND I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO THAT, AND I THINK I'VE SUCCEEDED.
Q WHAT ROLE -- SOME JUDGES ARE VERY VERY ACTIVE IN SETTLEMENT.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET TO BRINK OF TRIAL, AND YOU'RE GETTING READY TO START YOUR CASE, SOME JUDGES ARE EXTREMELY INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT AND ALMOST OVERBEARING. OTHERS ARE TOO PASSIVE AND THEY TRY CASES THAT REALLY PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED.
A YEAH.
Q I THINK MOST DO IT PROPERLY, BUT THERE ARE TWO EXTREMES, AND A COUPLE OF JUDGES MAY BE ON EITHER END. HOW WOULD YOU SEE YOUR ROLE IN TERMS OF FACILITATING SETTLEMENTS WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR IN THE DIRECTION OF PUSHING IT?
A WELL, I THINK CERTAINLY THAT IT'S PROPER FOR A JUDGE TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IF IT'S A PROPER CASE FOR IT, AND TO FACILITATE IT, IF PEOPLE ARE CLOSE TOGETHER, OR IF IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SETTLE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A JUDGES PLACE TO IMPOSE SETTLEMENT UPON ANYBODY, NOR TO PUT UNDUE PRESSURE ON EITHER PARTY TO SETTLE A CASE. I'VE HAD THAT DONE TO ME BEFORE, AND EVERYBODY LEAVES MAD WITH EVERYBODY. SO, I THINK IT'S -- SOMETIMES A JUDGE CAN BE A MEDIATOR, AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS, I THINK HE HAS THE OBLIGATION TO BE ONE. BUT I THINK THAT THERE ALSO HAS TO BE A POINT WHERE THE JUDGE RECOGNIZES THAT HE HAS TO STEP BACK AND LET THE LITIGATION GO FORWARD. I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD PUT UNDUE PRESSURE ON ANYBODY TO TRY TO SETTLE A MATTER, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A TRIAL.
Q CONCERNING THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, MR. BROWN, WE'VE ASKED EVERYBODY IN THE CONTESTED RACES TODAY: HAVE YOU SOLICITED OR RECEIVED ANY COMMITMENTS?
A I HAVE NOT.
Q YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A YES, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BROWN?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) MR. BROWN, THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, OR COMMENT?
A NO, SIR. LIKE THE OTHER GENTLEMEN WHO HAVE BEEN HERE, AND LADY, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COURTESY, AND THE COURTESY OF MS. SATTERWHITE IN GETTING THE INFORMATION TO US IN A TIMELY FASHION. I THINK OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
Q THANK YOU MR. BROWN.
A THANK YOU.
(WITNESS EXCUSED; 12:05 P.M.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS MR. RUBEN L. GRAY.

WHEREUPON, RUBEN L. GRAY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. GRAY, YOU'VE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS?
A THE ONLY THING I WOULD WISH TO CALL ATTENTION TO IS NUMBER 30. I THINK I SORT OF LEFT IT HANGING, AND I LOOKED AT IT SINCE THAT TIME AND THERE WAS THIS $19 ITEM ON THE BOOKS BACK IN 1984, AND IT WAS RESOLVED IN 1984. I DON'T REMEMBER ANY DETAILS ABOUT IT, EXCEPT THAT IT PROBABLY WAS INTEREST ON A TAX PAYMENT THAT MAY HAVE GONE IN A BIT LATE. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN SAY IT COULD BE.
Q BUT THAT WAS RESOLVED BACK IN 1984?
A YES, SIR.
Q OTHERWISE, THE SUMMARY IS COMPLETE, AND YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A IT SEEMS COMPLETE, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH IT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE WILL MAKE IT A PART OF THE RECORD THEN.

1. Ruben L. Gray
Home Address: Business Address:
110 Runnymede Boulevard P. O. Box 2636
Sumter, SC 29153 35 South Sumter Street

Sumter, SC 29150

2. He was born in Georgetown, South Carolina, on November 6, 1938. He is presently 53 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He is married. He has three children: Valencia G., age 27 (pharmacist); Ruben L., Jr., age 26 (student); and Valerie L., age 22 (social work, DSS).

5. Military Service: He was in the U. S. Army from November 12, 1963, until November 12, 1965. He attained the rank of Sp 4 (E4). His serial number is US51500111. He was honorably discharged.

6. He attended South Carolina State from September, 1957 through June, 1961, and earned a B.S. Degree in Business Administration. He attended South Carolina State School of Law from 1961 through June, 1963, and earned the L.L.B. (J.D.) Degree. He has never left an institution without earning a degree.

7. In college he was a member of the Etta B. Rowe Debating Society (four years), and the ROTC (1957 through 1959). In law school he was a member of the National Moot Court Competition (1963); the Dean's List all semesters; and the Thomas E. Miller Law Society (1961 through 1963, President 1963).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He took 18 hours of Family Law and a variety of general practice courses including Probate, Evidence, Civil Trials, Criminal Practice and Ethics. He is a year ahead in the required hours.

9. Courses Taught: He has made presentations to laymen groups on various aspects of the law including estates, real estate acquisitions and sales and domestic matters.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He served two years in the Army; three years he worked for the state as a Manpower Director, and three years he practiced part-time and served as Vice President of Morris College. For the remaining 20 years, he has been a general practitioner with a heavy emphasis in domestic matters over the last 15 years.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - seldom
State - two or more times per week
Other - state and federal agencies two or more times per month

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 25%
Domestic - 50%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 30%
Non-jury - 70%

He was usually sole counsel.

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

(a) Joseph Johnson by GAL v. George Parker & Mildred Henderson t/a Yellow Cab Co., (1983), 303 S.E. 2d 95.
It emphasized the need that a lawyer should be sure that if the trial judge does not examine the jury verdict, insist that he does.

(b) James Davis v. Sammie Clark, Jr., et al.
This was a 1982 Rock Hill case involving a tract of land on the lake that had been under a series of leases, many spurious for more than 20 years. The property was reacquired on behalf of owners.

(c) Frances Burton, et al. v. Jessie Qualls, et al.
This was a 1983 Charleston case involving a tract of land on the Bohickett River that had not been settled since acquisition in 1897. Some 60 heirs were determined.

(d) S. C. Insurance Company v. Jack B. White & Mary J. White, et al., Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 1461, Filed February 20, 1990.
This was significant for interpretation insurance contracts.

(e) Queen P. DesChamps v. Suburban Propane Gas Co., Court of Appeals, filed April 24, 1989, Opinion No. 1329.
This was significant for the question of arising out of and in the course of employment. The deceased was murdered which murder was never solved.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

Of the hundreds of domestic matters he has handled, none were required to be appealed.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) State v. Poinsett, 157 S.E. 2d 570 (He served as co-counsel with Attorney Ernest A. Finney, Jr.).

(b) State v. Elijah Walker, Memorandum Opinion No. 88-MO-002 (January 11, 1988).

22. Public Office:

(1) He served as a member of the Sumter Area Technical Education Commission from 1970 to 1973.

(2) He was elected as a Trustee of Sumter School District No. 17 and served from 1973 to 1978.

(3) He was elected to Sumter County Council and served from 1984 to present; Chairman for the last 3 1/2 years.

(4) He served as a member of the State Election Commission from 1973 to 1977.

(5) He presently serves as a member of the South Carolina Crime Victims Board, four years; Hearing Panel Chair for the last three years.

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
He ran for election to the Sumter City Council in May of 1972. He was defeated in a runoff.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

(1) He was employed as Assistant Director and Director of a statewide manpower project known as "Project T Square" from 1966 to 1969.

(2) He served as Vice President for Institutional Development at Morris College from 1969 to 1972.

25. Officer or Director: He is a Regional Director of First Savings Bank. He operates his law offices.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He has a law office and owns the building and equipment. If it was acceptable, he would likely transfer ownership of the building and equipment to a family member.

30. Tax Lien:
A federal tax lien was on the books for some $19.00. The nature of it is not within his knowledge. He will make an inquiry and resolve it. He is not aware of a collection procedure. He has not defaulted on a student loan, and he has not filed bankruptcy.

31. Sued: He has been sued personally and professionally by a person charged with and convicted of double murders, and he was appointed to represent him. The case was dismissed.

33. His health is good. His last physical examination was on June 7, 1991, by Dr. Joseph Williams, 448 North Main Street, Sumter, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Sumter County Bar Association, Vice President, 1992; South Carolina Bar

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Goodfellows Club, member and parliamentarian; NAACP, Sumter Branch, life member; Laymens Organization, A.M.E. Church; DAV, life member; Salvation Army Board of Directors, Chamber of Commerce

41. He has appeared on the NBC "Today Show" in connection with Project "T" Square; Community Leader of America Award, 1968; Who's Who Among Black Americans, 1975; Distinguished Service Award, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, 1989; Citizen of the Year Award, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, 1989; Martin Luther King Superior Public Service Award, 1990; Welcomed President Bush and returning troops to Sumter, Spring, 1991.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Mr. John M. Graham, Regional President
First Federal of South Carolina
P. O. Box 1178, Sumter, SC 29150

(b) Blinzy L. Gore, Esquire
State College Box 1837, Orangeburg, SC 29117

(c) John C. Land, III, Esquire
P. O. Drawer G, Manning, SC 29102

(d) A. S. Bahnmuller, Esquire
P. O. Box 2038, Sumter, SC 29151

(e) Bishop Fred C. James
African Methodist Episcopal Church
3700 Forest Drive, Columbia, SC 29204

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAS REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE SLED RECORDS, AND F.B.I RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. AND YOU'VE CLARIFIED THE TAX-LIEN QUESTION ALREADY. YOU WERE SUED -- THE ONLY SUIT I SEE HERE IS THAT YOU WERE SUED IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION. IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR, ACCORDING TO THE MATERIAL. YES, SIR. I DON'T REMEMBER IT, BUT I'M SURE I MUST HAVE BEEN.
Q THEY JUST SUED YOU IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A MEMBER, NOT ALLEGING ANY SPECIFIC THING THAT YOU DID WRONG, ALLEGEDLY, OR ANYTHING ELSE?
A THAT'S RIGHT, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND THE RECORD SHOWS THIS ACTION WAS DISMISSED?
A YES.
Q ARE YOU PRESENTLY BEING TREATED FOR ANY MEDICAL CONDITIONS?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. WE'VE HAD NO COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, AND NO PERSON HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST YOU. WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR WORK IS DOMESTIC NOW, APPROXIMATELY?
A ABOUT 50 PERCENT, SIR.
Q AND YOU HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE PRACTITIONER IN YOUR PRIVATE PRACTICE FOR HOW MANY YEARS, NOW?
A 21, PRACTICING FULL TIME, PART TIME FOR SOME SEVEN YEARS.
Q DO YOU HAVE A PARTNER NOW, OR ARE YOU A SOLE PRACTITIONER?
A I HAVE AN ASSOCIATE.
Q AND I TAKE IT WITH 50 PERCENT OF YOUR CASES IN THE DOMESTIC AREA YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT A FAMILY-COURT JUDGE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ENCOUNTER?
A I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK SO.
Q HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU FEEL THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS, COMPARED WITH THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT A JUDGE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE?
A I THINK IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK THE JUDGE SETS THE STAGE FOR THE COURTROOM. AND I THINK HIS COURTROOM SHOULD BE DIGNIFIED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME SHOULD BE SUCH THAT THE LAWYERS AND THE LITIGANTS FEEL COMFORTABLE. OVER THE MANY YEARS THAT I'VE PRACTICED, I'VE SEEN IT ALL, IN THAT SENSE, AND, AS MANY LAWYERS HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, IN MANY COURTROOMS YOU GO INTO, YOU FEEL VERY GOOD AND YOU CAN CONCENTRATE ON THE MATTER THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING; AND IN OTHER INSTANCES, YOU MIGHT BE UPTIGHT SO TO SPEAK, AND SORT OF BECAUSE OF THE SETTING THAT THE JUDGE CREATES. SO, I WOULD BE VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT, TRYING TO BE DIGNIFIED, AND AT THE SAME TIME, NOT SO FORMAL AND STUFFY THAT PEOPLE JUST CAN'T DO WHAT THEY'VE COME TO GET DONE.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN SETTLEMENT? WHAT ROLE WOULD YOU FORESEE YOU WOULD PLAY, IF YOU WERE ELECTED, IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, SAY?
A WELL, I THINK IN MANY INSTANCES IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUDGE TO TRY AND HELP RESOLVE A MATTER THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED. AND THERE ARE THOSE, OF COURSE, WHERE THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. AND I AGREE, AS SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE SAID, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD SIT ON ANYBODY TO MAKE THEM DO THAT; BUT IN MANY INSTANCES, HE CAN BE A VERY HELPFUL PARTICIPANT IN THE RESOLUTION PROCESS. GIVEN THE DEMANDS ON THE COURTS, WHERE THAT IS POSSIBLE, IT OUGHT TO HAPPEN, I THINK.
Q AND CONCERNING THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, MR. GRAY, ARE YOU IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT RULE AND IN COMPLIANCE, IN THAT YOU HAVE NOT SOLICITED OR RECEIVED ANY COMMITMENTS?
A I HAVE NOT SOLICITED, AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMITMENTS. I DO WISH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT MAY OCCUR THAT YOU HAVE PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM PEOPLE, AND SO FORTH LIKE THAT. THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE PAPER THAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED. I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE WHAT AND CAN'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT YOU MAY HAVE LETTERS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY SAY, AND IT'S NOTHING I SOLICITED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THIS COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) THAT'S ALL WE HAVE MR. GRAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF STATEMENT OR COMMENT YOU WANT TO MAKE? YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE SUCH.
A THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY IS THAT I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH Y'ALL GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY. THE COMMITMENT OF TIME THAT Y'ALL MAKE TO THIS TASK, AND THE COMMITMENT THAT YOU MAKE IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE CHAMBERS, I ADMIRE WHAT YOU DO. I HAPPEN TO HAVE SERVED EIGHT YEARS ON SUMTER COUNTY COUNCIL, AND I SERVED AS ITS CHAIRMAN, AND WORKED WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY COUNTY, AND I HAVE SOME IDEA AS TO THE SACRIFICE THAT Y'ALL HAVE TO MAKE, AND I ADMIRE YOU FOR IT. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR LETTING ME COME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. GRAY.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE JAMIE LEE.

WHEREUPON, JAMIE F. LEE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED FOR YOUR FAMILY COURT POSITION IN MARCH 1988, AND I THINK YOU WERE SCREENED FOR ANOTHER POSITION IN MAY OF '91.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, IT SEEMS TO BE IN ORDER.
Q DO THERE NEED TO BE ANY CHANGES MADE?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Jamie F. Lee
Home Address: Business Address:
598 Lakeshore Drive P. O. Box 22
Bennettsville, SC 29512 Bennettsville, SC 29512

2. He was born in Bennettsville, South Carolina, on May 10, 1930. He is presently 61 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Mary Breeden on December 30, 1954. He has three children: James Colin, age 36 (South Carolina Law Enforcement Division); Jamie F., Jr., age 35 (Lee Construction Company); and Mary Louise, age 32 (retired).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army, April 1948 - April 1953, SGT. RA14259728, Honorable Discharge; 1957-1985, USAF Reserve, Lt. Col. ***-**-****, Retired

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1953-1956; BS, Business Administration; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1956-January 1959; LLB

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

1987 Attended 3 separate seminars for a total of 15 hours
1988 Attended 3 separate seminars for a total of 20 hours
1989 Attended 2 separate seminars for a total of 15 hours
1990 Attended 2 separate seminars for a total of 15 hours
1991 Attended 1 2-day seminar for a total of 10 hours

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

He has been engaged in general practice since admission to the Bar, including civil, criminal, domestic, and governmental cases for local school district. He represented municipal governments, including utility rate cases, 1973-1982. He has been Family Court Judge, 1982 to date.

20. Judicial Office:

Appointed Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, 1982
Elected Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, 1983-1984
Elected Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, 1984-1988
Elected Family Court Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, 1988-1992

21. Five (5) of the Most Significant Orders or Opinions You Have Written:

(a) Keane v. Courtwright, et al., 91-DR-40-0667. This is a case of first impression in South Carolina. It involves a child taken from England to the United States for a visit with his biological father, who was not married to the mother. The father refused to return the child and a Petition was filed under the provisions of the Hague Convention (Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction). This case involved the Hague Convention provisions; the implementing Federal Statute (42 USC Section 11601-11610 [1989]); British statutes on custody rights to illegitimate child, as well as South Carolina statutes. The child was returned to England with his mother.

(b) Chris v. Chris, 84-DR-26-758. This case involved primarily the enforcement of a pre-nuptial agreement. This is a case of first impression in the Family Court. The Court ruled that the agreement was void and set aside conveyances made to third parties as a result of the agreement. The case was confirmed on appeal.

(c) Fontana v. Fowler, et al., 86-DR-26-1748. This case involved a termination of parental rights of an 11-year-old girl and her adoption by foster parents, while not terminating parental rights of two other children. The case was affirmed on appeal.
(d) Randolph v. Hanley, 85-DR-34-140. This is an unusual case where a man was the beneficiary of a large trust for his life with remainder to his children. In the event he had no children, the trust went to his sister and her children. The man had no natural children, so several years prior to his death, he adopted two adults for the purpose of allowing them to receive the trust proceeds. The contingent beneficiaries sued to set aside the adult adoptions on the grounds that the man was incompetent and the subject of undue influence, as well as fraud. The Plaintiffs also alleged that a Guardian ad Litem should have been appointed at adoption due to the physical and emotional state of the man involved. The Court ruled the adoption was valid and binding on all parties to the action and relief requested by the Petitioners was denied.

(e) Robilotta v. Baby Boy B and Griggs, 89-DR-10-0415. This case involved a termination of parental rights and adoption. The unwed mother consented, however, the 15-year-old unwed father declined to consent and sought custody himself. A Guardian ad Litem was appointed for the father. The case was unusual in that it involved the question of whether or not any parental rights accrued to the father and if so, can a 15-year-old minor be determined to have been wilful in failing to support and visit to a degree sufficient to forfeit his parental rights. The Court terminated parental rights and approved adoption.

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, 1962-1966; elected
Bennettsville Board of School Trustees, 1967-1970; appointed
Chairman, Marlboro County Election Commission, April 1970-1982; appointed

23. Unsuccessful Candidate:

County Auditor - 1966
Family Court Judgeship - 1977
Withdrew as a candidate for Circuit Court Judgeship prior to election - 1991

33. His health is good. His last physical was in August of 1991 by Dr. Roy A. Howell, Market Street, Bennettsville, South Carolina 29512.

34. Hospitalized: He had gallbladder surgery in June of 1990. He was hospitalized for three days and was incapacitated from work for four and one-half weeks.

35. He uses a hearing aid for better understanding.

36. He uses blood pressure control medication.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Marlboro County Bar Association, Secretary 1959-1962; South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Masonic Order; Order of the Shrine; American Legion; NRA

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Joseph C. Breeden, Jr., Vice President
Carolina Bank
P. O. Box 677, Bennettsville, SC 29512

(b) James J. Rogers, Executive Director
Marlboro County Economic Development Board
P. O. Box 653, Bennettsville, SC 29512

(c) G. O'Neal Hamilton
S. C. Farm Bureau Insurance
210 East By-Pass, Bennettsville, SC 29512

(d) B. B. Sanders, III
Sanders Oil Company
P. O. Drawer 20, Bennettsville, SC 29512

(e) Resolution - Marlboro County Bar Association

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF ANY KIND HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, MARLBORO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BENNETTSVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF MARLBORO COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. I GUESS, YOU'RE ONE OF THE FEW JUDGES THAT HASN'T BEEN SUED.
A THEY HAVEN'T CAUGHT UP WITH ME YET.
Q JUDGE, HOW IS YOUR HEALTH; IS IT STILL GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU'RE NOT UNDER ANY KIND OF MEDICAL TREATMENT?
A I TAKE BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE, WHICH I'VE TAKEN FOR SOME YEARS, BUT I'M IN FINE HEALTH.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, AND NO PERSON HAS ASKED TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS HERE. JUDGE, YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH, NOW, HOW LONG?
A TEN YEARS.
Q TEN YEARS?
A YES.
Q WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DO YOU DO TO COMBAT THE BOREDOM THAT I'M SURE FROM TIME TO TIME CREEPS INTO YOUR JOB WHEN YOU HAVE A LENGTHY HEARING WITH MANY WITNESSES AND PERHAPS LONG-WINDED LAWYERS? WHAT DO YOU DO TO COMBAT THAT?
A WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE AS ATTENTIVE AS YOU CAN. AND, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BEING THE TRIER OF FACTS AS WELL, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO LET YOUR MIND WANDER TOO MUCH BECAUSE THINGS WILL GET BY YOU THAT MIGHT BE OF SOME SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE. OF COURSE, TO THE LITIGANTS, EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS IMPORTANT, SO I TRY TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THAT. AND OF COURSE, SOMETIMES IF THEY ASK THE SAME THING THREE OR FOUR TIMES, IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT. I JUST TRY HARDER.
Q ONE OF OUR FORMER CHIEF JUSTICES STRESSED TO ME THAT IN ADDITION TO JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, ONE OF THE THINGS HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS WORK ETHIC, AND THE HOURS JUDGES WORK. HAVE YOU EVER HAD ANY DIFFICULTY WITH YOUR SCHEDULE IN WORKING LATE, IF IT REQUIRED IT, TO FINISH A HEARING BEFORE THE WEEKEND OR WORKING INTO THE NIGHT, EVEN, ON FRIDAYS, OR ON THE RARE OCCASION, PERHAPS, COMING BACK SATURDAY, IF THE CASE REQUIRED IT?
A YES, SIR. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY. EVERY CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE OUT-OF-TOWN LITIGANTS AND OUT-OF-TOWN LAWYERS. I THINK THE COURT OUGHT TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE LITIGANTS AND THE LAWYERS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT HAS, AND IF IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK YOU REACH A POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURN, IF YOU'RE TRYING A CASE. A JURY DELIBERATING INTO THE NIGHT IS ONE THING, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE COURT REPORTERS WHO ARE TAKING TESTIMONY AND LAWYERS TRYING TO KEEP THEIR WITS ABOUT THEM, AND YOU TRYING TO PAY ATTENTION, I FRANKLY DON'T BELIEVE EXTENDED TRIALS ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ANYBODY.
Q THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
A SOMETIMES IT CAN'T BE AVOIDED, BUT I'D RATHER GO BACK ANOTHER DAY, IF IT'S A SATURDAY OR WHATEVER IT IS, THAN RUN A CASE TOO LONG. YOU CAN TELL WHEN IT HAS BECOME UNCOMFORTABLE FOR EVERYBODY; OF COURSE, YOU'LL BE UNCOMFORTABLE. AND CERTAINLY THE COURT REPORTERS FALL VICTIM IN LONG TRIALS. IT AFFECTS THEIR COMPETENCY LEVEL, I THINK.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE JUDGE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT POSITION IS FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SEAT #1. JUDGE BURNSIDE. ROBERT H. BURNSIDE.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT H. BURNSIDE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED LAST, I THINK, MARCH 24, 1988.
A THAT'S RIGHT, SIR.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE
Q DOES IT NEED ANY KIND OF MODIFICATIONS?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Robert Henry Burnside
Home Address: Business Address:
10850 Garners Ferry Road Richland County Judicial Center
Eastover, SC 29044 1701 Main Street, P. O. Box 192
Columbia, SC 29202

2. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on May 20, 1933. He is presently 58 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Sara Carson Phifer on January 2, 1980. He was previously divorced on April 19, 1979; Shelvie C. Burnside was the moving party; Richland County Family Court; no fault grounds. He has three children: Debra Burnside Rentz, age 35 (teaches emotionally handicapped children in Dahlonega, Georgia); Robert Henry, Jr., age 33 (Executive Director, S. C. Pharmaceutical Association); and Ashley Flournoy, age 22 (senior at Converse College).

5. Military Service: US Navy; Airman; serial #331-56-31; May 22, 1950 - May 19, 1954; active duty January 1, 1952 through December 11, 1953; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended Presbyterian College, January, 1954 - May, 1957, BA Degree; and the University of South Carolina Law School, September, 1960 - January, 1963.

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

Criminal Law Update - February 6, 1987
Immunity, Justiciability & Admissibility - May 8, 1987
Child Abuse and Neglect - August 21, 1987
Complex Issues in Family Court - November 19 and November 20,
1987
Using Mental Health Professionals in Custody & Abuse Cases -
March 18, 1988
Ethics, Rules & Contemporary Issues in Family Court - July 15,
1988
Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Evidence & Statutory Law
Update - November 17 and November 18, 1988
Family Court Appeals - September 9, 1988
Timely Topics in Family Court - February 17, 1989
Child Victim in Court - February 27 and February 28, 1989
Family Court Update - July 21, 1989
Criminal Law Update - January 25 and January 26, 1990
Circuit and Family Court JCLE - March 30, 1990
Family Law Issues - November 9, 1990
Family Court JCLE - April 4 and April 5, 1991
Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts - May 17, 1991
Family Law Update - July 19, 1991
Family Court JCLE - November 15, 1991

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

Speaker at JCLE on Ethical Problems on July 21, 1989
Speaker at Southern Legislators Conference, Tampa, Florida on
November 8, 1989 and November 9, 1989; RE: South Carolina
Court System (Judicial Reform)
Speaker to a legislative conference in Columbus, Georgia, when
Georgia was considering changes in their court system
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1963-1964 Assistant Trust Officer, South Carolina National
1964-1977 Private law practice (general practice), Richland County
1977-present Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit

20. Judicial Office:

Family Court Judge from July, 1977 to present
Special Circuit Court Judge (occasional appointment)

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Hazel Toney, Administrator of the Estate of Keysha Lawshawn Toney (Deceased), Respondent v. South Carolina Department of Education, Appellant
327 S.E.2d 322 (Supreme Court Opinion 22233).
309 S.E.2d 773 (Court of Appeals Opinion 0009).

(b) Dianne Ducate v. John S. Ducate
306 S.E.2d 218 (Supreme Court Opinion 21950).

(c) James T. Glasscock v. Linda E. Glasscock (Sumter County Case)
87-DR-43-1239.

(d) Laura Litt Sattler v. Jon I. Sattler
(Supreme Court Opinion 22242, filed 2/24/85).

(e) DSS v. Doe.

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, September 14, 1971 through June, 1977, elected

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: 1970, Candidate for South Carolina House of Representatives

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
1957-1958 NY Life Insurance Company, Management Trainee
1958 Pet Milk Company, salesman
1958-1959 Manager of Restaurant
1959 DuPont, accountant

25. Officer or Director: Owner and Manager of Miniature Horse Farm

31. Sued: He was sued as a Family Court Judge by a disappointed party in a divorce action. He was a Defendant, along with the Governor and numerous other judges and state officials. The case was abandoned by the Plaintiff.

33. His health is good. His last physical was August 21, 1991, by Dr. Benjamin D. Massey, 2739 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

34. Hospitalized: Gall bladder surgery; kidney stone removal; polyp and hemorrhoid removal; and phlebitis in left leg

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Richland County Bar; American Bar Association; and National College of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Member of Safe Schools Committee in 1989

41. He called a meeting with the Solicitor, Department of Youth Services personnel and school officials to discuss ways to monitor truants (prior to E.I.A. passage); pointed out the number of delinquents who showed significant absences, but no action had been taken by the schools.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Stephen E. Byas, Branch Manager
The National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 1457, Columbia, SC 29202-1457

(b) Abb A. Jeffcoat, Jr.
1022 Calhoun Street, Columbia, SC 29201

(c) Moulton A. Phifer, III
4830 Furman Avenue, Columbia, SC 29206

(d) Deborah S. Teague, Assistant Vice President
Standard Federal Savings Bank
P. O. Box 2826, Columbia, SC 29202-2826

(e) C. Joseph Roof, Esquire
P. O. Box 100200, Columbia, SC 29202-3200

Q THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU, AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE, LIKEWISE, HAVE NO COMPLAINTS OF ANY TYPE EVER BEING FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, COLUMBIA AND EASTOVER POLICE DEPARTMENTS, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, I THINK, SHOW ONE SUIT. WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT, JUDGE?
A THAT WAS A VERY INTERESTING SITUATION. CHIEF JUSTICE WOODROW LEWIS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HAD A CASE IN ANOTHER CIRCUIT AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT FAMILY JUDGES TRAVELED QUITE A BIT. AND THE LADY THAT DID THE SUING HAD BEEN A FORMER COURT REPORTER, AND SHE FAILED TO OBEY THREE FAMILY COURT JUDGES' ORDERS IN REGARDS TO DISCOVERY. AND CHIEF JUSTICE CALLED ME OVER AND ASKED ME COULD HE SEND ME TO THAT CIRCUIT, AND WOULD I GO DOWN AND END THAT CASE? AND OF COURSE, I SAID, "YEAH." HE WAS MORE OR LESS TELLING ME "YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT." SO, I SAID, "YES, SIR, I'M GOING TO DO IT." HE JUST GAVE ME ALL THE TIME I NEEDED TO FINISH IT, AND NO DISCOVERY HAD BEEN DONE. AND IT TOOK A LENGTHY TIME, AND WE KIND OF DID THE DISCOVERY AS WE WERE TRYING THE CASE. AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, SHE WAS VERY UNHAPPY, AND SHE SUED ME AND THE GOVERNOR AND EVERYBODY SHE COULD THINK OF. I GOT SERVED. I GAVE THE PAPERS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND NEVER HEARD ANYMORE FROM IT.
Q WAS SHE BRINGING THAT PRO SE?
A YES, SIR, SHE WAS.
Q BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE CASE HAS BEEN ABANDONED OR DISMISSED?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD, JUDGE?
A VERY GOOD.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO PERSON HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY, AND NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ABOUT THE ROLE THAT A JUDGE SHOULD PLAY, OR COULD PLAY, IN SETTLEMENT?
A I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE PARTIES HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A TRIAL. I THINK THERE ARE SOME CASES THAT SHOULD NOT BE SETTLED. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD FORCE SETTLEMENT ON THEM, PARTICULARLY IN CUSTODY CASES. I THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THEIR DAY IN COURT, AND I NEVER TRY TO FORCE SETTLEMENTS. HOWEVER, I WILL GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY. SOMETIMES LAWYERS WILL SAY, "CAN WE TALK IN CHAMBERS ABOUT IT?" I WILL DO THAT. BUT I LISTEN TO THEM; I DON'T TWIST ANY ARMS WHATSOEVER. SOMETIMES I'LL GO INTO COURT -- PARTICULARLY IF A CASE HAS COME BACK TO COURT SEVERAL TIMES -- AND I WILL ASK THEM IF THEY WANT TO TALK. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK, I START TAKING TESTIMONY. EVEN WHEN THEY COME IN MY CHAMBERS OR IN MY OFFICE, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT GETTING ANYWHERE, I QUICKLY SAY "WE'RE WASTING TIME, LET'S START TAKING TESTIMONY." I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES, PARTICULARLY IN FAMILY COURT, THEY JUST WANT SOMEBODY TO HEAR THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE. AND I HONOR THAT.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS MEDIATION IDEA THAT WE'VE BEEN DEBATING HERE THIS YEAR? DO YOU THINK THAT'S GOT A CHANCE TO BE PRODUCTIVE?
A THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT IS COST. SO MANY LITIGANTS JUST CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY LAWYERS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM, AND THEN TO HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL COST ALSO. IF THERE COULD BE SOME WAY THAT WE COULD KEEP THE COST DOWN, I THINK IT WOULD BE EXCELLENT. I DON'T LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE COME TO COURT, AND PARTICULARLY WITH CHILDREN INVOLVED IN CUSTODY CASES, AND DISRUPT THE FAMILY MORE THAN IT IS ALREADY. BECAUSE IT IS DISRUPTIVE, OF COURSE, WHEN THEY COME TO COURT. BUT I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PURSUE AND SEE IF WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT KEEPING THE COST DOWN.
Q DO YOU THINK THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM CONCEPT IS SERVING ITS PURPOSE? IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S OVERUSED A LITTLE BIT.
A SENATOR, IT'S JUST ABOUT LIKE ANYTHING ELSE. IT DEPENDS ON WHO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM IS. I AGREE WITH THEM SOMETIMES; MANY TIMES, I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM. BUT THEY DO GIVE ME ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT THE PARTIES DON'T GIVE ME, SOMETIMES, AND PARTICULARLY IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES, IT'S VERY VERY IMPORTANT. AND IN RICHLAND COUNTY, AS Y'ALL PROBABLY KNOW, WHERE I WORK MOST OF THE TIME, WE'VE GOT A SEPARATE PROGRAM FROM THE STATE PROGRAM. WE HAD A PROGRAM HERE, BEFORE THE STATE PROGRAM STARTED, AND IT IS EXCELLENT. THEY HAVE NUMEROUS VOLUNTEERS AS GUARDIANS AD LITEM. WE HAVE FULL-TIME TRAINING FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING; THEY KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS; AND THEY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN, WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE FAMILY COURT ANYWAY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE HALL.

WHEREUPON, STUART H. HALL, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE YOU WERE ALSO SCREENED IN MARCH OF '88. IS YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY COMPLETE, OR DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION?
A JUST ONE TYPO ON ONE OF MY DAUGHTER'S NAMES. IT'S ELEANOR; THERE SHOULD BE AN "E" BEFORE THE "L". AND I LEFT OFF THE FACT THAT I WAS CITY ATTORNEY FOR BLACKSBURG BACK IN 1968. I JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE WILL NOTE THOSE TWO CHANGES. OTHER THAN THAT, THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS AMENDED, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US INCLUDING IT IN THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Stuart H. Hall
Home Address: Business Address:
1303 W. Rutledge Avenue P. O. Box 122
Gaffney, SC 29341 Gaffney, SC 29342

2. He was born in Gaffney, South Carolina on August 22, 1941. He is presently 50 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Eleanor Kay Chappell on June 14, 1968. He was previously divorced in 1967; moving party, Stuart H. Hall; Richland County Court; desertion for more than one year He has 3 children: Elizabeth Whitner O'Dowd, age 28 (Commercial Advertising); Katherine Joyce, age 21 (student); and Eleanor Caroline, age 21 (student).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1959-1963, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1963-1966, J.D.

7. At the University of South Carolina he was Treasurer of Kappa Alpha Order, 1963, and on the Law School Honor Council, 1966.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended most Family Court Seminars

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Hall, Hall & Daniel (1966-1967)
general practice - mostly civil

He was City Attorney for Blacksburg in 1968.

20. Judicial Office:

City Recorder, City of Gaffney, Appointed
Cherokee County Family Court Judge and Master in Equity,
appointed, 1977
Family Court Judge of South Carolina
Special Circuit Judge - various terms since 1977

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Patricia A. Duncan v. Wade Hampton Duncan, Court of Appeals, Unpublished Opinion No. 91-UP-155, Filed October 9, 1991.

(b) Constance O. Eckstein v. James Allen Eckstein, Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 1703, Filed October 7, 1991.

(c) McArthur Braxton v. Brenda J. Braxton, Court of Appeals, Memorandum Opinion No. 90-MO-159, Filed October 24, 1990.

(d) Rita Ann Davis Grubb v. Jimmy Lynn Grubb, Memorandum Opinion No. 89-MO-075, Filed May 15, 1989.

(e) Cynthia Denney Bridges v. Vernon O'Neil Bridges, Memorandum Opinion No. 88-MO-096, Filed October 26, 1988.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1989 by Dr. George Bass, 1690 Skylyn Drive, Spartanburg, South Carolina.

34. Hospitalized: He was hospitalized and out of work for ten days for a hernia operation in 1985.

35. He wears eyeglasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association - 1966 to present
Cherokee County Bar Association, President 1986

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

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Barry S. Morgan, Vice President and City Executive
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 580, Gaffney, SC 29342

(b) Louis C. Sossamon, Publisher
THE GAFFNEY LEDGER
P. O. Box 670, Gaffney, SC 29342

(c) Harry Lee Frieze, Jr.
Foxhollow Farm
Route 3, Box 76, Gaffney, SC 29340

(d) The Reverend David Acrill Fort
Box 608, Gaffney, SC 29342

(e) H. B. Kelly, Jr.
P. O. Box 1657, Gaffney, SC 29342

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GAFFNEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE CHEROKEE COUNTY JUDGMENT ROLLS SHOW THAT YOU WERE, LET'S SEE, LISTED AS A DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF A MINOR'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY.
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT WAS STRICTLY THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CONVEY THAT INTEREST WAS TO GET A COURT ORDER, I ASSUME?
A YES, SIR. MY WIFE WAS PREGNANT WITH TWINS AND I NEEDED A BIGGER PLACE TO LIVE. A FRIEND OF MINE HAD JUST INHERITED A HOUSE FROM HIS FATHER'S ESTATE, AND THE CHILDREN WERE HALF-OWNERS. WE BROUGHT THE ACTION FOR THAT REASON.
Q THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD. YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A WELL, LIKE THE OTHERS HAVE SAID, I'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD BEFORE. I PRACTICED FOR A LONG TIME, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT PLEASANT WHEN YOU START TAKING ABUSE FROM THE BENCH. I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO REMEMBER THAT. BUT I HAD TO ENDURE SOME, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO IT TO ANYBODY ELSE. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE: I WAS DOING NON-JURY IN LANCASTER COUNTY, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND THEY WERE ASSIGNING THE ROSTER, AND TWO LAWYERS DIDN'T SHOW UP. AND I'VE SEEN SOME JUDGES GET PRETTY IRATE ABOUT NONATTENDANCE IN THE COURTROOM. I TOOK A BREAK AND ASKED ANOTHER LAWYER TO COME BACK TO CHAMBERS AND I SAID, "WHERE ARE THESE LAWYERS? IT'S LOOKING KIND OF BAD FOR THEM." HE SAID, "WELL, THEIR WIVES HAD BEEN RAPED; THEY'RE IN COUNSELING, AND THEY HAD TO GO WITH THEIR WIVES." I WAS GLAD I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.
Q GOOD EXAMPLE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) JUDGE, WHAT'S THE MOST FRUSTRATING PART OF YOUR JOB, AND THE MOST REWARDING PART? THE PROS AND THE CONS?
A CUSTODY CASES, NUMBER ONE, MOST FRUSTRATING. YOU NEVER KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. YOU HOPE. THE CHILD HAS GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE.
Q NO, YOU CAN'T SPLIT THE BABY, AS THEY SAY.
A REWARDING IS TO SEE, I GUESS, A KID STARTING TO GO BAD, AND YOU TURN HIM AROUND. THAT'S PROBABLY THE --
Q WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR TIME DO YOU THINK IS SPENT WITH JUVENILE ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS?
A 30 PERCENT, 40 PERCENT. STARTLING.
Q YEAH.
A AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE.
Q YEAH, THE STATISTICS DON'T LOOK VERY GOOD, UNFORTUNATELY.
A (SHAKES HEAD.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
(NO RESPONSE.)
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE?
A JUST: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE JOHN RUCKER.

WHEREUPON, JOHN M. RUCKER, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION, MODIFICATION?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. John Rucker
Home Address: Business Address:
2213 Main Street Newberry County Courthouse
Newberry, SC 29108 1224 College Street
Newberry, SC 29108

2. He was born in Newberry, South Carolina on October 22, 1944. He is presently 47 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Harriett S. Lee on July 26, 1969. He has two children: John Brandt, age 18; and Wylie Marvin, age 16.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1966, B.S.; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1969, J.D.

7. In college he was a member of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity. In law school he was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity.

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

Family Law Update; November 15, 1991; 5 hours
Family Law Update; July 19, 1991; 5 hours
The Future & the Courts; April 4 and April 5, 1991; 10 hours
Family Law Issues; November 9, 1990; 5 hours
Circuit & Family Court Seminar; March 30, 1990; 5 hours
Criminal Law Update; January 25 and January 26, 1990; 10 hours
Issues in Family Law; November 17, 1989; 5 hours
Bits and Pieces; July 21, 1989; 5 hours
Child Victim in Court; February 27 and February 28, 1989; 10 hours
Issues in Evidence; November 17 and November 18, 1988; 12 hours
Ethics, Rules, Etc.; July 15, 1988; 6 hours
National Association of Tax Administrators; July, 1987

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

June, 1969 to October, 1969 Associate, Tench P. Owens, Attorney, Clinton, South Carolina

October, 1969 to February, 1971 Private Practice, Clinton, South Carolina

February, 1971 to June 30, 1988 Private Practice, Newberry, South Carolina

July 1, 1988 to present Family Court Judge

20. Judicial Office:

Recorder; City of Newberry; September, 1971 to June, 1976; elected by City Council, Jurisdiction limited to minor criminal and traffic offenses

Family Court; Eighth Judicial Circuit; July 1, 1988 to present; Jurisdiction limited to Family and Juvenile matters

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Oakley v. Oakley, 92-UP-013.

This matter primarily involved custody of minor children and support. Case turned on lifestyle of parties and party better suited to rear children. Award of custody to father was upheld on appeal.

(b) Mays v. Mays, 90-DR-24-16.

This case, among other points, required the valuation of family businesses and investments. Contained in the many investments were gifts from parent of one of the parties. In addition to the normal problem of valuation of property the Court had to determine the question of marital property. This case also involved the question of whether or not adultery was condoned.

(c) Jacobs v. Jacobs, 89-DR-36-416.

Issue involved was a dispute as to custody of an illegitimate child residing with a grandparent after the death of the mother and the natural father. The Court applied the criteria set forth in Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, and awarded custody of the child to the grandparent.

(d) Watson v. Watson, 90-DR-04-0283.

This was, among other issues, a divorce action on the ground of adultery. The unusual question was whether the Plaintiff could be granted a divorce from his comatose wife. The grounds for divorce having arisen prior to the Defendant overdosing on drugs. There is no case in South Carolina dealing with this issue. The Court followed the general rule in the U.S. that an action can be maintained so long as it can be proven that grounds for divorce occurred prior to the Defendant becoming non compos mentis.

(e) Holman v. Holman, 90-DR-30-681.

Among many other issues, this case involved the valuation of a rental business. The main issue in the valuation was whether this business in particular, and the industry in general, were in a period of growth or decline. Court determined that use of multiple times net operating profits was not proper when multiple was determined during period of tremendous growth in industry.

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, elected 1976 to 1980
Commissioner, South Carolina Tax Commission, appointed February, 1984 to June 30, 1988
23. Unsuccessful Candidate:
Candidate for House of Representatives, Democratic Primary 1974 and 1980
Candidate, At Large Circuit Judgeship, 1982

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in the Spring of 1986 by Dr. E. Eugene Epting.

34. Hospitalized: He had a ruptured appendix in September of 1984.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; American Bar Association; South Carolina Family Court Judges Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Member, Central United Methodist Church; Mason; Shriner; Rotary Club of Newberry, South Carolina

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Harold B. Folk, Regional Vice President
The First Savings Bank
P. O. Box 557, Newberry, SC 29108-2922

(b) Gordon N. Clarkson, Esquire
P. O. Box 394, Newberry, SC 29108

(c) James Verner, Esquire
P. O. Box 484, Newberry, SC 29108

(d) D. Mitchell Houston
Central United Methodist Church
P. O. Box 67, Newberry, SC 29108

(e) E. Eugene Epting, Jr., M.D.
1240 Hunt Street, Newberry, SC 29108

Q THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU, AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS OF ANY TYPE EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, NEWBERRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NEWBERRY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF NEWBERRY COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. I THINK YOU WERE NAMED ALONG WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN A LAWSUIT?
A I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT UNTIL SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. I WAS NEVER SERVED. BUT THE COMPANY THAT I WAS INCLUDED IN WAS A VERY GOOD COMPANY. I THINK EVERY MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THREE GOVERNORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I THINK IT WAS DISMISSED IN 1982. I WASN'T EVEN AWARE THE SUIT EXISTED.
Q I GUESS IF SOMEBODY SUED THAT MANY PEOPLE, THEY COULD HARDLY AFFORD THE COST OF SERVING THE PAPERS.
A I SUSPECT THAT'S WHY NOBODY WAS EVER SERVED.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE STILL EXCELLENT?
A YES.
Q STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. NO PERSON HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TODAY AND NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH NOW FOR FOUR YEARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BEST THING FOR A JUDGE TO DO TO AVOID THE ROBITIS SYNDROME WOULD BE?
A WELL, I THINK THE THING THAT ALL OF US THAT ARE IN THIS TYPE OF JOB NEED TO REMEMBER IS: WE ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. WHEN YOU THINK OF YOURSELF AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, YOU AVOID THE -ITISES THAT DO OCCASIONALLY OCCUR. AND IT'S A JOB TO DO, AND YOU MUST TREAT EVERYONE WITH THE RESPECT THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT OF ANYONE COMING INTO YOUR COURT, OR THE RESPECT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO GET FROM ANYBODY IN EVERYDAY DEALINGS. SO, I THINK LOOKING AT IT AS A SERVANT, RATHER THAN A JUDGE WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY TO AVOID THAT.
Q THANK YOU. DO YOU AGREE WITH JUDGE HALL ABOUT THE STATISTICS IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BEARING OUT THE SAME INCREASE IN JUVENILE PETITIONS?
A JUVENILES ARE INCREASING TREMENDOUSLY, AND I HATE TO SOUND TRITE ABOUT THIS, BUT IT'S A JOY WHEN YOU FINALLY SEE A JUVENILE THAT'S COMMITTED A KID'S CRIME: STEALING OF A BICYCLE. I MEAN, IT IS NICE NOW TO SEE THAT. WHAT WE SEE NOW ARE THE PISTOLS OR THE KNIVES OR THE ASSAULT-AND-BATTERIES WITH INTENT TO KILL. THE VIOLENCE IS ESCALATING TREMENDOUSLY, EVEN IN THE LITTLE SMALL CIRCUIT OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; GREENWOOD, LAURENS, NEWBERRY COUNTY. IT'S INCREASING. IT'S SCARY. AND I THINK THE MOST FRUSTRATION THAT I FEEL WITH IT IS, I'M NOT SURE WE'VE REALLY GOT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP THE MAJORITY OF THESE KIDS.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: DEFINITELY, A PORTION OF THEM, THAT'S RIGHT.
A IT'S SCARY. A LOT OF THESE KIDS ARE INTELLIGENT KIDS, BUT THEY GET HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND WE SEEM TO BE INCAPABLE, IN OUR STATE, OF TURNING A GREAT NUMBER OF THEM AROUND. WE TURN SOME OF THEM AROUND. I THANK GOODNESS WE DO. BUT THE CONDITIONS ARE -- D.Y.S. -- D.Y.S. HAS GOT MORE ON IT THAN IT CAN POSSIBLY HANDLE. IT'S JUST MORE KIDS THAN -- THERE IS JUST MORE NEED FOR THEIR SERVICES THAN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE. IT'S SCARY. I NEVER THOUGHT, IN LITTLE RURAL COUNTIES THAT WE WOULD SEE CHILDREN WITH -- AND I SAY CHILDREN; 13-, 14-YEAR-OLD KIDS -- WITH WEAPONS. SOME WEAPONS WITH VERY LARGE CLIPS, 50-SHOT WEAPONS. AND THEY'RE THERE. AND HAVING CHILDREN OF MY OWN, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY HORRIFYING WITH WHAT COULD HAPPEN. IT'S SCARY. SO, HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE ABLE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO TURN THE CORNER AND WE'LL SEE SOME OF THIS DISSIPATE. I HOPE SO. MAYBE I'M AN ETERNAL OPTIMIST, BUT I HOPE SO. THAT'S THE MOST FRUSTRATING.
Q WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THAT. THAT'S VERY TROUBLESOME.
A JUDGE HALL MADE THE STATEMENT ABOUT CUSTODY. THAT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, TOO, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW. THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE CLEAR-CUT BUT THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF THEM THAT ARE NOT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE THING THAT WEIGHS ON A FAMILY COURT JUDGE'S MIND AS MUCH AS ANYTHING, IS, "DID I DO RIGHT?" AND YOU NEVER KNOW. YOU HOPE YOU DO, AND YOU PRAY YOU DO. BUT IT'S STILL --
Q NOBODY'S PERFECT.
A THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT POPS UP AT TIMES, AND YOU HAVE TO HOPE YOU DID THE BEST. YOU TRY TO DO THE BEST.
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. GENTRY HAD A QUESTION.

Q JUDGE RUCKER, IN THE PAST THREE TO FOUR YEARS, HAVE YOU SEEN A DECLINE OR INCREASE IN THE USE OF DRUGS BY YOUNG PEOPLE? BY YOUTH?
A I DON'T SEE IT AS MUCH NOW. I KNOW THAT GOES AGAINST SOME OF THE STATISTICS THAT YOU SEE, BUT MAYBE IT'S JUST THE COUNTIES I HAPPEN TO BE GOING IN. I WAS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY. WHEN I FIRST STARTED, I WAS IN CHARLESTON A GOOD BIT, AND THERE WAS A GOOD BIT THERE. IN GREENVILLE COUNTY -- SEE, I HAPPENED TO COME DOWN TO RICHLAND COUNTY THE LAST YEAR AND YEAH, IT WAS -- OF 25 CHILDREN I DEALT WITH THAT DAY, 24 OF THEM WERE CRACK-COCAINE. BUT IN THE AREA THAT I'M NORMALLY IN, IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, I DON'T SEE AS MUCH OF IT NOW AS I DID FOUR YEARS AGO. I SEE, LIKE I SAID, VIOLENCE MORE, BUT -- AND IT COULD WELL BE RELATED TO DRUGS, AND JUST THE CHARGES AREN'T DRUGS. I DON'T KNOW.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
WITNESS: NO, JUST, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. SOMEBODY JUST CALLED ME. I DON'T KNOW FOR A VOTE OR WHAT.
(RECESS FROM 12:34 P.M. TO 12:45 P.M., DURING WHICH TIME SENATOR LOURIE AND REPRESENTATIVE HODGES TEMPORARILY DEPART THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. C. DAVID SAWYER, JR.

WHEREUPON, C. DAVID SAWYER, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q THIS IS FOR THE FAMILY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2. MR. SAWYER, YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CHANGES?
A THERE WAS ONE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE REPORT THAT CAME FROM SLED ON THE SECOND PAGE, WHERE IT INDICATED THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF THE FEDERAL CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE WERE CHECKED WITH THE FOLLOWING RESULTS, AND IT SAYS, "SEE ATTACHMENT." I BELIEVE THAT'S A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND I BROUGHT THAT TO MS. SATTERWHITE'S ATTENTION, AND I BELIEVE SHE HAS CONFIRMED THAT. IT SHOULD BE NEGATIVE.
Q WE'LL MAKE THAT ONE CORRECTION. WITH THAT AMENDMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR. NO OBJECTION AT ALL.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THAT.

1. C. David Sawyer, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
P. O. Box 392 P. O. Box 506
Ridge Spring, SC 29129 Saluda, SC 29138

2. He was born in Aiken, South Carolina, on April 7, 1948. He is presently 43 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Sandra Faye Cato on October 18, 1975. He has three children: Rebecca Cato, age 12; Bonnie Clair, age 10; and Beth Ann, age 3.

5. Military Service: He was honorably discharged on February 13, 1976, as a Sergeant from the South Carolina Air National Guard after 6 years of service. Serial number: ***-**-****.

6. He attended Baptist College at Charleston, 1966-1968; the University of South Carolina, Bachelor of Arts in History on January 30, 1971; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, awarded Juris Doctoral Degree on May 11, 1974.

7. He was President of the Freshman Class at Baptist College of Charleston (1966) and Vice President of Student Government Association, Baptist College of Charleston (1967).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has taken all required continuing legal and ethical education courses. The primary emphasis of these courses was on domestic relations and governmental affairs. The courses were sponsored by the South Carolina Bar, the Municipal Association and the Association of Counties. He fulfilled his ethical education requirements more than one year in advance of the mandatory date.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

General practice of law at Edgefield, South Carolina, 1974-1976

Partner in general practice of law with Billy C. Coleman at Saluda, South Carolina, 1976-1992

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 2
State - 98
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 30%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 65%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 10%
Non-jury - 90%

Of the cases that were tried, he served as both sole counsel and associate counsel.

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

(a) Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jean E. Crouch, SC App., 386 S.E. 2d 290 (1989).
A complex case involving trespass, conversion, estoppel and adverse possession. (The trial of this case was handled primarily by the applicant with assistance from co-counsel on the appeal.)

(b) Farm Credit Bank of Columbia v. Trudy Walker Holmes, et al., 89-CP-19-80.
A complicated foreclosure involving priority of liens; subordination of mortgages and attorney fees.

(c) Shealy v. Shealy, Opinion Number 78-10 (Filed January 30, 1978).
A lengthy trial involving fitness of the custodial parent and the "tender years" doctrine.

(d) Eugene S. Blease and Quincy Blease v. Janice K. Green, et al., Opinion Number 86-MO-040 (Filed June 30, 1986).
A successful action by grandparents to obtain custody of their grandson. The case dealt with preference given to parents for custody, and it held those rights are presumptive and must yield when the interests of the child would not be subserved.

(e) Judie W. Black v. William E. Black, 84-DR-41-133.
A strenuously contested trial involving issues of custody, support, equitable division and attorney fees.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Harvley v. Harvley, 310 S.E. 2d 161 (S.C. App., 1983).
The primary issues concerned the degree of corroboration required in a contested divorce, and the factors used in determining whether alimony should be awarded.

(b) Tidwell v. Tidwell, Opinion Number 83-MO-83 (Filed April 14, 1983).
The Tidwell case dealt with division of marital properties, the adequacy of child support and payment of fees.

(c) McAbee v. McAbee, Opinion Number 83-MO-294 (Filed December 7, 1983).
A complex case involving custody, support, equitable division of property and attorney fees. The trial lasted approximately five days, and it was heard in all four counties of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

(d) Burnett v. Burnett, S.C. App., 347 S.E. 2d 908, 290 S.C. 28 (1986).
The Burnett decision is a frequently cited case concerning pre-divorce agreements.

(e) Kneece v. Kneece, S.C. App., 370 S.E. 2d 288, 296 S.C. 28 (1988).
This case involved transmutation of property, equitable division of the husband's Civil Service Retirement Fund and a material change of circumstances concerning child support payments.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:
(a) The State v. Franklin Rogers, Opinion Number 80-MO-6 (Filed January 21, 1980).
His practice was devoted primarily to civil and domestic matters. The Rogers case is the only criminal matter that was appealed. The remainder of his criminal practice involved cases in Magistrate, Municipal or the Court of General Sessions.

20. Judicial Office:

He was appointed as a Saluda County Magistrate on February 13, 1974. He was reappointed to this position on January 25, 1977. For quite some time he served as Chief Magistrate for Saluda County - (criminal jurisdiction of $200 or 30 days confinement; civil jurisdiction not to exceed $1,000).

In May of 1975, he was appointed by the Town Council as Municipal Court Judge for the Town of Batesburg. He served in that capacity until September of 1982. (criminal jurisdiction of $200 or 30 days confinement; civil jurisdiction not to exceed $1,000)

He resigned both positions to devote more time to his law practice.

21. Five (5) significant Orders or Opinions:

His services as Magistrate and Municipal Court Judge dealt primarily with traffic violations and minor criminal offenses. There were no significant Orders or Opinions resulting from those decisions.

22. Public Office:

He was elected Mayor of Ridge Spring in August of 1983, and began serving as Mayor on September 1, 1983. He was reelected in 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991. He is currently serving in that capacity.

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
He expressed interest in a previous Family Court judgeship, but he never made a formal announcement of his candidacy.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He is authorized to sell title insurance as an agent for Security Title and Guarantee Corporation of Baltimore, Maryland. He was authorized as an agent by Security Title on October 28, 1983.

31. Sued: He was named as a Defendant in a lawsuit involving his services as attorney for the Town of Batesburg. The action was dismissed by a favorable summary judgment ruling.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was on June 28, 1988, by Dr. David L. Castellone, Ridge Spring Family Practice Center, P. O. Box 128, Ridge Spring, South Carolina.

36. He is currently being treated for infection by Dr. Robert L. Sawyer, Sr., on February 11, 1992. Address: 403 West Butler Avenue, Saluda, South Carolina

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Saluda County Bar; Tri-County Bar; South Carolina Bar

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Lifelong member, Ridge Spring Baptist Church; Director of Youth Department; Church Moderator; Deacon; member of Ridge Spring Fire Department, currently serving as Secretary

41. He is the recipient of the Order of Palmetto, June 30, 1985; commended by Resolution of House of Representatives for Community Service, July 10, 1985; former member of Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, 1978-1980; Resolution of Fee Dispute Board (Panel Member for Eleventh Judicial Circuit); attorney for Towns of Batesburg, Monetta and Ward; Board of Directors, Upper Savannah Council of Governments, 1977-1992; Executive Committee, Upper Savannah Council of Governments, 1983-1992; former Chairman, Board of Directors, Upper Savannah Council of Governments, 1983-1984; active member of pro-bono program; past President, Ridge Spring-Monetta Jaycees, Recipient of Key Man Award on two occasions; Board of Directors, Saluda County Council on Aging; Board of Directors, Saluda County Department of Social Services; Board of Directors, South Carolina Municipal Association, 1985-1988; member, Saluda County Economic Development Board; Advisory Board, First Citizens Bank (Saluda Branch); and Youth Baseball Coach, Commissioner of Little Peach League, 1977

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) William H. Rushton, Jr., Vice President/City Executive
First Citizens Bank
P. O. Box 697, Saluda, SC 29138

(b) Honorable Jennings G. McAbee
Route 1, Box 121, McCormick, SC 29835

(c) R. Clark DuBose, Esquire
P. O. Box 556, Ridge Spring, SC 29129

(d) Patricia C. Edmonds, Executive Director
Upper Savannah Council of Governments
P. O. Box 1366, Greenwood, SC 29648

(e) Thelma A. Coleman
P. O. Box 217, Ridge Spring, SC 29129

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS OR REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, SALUDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SALUDA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SALUDA COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A SUIT IN WHICH YOU WERE A DEFENDANT, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF BATESBURG?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
A YES, SIR. OUR OFFICE SERVES AS ATTORNEYS FOR THE TOWN OF BATESBURG, AND I WAS ELECTED AS MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF RIDGE SPRING; AND A LITIGANT CONTENDED THAT WAS DUAL OFFICE-HOLDING, AND THE COURT RULED IT WAS NOT. IT WAS DISMISSED BY SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU, AND NO WITNESSES HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT. YOUR LAW PRACTICE HAS BEEN QUITE VARIED, I BELIEVE, SINCE I HAVE KNOWN YOU FOR 20 YEARS OR SO.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU'VE PRACTICED IN VIRTUALLY EVERY COURT, I GUESS.
A YES, SIR. IT'S A GENERAL PRACTICE, AND IT'S ORIENTED PRIMARILY TO CIVIL AND DOMESTIC MATTERS, A LOT OF REAL ESTATE AND EMPHASIS ON PROBATE MATTERS ALSO.
Q AND YOU'VE SERVED AS COUNTY ATTORNEY IN SALUDA?
A OUR OFFICE HAS. I'VE DONE SOME OF THE COUNTY'S WORK. MR. COLEMAN ALSO DOES A GREAT DEAL OF THE COUNTY'S WORK.
Q AND YOU SHOW ON YOUR SUMMARY THAT YOU'RE DOING ABOUT 65 PERCENT OF YOUR WORK IN THE FAMILY COURT, NOW?
A AT THE TIME THIS WAS SUBMITTED, IT WAS ABOUT 65 PERCENT; NOW, IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO 50 PERCENT. THERE'S A LOT OF REAL ESTATE WORK BEING DONE THERE IN THE SMALL TOWNS, WITH LOANS BEING REFINANCED. 50 TO 65 PERCENT WOULD BE A REALISTIC ESTIMATE. (SENATOR LOURIE REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
Q AND YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT A FAMILY COURT JUDGE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ENCOUNTER, I EXPECT?
A YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO ANSWER THAT AFFIRMATIVELY, ALTHOUGH EVERY TIME I GO INTO FAMILY COURT, IT SEEMS AS IF THERE ARE ALWAYS NEW AND NOVEL ISSUES COMING BEFORE THE COURT FOR TRIAL, BUT I THINK I'VE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH PROBABLY MOST OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WOULD BE HEARD IN FAMILY COURTS.
Q AND YOU'VE ALSO HAD A NUMBER OF DOMESTIC APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT OR COURT OF APPEALS?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND JUDICIALLY, YOU HAVE BEEN MAGISTRATE IN SALUDA COUNTY IN THE PAST. THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO, BUT YOU SERVED THERE, AND I ASSUME YOU HELD JURY TRIALS AND WHATNOT?
A YES, SIR, I DID, AND I ALSO SERVED AS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE FOR THE TOWN OF BATESBURG, FOR APPROXIMATELY SEVEN YEARS.
Q WHAT IS YOUR PLAN -- SINCE OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE UNCONTESTED IN THIS RACE, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS TO NOT DEVELOP THE CONDITION WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT HERE TODAY OF ROBITIS, WHICH SOMETIMES AFTER A PERIOD OF YEARS, AND BOREDOM, AND WHATNOT, CAN SET IN WITH SOME PEOPLE? A FEW, NOT MANY.
(REPRESENTATIVE HODGES REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
A REGRETFULLY, I HAVE BEEN IN SOME COURTROOMS WHERE I PERCEIVED A ROBISM SYNDROME SUCH AS THAT HAS SET IN. I WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO ME. I CAN'T CONCEIVE THAT IT WOULD. IF IT DOES, I THINK I'VE GOT SOME GOOD FRIENDS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WOULD SIT ME DOWN AND TELL ME THAT. I BELIEVE IN TREATING OTHER PEOPLE AS WE WANT TO BE TREATED OURSELVES.
Q WELL, I THINK, SINCE I'VE KNOWN YOU -- I WOULD CONFESS, OF COURSE, TO BEING A FRIEND -- I'VE OBSERVED THE WAY YOU'VE HANDLED THE TOWN OF RIDGE SPRING, IN MAKING THE COMMUNITY HARMONIOUS BY BRINGING IN ALL SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BLACK AND WHITE, YOUNG AND OLD, TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF HAVING THE BEST TOWN YOU CAN HAVE. I WOULD THINK THAT QUALIFICATION OR THAT CRITERIA WOULD SERVE YOU WELL, AS A JUDGE.
A I APPRECIATE THAT. MANY OF THE COMFORTS WE HAVE THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, EXCEPT FOR HELP FROM OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. IT'S A CREDIT TO YOU.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE --
CHAIRMAN POPE: -- OR DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. SAWYER?

Q YOU PRACTICE IN SALUDA?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES LARRY GENTRY REALLY TRY TO THROW HIS WEIGHT AROUND THERE, LIKE THEY SAY?
A LARRY IS A FINE PERSON. HE'S RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM ME, AND WE'RE THE VERY BEST OF FRIENDS. IT'S IRONIC, I WAS AT LAW SCHOOL WITH SENATOR POPE; I WAS IN GRADE SCHOOL WITH REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY; AND I CONSIDER THEM TWO OF MY CLOSEST PERSONAL FRIENDS. BOTH OF THEM, EXCELLENT ATTORNEYS.
Q WELL, ON ANOTHER OCCASION, WE MIGHT PUT YOU UNDER OATH --
(LAUGHTER.)
SENATOR LOURIE: NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I JUST WANT TO ADD, OF COURSE, WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT MR. SAWYER HAS FILED FOR THIS SEAT. I'VE BEEN IN COURT, WITH MR. SAWYER, AND AGAINST MR. SAWYER. I KNOW HIS CHARACTER, HIS INTEGRITY. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE UTMOST, AT A HIGH LEVEL, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY -- OF COURSE, AS MR. SAWYER SAID, WE ARE PERSONAL FRIENDS -- I AM PLEASED THAT HE'S DECIDED TO BE A JUDGE. HE WILL BE A GREAT ONE.
WITNESS: I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS VERY MUCH, MR. GENTRY.
SENATOR LOURIE: THAT PROBABLY DISQUALIFIES HIM.
(LAUGHTER.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. SAWYER, THANK YOU, AND WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US. ON A PERSONAL NOTE, WE ARE GLAD THINGS WORKED OUT WELL FOR YOU, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO AN OUTSTANDING JOB ON THE BENCH.
SENATOR LOURIE: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION, DO YOU?
WITNESS: NO OPPOSITION.
SENATOR LOURIE: WISH YOU WELL.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SENATOR LOURIE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT JUDGE IS WILLIAM CAMPBELL, WITH THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #4.

WHEREUPON, WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE LAST SCREENED IN MARCH OF '88. YOU'VE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
Q DO YOU NEED TO MODIFY IT IN ANY WAY?
A THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON ITEM SEVEN. THERE'S A MISSPELLED WORD. IT SAYS "DONCE" AND IT SHOULD BE "DANCE." OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE NO CORRECTIONS TO BE MADE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THAT.

1. William M. Campbell, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
1823 Heyward Street P. O. Box 192
Columbia, SC 29205 Columbia, SC 29202

2. He was born in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 11, 1938. He is presently 53 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Susan Elizabeth Hilfer on June 12, 1982. He was previously divorced on February 7, 1977, William M. Campbell moving party; The Court of First Instance of Santo Domingo, incompatability; and divorced on February 23, 1981, Diane Follingstad, Richland County Family Court, adultery.

5. Military Service: None
6. He attended The Citadel, 1957 and 1958, left because of disinterest in academic affairs; the University of South Carolina, 1960-1962, B.S., Marketing; the University of South Carolina 1964 and 1965, MBA; the University of South Carolina, 1975-1977, Juris Doctor.

7. In college he participated in Kappa Alpha (RHO Chapter), 1960-1962, and was Chairman of the Student Union Dance Committee, 1961.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended 17 Judicial Continuing Legal Education Seminar and 5 Continuing Legal Education Seminars.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

(1) Faculty - New Family Court Judges Seminar, 1989 and 1991;
(2) Lecturer on Family Law - Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Staff Attorneys and Law Clerks, Judicial Conference - 1987, 1988 and 1989;
(3) Judge - J. Woodrow Lewis Appellate Advocacy Competition, 1984;
(4) Judge - National Trial Competition, 1992;
(5) Lecturer - New Clerks' Training Seminar, 1989;
(6) Coordinator - Family Law JCLE, November, 1989;
(7) Faculty - Family Law JCLE, 1987 and 1989;
(8) Coordinator - Fifth Judicial Circuit Bar CLE;
(9) USC School of Law Trial Practicum twice in the late 1980's

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

December, 1977 - September, 1978 Part-time legal researcher for law firm of Sanders & Quackenbush

October, 1978 - March, 1982 Special Prosecutor, Fifth Circuit (SC) Solicitor

April, 1982 - June, 1983 Private practice as a partner in the law firm of Cotty & Campbell

20. Judicial Office:
June, 1983 - present: Judge of the Family Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit; elected

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Marsh v. Hancock, 288 S.C. 341, 342 S.E. 2d 607.
Case involved the issues of (1) whether foreign law must be specifically pled in order for a defense to be raised under the foreign law, and (2) whether South Carolina law provides for retroactive modification of a child support order.

(b) Morris v. Morris, 295 S.C. 37, 367 S.E. 2d 24.
The major issue in this case involved (1) the determination of whether the statutory bar of alimony applied in a divorce action litigated subsequent to the entry of an order of separate maintenance and support, and (2) whether trial court had subject matter jurisdiction on alimony issue which was on appeal.

(c) Estate of Barr v. Carson, 300 S.C. 171, 386 S.E. 2d 791.
Case involved the determination of whether delivery of stock certificate had occurred as required by statutory law.

(d) Whetstone v. Whetstone, Docket Number 83-DR-40-4150.
This matter had as its genesis a 1982 Family Court Action. The matter has been in litigation continually since that time. The complexity of both the legal and factual aspects are of note. Currently on appeal.

(e) Maloney v. Maloney, Docket Number 85-DR-40-0450.
This matter involved matters of considerable financial complexity. The tax consequences of the division of assets represented a significant share of the time required to try the case. Subsequent to the hearing but prior to the filing of an order, the Equitable Apportionment Act of 1986 was enacted which required that the record be reopened to consider matters affected by the provisions of the new statute.

The cases referenced above are noted primarily for their legal significance. Equally important is the multitude of cases involving adoption, abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, contempt, juvenile criminal matters, custody and other issues. In many instances, the factual determinations addressed in these cases are vastly more compelling than the legal considerations in the cases referred to in (a) - (e).

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, 1975-1983

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

1962-1964 IBM Corporation - Sales
1966-1967 Acting Head of Data Processing Department, Midlands Tec
1967-1969 Carolina Equipment & Parts and Turner Coleman, Inc. - Sales
1969-1975 Manager of Administrative Services, Richtex Corporation
1974-1980 Environmental Research Center, Inc. - Environmental consulting
Occasional personal environmental consulting - 1980 - June, 1983

28. Arrested:
1960 Hunting on posted land; mailed $25 fine to Magistrate
1964 Violation of watercraft regulations (insufficient number of flotation devices onboard boat); $25 fine
1987 Forfeited $200 bond on charge of hunting doves over a baited field

29. In 1978, the South Carolina Tax Commission inquired into the delayed filing of state tax returns. No penalty except the usual civil penalty and interest for late filing.

31. Sued: For divorce as described in 4(b). Otherwise, no.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1987 by Dr. James C. Owens, 1338 Taylor Street, Columbia, South Carolina. He had seen Dr. Owens on a continuing basis since 1987.

35. He wears glasses for farsightedness and mild astigmatism. He has a mild high frequency hearing loss.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Richland County Bar Association; Association of Family Court Judges

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Ducks Unlimited; Sierra Club; Columbia Sailing Club; Fripp Island Club; Hobie Fleet 141; Friends of the Library, Richland County, South Carolina; Laubach Society; GreenPeace Society

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Joel A. Smith, III, President
NationsBank
P. O. Box 448, Columbia, SC 29202

(b) Richard A. Harpootlian, Solicitor
P. O. Box 1987, Columbia, SC 29202

(c) Harry W. Davis, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 213, Columbia, SC 29202

(d) Robert L. Gandy, Jr.
150 Cheshire Drive, Columbia, SC 29210

(e) Barbara A. Scott, Clerk of Court
Richland County
P. O. Box 1781, Columbia, SC 29202

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT THAT NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION LIKEWISE REPORTS NO RECORD OF ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RECORDS AND COLUMBIA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, AND SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF RICHLAND COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. SO YOU'RE IN A SMALL GROUP OF JUDGES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUED. YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD, OF COURSE?
A YES, IT IS.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. WE HAVE NOTED YOU FILED AN ADDENDUM IN THE REPORT.
A I DID, SENATOR. I HAVE HAD TO FILL OUT FOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS -- OR FIVE FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS OR STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS. AND IN FILLING OUT THE ONE FOR THIS COMMITTEE, OR THE TWO FOR THIS COMMITTEE, I USED THE FIGURES FOR MY SALARY OFF THE W-2 FORMS WHICH WERE PROVIDED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH STEVE GOOD, WHO IS THE FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, WHEN I WAS WORKING ON THE OTHER TWO THAT I HAVE TO FILL OUT FOR THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AND INQUIRED OF HIM ABOUT THE W-2 WAGES. HE INFORMED ME THAT THAT FIGURE WHICH APPEARS ON THE W-2 STATEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RETIREMENT FUNDS WHICH ARE WITHHELD FROM OUR SALARY. HE GAVE ME THE SALARY FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES, WHICH IS THE SAME STATEWIDE, AND I SENT IN THE, I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE CORRECTION. BUT I WANT TO CALL IT TO THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION THAT THE FIGURE THAT I PUT DOWN WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE SALARY. THE SALARY WAS LESS THE RETIREMENT.
Q IT WAS ONLY $140, WASN'T IT?
A NO, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT $3,000.
Q OH, EXCUSE ME, $3,140.
A YES, SIR. AND THE SALARY STATEWIDE FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES IS $77,943.84, WHICH IS WHAT I GOT FROM MR. GOOD. THE FIGURE WHICH I PLACED ON THE DOCUMENT WAS THE W-2 FIGURE, WHICH I GOT. THE $77,000 NEVER APPEARS ANYWHERE ON THE W-2 FORM WHICH WE GET FROM THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. SO IN BRINGING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION, I ALSO INCLUDED THE OFFICE EXPENSE FIGURE, WHICH ARE THE FUNDS WE GET -- A MONTHLY FIGURE OF $250 THAT WE GET -- FOR OFFICE EXPENSES. AND I DID NOTE THAT IN THE PAST, THOSE FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE NON-TAXABLE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, RECENTLY, BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE'S INTERPRETATION, WHICH HAS CHANGED THAT. SO I ALSO INCLUDED THAT. THAT IS ALSO THE SAME FOR ALL FAMILY COURT JUDGES.
Q THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH YOUR NET WORTH STATEMENT AND THE CREDIT REPORTS. WE HAVE ONE COMPLAINANT: MRS. DRENTEN. WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW HER -- THE PROCEDURE IS, JUDGE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS NOW, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO LET HER STATE WHAT THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT IS. WE'VE GOT SOME DOCUMENTS SHE HAS SUBMITTED AND WHATNOT, THAT WE'VE READ, BUT WE'RE GOING TO LET HER STATE THE ISSUES SHE HAS; AND WHEN SHE CONCLUDES, AND WE'VE ASKED HER QUESTIONS, THEN, YOU WILL PRESENT ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE IN REBUTTAL TO THE INFORMATION SHE FURNISHES US.
A OKAY.
Q JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ROLE OF A JUDGE SHOULD BE IN SETTLEMENT, JUST TALKING IN TERMS OF GENERAL QUESTIONS?
A WELL, I THINK JUDGE BURNSIDE AND I PERHAPS HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW ON SETTLEMENTS. MY POSITION IS, IF THE LAWYERS ARE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING SETTLEMENT WITH ME, THEN I AM WILLING TO ASSIST THEM IN TRYING TO SETTLE THE CASE. JUDGE BURNSIDE IS HIGHLY CORRECT: PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT, AND IT'S CERTAINLY UNFAIR AND IMPROPER FOR A JUDGE TO TRY TO FORCE A SETTLEMENT ON LITIGANTS. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPROPER. I THINK I'VE BEEN OF ASSISTANCE IN HELPING TO SETTLE A NUMBER OF CASES. I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT, AND I THINK I CAN TELL WHEN THE LAWYERS WANT TO TRY TO SETTLE A CASE. AND THEY'LL LET YOU KNOW. AND I'M HAPPY TO ASSIST IN DOING THAT. IT'S OBVIOUS, MANY TIMES, YOU REACH A POINT WHERE THE JUDGE AND THE LAWYERS UNDERSTAND THAT, REALLY, THE PARTIES ARE SO FAR APART, THERE'S NO SENSE IN GOING ANY FARTHER WITH A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. YOU JUST TRY TO CATCH THOSE INSTANCES, AND YOU DO WHAT YOU CAN PROPERLY DO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I WILL -- LET ME STATE, THOUGH, IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, ON ALL THE SETTLEMENTS I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN, THAT THE LITIGANTS, WHEN THEY DECIDE THEIR OWN FATES, ARE MUCH MORE PLEASED WHEN THEY WALK OUT OF THE COURTROOM THAN THEY PROBABLY WOULD BE IF THE JUDGE HAD MADE THE DECISION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE CAMPBELL?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU. WE WILL, IN A MOMENT, LET YOU COME BACK AND ADDRESS US AGAIN.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MS. ANITA DALE DRENTEN. IF YOU WOULD, COME DOWN TO THE END.

WHEREUPON, ANITA D. DRENTEN, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q NOW, ONE THING YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMEMBER: THE COURT REPORTER IS WAY UP HERE, SO JUST SPEAK UP.
A OKAY.
Q AND YOUR FULL NAME IS ANITA DALE DRENTEN?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND YOUR ADDRESS SHOWN HERE IS 147 SUMMERLAND AVENUE, BATESBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT. MS. DRENTEN, I'M GOING TO JUST LET YOU TELL US WHY IT IS YOU'RE HERE. WE HAVE YOUR AFFIDAVIT, AND WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE COMPLAINT ARISES OUT OF AN ACTION --AND YOU CORRECT ME, IF I'M WRONG -- ARISES OUT OF AN ACTION THAT'S CAPTIONED CLINTON A. HUGHES VERSUS ANITA D. DRENTEN; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT ACTION WAS FILED IN KERSHAW COUNTY WITH THE DOCKET NUMBER 89-DR-28-587.
A I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DOCKET NUMBER IS, BUT YES.
Q I'M JUST READING FROM THE MATERIAL YOU GAVE US. YOU GO AHEAD, IF YOU WOULD, AND RELATE TO US WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
A FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS FILED IN KERSHAW COUNTY, AND I WAS A RESIDENT OF LEXINGTON COUNTY, AND THE PROPER VENUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEXINGTON COUNTY.
Q AND THE COMPLAINT -- CLINTON HUGHES WAS YOUR EX-HUSBAND?
A RIGHT.
Q AND HE WAS REPRESENTED BY CHARLES CUSHMAN OF CAMDEN?
A CORRECT.
Q AND YOU WERE REPRESENTED -- EXCUSE ME -- BY WHOM?
A WILLIAM BAUER.
Q OKAY. WE HAVE A COMPLAINT THAT SHOWS THAT MR. CUSHMAN'S COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF YOUR EX-HUSBAND IS DATED SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER '89. I CAN'T READ THE DATE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A SINGLE DIGIT. AND WE ALSO HAVE A PENDENTE LITE ORDER THAT IS DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1989, ABOUT -- SAY -- A WEEK, OR SO, TEN DAYS MAYBE, AFTER THE COMPLAINT IS DATED; AND THAT IS SIGNED BY JUDGE WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL, JR. THIS IS THE ORDER -- IS THIS THE ONLY HEARING THAT JUDGE CAMPBELL HELD IN YOUR CASE?
A YES, IT IS. THE TEMPORARY --
Q THE PENDENTE LITE TEMPORARY HEARING?
A RIGHT.
Q GO AHEAD AND TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT THE NATURE OF YOUR COMPLAINT IS.
A FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS A PICKUP ORDER FROM LEXINGTON COUNTY ON MY DAUGHTER, AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN KERSHAW COUNTY AND LEXINGTON COUNTY WAS TOLD TO IGNORE THOSE ORDERS AND TO LEAVE MY DAUGHTER STATUS QUO.
Q WAS TOLD BY WHOM?
A JUDGE CAMPBELL.
Q YOU MEAN, VERBALLY? OR IN WRITING?
A VERBALLY.
Q ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU A FEW OF QUESTIONS. I'M NOT CUTTING YOU OFF; I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE SCENARIO HERE. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU HAD CUSTODY OF YOUR DAUGHTER, CANDACE?
A YES.
Q AND FOR SOME REASON, YOU AGREED TO LET YOUR HUSBAND HAVE CUSTODY OF HER?
A NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q BUT IN ANY EVENT, HE OBTAINED HER CUSTODY SOMEHOW, AND ENROLLED HER AT LUGOFF-ELGIN HIGH SCHOOL; RIGHT?
A I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "CUSTODY." SHE WAS VISITING HIM FOR A WHILE.
Q AND DURING THAT VISIT, SHE WAS ENROLLED AT LUGOFF-ELGIN HIGH SCHOOL?
A CORRECT. WE HAD A PREDETERMINED VISIT ARRANGED.
Q DID YOU DISAGREE THAT SHE SHOULD BE GOING TO LUGOFF-ELGIN?
A NO.
Q OKAY. DID SHE ENROLL THERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR?
A NO. IT WAS IN OCTOBER.
Q IT WAS IN OCTOBER. AND THEN, SHE WAS GOING TO SCHOOL THERE, AND LIVING WITH YOUR EX-HUSBAND, CLINTON HUGHES?
A SHE HAD BEEN THERE APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH.
Q SO SHE HAD BEEN GOING TO SCHOOL THERE A MONTH. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A I HAVE TWO OTHER CHILDREN, AND THEY WERE SCHEDULED TO GO TO A VISIT WITH THEIR FATHER, AND THEY JUST ABSOLUTELY REFUSED, AND FINALLY, I GOT THE REASONS WHY. AND THAT'S STATED IN EXHIBIT "A." THAT'S MY AFFIDAVIT. THAT'S SOME OF THE REASONS WHY.
Q GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHAT THOSE --
A THEIR FATHER WAS USING ALCOHOL EXCESSIVELY IN FRONT OF THEM, AND HE ALMOST BURNED THE HOUSE DOWN. HE WAS DRIVING AROUND UNDER THE INFLUENCE, AND THEY WERE TERRIFIED OF THAT. HE WAS USING DRUGS IN FRONT OF THEM, MARIJUANA -- THAT'S ONE OF THEM, THAT I KNOW -- AND SHOWING THEM SEXUAL IMPLEMENTS, GIVING THEM SEXUAL STORIES, CONDOMS TO MY TEN-YEAR-OLD SON. AND HE ALSO TOLD MY TWO OTHER CHILDREN THAT HE APPROVED OF CANDACE -- WHO IS 13-1/2 -- BEING SEXUALLY ACTIVE, AND IF SHE WANTED TO DO IT IN HIS HOUSE, THAT WAS FINE WITH HIM. AND WHEN THEY STARTED TELLING ME THESE STORIES, I KNEW I HAD TO BRING HER HOME IMMEDIATELY.
Q AT THAT POINT, YOU WANTED TO TAKE HER AWAY FROM LUGOFF-ELGIN, AWAY FROM HER FATHER, AND BRING HER BACK TO LEXINGTON?
A CORRECT.
Q AND SO YOUR HUSBAND, OR EX-HUSBAND GOT WORD OF THAT AND HE BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST YOU, TO CHANGE CUSTODY?
A I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
Q BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION SHE WAS ENROLLED AT LUGOFF-ELGIN AND RESIDING WITH YOUR EX-HUSBAND.
A FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS, YES.
Q AND AFTER THIS SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE FILED, OF COURSE, YOU CONTESTED IT BY HIRING YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. BAUER; RIGHT?
A IT WAS ARRANGED THAT I WAS GOING TO PICK HER UP. EVERYBODY AGREED. THE FATHER AGREED; EVERYBODY AGREED. AND WHEN I WENT TO PICK HER UP, HER AUNT SAID SHE HAD RUN AWAY. SO I REPORTED THAT TO THE KERSHAW COUNTY OFFICIALS, AND THEY SAID I WOULD HAVE TO COME TO LEXINGTON COUNTY AND FILE A PICKUP ORDER.
Q BUT WHILE ALL OF THIS WAS PENDING, YOUR HUSBAND SUED YOU FOR A CHANGE OF CUSTODY -- YOUR EX-HUSBAND.
A BEFORE I WAS EVER SUMMONED, I HAD ALREADY HAD THE PICKUP ORDERS ON HER.
Q YES, BUT WHILE THIS CONFUSION WAS EVOLVING, BEFORE YOU COULD RESOLVE IT, YOUR HUSBAND -- OR EX-HUSBAND SERVED YOU WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, CHANGING THE CUSTODY?
A YES.
Q AND HE DID IT IN KERSHAW COUNTY?
A CORRECT.
Q AND THE COMPLAINT SAYS YOU LIVE IN LEXINGTON, SO HE KNEW WHERE YOU LIVED AND HE ALLEGED WHERE YOU LIVED.
A YES.
SENATOR LOURIE: WHERE WAS THE FAMILY COURT ACTION ORIGINALLY BROUGHT?
WITNESS: LEXINGTON COUNTY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: LEXINGTON, IT WAS, ORIGINALLY.
SENATOR LOURIE: ALL RIGHT.
Q THE DIVORCE ACTION WAS IN LEXINGTON.
A CORRECT.
Q BUT WHEN YOUR ATTORNEY BAUER FILED YOUR ANSWER OR COUNTERCLAIM OR WHATEVER HE FILED, HE ALLEGED THAT VENUE SHOULD BE IN LEXINGTON; CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q AND JUDGE CAMPBELL HELD A TEMPORARY HEARING -- WELL, ACCORDING TO THIS, IT WAS NOVEMBER 8TH -- ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED?
A YES.
Q AND IN THAT ORDER, HE HOLDS THE QUESTION OF VENUE IN ABEYANCE, DOES HE NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND ULTIMATELY, VENUE WAS CHANGED TO LEXINGTON?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND ANOTHER JUDGE -- EXCUSE ME, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF. JUDGE CAMPBELL FOUND THAT THE CHILD SHOULD BASICALLY STAY WITH YOUR EX-HUSBAND; CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q AND HE NOTED THAT VENUE -- THE QUESTION OF VENUE WOULD BE HELD IN ABEYANCE, SUBJECT TO ANOTHER HEARING. AND HE NOTED THAT THE FINDINGS IN THAT ORDER WOULD NOT PREJUDICE EITHER PARTY, WOULD NOT OPERATE AS PRECEDENT.
A THAT'S IN THE PENDENTE LITE ORDER.
Q OKAY. THEN YOU HAD ANOTHER HEARING. WHEN WAS THE NEXT HEARING? I HAVE IT HERE SOMEWHERE.
A THERE WAS NOT ANOTHER HEARING. IT WAS SCHEDULED.
Q OH, EXCUSE ME. I'VE GOT -- IN MARCH OF 1990, JUDGE CURETON SIGNED AN ORDER.
A CORRECT.
Q AND THAT WAS A CONSENT ORDER?
A CORRECT.
Q AND Y'ALL AGREED THAT YOUR HUSBAND WOULD KEEP CUSTODY?
A YES.
Q WELL, HOW WAS THE ORDER OF JUDGE CURETON ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THAT JUDGE CAMPBELL PASSED, OTHER THAN YOU CONSENTED TO IT?
A BECAUSE HE -- BECAUSE HE LEFT HER STATUS QUO IN BETWEEN THE TIME I CONSENTED, SHE REALLY DID BECOME INCORRIGIBLE. SHE WAS ALLOWED TO JUST RUN AWAY -- BECAUSE THAT WAS HER STATUS. IT WAS FILED WITH KERSHAW COUNTY, AND IT WAS FILED WITH LEXINGTON COUNTY, THAT SHE WAS A RUNAWAY.
Q BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU AGREED TO LET YOUR EX-HUSBAND KEEP HER, THOUGH, AT THE FINAL HEARING -- I MEAN, IN THE FINAL CONSENT ORDER.
A THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THAT. YES. I WAS PRESSURED INTO DOING THAT.
Q DID JUDGE CURETON HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESSURING?
A NO, JUDGE CURETON DID NOT.
Q DID YOU GO TO A HEARING AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THAT WAS YOUR AGREEMENT, OR DID HE JUST SIGN THE CONSENT ORDER?
A HE SIGNED THE CONSENT ORDER; THERE WAS NOT ANOTHER HEARING.
Q NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUDGE CAMPBELL'S PENDENTE LITE ORDER ALSO ORDERED THAT HARRY DAVIS WOULD BE THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DID HE FILE A REPORT SAYING YOUR EX-HUSBAND SHOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE CUSTODY?
A YES, HE DID.
Q THAT SEEMS TO SUPPORT WHAT JUDGE CAMPBELL SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
A MR. DAVIS VISITED THEIR HOME -- THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND THE SCHOOLS WHERE SHE HAD BEEN FOR THREE WEEKS. HE REFUSED TO VISIT MY HOME AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WHERE SHE HAD BEEN FOR SEVEN YEARS, OR HER FAMILY THAT SHE HAD BEEN AROUND FOR 14.
Q MR. DAVIS DIDN'T DO THAT?
A NO, HE DIDN'T.
Q HE DIDN'T COME TO LEXINGTON, AT ALL?
A NO, HE DIDN'T.
Q DIDN'T TALK TO THE TEACHERS OVER THERE AT THE SCHOOLS?
A NO, HE DID NOT. NO.
Q HAVE YOU DECIDED IN THE LAST -- WELL, IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS OR SO, SINCE JUDGE CURETON'S FINAL CONSENT ORDER. HAVE YOU MOVED ON A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS, TO ALTER THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT?
A I WAS GOING TO GET CUSTODY BACK OF HER, WHEN HER FATHER WAS INCARCERATED, ONCE AGAIN.
Q AFTER THE CONSENT ORDER?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS HE INCARCERATED FOR?
A DRUNKEN VIOLENCE IN THE HOME.
Q YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE JUDGE CAMPBELL SIGNED THE PENDENTE LITE ORDER, HE DID SOMETHING IMPROPER?
A I'M NOT ACCURATE ON THE LAWS. I THINK WHEN HE LEFT HER STATUS QUO, THAT WAS VERY IMPROPER. SHE WAS DETERMINED A RUNAWAY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS?

Q HOW WAS SHE DETERMINED A RUNAWAY? BY WHO?
A I WENT TO PICK HER UP FROM HER FATHER, AND IT WAS AGREED THAT -- ALL PARTIES AGREED -- THAT YES, SHE WOULD COME BACK HOME. THIS WAS ON NOVEMBER 1ST. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE AUNT'S HOUSE WHERE SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, THE AUNT SAID SHE HAD RUN AWAY. THE AUNT CALLED KERSHAW COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AFTER I GOT IN TOUCH WITH HIM. THEY DIDN'T FILE A REPORT THERE; THEY TOLD ME TO COME TO LEXINGTON COUNTY, BECAUSE THAT'S MY RESIDENCE AND THAT WAS HER OFFICIAL RESIDENCE, BECAUSE I HAD CUSTODY. AND AN INCIDENT REPORT WAS FILED AND PICKUP ORDERS WERE FILED IN LEXINGTON COUNTY. I'M NOT SURE -- I THINK IT WAS NOVEMBER 2ND THAT THESE ORDERS WERE FILED.
Q IS THAT THE SAME DATE THAT YOUR EX-HUSBAND STARTED AN ACTION IN FAMILY COURT, IN KERSHAW COUNTY? THAT SAME DATE?
A I'M NOT SURE WHAT DATE HE STARTED THE ACTION. I WAS SERVED PAPERS ON THE EVENING OF NOVEMBER 2ND.
Q RIGHT. IT'S DATED NOVEMBER 2ND. I'M LOOKING AT IT.
A OKAY.
Q SO ALL OF THIS WAS ON THE SAME DATE, WAS IT NOT?
A I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.
Q YOUR EX-HUSBAND STARTED AN ACTION IN FAMILY COURT, AND YOU INITIATED AN ACTION TO GET LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CLASSIFY YOUR DAUGHTER AS A RUNAWAY -- IS THAT CORRECT? -- ALL ON THE SAME DAY.
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT. I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS GOING TO START AN ACTION, THOUGH. IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT SHE WOULD BE AT THE AUNT'S HOUSE ON NOVEMBER 1ST AND SHE WOULD COME BACK HOME WITH ME.
Q WHAT DID YOU FINALLY -- WHY DID YOU CONSENT TO THE EX-HUSBAND HAVING CUSTODY OF HER?
A AFTER TALKING WITH SEVEN DIFFERENT LAWYERS, THEY ADVISED ME THAT THE JUDGE WOULD TAKE THE GUARDIAN'S REPORT; AND HE HAD ALREADY MADE HIS REPORT, AT THAT TIME. AND SHE HAD BECOME INCORRIGIBLE. SHE HAD TWO VISITS WITH ME, IN BETWEEN THE TIME OF MY CONSENT, AND SHE WAS DEFINITELY INCORRIGIBLE AT THAT TIME.
Q WHERE IS YOUR DAUGHTER NOW, THIS VERY DAY?
A I HAVE NO IDEA.
Q IS SHE LIVING WITH YOUR EX-HUSBAND?
A NO, SHE IS NOT. SHE'S LIVING WITH SOME FAMILY IN LUGOFF-ELGIN, SOMEWHERE.
Q WAS THAT ORDER BY A FAMILY COURT, OR DO YOU KNOW, ON THAT?
A NO, IT WASN'T. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. D.Y.S. HAS --
Q THEY'VE INTERVENED, IN OTHER WORDS, AND PLACED HER IN A FOSTER-CARE HOME?
A NO, NO, NO. EXCUSE ME. THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT EITHER. IT'S NOT A FOSTER HOME.
Q JUST SOME FRIENDS, OR YOU'RE NOT SURE?
A FRIENDS.
Q OF THE FATHER?
A PARDON?
Q OF THE FATHER?
A I BELIEVE IT'S A SCHOOLMATE. THE FAMILY OF A SCHOOL FRIEND.
Q AND HOW OLD IS YOUR DAUGHTER NOW?
A SHE'S 16 NOW. SHE WAS 16 IN JANUARY.
Q HAS SHE BEEN IN ANY TROUBLE RECENTLY, OR DO YOU KNOW?
A NOT RECENTLY.
Q HOW IS SHE DOING IN SCHOOL? DO YOU KNOW?
A NO, I REALLY DON'T. I CANNOT GET THE SCHOOL RECORDS FROM DOWN THERE; THEY WON'T RELEASE ANY INFORMATION TO ME.
Q SHE DOESN'T EVER CALL YOU, OR ANYTHING?
A OCCASIONALLY.
Q DO YOU THINK SHE'S HAPPY WHERE SHE IS, NOW?
A I'M NOT SURE IF SHE'S HAPPY OR NOT. I THINK SHE'S CONTENT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO. SHE HAS A LOT OF FREEDOM.
Q HOW ABOUT YOUR OTHER TWO CHILDREN? ARE THEY WITH YOU NOW?
A YES, THEY ARE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
(NO RESPONSE.)

Q MS. DRENTEN, YOU KNOW THIS IS THE ONLY HEARING WE EXPECT TO HAVE IN THIS MATTER, OF COURSE, AND WE WANT YOU TO -- WE HAVE YOUR MATERIALS; WE'VE READ IT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT OUT, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT, BECAUSE, AS I SAY, WE PROBABLY WILL NOT BE HAVING ANY FURTHER HEARINGS, OTHER THAN THE ONE TODAY.
A I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT, SINCE HE LEFT HER STATUS QUO, SHE WAS IN TROUBLE -- CONSTANTLY IN TROUBLE. SHE MISSED A WHOLE YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL THAT SHE HAS TO MAKE UP; AND UP UNTIL THAT POINT, SHE HAD NEVER BEEN IN ANY TROUBLE WITH SCHOOL, OR THE LAW, OR ANYTHING. AND AS FOR THE EMERGENCY HEARING, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EMERGENCY WAS ABOUT. I WAS GOING TO TAKE HER OUT OF THAT SCHOOL; YES, I WAS. BUT SHE HAD BEEN IN THIS SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR SEVEN YEARS, SO HER SURROUNDINGS WERE DEFINITELY NOT NEW.
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. GENTRY HAS SOMETHING.

Q LET ME ASK YOU JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHAT DO YOU ALLEGE THAT JUDGE CAMPBELL DID WRONG? WHAT DID HE DO WRONG?
A HE ALLOWED HER TO REMAIN STATUS QUO, AND THAT WAS A RUNAWAY STATUS. AND SINCE THAT TIME, SHE HAS RUN AWAY AT LEAST EIGHT TIMES -- AT LEAST.

Q IS THERE ANYTHING, OTHER THAN -- IT'S CLEAR, YOU'RE SAYING HE MADE A BAD DECISION. IS THERE ANYTHING, OTHER THAN THE FACT YOU THINK HE MADE A BAD DECISION, THAT HE DID WRONG?
A THAT WAS A PRETTY DRASTIC DECISION. AND IN THE TEMPORARY HEARING, HE STATES THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO DISTURB HER SCHOOLING. WELL, THERE IS A RAP SHEET TWO PAGES LONG, AND FOR HER TO BE LEFT WITH HER FATHER -- AND SHE HAS BECOME A JUVENILE DELINQUENT SINCE THAT TIME.
Q I'M NOT TRYING TO GUESS WHAT A JUDGE MIGHT THINK, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING THE EX-HUSBAND WAS A HORRIBLE PERSON ON THE ONE HAND, AND YET, YOU'RE SAYING YOU ALLOWED HER TO, QUOTE, "VISIT" HIM AND ENROLL HER IN SCHOOL IN THE SAME TOWN WHERE HE WAS LIVING AND LIVE WITH HER -- THOSE TWO THINGS DIRECTLY CLASH. YOU KNOW, EITHER HE'S A JERK OR HE'S A GOOD PARENT; YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T KINDA' BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
A I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS, UNTIL THAT TIME.
Q YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF HIS RAP SHEET?
A NO, I WASN'T.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MRS. DRENTEN. WE APPRECIATE IT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE CAMPBELL, YOU'RE FREE TO COME BACK --
WHEREUPON,
WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

Q -- AND TELL US ABOUT THIS MATTER.
A THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME JUST GIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE A CHRONOLOGY OF WHAT OCCURRED. NOW, THIS CHRONOLOGY COMES FROM THE COURT FILE AND MY LIMITED MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 1989. ON NOVEMBER 2ND, MRS. DRENTEN INITIATED A JUVENILE PETITION IN LEXINGTON COUNTY, ASKING THAT HER DAUGHTER BE RETURNED TO HER PARENTS. THE CHILD HAD RUN AWAY FROM HOME. THE CHILD HAD BEEN WITH MR. HUGHES SINCE SEPTEMBER 29TH, AND WAS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL IN KERSHAW COUNTY. ON THAT SAME DAY, MRS. DRENTEN WAS SERVED WITH A SUMMONS AND PETITION AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER. THAT WAS ON NOVEMBER 2ND. ON NOVEMBER 3RD, LEXINGTON COUNTY JUDGE MARION MYERS ISSUED A PICKUP ORDER. THE EMERGENCY HEARING IN THE KERSHAW COUNTY ACTION FILED BY MRS. DRENTEN'S EX-HUSBAND, MR. HUGHES, WAS SET FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON NOVEMBER 3RD. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM MR. DANA KRAJACK, WHO WAS CALLING ON BEHALF OF MRS. DRENTEN, AND IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT, I HAD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH MR. KRAJACK AND MR. CHARLES CUSHMAN, WHO REPRESENTED MR. HUGHES. MR. KRAJACK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PLEADED THAT MRS. DRENTEN DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE PREPARED FOR THE HEARING. I CONTACTED THE RICHLAND COUNTY CLERK OF COURT AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE HEARING TO BE HELD AT RICHLAND COUNTY SOME FIVE DAYS LATER, ON NOVEMBER 8TH, SINCE THERE WAS NO COURT IN KERSHAW COUNTY THAT WEEK. I PUT IT ON MY DOCKET. AT THE HEARING, MRS. DRENTEN WAS REPRESENTED BY MR. BAUER. MR. HUGHES WAS REPRESENTED BY MR. CUSHMAN FROM KERSHAW COUNTY. I HAD THE AFFIDAVITS FROM BOTH THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT; I NOTED THAT THE CHILD WAS ENROLLED IN SCHOOL IN KERSHAW COUNTY. THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS BY BOTH PARTIES ABOUT UNFITNESS AND THIS SORT OF THING. RATHER THAN DISTURB THE CHILD'S SCHOOLING -- BECAUSE I CONSIDERED THAT IF MR. HUGHES WAS SUCCESSFUL, ULTIMATELY, AND I TOOK THE CHILD OUT OF THE KERSHAW COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM AND PUT THE CHILD IN THE CUSTODY OF MS. DRENTEN, THE CHILD WOULD MOVE TO LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, BE REMOVED FROM KERSHAW, AND IF MR. HUGHES WERE SUCCESSFUL, THE CHILD WOULD GO BACK TO KERSHAW COUNTY. SINCE MRS. DRENTEN HAD AGREED FOR THE CHILD TO GO TO STAY WITH MR. HUGHES, I LEFT THE CHILD WITH MR. HUGHES. I APPOINTED MR. HARRY DAVIS AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM. I ORDERED MR. DAVIS TO REPORT TO ME WITHIN TEN DAYS. BECAUSE OF MRS. DRENTEN'S CONCERNS EXPRESSED TO ME BY HER LAWYER -- AND I THINK I REMEMBER THIS, THOUGH I CANNOT SWEAR TO IT; SHE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUSTODY MATTER -- I SET THE MATTER FOR A FINAL HEARING IN RICHLAND COUNTY, LESS THAN FIVE WEEKS AWAY, AND IT WAS ON THE DOCKET, AND IT IS STILL ON THE OLD DOCKET BOOK. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MATTER BEING HEARD IN RICHLAND COUNTY BECAUSE IT MIGHT OPERATE AS A CONVENIENCE TO THE PARTIES, BECAUSE THE KERSHAW DOCKET WAS CROWDED; LEXINGTON DOCKET, WE WERE NOT CERTAIN WHEN WE COULD HEAR IT; AND THE RICHLAND COUNTY DOCKET WAS CURRENT. THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND ONE OF THE LAWYERS WAS FROM RICHLAND COUNTY. ONE OF THE LAWYERS WAS FROM KERSHAW COUNTY. ONE OF THE LITIGANTS WAS FROM KERSHAW COUNTY. MRS. DRENTEN WAS FROM LEXINGTON COUNTY. MR. DAVIS REPORTED TO THE COURT ON THE ISSUE OF THE CHANGE OF VENUE, AND CONCURRED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE HEARD IN LEXINGTON COUNTY. HE DID THAT, I THINK, ON NOVEMBER 20TH. I ISSUED A WRITTEN ORDER ON NOVEMBER 16TH, WHICH RESULTED FROM THE NOVEMBER 8TH HEARING, WHERE I RULED FROM THE BENCH ON ALL MATTERS EXCEPT THE CHANGE OF VENUE. I WAS ON VACATION THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 20TH. JUDGE BYARS TOOK MR. DAVIS' WRITTEN REPORT ON THE ISSUE OF VENUE, AND HE SIGNED THE ORDER ON NOVEMBER 22ND, TRANSFERRING VENUE TO LEXINGTON COUNTY. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I UNDERSTAND MRS. DRENTEN'S CONCERN, AND IT MAY BE THAT I MADE THE WRONG DECISION. I DO NOT KNOW THAT. IN MANY CASES, I NEVER KNOW WHETHER I MADE THE RIGHT DECISION. BUT I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT, REGARDLESS OF MY PERFORMANCE IN THIS MATTER, THE SYSTEM WORKED AS WELL AS IT COULD EVER WORK. THERE WAS AN APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY HEARING; IT WAS SET. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT ENOUGH TIME WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT; ANOTHER HEARING WAS SET WITHIN FIVE DAYS. THE HEARING WAS HELD; THE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED; THE ORDER WAS SIGNED, AND A FINAL HEARING WAS SET FOR LESS THAN FIVE WEEKS. AND UPON THE GUARDIAN WHO WAS APPOINTED AT THE HEARING REPORTING ON THE ISSUE OF HIS POSITION ON THE MATTER OF VENUE, THE MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEXINGTON COUNTY WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY HEARING. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED, CHRONOLOGICALLY.
Q THIS MATTER CERTAINLY WAS HANDLED EXPEDITIOUSLY. I DON'T THINK I CAN RECALL A CASE WHERE AN EMERGENCY CASE LIKE THIS HAD SO MUCH ACTIVITY TAKE PLACE IN AS SHORT A PERIOD OF TIME, IN TERMS OF HEARINGS, PLEADINGS. TRULY EXPEDITED.
A WELL, SENATOR, IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE SOME SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS BY MRS. DRENTEN AND MR. HUGHES. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, IN A VERY BRIEF PENDENTE LITE HEARING, TO GET THE ESSENCE OF ALL OF THE TRUTH. AND THAT'S WHY MR. DAVIS WAS APPOINTED. HE'S AN EXPERIENCED MAN, A GOOD GUARDIAN.
Q DOES OUR SYSTEM PROVIDE ANY SAFEGUARDS THAT WEREN'T UTILIZED IN A CASE LIKE THIS? I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM, WHICH MR. DAVIS, OF COURSE, LIKE YOU SAY, IS PROBABLY 45, 50 YEARS OLD; HE'S BEEN AROUND JUVENILES AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR 18, 20 YEARS.
A MR. DAVIS HAD, CERTAINLY, THE OPTION OF REAPPEARING BEFORE THE COURT AND MAKING SOME REQUEST THAT THE PENDENTE LITE ORDER OUGHT TO BE ALTERED. THAT'S NOT A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE, BUT WE HAVE IT FROM TIME TO TIME THAT A GUARDIAN GETS INVOLVED; THE GUARDIAN APPROACHES THE COURT AND MAKES A MOTION FOR SOME ALTERATION. AND I THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE, ONCE THE GUARDIAN HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME INVESTIGATION.
Q AND IN THIS CASE, NEITHER PARTY AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE USE OF A PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST, OR ANYTHING? FOR THE CHILD, I MEAN? THAT WAS THE PARTIES' OPTION; THEY DID NOT UTILIZE THAT.
A I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. REGARDLESS OF THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I MADE THE RIGHT DECISION IN LEAVING THE CHILD WITH THE FATHER IN KERSHAW COUNTY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SYSTEM CERTAINLY OPERATED TO THE CHILD'S BENEFIT. IT OPERATED WITH DISPATCH IN THE MATTER.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF JUDGE CAMPBELL?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONDING TO MRS. DRENTEN.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN POPE: AND FAMILY COURT IS AN EMOTIONAL COURT. I MEAN, SOMETIMES IN CIRCUIT COURT, WHEN YOU HAVE A CASE ABOUT MONEY -- EVEN A LOT OF MONEY -- IT'S NOT AS EMOTIONAL AS A CASE INVOLVING THE BREAKUP OF A MARRIAGE OR THE CUSTODY OF A CHILD. IT'S QUITE TRAUMATIC. AND SEVERAL OTHER JUDGES HAVE COMMENTED TODAY, THEY REALLY DO NOT KNOW SOMETIMES WHETHER THEY'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING; ALL YOU CAN DO IS GIVE DUE PROCESS TO THE LITIGANTS, AND HOPE THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE COMES FORWARD TO ENABLE YOU TO MAKE A DECISION.
WITNESS: WELL, WE HOPE SO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
(WITNESS EXCUSED; 1:25 P.M.)

CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. THE LAST JUDGE OF THE DAY. YOU'VE BEEN PATIENT. THIS IS JUDGE PETER R. NUESSLE. FAMILY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1.

WHEREUPON, PETER R. NUESSLE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE NUESSLE, YOU WERE SCREENED MARCH OF 1988. HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION?
A THE ONLY MODIFICATION I WOULD MAKE WOULD BE ON NUMBER 21, THE SIGNIFICANT ORDERS OR OPINIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF I FAILED TO LIST IT, OR WHETHER IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT IN THIS. I THOUGHT THAT WHAT I SENT IN ALSO DISCLOSED THAT THE TOPP CASE WAS APPEALED AND AFFIRMED. THE D.S.S. VERSUS WILCOX WAS APPEALED AND AFFIRMED. THE ROE CASE IS PRESENTLY PENDING. I BELIEVE THAT IS STILL ON APPEAL AND PENDING. AHRENS WAS NOT APPEALED. THE ESPINOSA CASE WAS VERY RECENTLY APPEALED, AND I THINK THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS.
Q WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS, THEN, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, THEN. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Peter R. Nuessle
Home Address: Business Address:
1411 Moultrie Drive P. O. Box 1275
P. O. Box 1275 Aiken, SC 29802
Aiken, SC 29802

2. He was born in Rochester, New York on February 26, 1945. He is presently 47 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Barbara Marie Patterson on December 28, 1965. He has two children: Patterson Ryan, age 19 (student); and Cameron Stuart, age 18 (student).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the College of William and Mary, 1963-1967, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina, 1967-1970, J.D.

7. In college he was a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity, 1964-1967, and in law school he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Fraternity, 1967-1970.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended various continuing judicial education courses as required by the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:
He taught Business Law at Aiken Technical College from 1973 to 1979.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1970-1973 Associate - Garvin and Grant, Aiken, SC, general practice
1973-1978 Partner - Garvin, Grant, Fox, Nuessle, Zier and Burkhalter, Aiken, SC, general practice
1973-1979 Business Law Instructor, Aiken Technical College
1978-1979 Peter R. Nuessle, Attorney at Law, Aiken, SC, general practice
1979-1983 General Counsel, South Carolina State Housing Authority, Columbia, SC
1983-Date Family Court Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, Aiken, SC

20. Judicial Office:
From 1983 to date, he has held the office of Family Court Judge, Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. He was elected by the Legislature of South Carolina on February 2, 1983. Jurisdiction of this court is limited to domestic and juvenile matters.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Margaret W. Topp v. Stephen V. Topp, 82-DR-02-1647, Judgment Roll #66,116, Aiken County.

(b) Dorothy R. Roe v. Woodfor V. Roe, 89-DR-02-1637, Judgment Roll #79,994, Aiken County.

(c) Claire M. Ahrens v. Lester G. Ahrens, 87-DR-02-1285, Aiken County.

(d) Lillian Espinosa v. Ronald Espinosa, 88-DR-02-1288, Aiken County.

(e) Aiken County Department of Social Services v. David Wilcox and Renee Wilcox, 88-DR-02-1773, Aiken County.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: In 1980, he was a candidate for Aiken County Council, District 7.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1988 by Dr. Richard Magruder, 820 Saint Sebastian Way, Augusta, Georgia.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Aiken County Bar; Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity; Family Court Judges Conference

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Lay Reader, Chalice Bearer, Vestryman, and presently Senior Warden; Sigma Chi Fraternity; Houndslake Country Club

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Patricia E. Guglieri, Branch Manager
NCNB National Bank
P. O. Box 331, Langley, SC 29834

(b) John W. Harte, Esquire
Robert J. Harte, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 586, Aiken, SC 29802

(c) B. Henderson Johnson, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 2619, Aiken, SC 29802-2619

(d) Robert E. Taylor
3944 Wood Valley Drive, Aiken, SC 29803

(e) Robert M. Bell, Esquire
P. O. Drawer I, Langley, SC 29834

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES OF ANY KIND EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS, RECORDS OF THE AIKEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE RECORDS OF THE AIKEN CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF AIKEN COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, JUDGE?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT YOU HAVE FILED, AND THE CREDIT REPORTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. TWO PEOPLE HAVE ASKED TO BE PRESENT, AND I THINK BOTH OF THEM ARE PRESENT: LILLIAN ESPINOSA AND KATHERINE MCNEILL. WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURE AS FOR JUDGE CAMPBELL. WE'LL TALK IN GENERALITIES, NOW --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- AND THEN WE'LL LET THE LADIES STATE THEIR COMPLAINTS. AND WE PROBABLY WILL DEAL WITH THEM SEPARATELY: LET ONE COME AND TESTIFY, AND YOU RESPOND; THEN, DO THE OTHER ONE. I SUPPOSE THAT WOULD BE LOGICAL. JUDGE, WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY WITH REGARD TO GUARDING AGAINST BECOMING CALLOUSED ON THE BENCH, OR DEVELOPING ROBITIS, AS WE'VE HEARD THE WORD USED?
A WELL, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ONE THING. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO MEDICATION YOU CAN TAKE OR ANYTHING YOU CAN DO EVERY DAY TO MAKE SURE. I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO GUARD AGAINST IT, AND FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE, AND ATTEMPT TO BE COURTEOUS TO EVERYONE, AND FAIR. I TRY TO HOLD COURT IN A DELIBERATE, SOBER MANNER. I TRY TO BE CONSISTENT. YOU JUST HAVE TO TRY TO GUARD AGAINST IT, AND I WOULD HOPE SOMEONE WOULD TELL ME IF I'M NOT DOING THOSE THINGS.
(SENATOR LOURIE DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
A (CONTINUING) I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. YOU JUST HAVE TO BE AWARE OF IT, AND KEEP IT IN MIND, AND AVOID IT.
Q WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE SHOULD PLAY IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS?
A I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A JUDGE SHOULD REALLY ACTIVELY GET INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT. I TRY NOT TO DO THAT. BEFORE WE START A CONTESTED CASE, I ALWAYS ASK WHETHER IT HAS SETTLED OR WHETHER THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY FOR SETTLEMENT; MAYBE IF THE LAWYERS AND PARTIES COULD TALK A LITTLE LONGER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF THE LAWYERS AT THAT TIME EXPRESS A DESIRE TO TALK TO ME IN CHAMBERS, I TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE CASE. BASICALLY, I'LL LET EACH ONE PRESENT THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE AND, AT THAT POINT, I DON'T INDICATE WHAT I WOULD DO, DEPENDING ON WHO I BELIEVE; BUT BASED ON WHAT THEY TELL ME, I TRY TO SUGGEST SOLUTIONS -- YOU KNOW, "WILL THIS WORK? CAN THIS? WHY COULDN'T YOU DO THIS?" THOSE KINDS OF THINGS -- AND SEE IF THERE ISN'T SOME MIDDLE GROUND. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T GET INVOLVED IN IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A JUDGE, ESPECIALLY IN FAMILY COURT, TO IMPOSE HIS VIEWS OR PUSH THE PARTIES IN SETTLEMENT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE JUDGE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) JUDGE, IS THERE ANY COMMENT OR STATEMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE, PRIOR TO HEARING FROM THE FIRST WITNESS?
A NO, SIR. I JUST ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING Y'ALL ARE DOING. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- JUST ONE -- ONE THING CAME TO MIND. IN THIS PROCESS -- THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HAD SOMEONE ASK TO COME AND SPEAK IN OPPOSITION -- I FOUND -- BEING NOTIFIED OF THAT, WITH BOTH THE COMPLAINTS BEING FILED WITHIN HALF AN HOUR OF THE DEADLINE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE MATERIAL TO GO AHEAD AND RESPOND DIRECTLY, ALTHOUGH I THINK I'VE DONE THAT. IT TOOK A GOOD BIT OF EFFORT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE PERIOD FOR FILING COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE SHORTENED, BUT SIMPLY MOVED BACK A LITTLE BIT, SO THAT PEOPLE WHO FILE AT THE LAST MINUTE -- THAT WHOEVER IS BEING SCREENED HAS PERHAPS A WEEK, INSTEAD OF SOMETHING LESS THAN 48 HOURS.
Q I THINK THAT PROBABLY IS A FAIRLY GOOD SUGGESTION. IN THE PAST, JUDGE, WHEN WE HAVE HAD SORT OF COMPLICATED COMPLAINTS OR COMPLAINTS INVOLVING A LOT OF DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, RECESSED THE HEARING TO GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY. AND THIS COMMITTEE ALSO, IF NECESSARY -- WE DON'T DO IT AS A MATTER OF COURSE -- WE HAVE ALSO SUBPOENAED PEOPLE; RECESSED, HAVE ANOTHER HEARING, SUBPOENA PEOPLE WHO NEED TO BE HERE TO GET RECORDS OR WHATEVER. BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S A CASE THAT'S NOT VERY RECENT. YOU SOMETIMES HAVE TO GO TO RECORDS AND IT TAKES SOME TIME.
A I WILL SAY, MS. SATTERWHITE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO CALL MY OFFICE RIGHT ABOUT 12 O'CLOCK, AND I ARRANGED TO DRIVE UP HERE MYSELF DURING LUNCH, AND STILL FINISH MY DOCKET FOR THE DAY. BUT IT WAS KIND OF HURRIED.
Q YES, SIR. WE'LL LET YOU ADDRESS THIS AGAIN IN A MINUTE.
A YES, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MS. ESPINOSA, I THINK, WAS HERE FIRST. MS. LILLIAN D. ESPINOSA.

WHEREUPON, LILLIAN D. ESPINOSA, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP AS BEST YOU CAN, BECAUSE SHE'S A LONG WAY OFF AND SHE'S GOT TO TAKE THIS DOWN. GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
A WHERE I LIVE?
Q YES, MA'AM.
A IT'S 419 BRADLEYVILLE ROAD, APARTMENT 486-F, RIDGEVIEW MANOR, NORTH AUGUSTA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29841.
Q OKAY. MS. ESPINOSA, TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS THE NATURE OF YOUR COMPLAINT.
A OKAY. WELL, IT STARTED IN '89. IT STARTED IN '89, THAT I LET MY CHILDREN GO AND VISIT WITH THEIR FATHER IN NORTH CAROLINA. AND TO MY SHOCK, THEY DID NOT RETURN. I WENT UP THERE, AND HE HAD GOTTEN D.S.S. ON ME, AND SO I HAD TO GO IN FRONT OF A COURT AND D.S.S. AND GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE TROUBLE, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THE JUDGE GAVE ME MY CHILDREN BACK. HE HAD FALSIFIED ME FOR ABUSE AND NEGLECT. THERE WAS NO PROOF. THEY WENT THROUGH SOUTH CAROLINA D.S.S. AND EVERYTHING. THEY HAD NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. SO --
Q WHERE WAS THIS COURT HELD?
A IT WAS HELD IN NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE.
Q OKAY.
A SO, THEY -- SINCE MY DIVORCE, I HAVE HAD CUSTODY OF MY CHILDREN. SO THEY GAVE ME MY CHILDREN BACK. THEN THE JUDGE TOLD MY EX-HUSBAND, "IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE IT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO SOUTH CAROLINA," BECAUSE THE CHILDREN AND I WERE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA. WELL, WE HAD JUST GOTTEN HOME THAT DAY, AND MY EX-HUSBAND PASSED ME. HE WENT TO D.S.S., AND HE HAD COMPLAINED WITH D.S.S. ON ME, PUT ALLEGATIONS ON ME, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. D.S.S. CAME TO THE HOUSE THE NEXT DAY. IN FACT, BOTH OF MY CHILDREN WERE VERY UPSET. ONE WAS HOME FROM SCHOOL, SICK, FROM ALL THIS; AND THE OTHER ONE WAS IN SCHOOL. D.S.S. HAD WENT TO THE SCHOOL. THEN, THE LADY FROM D.S.S. HAD TOLD ME -- WHICH, I HAD NO INKLING AT ALL -- TOLD ME THAT MY EX-HUSBAND HAD BEEN CONTACTING D.S.S. IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, SINCE JANUARY OF '89. NOW, MY EX-HUSBAND WAS PUT IN COURT FOR CONTEMPT, IN MARCH, AND HE WAS FOUND IN CONTEMPT FOR MEDICAL BILLS AND EVERYTHING. AND D.S.S. CAME TO THE HOUSE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. WE WENT TO COURT. I DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING. WHEN YOU GET HIT WITH AN ORDER OF CUSTODY, YOU DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE IGNORANT TO THE FACT. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND NOTHING. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. I WAS VERY UPSET. THOSE ARE MY CHILDREN. I JUST COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND SO, I DIDN'T KNOW NO ATTORNEY. I HAD, YOU KNOW, NOTHING. SO, I FOUND AN ATTORNEY; SOMEBODY HAD GIVEN ME A NAME OF AN ATTORNEY NAMED RICHARD PIERCE. WELL, I --
Q WHERE DOES HE PRACTICE?
A SIR?
Q WHERE IS THAT LAWYER?
A AIKEN COUNTY. IN AIKEN.
Q OKAY.
A I WENT TO HIM, AND I WENT IN FRONT OF JUDGE INABINET ON SEPTEMBER 5TH OF '89. I WENT IN FRONT OF JUDGE INABINET. BUT BEFORE I EVER WENT IN THAT COURTROOM, THEY GAVE ME FIVE MINUTES TO DECIDE. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS HOW THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WORKED.
Q TO --
A TO DECIDE. THEY TOLD ME THAT THE JUDGE -- MY ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT THE JUDGE, JUDGE INABINET, AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, WHICH WAS MR. VEREENES, JIM VEREENES, HAD MADE UP THEIR MIND THAT THE KIDS WERE GOING TO GO WITH THEIR FATHER TEMPORARILY. IF I WOULD JUST GO TEMPORARILY, THEN WHEN THE FINAL HEARING CAME, THEN THAT WOULD SORT OUT EVERYTHING, WHO WOULD GET THE CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, AT THE FINAL HEARING. AND I WAS JUST SO SHOCKED, I DIDN'T KNOW -- YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR LAWYER, WHEN YOU'VE NEVER GONE THROUGH ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE.
Q EXCUSE ME. YOU SAID JUDGE INABINET?
A JUDGE INABINET, AT FIRST. THIS WAS FOR A TEMPORARY HEARING. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PAPERS -- AND I TOLD MY ATTORNEY, I SAID, "THIS SAYS `PERMANENT.'" HE SAID, "DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT'S TEMPORARY. YOU'VE STILL GOT TO GO AND FILE."
OKAY. COME JULY 31ST, I WENT IN FRONT OF JUDGE NUESSLE. WE PROVED ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE, BECAUSE JUNE 27TH -- I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE, WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT MY EX-HUSBAND WAS ORDERED A SUMMONS TO BE IN COURT FOR ABUSING MY CHILD, BRETT, THAT WAS 13. THREW HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL, SLAPPED HIM, DRAGGED HIM DOWN -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? -- ACROSS THE LAWN, AND EVERYTHING. I HAVE PAPERS RIGHT HERE, TO PROVE. AND IT WAS CALLED "DISCIPLINE." WE PROVED THAT TO JUDGE NUESSLE, AND HE SAID THE MOTHER SAID IT WAS JUST DISCIPLINE, BUT JUDGE INABINET GAVE ME MY CHILDREN FROM JUNE 27TH UNTIL THE FINAL TEMPORARY -- UNTIL THE FINAL HEARING. I WENT TO THE FINAL HEARING ON JULY 31ST, AND I HAD TWO PSYCHOLOGISTS; I HAD TWO GUARDIANS AD LITEM; I HAD WITNESSES. MR. ESPINOSA, WHICH IS MY EX-HUSBAND, HAD NO WITNESS. HE HAD AFFIDAVITS. AND I HAD TWO OTHER PEOPLE FROM NORTH CAROLINA, THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW, THAT MY SON HAD RAN AWAY, IN '89, RAN AWAY FROM HIS FATHER AND WENT IN A DRUG STORE. AND THESE TWO PEOPLE CALLED ME UP. ONE WAS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN NORTH CAROLINA; THE OTHER ONE WORKED FOR CHILD ABUSE -- I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEM; I MET THEM -- THAT FIRST DAY WAS THE DAY I MET THEM, WHEN THEY CAME IN. THEY CAME INTO THE COURTROOM. JUDGE NUESSLE ASKED HOW MY SON RAN AWAY; WHAT WAS HIS -- YOU KNOW, HOW WAS HIS REACTION? AND THEY TOLD HIM. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I EVEN KNEW THAT HE PICKED HIM UP LIKE A SACK OF POTATOES. AND THE BOY, MY SON, WAS SCREAMING FOR SOMEBODY TO HELP HIM. THEY DIDN'T TELL ME. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS HIS FATHER. THEY CALLED THE POLICE, AND EVERYTHING. IT WAS LIKE IT WAS -- IT WASN'T ACKNOWLEDGED AT ALL. THAT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. I HAVE TIM LEMMOND, WHICH IS THE PSYCHOLOGIST IN SOUTH CAROLINA THAT MY CHILDREN HAVE BEEN GOING TO SINCE JANUARY OF '89 -- OR '90, EXCUSE ME. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN '90. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IN MY PAPERS. HE HAD STATED THAT THE CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO LIVE WITH THEIR MOTHER; THAT THE CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE IN AIKEN COUNTY; THAT HE HAS DEALT WITH JUVENILES -- MY KIDS ARE AT THE AGES OF 13 AND 14 YEARS OLD -- HE'S DEALT WITH JUVENILES, AND CHILDREN, ABUSED, YOU KNOW, ET CETERA, AND HE SAID THAT -- HE EVEN STATED THAT -- BECAUSE I HAVE PART OF THE APPEAL HERE. HE EVEN STATED THAT THE COURT SHOULD GIVE SOME WEIGHT TO WHAT THE CHILDREN FEEL, WHAT THE CHILDREN WANT. WE ASKED -- EXCUSE ME. I NEED TO BACKTRACK, BECAUSE AFTER MY SON, BRETT, RAN AWAY, I HAD TO DISMISS MR. PIERCE AND I HIRED MR. TOM HUFF.
Q DID MR. HUFF REPRESENT YOU IN THE HEARING BEFORE JUDGE NUESSLE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT HAPPENED? THAT WAS THE PERMANENT HEARING?
A THAT WAS THE PERMANENT ONE.
Q WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT HEARING?
A WE WERE -- WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT HEARING. WE WERE PUTTING OUT EVIDENCE OF MY CHILDREN'S GRADES; WE WERE PUTTING OUT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. MR. HUFF HAD -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? -- HAD WROTE UP, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE MY SON HAD BEEN ABUSED BY HIS FATHER. WE HAD THAT. MR. HART, WHICH WAS MY EX-HUSBAND'S ATTORNEY, HAD ASKED JUDGE NUESSLE, ON TUESDAY, THAT THEY HAD TAPES OF ME. NOW, I WAS BEING TAPED TALKING TO MY CHILDREN ONCE A WEEK.
Q ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT VIDEO OR AUDIO TAPE?
A TO THIS DAY, I HAVE NO IDEA. THEY SAID "TAPES," AND THAT'S ALL THEY SAID, IN THE COURT. I HAVE NO IDEA. ALL I KNOW IS THAT I WAS BEING TAPED, AND I WAS NOT TOLD OR ANYTHING. THEN, WHEN I WAS TOLD -- LIKE, MY EX-HUSBAND SAID IN THE COURTROOM -- HE SAID, "MY LAWYER, MR. HART, TOLD ME TO TAPE HER BUT TO LET HER KNOW." MY EX-HUSBAND TOLD ME ONE TIME, AND MY SON, JASON -- WHO'S 15 TODAY -- HE TOLD ME TWO YEARS AGO, "MOMMY, YOU'RE BEING TAPED." AND ALL THE OTHER TAPES, I DON'T KNOW. THEY SAID THEY HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF TAPES. THEY ASKED ON TUESDAY, COULD THEY SUBMIT THE TAPES, IN COURT. JUDGE NUESSLE LET THEM BE SUBMITTED. ON WEDNESDAY, WE WENT --
Q THEY WERE INTRODUCED IN COURT?
A THEY WERE INTRODUCED IN COURT.
Q I THOUGHT YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE.
A HE SAID THEY COULD COME IN COURT. I NEVER SAW THEM. THEY COULD COME INTO COURT. IN FACT, MR. VEREENES STOOD UP THERE AND ASKED, BEFORE WE WERE DISMISSED TUESDAY -- HE ASKED JUDGE NUESSLE IF HE COULD PLEASE HEAR THE TAPES, THAT HE THINKS IT WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING, AND JUDGE NUESSLE SAID THAT WAS OKAY. AND WEDNESDAY, MR. HUFF AND I WALKED IN THE COURTROOM AND ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE, AND WHEN WE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR THE TAPES -- TO SEE IF THEY WERE TAMPERED WITH, OR SPLICED, OR SLICED, BY A PROFESSIONAL -- THEY SAID THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT, JUST FORGET THE TAPES.
Q SO THEY WERE NOT USED AT THE HEARING?
A NO, THEY JUST THREW IT OUT ON WEDNESDAY.
Q SO THE TAPES WEREN'T A PROBLEM, THEN, AS IT TURNED OUT?
A TO THIS DAY, I DON'T KNOW.
Q WELL, IF YOU DON'T KNOW --
A I MEAN, ONE DAY, THEY'RE IN THERE, AND ONE DAY, THEY'RE OUT.
Q WELL, TELL US HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTED THE TRIAL, THE TWO-DAY TRIAL. WHAT HAPPENED?
A WELL, THEY ASKED ME HOW MY CHILDREN -- HOW THEY WERE WITH THEIR RECREATION AND EVERYTHING. AND I TOLD THEM THAT ON TUESDAYS, THEY'RE IN A CHURCH GROUP; ON WEDNESDAY, WE GO TO BIBLE STUDY; AND ON SUNDAY, WE GO TO CHURCH TWICE A DAY, IN THE MORNING AND AT NIGHT. AND OF COURSE, I UNDERSTAND HOW ANOTHER ATTORNEY HAS TO BE TOWARD YOU. MR. HART WAS SAYING, WELL, "GOD" THIS, AND "GOD" THAT, AND IT WAS LIKE A JOKE. AND I LOOKED AT MR. HART WITH TEARS IN MY EYES, AND I WAS CRYING, AND MR. HART SAID, "WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT THE FEAR OF GOD IN THOSE CHILDREN," AND EVERYTHING, AND HE WAS LAUGHING. AND WHEN I LOOKED UP AT JUDGE NUESSLE, HE WAS LAUGHING.
Q WHAT WAS YOUR LAWYER DOING ABOUT THIS, IF HE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT WAS HAPPENING?
A MY LAWYER WAS LOOKING -- WELL, YOU KNOW --
Q HE COULD OBJECT.
A -- WHAT CAN YOUR LAWYER DO?
Q HE COULD OBJECT.
A EVERY TIME MY LAWYER WOULD OBJECT, JUDGE NUESSLE WOULD SAY "OVERRULED." FOR TWO DAYS, MR. HUFF GOT OVERRULED. EVERY TIME MR. HART WOULD BE LEADING THE WITNESS INTO AN ANSWER, AND MY ATTORNEY WOULD SAY "OBJECT," JUDGE NUESSLE WOULD SAY "OVERRULED." THAT WAS TWO DAYS, AND IT WAS LIKE FROM NINE O'CLOCK TO 6:30 AT NIGHT. HE PROMISED -- JUDGE NUESSLE PROMISED THAT HE WOULD TALK TO THE KIDS ON TUESDAY. HE PROMISED. HE TOLD MR. HART, HE SAID, "I WILL." TUESDAY, HE SAID, "I WILL TALK TO THE BOYS." THEY WERE 13 AND 14 YEARS OLD, AND HE WAS VERY MUCH AWARE THAT THEY WERE IN THAT COURTROOM.
Q DID HE EVER TALK WITH THEM?
A NO, SIR. HE NEVER TALKED TO THEM.
Q WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THIS FINAL HEARING?
A HE SAID CUSTODY GOES TO THE FATHER, AND THE MOTHER HAS NO VISITATION RIGHTS.
Q DID YOU HAVE AN ORDER -- I MEAN, A COPY OF THAT ORDER?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDER.
Q DID YOU SUBMIT IT TO US?
A NO. I HAVE A COPY THAT I CAN SUBMIT IT TO YOU.
Q OKAY. WE MAY WANT TO GET IT LATER, BUT DID YOU APPEAL FROM THE ORDER?
A I APPEALED FROM THE ORDER. I APPEALED IT, AND THEN IN NOVEMBER, MY SON, JASON, WHICH IS 15, HIS FATHER WAS ON A PLEASURE TRIP IN PUERTO RICO, AND THE KIDS WERE ALL ALONE. MY SON, BRETT, CALLED ME ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, AND MY SON WAS VERY SICK. HE COULDN'T EVEN WALK. HE SAID, "MOM, SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH JASON. HE CAN'T EVEN WALK. HE'S THROWING UP." SO I TOLD HIM TO GO NEXT-DOOR OR A COUPLE OF HOUSES DOWN -- BECAUSE THEY'RE IN NORTH CAROLINA, IN CHARLOTTE. I SAID, "GET A THERMOMETER." NOW, I AM GOING TO SCHOOL FOR NURSING, SO I DO KNOW ABOUT NURSING. AND NOT ONLY BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SCHOOL; I HAVE WORKED IN HOSPITALS BEFORE. I'VE WORKED AT THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA. AND I TOLD MY SON, BRETT, TO PLEASE GO NEXT-DOOR AND GET A THERMOMETER, AND SEE IF JASON HAS GOT A TEMPERATURE. HE CALLED ME BACK AND HE SAID THAT LINDA WOULD BRING THE THERMOMETER, AND AFTER SHE BROUGHT THE KIDS TO SCHOOL, THEN SHE CALLED ME AN HOUR AND A HALF LATER. THEN HE CALLED ME BACK; HE SAID, "MOM," HE SAID, "JASON IS REALLY SICK." HE GOES, "HE'S JUST LAYING THERE, AND HE WON'T MOVE." SO I SAID, "GIVE HIM SOME FLUIDS." SO I CALLED UP MR. HUFF. MR. HUFF SAID, "WHERE'S THE FATHER?" I SAID, "HE'S IN PUERTO RICO." THERE WAS NO NUMBER. THERE WAS NO PLACE TO GET HIM. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT PART OF PUERTO RICO, OR NOTHING. SO I DROVE TO NORTH CAROLINA. I WENT AND GOT MY CHILD. I WENT TO M.C.G., BROUGHT MY CHILD TO M.C.G. HE WAS DEHYDRATED; HE HAD BRONCHITIS. THEY HAD TO GIVE HIM THREE LITERS OF I.V. FLUIDS. AND THE COPS CAME TO MY DOOR A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, AND TOLD ME TO RETURN MY CHILD BACK -- MY CHILDREN BACK. MY SONS BOTH SAID THEY WERE NOT GOING BACK. MR. HUFF TOLD ME THE BEST THING WAS TO BRING THEM BACK, BECAUSE HE'D ALREADY FILED A MOTION FOR A COMPLAINT, FOR ME TO GET TEMPORARY CUSTODY OR PERMANENT CUSTODY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHILDREN WERE NEGLECTED, AND ALL BY THEMSELVES. THEY HAD TO COOK THEIR SUPPER. THEY HAD TO WASH THEIR CLOTHES. THEY HAD TO GET THEMSELVES READY FOR SCHOOL. THEY'RE UNSUPERVISED RIGHT NOW. THEIR FATHER IS SEPARATED FROM HIS WIFE; HAS BEEN SEPARATED FROM HIS WIFE A YEAR. A MONTH RIGHT AFTER HE GOT CUSTODY OF THE KIDS, HIS WIFE LEFT HIM. THEN HE CAME BACK IN DECEMBER -- SHE LEFT HIM IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR AND HAS NOT RETURNED. I'VE GOT TWO TEENAGERS RIGHT NOW THAT RAISE THEMSELVES. AND EXCUSE ME FOR CRYING. BUT THEY RAISE THEMSELVES RIGHT NOW. THEY STAY UP UNTIL 12 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, ONE O'CLOCK, BY THEMSELVES. IN DECEMBER, WHEN WE WENT IN FRONT OF JUDGE INABINET TO GET TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF MY CHILDREN, JUDGE INABINET TURNED THE VENUE OVER TO NORTH CAROLINA, AND NOW I HAVE TO GO FIGHT IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR MY TWO BOYS. AND I FEEL THAT'S UNJUST. I FEEL IT'S WRONG. I FEEL IT WAS -- THERE WAS NO MIDDLE, LIKE HERE'S THE JUDGE AND HERE'S THE FATHER AND HERE'S THE MOTHER. MR. VEREENES CAME TO MY HOUSE APPROXIMATELY MAYBE THREE TIMES. HE WENT TO MY EX-HUSBAND'S HOUSE ONE TIME, AND ATE SUPPER WITH THEM. THAT WAS ALL. HE'S NEVER CHECKED ON MY CHILDREN. MY CHILDREN HAVE TRIED TO CALL HIM. BRETT HAS TRIED TO CALL HIM, AND HE CAN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM, OR MR. VEREENES -- TO THIS DAY, WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE CHILDREN. RIGHT NOW, IT STANDS AS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY HAVE A GUARDIAN AD LITEM. WE KNOW THEY ARE UNSUPERVISED.
Q MS. ESPINOSA, THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM ACTUALLY, IN THIS CUSTODY FIGHT, APPARENTLY DIDN'T SIDE WITH YOU OR YOUR HUSBAND. THEY THOUGHT THE CHILDREN OUGHT TO BE PUT IN A FOSTER HOME.
A YES, SIR. FOR TEMPORARY.
Q THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE GUARDIAN THOUGHT THAT NEITHER OF Y'ALL WERE FIT PARENTS, FOR SOME REASON.
A THEY PUT -- THEY SAID, IN THE TRIAL -- THEY SAID -- BECAUSE I'VE GOT IT RIGHT IN HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT IN HERE. THEY SAID THAT THEY COULD BE PUT IN A FOSTER HOME TEMPORARILY, UNTIL THE FATHER AND I GO TO COUNSELING, GET COUNSELING, AND SITUATE -- OR GET OUR DIFFERENCES SITUATED, WITHOUT THE CHILDREN OR ANYTHING. BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, THE FATHER WOULD TELL THEM TO TELL ME THIS, AND IT WAS LIKE A CONSTANT BATTLE. AND LIKE I SAID, "YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME THIS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR DAD WANTS TO TELL ME, LET YOUR DAD TELL ME," AND I FEEL IF MR. ESPINOSA WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING TO ME, HE SHOULD DIRECT IT TO ME. DON'T GO THROUGH MY CHILDREN. I HAD SAID THAT.
Q THE ORDER HERE NOTES -- YOU MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT YOUR CONCERN THAT THE JUDGE HADN'T INTERVIEWED YOUR CHILDREN. HE SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THAT WASN'T APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE CHILDREN HAD ALREADY BEEN INTERVIEWED BY COUNSELORS AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND OTHERS; AND YOU KNOW, HE DECLINED TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AS RECITED HERE. AND HE ALSO NOTES THAT IN SEPTEMBER OF '89, YOU CONSENTED TO LET YOUR HUSBAND HAVE CUSTODY.
A THAT'S WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING. I WAS FOOLED. THEY GAVE ME FIVE MINUTES; THEY TOLD ME JUDGE INABINET HAD MADE UP HIS MIND; THEY TOLD ME THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM HAD MADE UP HIS MIND. I DIDN'T KNOW. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME -- I SAID TEMPORARY CUSTODY, AND MR. PIERCE SAID TEMPORARY CUSTODY. WHEN I GOT THE PAPERS, IT SAID PERMANENT.
Q THIS ORDER IS DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1990, AND YOU TOLD US -- I THINK YOU SAID YOU APPEALED FROM IT. DID TOM HUFF APPEAL IT FOR YOU, OR SOME OTHER LAWYER?
A I STILL HAVE TOM HUFF.
Q IT'S ON APPEAL NOW?
A IT'S OFF THE APPEAL RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE WANTED -- TOM TOOK IT OFF THE APPEAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN JASON WAS SICK, WE WENT IN FRONT OF JUDGE INABINET -- AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, BUT -Q YOU DISMISSED THE APPEAL, AND --
A DO YOU HAVE TO DISMISS AN APPEAL TO GO TO COURT FOR ANOTHER -- FOR NEGLECT? THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT NOTHING TO BE DISMISSED.
Q THAT'S A POSSIBLE SCENARIO. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HE COULD HAVE -- YOU THINK HE PERHAPS DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND IS FILING A NEW ACTION AGAINST YOUR HUSBAND?
A HE WAS FILING A NEW ACTION AGAINST MY EX-HUSBAND, DUE TO THE FACT OF MY SON BEING SO ILL.
Q WELL, WE WANT TO GET TO THE HEART OF -- THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THIS JUDGE IS QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION THAT HE'S HOLDING NOW, TO BE RE-ELECTED. AND IT'S CLEAR FROM WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE RESULTS OF HIS ORDER; YOU DON'T LIKE THAT HE DIDN'T INTERVIEW YOUR CHILDREN; AND YOU CERTAINLY DON'T LIKE, I GUESS, THAT HE SUSPENDED VISITATION BY YOU WITH THE CHILDREN, AND THAT HE KEPT CUSTODY WITH THE FATHER.
A ON ONE PAGE, THERE, SIR --
Q BUT OTHER THAN MAKING WHAT YOU THINK IS AN ERRONEOUS DECISION OR A BAD DECISION THAT WAS AGAINST YOU, WHAT DID HE DO THAT WAS IMPROPER AS A JUDGE?
A I NEVER THOUGHT A JUDGE WOULD LAUGH WITH ANOTHER ATTORNEY TO YOUR FACE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GOD. I MEAN, TO ME, I MEAN, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU FEAR, YOU FEAR GOD; YOU RESPECT GOD. I WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WAY. MY CHILDREN WERE BROUGHT UP THAT WAY. AND YOU DON'T LAUGH, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU'RE RAISING YOUR CHILDREN, AND I'M RAISING THEM THE RIGHT WAY. WHEN I HAD THEM, I WAS RAISING THEM THE RIGHT WAY, AND PUTTING THEM IN CHURCH AND PUTTING THEM IN ALL THESE LITTLE RECREATIONS WITH THE CHURCH. AND I HAVE MR. HART LAUGHING, AND I LOOK AND I HAVE JUDGE NUESSLE LAUGHING. I DON'T FEEL THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AT ALL.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION, MS. ESPINOSA, IF WE JUST MAKE A COPY OF THIS FOR OUR FILES, THIS ORDER? WE'LL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU. DO YOU MIND IF WE JUST COPY IT?
A NO, THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S FINE.
Q CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE? WE DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT WE DO HAVE OTHER TESTIMONY TO TAKE. IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, THAT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED ON?
A THERE'S A LOT, REALLY. THERE'S A LOT.
Q WELL, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RELITIGATE EVERY DISPUTE WITH YOUR HUSBAND, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COMMITTEE. WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS TO TAKE TESTIMONY ABOUT --
A RIGHT.
Q -- ANY HEARINGS YOU'VE HAD BEFORE JUDGE NUESSLE, AND ANYTHING YOU THINK REFLECTS ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS.
A WELL, WE GOT A BENCH ORDER; THEN WE GOT A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER; THEN, I GOT AN ORDER; THEN, I GOT A FINAL ORDER. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ORDER TO GO BY. I MEAN, WE WERE JUST GETTING ORDERS DOWN -- I DIDN'T SEE MY KIDS. WE WERE GETTING ORDERS DOWN LIKE CRAZY, AND THEN ON TOP OF IT, TOO, ON ONE PAGE OF THAT THAT YOU JUST TOOK -- ONE PAGE SAYS SUSPENDED SENTENCE; ON THE NEXT PAGE, IF YOU LOOK, I AM TO BE SUPERVISED BY MY CHILDREN FROM 10:00 TO 4:00. AND LET ME EXPLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE ONE THING, TOO, IS THAT I HAD THE WITNESSES. WE HAD THE COUNSELORS. IT MIGHT BE IN THAT PAPER, OR ONE OF THESE PAPERS, THAT JUDGE NUESSLE WROTE THAT I DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE COUNSELOR. MY COUNSELOR WAS THERE; SHE WAS NEVER PUT ON THE BENCH. SHE WAS THERE; SHE GAVE HER FOLDER TO MR. HART. JUDGE NUESSLE SAID, "IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO --" MR. HART SAID, "NO, THAT'S OKAY." THE COUNSELOR WALKED OUT. BUT YET, I WAS NOT COOPERATIVE WITH THE COUNSELOR. I WENT TO COUNSELING; I DID EXACTLY WHAT THE JUDGE ORDERED. AND THEN HE PUTS IN THERE THAT I DID NOT. HE PUTS IN THERE THAT MR. ESPINOSA DID NOT -- HE PUTS IN THERE, FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF MR. ESPINOSA -- MR. ESPINOSA DID NOT HAVE, NOT ONE WITNESS. NOT ONE WITNESS FOR HIM. FOR TWO DAYS, THEY WERE WAITING FOR THIS ONE GIRL TO COME. FOR TWO DAYS. BUT IF SHE'D COME, SHE WOULD HAVE HAD TO PERJURE HERSELF, BECAUSE SHE KNEW IT WAS A LIE; SHE KNEW SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN IN JAIL, BECAUSE SHE WAS LYING. SO HE TOOK THE ORDER FROM THE -- HE TOOK IT FROM THE AFFIDAVITS. I DON'T FEEL THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT AN AFFIDAVIT -- WHAT I ALWAYS THOUGHT IS A PERSON HAS TO BE THERE, NOT JUST FROM AN AFFIDAVIT. I MEAN, WE HAD FOUR PROFESSIONALS THERE, AND HE JUST OVERLOOKED THEM. MY BOYS 13 AND 14 YEARS OLD, GOING ON 14 AND 15 -- EXCUSE ME -- 13 AND 14 -- 14 AND 15, YEAH, GOING ON, GOING UP THERE. I NEVER EVEN GOT TO TALK TO MY KIDS. I HAD TO MAIL JASON'S PACKAGE WHEN HE TURNED 15 YEARS OLD; I HAD TO MAIL IT TO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM. I WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTACT THEM; I WAS NOT ABLE TO WRITE THEM. I COULDN'T TALK TO THEM; I COULDN'T EVEN SAY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY SON, BOTH OF THEM. AND I THINK I'VE BEEN TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL, AND I DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S FAIR AT ALL, TO BE TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MS. ESPINOSA?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MS. ESPINOSA. WE'LL BRING YOU THAT COPY BACK AFTER WE GET IT MADE.

WHEREUPON, PETER R. NUESSLE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: I WILL TELL THE COMMITTEE, I HAVE THAT FILE AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE FILE THAT YOU NEED A COPY OF, YOU'RE WELCOME TO IT. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WANT -- DO YOU WANT TO ASK ME QUESTIONS, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO --

Q WHY DON'T YOU START BY JUST STATING OUT THE CHRONOLOGY OF WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT HAPPENED, AND THE FACTS, TO WHATEVER EXTENT YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THEM.
A I WANT TO SAY FIRST OF ALL THAT THIS IS A VERY SAD CASE. IT'S OBVIOUS, FROM MS. ESPINOSA'S TESTIMONY, THAT IT WAS A SITUATION -- A CLASSIC CASE OF WHERE THE CHILDREN WERE PAWNS IN THE MIDDLE OF TWO PARENTS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE OF THEM, AT ALL TIMES, HAD THEIR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART. THE CHRONOLOGY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT: MS. ESPINOSA IS CORRECT; JUDGE INABINET HEARD THIS ISSUE ON THE FIRST ORDER. I HAVE A COPY, AND I'M SURE THERE'S A COPY IN THE FILE. THAT ORDER, IN MY OPINION, GRANTED PERMANENT CUSTODY TO MR. ESPINOSA. THERE WAS PROVISION MADE SAYING HE WAS TO HAVE CUSTODY, WITH THE PROVISION THAT IT BE REVIEWED IN 60 DAYS. THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW, THE ORDER CITES, IS TO DETERMINE HOW THEY HAVE ADJUSTED TO THE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY AND HOW COUNSELING HAS PROCEEDED AT ALL TIMES. MS. ESPINOSA HAS REFERRED TO THIS AS A TEMPORARY ORDER. I THINK IT WAS A PERMANENT ORDER. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE, WHETHER THIS WAS A STRAIGHT-UP CUSTODY CASE -- WHO'S THE BEST PARENT? WHO'S FIT? WHO WOULD BE THE BEST CUSTODIAL PARENT? THAT KIND OF CASE -- OR WHETHER IT WAS A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, WHERE MR. ESPINOSA HAD BEEN GRANTED CUSTODY AND MS. ESPINOSA WOULD NOW HAVE TO PROVE CHANGE IN CONDITIONS. I FOUND THAT IT WAS A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS CASE. AS I RECALL, THERE WASN'T REALLY ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EVENTS AND WHAT HAD OCCURRED AT THE HEARING WHEN JUDGE INABINET ISSUED THE ORDER, WHICH I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY. BUT WHEN WE STARTED THAT HEARING, MY RECOLLECTION IS, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION THAT IT WAS A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS AND WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED FROM SEPTEMBER OF 1989, I BELIEVE IT WAS, FORWARD. AND THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH IT WAS DONE.
Q MS. ESPINOSA SAID SOMETHING ABOUT HER HUSBAND'S LAWYER AND YOU LAUGHING. WOULD YOU DIRECT YOURSELF TO THAT?
A I DON'T RECALL THAT AT ALL, AND I WOULD DENY LAUGHING. AS A JUDGE, YOU DO YOUR BEST TO HAVE THE PROPER DECORUM AND SO FORTH. ONCE IN A WHILE, SOMETHING WILL MAKE YOU SMILE. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT. I KNOW THERE WAS NO BOISTEROUS LAUGH; I KNOW THERE WAS NO, WHAT YOU MIGHT THINK OF AS SOMEBODY LAUGHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SAID. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING SAID BY MR. HART; I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW, ALL I CAN THINK OF IS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SMILE OR SOMETHING; I DON'T KNOW. YOU DO YOUR BEST TO CONTROL THOSE THINGS; SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T, ALWAYS, BUT I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY LAUGHING, NO, SIR.
Q YOU'VE ONLY HELD THE ONE HEARING IN THIS CASE, THAT YOU CAN RECALL?
A WELL, SIR, NO, SIR. THERE WAS A HEARING ALSO ON MARCH 15, 1991 --
Q OH.
A -- WHICH HAD TO DO WITH EXPANDING MS. ESPINOSA'S VISITATION. SHE'S INCORRECT THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER DENIED HER VISITATION. WHAT OCCURRED WAS, WE FINISHED THE HEARING ON AUGUST 1ST, WHICH WAS THE NEXT DAY. I DECIDED TO GRANT CUSTODY OR TO CONTINUE CUSTODY, RATHER, WITH MR. ESPINOSA. THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF ACRIMONY IN THIS CASE; A LOT OF HARD FEELINGS. I THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THREATS BACK AND FORTH, AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS. TO TRY TO EXPEDITE THAT, I ISSUED A HANDWRITTEN BENCH ORDER, WHICH GRANTED CUSTODY TO HIM. AS I LOOK NOW -- I WAS THINKING THAT ORDER HAD SOMETHING ABOUT THE VISITATION IN IT. I GUESS WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO IS THAT THERE WAS NO VISITATION BETWEEN THE HEARING AND WHEN THE ORDER WAS ISSUED, WHICH WAS ABOUT FIVE WEEKS, I THINK. I DON'T RECALL. IT WAS THE FIRST PART OF SEPTEMBER. AT THAT TIME, I DID LIMIT HER VISITATIONS. THIS WAS LIKE -- IT'S ALMOST A STEREOTYPE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A CASE WHERE ONE PARTY SET OUT TO UNDERMINE THE OTHER PARTY, AND DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE, DEPENDING ON THE CHILDREN, AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. THIS IS IT. AND I REFER YOU TO THE ORDER; THOSE COMMENTS ARE MADE IN THERE. LIKE I SAY, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO ALL THAT, BUT IT'S VERY SAD, AND SHE HAD VISITATION UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDER, ALTHOUGH LIMITED, I THINK, TO MONTHLY. THAT ORDER DID ANTICIPATE --
Q WHICH ORDER ARE YOU LOOKING AT NOW?
A THE FINAL ORDER OF --
Q THE SAME ONE WE'VE BEEN REFERRING TO?
A YES, SIR. THE ONE IN SEPTEMBER. I THINK IT ANTICIPATED FURTHER VISITATION. YES, SIR (INDICATING). IT SAYS IN APPROPRIATE PART THAT "THE VISITATION SHALL BE REVIEWED IN FEBRUARY 1991." I THINK MAYBE THAT REVIEW WAS A MONTH LATE, OR SOMETHING, BUT WE DID HAVE A HEARING; AT THAT TIME, I DID TALK TO THE CHILDREN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES; AND WE WENT INTO A MORE NORMAL VISITATION, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE CHILDREN LIVED IN CHARLOTTE AND THE MOTHER LIVES, I BELIEVE, IN BELVEDERE, IN AIKEN COUNTY. THE COMMENT ABOUT TALKING TO THE CHILDREN, I DON'T RECALL THOSE SPECIFIC EVENTS. I MAY HAVE INDICATED A WILLINGNESS AT SOME POINT TO TALK TO THEM. I'VE LEARNED FROM NINE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, THOUGH, TO BE VERY HESITANT ABOUT THAT AND NEVER TALK TO A CHILD UNTIL THE CASE IS OVER, UNTIL THE TESTIMONY IS OVER. I DID THAT ONCE. I TALKED TO THEM WHEN THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE WAS OVER, AND I REGRETTED IT LATER. AND WHEN WE GOT TO THE END OF THE CASE, AS THE ORDER SAID, I JUST FELT LIKE THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN PUT THROUGH ENOUGH, HAD ENOUGH COUNSELORS AND GUARDIANS AND LAWYERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE TALKING TO THEM FROM TIME TO TIME, AND IT WAS TIME TO PUT AN END TO IT. I THINK IT WAS CLEAR THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE YOU COULD JUST ASK THE CHILD WHAT HE WANTED TO DO; DID HE LIKE MOM, OR DADDY, OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, AND LET IT -- JUST KIND OF LEAVE IT AT THAT. THERE WAS TOO MUCH GOING ON IN THIS CASE, TOO MUCH PRESSURE BEING PUT ON THE CHILDREN. TO A GREAT EXTENT, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY THE OLDEST ONE, WAS AT TIMES ASKED TO BE THE ADULT IN HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOTHER. I DON'T KNOW. THERE WAS JUST A LOT -- I JUST RECOMMEND THE ORDER TO YOU, AND I THINK THE TESTIMONY BEARS OUT -- IT WAS A VERY LONG, ARDUOUS THING; IT WAS NOT AN ENJOYABLE CASE TO HEAR. SOME OF THEM YOU ENJOY MORE THAN OTHERS. THIS IS THE BOTTOM ONE, I TELL YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE JUDGE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: LET ME ASK ONE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.

Q I NOTICE ON THE ORDER, OF COURSE, ON PAGE 13, THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE MOTHER SEEK COUNSELING AT AIKEN DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH. HAD SHE BEEN SEEING THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PRIOR TO THIS ORDER? CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?
A I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. I KNOW THERE HAD BEEN COUNSELING BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS ORDER, WHEN JUDGE INABINET GRANTED CUSTODY, AND THE PARTIES -- I THINK THERE WAS SOME COUNSELING REQUIREMENT IN THERE. MY RECOLLECTION IS, IT WAS NOT WITH AIKEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH; OR IF IT WAS, IT WAS ONLY BRIEFLY, AND THEN IT WENT TO A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER OF SOME TYPE. HER REFERENCE -- SHE MADE REFERENCE TO NOT LISTENING, OR A STATEMENT I HAD MADE IN HERE THAT SHE DIDN'T COOPERATE. THAT HAD TO DO WITH HER -- THE COUNSELOR IN NORTH CAROLINA, I REMEMBER, WHICH WAS SEEING THESE CHILDREN, WANTED SOME INPUT FROM MS. ESPINOSA AND WANTED TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO MS. ESPINOSA'S COUNSELOR. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM CAME. AND THERE WAS NO COOPERATION, AND THAT WAS NEVER DONE. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU. WE'LL LET MS. MCNEILL COME --
WITNESS: IF I COULD SAY JUST ONE FINAL THING. IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THINGS IN THIS CASE, I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT SOMEONE SPEAK WITH MR. JIM VEREENES, WHO WAS THE GUARDIAN IN THIS CASE AND DOES THAT QUITE REGULARLY IN FAMILY COURT.

Q DO YOU HAVE HIS REPORT, IN THAT FILE?
A I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAD A WRITTEN REPORT, SIR, IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE. I THINK THERE WAS TOO MUCH GOING ON, AND HE WANTED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE TRIAL.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. THANK YOU, JUDGE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE REALIZE MS. ESPINOSA IS STILL HERE, AND I THINK SHE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. WHY DON'T YOU JUST STAND UP, OR -- YOU CAN SIT DOWN THERE AT THE END OF THE TABLE --
WHEREUPON, LILLIAN D. ESPINOSA, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

Q -- AND TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION.
A WHAT I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ALL'S ATTENTION IS THAT, DUE TO ALL THIS INCIDENT THAT HAS HAPPENED, WITH MY CHILDREN GETTING TAKEN AWAY FROM ME AND CUSTODY GOING TO MY EX-HUSBAND, THAT MY SON -- I'VE RAISED BOTH CHILDREN IN THE WORD OF GOD, AND FOR 13 YEARS -- 12 AND 13
YEARS -- 13 AND 14, EXCUSE ME, YEARS I'VE RAISED THEM TO RESPECT THE LAW AND TO BE ALWAYS WITH GOD. AND LAST YEAR, MY SON, JASON, HE STOLE. HE BROKE THE LAW. HE HAD ARBITRATION. I WAS THE ONE THAT HAD TO TAKE HIM TO HIS ARBITRATION, TO VISIT THE JAIL, SEE WHAT THE JAIL WAS LIKE -- BECAUSE HE WAS A JUVENILE.
Q YEAH.
A AND THAT IS HOW MY CHILD -- BOTH MY CHILDREN FEEL ABOUT THE LAW. THEY DON'T RESPECT IT. AND I WANT THAT RESPECT IN MY CHILDREN. I WAS BROUGHT UP WITH RESPECT FOR THE LAW, AND I WANT MY CHILDREN TO RESPECT THE LAW. AND FOR HIM BREAKING THE LAW DOES NOT ONLY HURT HIM; IT HURT ME; IT HURT EVERYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED. AND FOR HIM NOT BEING FEARFUL, AS THE COURT ORDERED THAT THE CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE FEARFUL OF THE FATHER. HE BEGGED ME NOT TO TELL HIS DAD, BUT I HAD NO CHOICE. I HAD TO TELL HIS DAD THAT HE BROKE THE LAW. THAT IS HIS FATHER, AND I HAD TO RESPECT THOSE WISHES AND TELL HIS FATHER. AND THAT CHILD BEGGED ME NOT TO, BUT I DID.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT THE JUDGE, JUDGE NUESSLE?
A I FEEL LIKE JUDGE NUESSLE, WHEN HE WAS UP THERE, WHEN HE SAID ABOUT JASON -- WHICH IS MY OLDEST ONE; HE'S 15 -- ABOUT THAT HE HAD TO BE LIKE THE LITTLE MAN IN THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING, "MAN OF THE HOUSE." JASON IS THE OLDEST ONE. AS A MOM, YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS TELL THE OLDEST ONE, "CAN YOU DO THIS, THROW OUT THE GARBAGE," "CAN YOU DO THAT?" MAYBE THAT -- THAT IS WHAT I CONSIDER THE LITTLE MAN OF THE HOUSE; OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT JUDGE NUESSLE IS TALKING ABOUT. BUT I REALLY FEEL LIKE THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM -- WHEN BRETT GOT ABUSED, SHE WAS THERE THE DAY AFTER BRETT GOT ABUSED. I FEEL SHE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED INTO THAT CASE MORE, BECAUSE I'VE GOT PAPERS WHERE SHE WROTE DOWN THAT THE ESPINOSA HOUSE WAS VERY TENSE. SOMETHING HAD BEEN WRONG. JASON HAD STARTED TO TELL HER, AND SHE SAID "NO, LET BRETT TELL ME ABOUT IT," AND EVERYTHING. I CONTACTED MARSHA BRIGHT, WHICH WAS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN NORTH CAROLINA; SHE CONTACTED MR. JIM VEREENES. THAT'S WHEN WE WENT TO THE COURT, THE 27TH, WITH JUDGE INABINET.
Q WELL, WE HAVE YOUR COURT ORDERS, I THINK, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US.
A CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? THE FINAL THING OF MY VISITATION WAS -- I MEAN, WHEN THEY TOOK MY CHILDREN AWAY FROM ME, IT WAS ON AUGUST 1, 1990, AND WHEN I FINALLY GOT VISITATION THAT I COULD GET THEM OVER THE WEEKEND CAME -- WE WENT TO COURT, MARCH 15, 1991. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO SEE YOUR CHILDREN? I RAISED THESE CHILDREN BY MYSELF. IT WAS STATED IN COURT AND IT WAS STATED TO JUDGE NUESSLE THAT MY EX-HUSBAND HAD MARRIED THE BABYSITTER, YOU KNOW, AND HE JUST DIDN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT. JUST ANYTHING THE COUNSELOR SAYS, THE PSYCHOLOGIST, ANYTHING, HE DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE NOTHING. AND RIGHT NOW, THESE KIDS ARE VERY TRAUMATIZED. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COUNSELING; MY KIDS ARE BY THEMSELVES, ARE SUPERVISING THEMSELVES. THEIR REPORT CARDS ARE D'S AND F'S.
Q THE PRESENT SITUATION WITH YOUR CHILDREN, THOUGH, IS --
A RIGHT.
Q -- SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED.
A DETERMINED. AND I HAVE TO GO TO NORTH CAROLINA AND GET IT, AND FIGHT OVER THERE, BECAUSE THEY CHANGED THE VENUE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO NORTH CAROLINA WHEN THEY SAID THAT JURISDICTION WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN SOUTH CAROLINA. JUDGE INABINET PUT THAT DOWN. THEN, HE TURNED AROUND IN DECEMBER AND SAID THE VENUE WAS IN NORTH CAROLINA, BECAUSE THE KIDS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR OVER A YEAR. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW, BUT I WILL CHECK INTO THE LAW AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S COSTING OVER $18,000 JUST TO GET YOUR CHILDREN, TO KNOW YOUR RIGHT. IF I KNEW I WASN'T RIGHT, I WOULD NOT BE UP HERE, BUT I KNOW I'M RIGHT, AND I DON'T WANT ANY WOMAN IN THIS WORLD TO GO THROUGH WHAT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH. IF I CAN PREVENT THAT BY BEING UP HERE TODAY, AND SAVE SOME OTHER MOM FROM GOING THROUGH THE TRAUMATIZING THAT MY CHILDREN HAVE GONE THROUGH, I WANT TO DO THAT. THAT IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY. THAT'S WHY I FEEL JUDGE NUESSLE SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGE. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL LISTENING TO ME. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

JUDGE NUESSLE: MAY I MAKE ONE BRIEF COMMENT?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YEAH.
WHEREUPON, PETER R. NUESSLE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: MS. ESPINOSA AGAIN SAID SHE HAD NO VISITATION UNTIL MARCH. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY HAD THE VISITATION, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1990, ON THE SECOND-TO-LAST PAGE, GRANTED HER MONTHLY VISITATION ON THE SECOND SATURDAY OF EACH MONTH FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. IT WAS LIMITED TO THAT EXTENT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ORDER, BUT THERE WAS VISITATION PROVIDED FOR, PRIOR TO MARCH OF 1991.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MS. MCNEILL?

WHEREUPON, KATHERINE G. MCNEILL, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS.
A MY NAME IS KATHERINE G. MCNEILL. I RESIDE IN AIKEN, SOUTH CAROLINA. 136 KAMIA CIRCLE.
Q MRS. MCNEILL, WE'RE GOING TO JUST LET YOU TELL US WHY YOU'RE HERE AND WHAT THE FACTS ARE THAT YOU PRESENT TO US THAT YOU SAY RELATE TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JUDGE NUESSLE.
A OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. I WANT TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT I DO NOT HARBOR ANY ILL FEELINGS TOWARDS JUDGE NUESSLE. HIS JOB IS MOST DIFFICULT; A JUDGE'S JOB IS MOST DIFFICULT, AND I FOUND OUT MORE ABOUT THAT TODAY, AND THAT CONFIRMED MY FEELINGS ON THAT. SO I DO NOT HARBOR ANY ILL FEELINGS TOWARDS HIM. WE FEEL -- THIS INVOLVED OUR GRANDSON, WHO, AT THE TIME, WAS 15 MONTHS OLD. AND WE FEEL THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MOTHER, AS WE PRESENTED IT, AND THE FACTS IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT INTO COURT, AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COURT -- I FEEL THAT JUDGE NUESSLE JUST ABSOLUTELY OVERLOOKED A LOT OF THINGS, AND REFUSED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE VERY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD AGAINST THIS MOTHER.
Q MICHAEL MCNEILL AND REGINA?
A MICHAEL MCNEILL. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS ARE: MICHAEL MCNEILL, WHO IS OUR SON; REGINA MCNEILL, WHO IS THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD; AND THE CHILD IS BRETT MCNEILL. OUR ATTORNEY WAS CARROLL BRYANT; REGINA'S ATTORNEY WAS SYLVIA WESTERDAHL; AND THE GUARDIAN THAT WAS APPOINTED IS VICKI SNELGROVE, WHO IS AN ATTORNEY IN AIKEN. I WANT TO GIVE YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY --
Q YES.
A -- ON THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS ABUSE. THE MOTHER COMES FROM A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY. I THINK -- PERSONALLY, I THINK SHE HERSELF WAS ABUSED AS A CHILD, AND THERE WERE HAPPENINGS THAT WAS GOING ON WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE MARRIED, WITH HER FATHER PARTICULARLY, THAT --
Q THEY LIVED TOGETHER FOR LESS THAN A YEAR?
A THEY LIVED TOGETHER FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. AND SOME OF THE HAPPENINGS THERE, JUST BRIEFLY, WAS THE RESULT OF THE BREAKUP OF THE MARRIAGE, IN MY OPINION, AND THE REASON FOR THE CHILD NOT -- THAT THE CHILD SHOULDN'T BE LIVING ANYWHERE NEAR HER FATHER, THE GRANDFATHER. BUT EARLY ON, THERE WAS A CHILD ON THE WAY WHEN THIS COUPLE MARRIED. OKAY? THEY MARRIED IN FEBRUARY OF 1989. THE CHILD WAS BORN IN AUGUST OF 1989. THEY SEPARATED IN 1990. A FEW MONTHS AFTER THE SEPARATION, THE TWO OF THEM DISCOVERED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MARRIAGE WOULD NOT WORK, AND THEY WANTED TO FILE THE PROPER LEGAL SEPARATION PAPERS. THEY DID THIS BETWEEN THEMSELVES; THEY WENT TO MR. BRYANT, THE ATTORNEY, BOTH OF THEM. SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY; THEY JUST CHOSE ONE TOGETHER, I SUPPOSE. THEY WENT TO MR. BRYANT AND WORKED OUT THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITH HIM. SHE WANTED MIKE TO HAVE THE CHILD EVERY WEEKEND. THAT WAS HER IDEA, BECAUSE SHE WANTED HER FREEDOM; SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE TIED DOWN ON THE WEEKENDS WITH A CHILD. SO MY SON HAD THE CHILD EVERY WEEKEND. SHE ALSO AGREED -- THEY BOTH AGREED, IN THIS FIRST SEPARATION AGREEMENT, THAT THE CHILD WOULD NOT RESIDE OR BE AROUND HER FATHER, MARCELL CROSS, BECAUSE MR. CROSS HAD A VERY ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND HAD SOME ALCOHOL PROBLEMS, AND THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN THAT FAMILY BETWEEN THE TWO -- BETWEEN MRS. CROSS AND MR. CROSS. SO THEN, REGINA STAYED IN THE HOME THAT WAS OUR HOME, THAT WE HAD BOUGHT FOR THEM, AND SHE STAYED IN THAT HOME FOR A FEW MONTHS; AND THEN, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER -- PROBABLY SEPTEMBER -- OF 1990, MY SON GOT A TELEPHONE CALL AT WORK ONE DAY FROM A NEIGHBOR OF HERS THAT LIVED ACROSS THE STREET. A LADY SAID THAT REGINA WAS ABUSING THE BABY, AND THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO TELL HIM ABOUT THE ABUSE.
Q IS THIS THE FERGUSON LADY?
A FERGUSON. JANET FERGUSON WAS THE LADY. SO MY SON TOOK DOWN THE INFORMATION THAT SHE GAVE HIM. MY SON DID NOT KNOW JANET FERGUSON. AND THE POINTS THAT SHE MADE OUT WAS THAT THE MOTHER WAS ENTERTAINING MEN IN THE HOME OVERNIGHT, WITH THE CHILD; THAT SHE WAS SMOKING MARIJUANA; THAT SHE WAS DRINKING ALCOHOL. I THINK SHE HAD OBSERVED THE MOTHER MAYBE LEAVING THE CHILD ALONE IN THE HOME -- AND I MEAN, DRIVING AWAY AND LEAVING THE CHILD AT HOME ALONE. WE HAD, BY THIS TIME --
Q AT THIS TIME, THE CHILD WAS ABOUT A YEAR OR SO OLD?
A HE WAS ABOUT A YEAR OR SO OLD, MAYBE 14 MONTHS OLD. AND WE WERE SEEING THE CHILD ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE HAD A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH REGINA, AND SHE WAS LEAVING HIM WITH US AND THE FATHER QUITE A BIT, AND WE WERE SEEING THE CHILD. AND WE WERE OBSERVING SOME THINGS IN HIM -- WE HAD SUSPICIONS, BUT WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS ANYTHING REALLY THAT WE NEEDED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT, ACTUALLY. IT WAS MAINLY THAT THE CHILD DID NOT WANT TO GO TO HIS MOTHER. IF SHE WOULD BRING HIM TO US TO KEEP HIM, OR BRING HIM TO THE FATHER, AND THEN SHE WOULD COME BACK, HE DIDN'T SEEM -- THERE WAS NO CONNECTION THERE, AND HE DIDN'T SEEM TO WANT TO GO BACK WITH HER. HE WAS NOT CLEAN ALL THE TIME. HE SEEMED TO SUFFER FROM A FLAT -- I CALLED IT "DEPRESSED." I THOUGHT THE CHILD WAS DEPRESSED, BUT WE LATER DETERMINED FROM THE PEDIATRICIAN THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM A FLAT AFFECT, WHICH IS A LACK OF BONDING. BUT WE OBSERVED THIS IN HIM A LOT. BUT THEN WHEN THE TELEPHONE CALL CAME IN FROM JANET FERGUSON ABOUT THE ABUSE, THEN THE THINGS WE HAD SEEN IN THE CHILD AND THE MOTHER, AND HER LEAVING HIM WITH US AS MUCH AS SHE WAS LEAVING HIM WITH US -- WE BEGAN TO THINK MAYBE THERE WAS MORE GOING ON HERE THAN WE THOUGHT, PERHAPS. SO MIKE TOOK THIS INFORMATION -- WHEN HE GOT THE TELEPHONE CALL FROM JANET FERGUSON, HE TOOK THE INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO CARROLL BRYANT THAT VERY DAY, WHO WAS THE ATTORNEY THEY HAD USED FOR THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT. AND MR. BRYANT TOOK DOWN THE INFORMATION, AND HE SAID -- HE ASKED MIKE IF HE KNEW THE PERSON. "NO." "I WANT TO TALK WITH HER NOW. CAN YOU GET HER IN HERE?" MIKE IMMEDIATELY CALLED HER BACK AND THAT AFTERNOON, SHE WENT IN AND TALKED TO MR. BRYANT. AND I THINK CARROLL INTERVIEWED HER. I WASN'T PRESENT. I THINK HE INTERVIEWED HER RATHER STRONGLY AND ALL, AND HE FELT SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. SO HE TOLD MIKE THAT WE NEEDED TO WATCH THE SITUATION, AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD HIRE SOME PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO WE DID THAT. SO WE HAD THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS DOING WORK, AND THEY DID COME UP -- THERE WAS LIKE SIX DIFFERENT MEN INVOLVED IN THIS. THEY WERE SPENDING THE NIGHT. THEY WERE STAYING OVERNIGHT AT THE HOUSE, AND THE CHILD WAS AT THE HOUSE WHEN THIS WAS GOING ON. ONE OF THEM WAS A NEIGHBOR THAT LIVED DOWN THE STREET, AND JUST VARIOUS PEOPLE.
Q SO YOUR SON BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR A CHANGE OF CUSTODY?
A WE BROUGHT A RESTRAINING ORDER, FIRST. SHE TOLD THE BABYSITTER SHE WAS GOING TO BE MOVING, SO WE BROUGHT A RESTRAINING ORDER, FIRST OF ALL, NOT TO MOVE THE CHILD FROM AIKEN COUNTY; THEN, MY SON BROUGHT ABOUT THIS ORDER FOR CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO GET TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. WHEN THE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE PAPERS OF THE CUSTODY HEARING, SHE FLED WITH THE CHILD. SHE FLED WITH THE CHILD, AND MY SON WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE THE CHILD -- IT WAS LIKE FOR THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, OR UNTIL WHENEVER WE WENT INTO COURT IN DECEMBER FOR THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING. AT THAT TIME, WE HAD JUDGE MOBLEY. JUDGE MOBLEY ORDERED -- AND AT THAT TIME, VICKI SNELGROVE, THE GUARDIAN, WAS APPOINTED AND A FEE FOR HER, AT THAT HEARING. AND I WAS PRESENT IN THIS HEARING WHEN THIS WAS DONE. MY HUSBAND WAS PRESENT ALSO, BECAUSE JUDGE MOBLEY ASKED IF THE GRANDPARENTS WERE OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS THERE, AND HE SAID, "I WANT THEM ALL BROUGHT IN, AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AND WHY I'M GOING TO DO IT." AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, HE SAID THAT VICKI SNELGROVE, THE GUARDIAN, WOULD BE APPOINTED. SHE WAS SITTING OVER THERE, AND AGREED TO IT. HE ASKED HER WHAT HER FEE WOULD BE; SHE SAID, "$700, AND I WANT $150 UP FRONT." HE ORDERED THE MOTHER AND THE FATHER TO PAY THE $350, AND THAT WAS TO BE HELD IN SOME SORT OF AN ACCOUNT, OR SOMETHING, BY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS; AND SHE WAS TO BE GIVEN $150 UP FRONT.
SO THAT'S HOW HER FEE WAS ESTABLISHED, AND SO ORDERED IN THAT FIRST ORDER BY JUDGE MOBLEY. HE ALSO ORDERED HER TO GO AND FIND THE CHILD, SEE THE CHILD THAT NIGHT, VISIT WITH THE CHILD AND THE MOTHER; AND THEN GO TO THE FATHER'S HOME AND VISIT WITH HIM. ALSO, TO SEE THE CHILD'S PEDIATRICIAN, DR. COLLINS, JONATHAN COLLINS, AND CHECK ON THE CHILD'S MEDICAL HISTORY AND THAT SORT OF THING. SHE DID VISIT WITH US THAT NIGHT IN OUR HOME. WHEN SHE CAME IN -- IT MUST HAVE BEEN ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK, EIGHT O'CLOCK, OR SOMETHING, WHEN SHE GOT THERE. WHEN SHE GOT IN, THE FIRST THING WE ASKED HER WAS IF SHE HAD SEEN THE CHILD. "YES," SHE HAD SEEN THE CHILD. "IS HE IN AIKEN COUNTY?" "NO, HE IS IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY." SO SHE PROCEEDS THEN TO QUESTION MY SON, AND SHE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS. SHE WAS THERE PROBABLY AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF. THEY GO BACK TO COURT THE NEXT MORNING, I THINK AT NINE O'CLOCK, AND BASED ON WHAT SHE SAW AND OBSERVED IN THE CHILD AND WHAT SHE HAD READ AND WHAT THE FATHER HAD TOLD HER, ALSO, IT WAS HER RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CHILD SHOULD BE PLACED WITH THE FATHER TEMPORARILY; AND SHE BASED THIS PRIMARILY ON, SHE WANTED TO GO INTO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE FACT THAT THE MOTHER HAD STATED THE CHILD SHOULD NOT BE AROUND HER FATHER, IN THE INITIAL SEPARATION AGREEMENT, AND SHE WANTED TO CHECK WITH JONATHAN COLLINS TO SEE ABOUT THE SHOT RECORD OF THE CHILD, BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS NOT CURRENT ON THE SHOTS. THE FATHER TOLD HER THAT; THE MOTHER DENIED IT. AND SHE WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON SOME OF THAT. AND ALSO, SHE OBSERVED THIS FLAT AFFECT IN THE CHILD. NO BONDING WITH THE MOTHER. I THINK SHE SAID -- YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENTS ON IT -- SHE SAID THERE WAS NO EMOTION BETWEEN THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD; NO INTERACTION BETWEEN THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD. SO TEMPORARY CUSTODY WAS GRANTED TO MY SON BY THIS JUDGE MOBLEY. WE NEVER SAW JUDGE MOBLEY AGAIN. SO THEY AGREED TO BRING BRETT TO MY SON ON SUNDAY NIGHT. WHEN THEY BROUGHT BRETT TO US, BRETT WAS IN AN EXTREMELY FLAT AFFECT. THE CHILD JUST LOOKED STRAIGHT AHEAD; NO RESPONSE, NO LAUGHING, NO PLAYING, NO NOTHING. JUST COMPLETELY FLAT. WE IMMEDIATELY TOOK HIM TO DR. COLLINS, HIS PEDIATRICIAN, THE NEXT MORNING; IT WAS ON A MONDAY MORNING. DR. COLLINS EXAMINED THE CHILD, AND HE SAID, "DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THIS CHILD HAS BEEN THROUGH OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR WEEKS?" AND WE TOLD HIM, NO, WE HAD NO IDEA. AND I ASKED DR. COLLINS IF THE CHILD WAS EXTREMELY DEPRESSED, AND DID HE NEED SOME SORT OF COUNSELING OR TESTING. DR. COLLINS SAID, "WELL, IT ISN'T DEPRESSION IN A CHILD; IT'S FLAT AFFECT," AND HE SAID, "IT'S FROM A LACK OF BONDING AND A LACK OF TURMOIL AND A LACK OF STRESS IN THE CHILD'S LIFE." AND I SAID, "WHAT DO WE DO TO CORRECT IT?" AND HE SAID -- HE ASKED US, HE SAID, "DO YOU HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD NOW?" AND WE SAID, "TEMPORARY CUSTODY." HE SAID, "GOOD." HE SAID -- HE TOLD US WHAT TO DO, TO TAKE THE CHILD HOME AND JUST GIVE IT THE NORMAL ATTENTION AND LOVE THAT YOU WOULD DO WITH A CHILD, AND THAT HE WOULD RECOVER FROM THIS. AND BRETT DID. WE HAD THE CHILD FOR ABOUT -- I DON'T KNOW -- MAYBE THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. WE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL -- IT TOOK SO LONG UNTIL THE NEXT COURT HEARING, BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING -- THE ATTORNEYS WANTED TO WAIT, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE A FULL DAY IN COURT, BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A FULL DAY IN COURT TO HEAR THE CASE. SO THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT. SO WE HAD TO WAIT. I THINK WE WENT BACK TO COURT IN FEBRUARY, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS FEBRUARY 23RD. SO COURT STARTED UP AT NINE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. AT 12 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, JUDGE -- OR 12 O'CLOCK, JUDGE NUESSLE DISMISSED COURT AND IT WAS GOING TO COME BACK IN AT TWO O'CLOCK, AND AT TWO O'CLOCK HE CLOSED COURT. AND OUR ATTORNEY CAME OUT -- WE WERE WAITING OUT IN THE HALLWAY, AND HE CAME OUT ABOUT 15, 20 MINUTES LATER, AND HE SAID, "WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ALL THE WITNESSES AND EVERYTHING TODAY." WE HAD ALREADY PRESENTED OUR WITNESSES, AND I HAD GIVEN MY TESTIMONY. HE SAID, "WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ALL THE WITNESSES TODAY, AND COURT WILL BE RESCHEDULED. THEY DON'T FEEL THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO HEAR ALL OF THE WITNESSES TODAY, FROM THE MOTHER'S SIDE." SO WE WERE VERY UPSET ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THAT WOULD REALLY BREAK THE CONTINUITY OF THE CASE, AND IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE ON, EVEN IF IT DID RUN OVER INTO FIVE OR SIX O'CLOCK, OR SEVEN O'CLOCK, OR WHATEVER. WE FELT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE ON, THAT DAY. WE DIDN'T GET BACK IN COURT AGAIN UNTIL, I THINK -- I BELIEVE IT WAS IN APRIL, I THINK, IS WHEN WE GOT BACK IN COURT.
Q APRIL 23RD?
A RIGHT. AND THEY PRESENTED THEIR SIDE THEN. THE MOTHER PRESENTED HER WITNESSES AT THAT TIME. AND IT TOOK -- YOU KNOW, THEY WERE OUT BY LIKE 12:00, ONE O'CLOCK THAT DAY. IT WAS OVER WITH. THAT WAS ALL THE TIME THAT IT TOOK, FOR THEM TO PRESENT THEIR WITNESSES. THE WITNESSES THAT SHE PRODUCED -- THE MAIN WITNESS SHE PRODUCED WAS THIS PATTY ROSBACK, WHO LIVED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM HER AND NEXT-DOOR TO JANET FERGUSON. PATTY ROSBACK WAS A VERY GOOD FRIEND OF REGINA, IS HER BEST FRIEND. AND REGINA GAVE THAT IN HER DEPOSITION, THAT PATTY ROSBACK WAS HER BEST FRIEND. AN INVESTIGATION OF PATTY ROSBACK REVEALED THAT SHE HAD BEEN THROWN OUT OF HER HOME AT THE AGE OF 12 AND BECOME A PROSTITUTE. SHE BECAME A PROSTITUTE. SHE HAD TWO LITTLE CHILDREN OF HER OWN. AT THE TIME SHE WAS ON THE WITNESS STAND GIVING HER TESTIMONY, IN THIS CASE, SHE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH A MAN. AFTER HER CASE WAS OVER WITH, SHE DIVORCED HER HUSBAND AND MARRIED THAT MAN. SHE'S NOW MARRIED TO HIM. AND SYLVIA WESTERDAHL WAS HER ATTORNEY IN THAT CASE. SO NOW, THIS IS THE KIND OF WITNESS THAT WAS BROUGHT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THIS MOTHER. THE MOTHER DENIED THAT SHE SLEPT WITH ANY OF THE MEN, OR THAT SHE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM; THAT SORT OF THING. BUT THERE WAS A BEACH TRIP, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER NIGHTS THAT SHE SLEPT WITH MEN. THERE WAS A BEACH TRIP IN WHICH THEY WENT TO EDISTO. AND THIS WAS LIKE IN AUGUST THAT THEY WENT ON THIS BEACH TRIP. THIS IS IN HER DEPOSITION, AND YOU HAVE A COPY OF HER DEPOSITION. SHE REFERS TO A BEACH TRIP WHERE LIKE THREE OR FOUR -- THREE MEN WENT, THREE WOMEN WENT -- MAYBE FOUR MEN WENT. AND THAT THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, THAT THEY ALL TOOK SEPARATE QUARTERS. WELL, ONE OF THE GIRLS THAT WENT ON THAT TRIP WAS WILLING TO TALK WITH US. AND ACTUALLY, WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT TRIP WAS: REGINA WENT WITH SID SWING; THEY ALL SHACKED UP TOGETHER. THEY DRANK; THEY DID DRUGS. AT ONE POINT, SID SWING, WHO REGINA HAD GONE DOWN WITH, WENT OUT TO GET MORE LIQUOR; AND WHEN HE GOT UP OUT OF BED TO GO GET MORE LIQUOR, SHE GOT UP AND GOT IN BED WITH ANOTHER MAN THAT WAS IN THE SAME MOTEL AREA THERE. HER MEDICAL RECORDS -- WE SUBPOENAED HER MEDICAL RECORDS. HER MEDICAL RECORDS, YOU WILL NOTE, INDICATE THAT IN SEPTEMBER OF 1990, ABOUT A MONTH LATER, SHE HAD A PREGNANCY TEST AT HER GYNECOLOGIST'S. THE PREGNANCY TEST CAME BACK NEGATIVE, BUT SHE DID HAVE A TEST FOR VENEREAL DISEASE, AND SHE DID HAVE CHLAMYDIA, WHICH IS A SEXUALLY-TRANSMITTED REOCCURRING VENEREAL DISEASE. SO SHE DEFINITELY WAS SLEEPING AROUND. THERE WAS JUST SO MUCH -- THERE WERE JUST SO MANY THINGS IN THIS CASE THAT WE PRESENTED. WE PRESENTED THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE FATHER OF REGINA --
Q JUDGE NUESSLE HELD ONE HEARING, THE FINAL HEARING? I MEAN, THE FINAL HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF CONTEMPT AND ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES ON CUSTODY?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS THE ONE ON APRIL 23, 1991?
A WELL, WE WENT TO COURT IN FEBRUARY, AND THEN HE CLOSED COURT AT TWO O'CLOCK; AND WE WENT BACK ON APRIL 23RD, AND HE FINISHED COURT THEN, WITH HER WITNESSES. AND THEN HE MADE A FINAL RULING.
Q DID Y'ALL APPEAL FROM THE RULING?
A WE DID NOT APPEAL, AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY. WE'VE HAD TWO OTHER ATTORNEYS TO LOOK AT THIS ENTIRE FILE AND TO GO OVER EVERYTHING WITH US. ONE IS J.B. COBB, WHO IS A LADY HERE IN COLUMBIA, AND SHE WANTED TO TAKE THE CASE ON APPEAL. SHE STARTED OUT BY TELLING US SHE DIDN'T TAKE CASES UNLESS SHE WAS 99 PERCENT SURE SHE COULD WIN THEM, AND SHE WANTED THIS CASE ON APPEAL; AND SHE SAID -- IT WAS HER ADVICE TO US TO APPEAL THE CASE. SHE SAID THERE WERE JUST TOO MANY HOLES AND TOO MANY THINGS THAT DID NOT ADD UP. WHILE WE WERE IN HER OFFICE THAT DAY, WE SAID, "OKAY, HOW LONG WILL THIS TAKE, AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHILD IN THE MEANTIME?" AND SHE CALLED IN A CLERK WHO WORKED AT YOUR -- WHEREVER YOUR APPEALS PROCESS GOES ON HERE -- SHE CALLED HER IN AND ASKED HER THE SCHEDULE FOR THE APPEALS, AND IT WAS GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST A YEAR AND POSSIBLY 18 MONTHS, BECAUSE YOU WERE SO BACKLOGGED, OR SOMETHING. AND SHE SAID, "HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THAT? HOW DO YOU FEEL? WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL GO ON WITH THIS MOTHER IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME?" AND ALL THIS, AND WE SAID, "OH, WELL, WITH HER HISTORY AND WHAT WE HAVE, WE FEEL IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, SHE'LL BE DOING THIS AGAIN, AND WE WILL HAVE THE SAME THING ON HER AGAIN AND WE'LL BE GOING BACK TO COURT BEFORE THEN." WE UNDERSTOOD FROM HER THAT IF IT WAS IN THE APPEAL PROCESS, AND SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED TO THE CHILD, WE COULD NOT OPEN UP A NEW CASE WITH THAT PROCESS STILL PENDING -- IS THE WAY WE UNDERSTOOD IT. SO THAT WAS THE REASON WE DID NOT APPEAL IT. WE DO -- LITIGATION IS FORTHCOMING, AND I AM VERY CONCERNED. I FEEL IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE HIS DECISION TO GIVE HER CUSTODY OF THE CHILD, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO JEOPARDIZE THIS CASE THAT IS COMING UP.
Q WELL, WE'RE REALLY JUST FOCUSING ON THE ACTIONS OF JUDGE NUESSLE IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL OF 1991.
A OKAY. THE ACTIONS OF JUDGE NUESSLE IN THOSE TWO INSTANCES, AS I SEE IT, AND FROM MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF HIM IN THE COURTROOM WHEN I WAS GIVING MY TESTIMONY: HE WAS INATTENTIVE. I'VE HEARD HERE TODAY FROM THESE CANDIDATES OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, ABOUT THE JUDGE'S ATTITUDE AND HIS BEING ATTENTIVE AND HIS BEING CARING AND HIS LISTENING, AND ALL THIS KIND OF THING. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE QUALITIES. HE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE QUALITIES WHEN I WAS GIVING MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN I GAVE MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY, HE CLIPPED HIS NAILS. AND I JUST -- I THINK HE ABSOLUTELY DISREGARDED -- AND THIS COMES FROM TWO ATTORNEYS, NOW, WHO HAVE REVIEWED THIS CASE: RICHARD PIERCE IN AIKEN, AND B.J. COBB IN COLUMBIA. WHEN WE TOOK THE CASE TO RICHARD PIERCE -- AND THE REASON WE TOOK IT TO RICHARD TO REVIEW WAS BECAUSE WE HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION ON HER DOING THE SAME THING NOW, EXCEPT WORSE, AND THE CHILD IS IN WORSE LIVING CONDITIONS NOW THAN HE WAS WHEN WE WENT A YEAR AGO. AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS I SIT WITH YOU, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE WHERE THIS CHILD IS. AND HE'S TWO AND A HALF YEARS OLD. AND WHEN WE TOOK THIS TO RICHARD -- BECAUSE WE KNEW WE WERE GOING TO BE NEEDING AN ATTORNEY VERY QUICKLY, AND SOON, AND WE NEEDED SOME GUIDANCE, AND WE WERE TRYING TO DECIDE, "WHO SHOULD WE HIRE?" AND WE DECIDED ON RICHARD PIERCE. AND WHEN WE TOOK EVERYTHING TO RICHARD, IN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE NOW, IT TOOK HIM FOUR -- FOUR DAYS LATER, HE GOT BACK WITH US ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE GAVE TO HIM, ON THE FIRST TRIAL. THE FIRST THING HE SAID, WHEN WE WENT INTO HIS OFFICE, HE SAID, "WE WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU, BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU." HE SAID, "THERE ARE SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN ALL OF THIS INFORMATION HERE --"
Q MR. BRYANT SAID THIS?
A NO, RICHARD PIERCE SAID THIS, WHICH WAS SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT B.J. COBB HAD SAID, THAT THERE WERE JUST TOO MANY THINGS THAT DID NOT ADD UP. THE MAIN THINGS THAT RICHARD SAW WERE THAT THE JUDGE COMPLETELY IGNORED THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES. THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM DID NOT -- SHE DID NOT INTERVIEW ONE OF OUR WITNESSES. SHE NEVER DID CALL DR. COLLINS. SHE NEVER DID CALL HIM.
Q BUT THE RECORD SAYS SHE DID -- WHAT WAS HER NAME AGAIN?
A VICKI SNELGROVE.
Q SHE DID, THOUGH -- ACCORDING TO THE ORDER, SHE RECOMMENDED THAT CUSTODY BE MAINTAINED WITH REGINA.
A SHE CHANGED HER MIND. ORIGINALLY, SHE SAID THAT THE CUSTODY --
Q WELL, THE ONLY THING IS, YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS WE OPERATE UNDER. ONE IS, IF ALL OF THE WITNESSES FOR REGINA WERE LYING -- I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE NO WAY TO DETERMINE THAT. ALL WE CAN LOOK AT IS THE RECORD IN TRYING TO DETERMINE ON THE ISSUE OF QUALIFICATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN'T WEIGH THE EVIDENCE. WE CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER -- JUDGE NUESSLE MAY HAVE MADE THE STUPIDEST DECISION EVER MADE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS CONFLICTING, WHICH MEANS HE MAY BELIEVE THIS WITNESS, OR NOT THAT WITNESS. IT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S RIGHT, BUT HE HAS A --
A SENATOR, WE PUT TWO WITNESSES ON THE STAND, IN ADDITION TO MYSELF, WHO COULD TESTIFY ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD, SOMEWHAT. AND I HAD KNOWLEDGE OF HER FATHER'S ACTIONS, OKAY? BUT WE PUT TWO WITNESSES ON THE STAND. WE DID NOT KNOW, THEM; HAD NEVER LAID EYES ON THEM, AND HAVEN'T LAID EYES ON THEM SINCE, OKAY? WE PUT JANET FERGUSON ON THE STAND, WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT IN THE HOME WITH THE CHILD --
Q YES, MA'AM, BUT I'VE READ THIS RECORD, AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT JANET FERGUSON BEAT UP SOMEBODY IN THAT HOME OVER SOME DRUGS, OR SOMETHING.
A THAT WAS A LIE. THAT WAS THE MOTHER.
Q WELL, SEE, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. NOT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY --
A OKAY. WELL --
Q IF THERE'S TESTIMONY THAT JANET FERGUSON SAYS THAT REGINA IS RUNNING AROUND, SHE ABANDONS THE BABY, SHE SMOKES DOPE, SHE DRINKS TOO MUCH, SHE'S A HORRIBLE MOTHER; AND THEN, THERE'S ALSO TESTIMONY THAT THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSING HER OF THAT IS A DRUG-USER AND BEATS UP PEOPLE, I MEAN, HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY DOES THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT ACCUSATION HAVE?
A MAYBE THE FAULT HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY -- I FEEL THAT THE FAULT WITH THE JUDGE HERE IS THE WAY HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN COURT, WHEN I WAS PRESENT. I DO KNOW THAT -- I THINK ONE OF THE CLOSING REMARKS -- I KNOW THEIR ATTORNEY MENTIONED THIS TO US, THAT AFTER THEY HAD MADE -- AFTER THEY PRESENTED THEIR WITNESSES -- THIS WOULD BE ON APRIL 23RD. WHEN JUDGE NUESSLE WAS LEAVING THE COURTROOM, I THINK SOMETHING WAS SAID ABOUT, "I WILL TAKE THIS IN ADVISEMENT." I THINK HE MAYBE ASKED THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMMENTS; HE TOOK HER COMMENTS, AND THEN HE SAID, "LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT I WILL TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT," OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHATEVER IT WAS. AND THEN, WHEN HE WAS LEAVING THE BENCH, HE GOT UP AND AS HE WALKED OUT, HE SAID, "I'M READY TO GET THIS CASE OVER WITH." THIS IS OUR GRANDCHILD. THIS CHILD IS IN A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE SITUATION TODAY, EXACTLY LIKE HE WAS A YEAR AGO WHEN WE BROUGHT IT TO HIS ATTENTION, THEN, TO TRY TO GET THE COURT TO DO SOMETHING THEN. THE EVIDENCE WAS --
Q DO Y'ALL STILL HAVE VISITATION?
A WE HAVE VISITATION, AND WE HOPE THAT -- THIS WEEKEND, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SEE THE CHILD, AND WE HOPE AND PRAY WE DO GET TO SEE THE CHILD. PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS HAVE NOT SEEN THE CHILD IN TWO WEEKS.
Q HAS ALL OF YOUR VISITATION BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST, SINCE THIS ORDER?
A YES, IT HAS. BUT SINCE THE CHILD HAS NOT BEEN SEEN IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, THE MOTHER -- WE KNOW WHERE SHE HAS BEEN OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS. THE CHILD HAS NOT BEEN WITH HER, AT ALL. WE'VE GIVEN THEM INDICATIONS OF WHERE WE THINK THE CHILD MIGHT BE, AND THE CHILD HAS NOT BEEN -- WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE CHILD IS, AT THIS POINT. WE ARE HOPING THAT THE MOTHER WILL -- THAT EVERYTHING WILL CONTINUE ON AND THAT MY SON WILL PICK THE CHILD UP, YOU KNOW, WHERE HE'S SUPPOSED TO, THIS FRIDAY NIGHT, LIKE HE ALWAYS HAS. BUT THE SITUATION IS TERRIBLE. THE CHILD STILL SUFFERS FROM THE FLAT AFFECT; IT'S JUST A TERRIBLE SITUATION. BUT I KNOW -- I WENT THROUGH THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM TRAINING, WHICH JUDGE NUESSLE HAS VETOED MY APPLICATION, OR ATTEMPTED TO VETO MY APPLICATION. WHEN I --
Q YOU'VE SERVED AS A GUARDIAN?
A I AM CURRENTLY A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN AIKEN COUNTY, AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA RECOGNIZES ME AS THAT.
Q DID YOU DO THAT BEFORE ALL OF THIS?
A I DID NOT, AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY I WENT TO THIS. OKAY? WHEN THIS WAS OVER WITH, I WAS SO CONFUSED BY THE SYSTEM, BY THE JUDGE, BY THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED, BY EVERYTHING -- I WAS SO CONFUSED. AND I THOUGHT -- YOU KNOW, AND BY THE GUARDIAN -- WHY DIDN'T SHE INTERVIEW ANY OF OUR WITNESSES? WHY DIDN'T SHE GO ON TO THE PEDIATRICIAN? WHY? WHY? WHY? WE HAD SO MANY QUESTIONS. AND I WANTED EDUCATION. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED. I WANTED TO TRY TO LEARN WHY ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, AND DID SHE DO HER JOB, AND WHAT EFFECT DID THIS HAVE ON THE JUDGE'S DECISION, AND EVERYTHING? I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW, AT THAT TIME -- I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I STUMBLED ON THAT. BUT I DID GO THROUGH THAT PROGRAM, FOR THE EDUCATION. FOR THE EDUCATION OF IT. SO, I AM A GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SO THE FACT THAT I DON'T TAKE CASES IN COURT DOESN'T REALLY UPSET ME AT ALL. I MEAN, I AM A GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, AS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM, WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO COURT AND TAKE CASES. AND I DO THAT. I MAINLY RECRUIT OTHER PEOPLE, IS WHAT I DO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THE COMMITTEE -- MAYBE MR. HODGES OR MS. GLOVER, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I DON'T. THE RECORD LOOKS PRETTY CLEAR, FROM LOOKING AT IT. I UNDERSTAND MOST OF THE DEPOSITIONS YOU REFER TO -- MOST OF THEM ARE IN HERE, ARE THEY NOT?
WITNESS: YES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THEY'RE EXCERPTS. THEY'RE NOT IN THEIR ENTIRETY, BUT THERE ARE PORTIONS. WE'VE GIVEN YOU EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT; IT'S JUST NOT COMPLETE. I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IN THERE.
MRS. MCNEILL, THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, MA'AM.

WHEREUPON, PETER R. NUESSLE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: SENATOR, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF, ALTHOUGH I'VE GOT QUITE A LOT TO SAY. I'LL DO IT AS QUICK AS I CAN. I WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS NAIL-CLIPPING THING RIGHT OFF THE BAT, BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST SAW THAT, IT REALLY KIND OF ASTOUNDED ME, AND I SAID, "NO, THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE." AND I TOLD MY WIFE ABOUT IT, AND SHE SAID, "WELL, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT IT. THINK BACK AND SEE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, OR SOME CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THAT HAPPENED," BECAUSE I AGREE THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. I DID THAT. I WENT BACK AND I THOUGHT. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING. I DON'T BELIEVE IT OCCURRED. I DON'T KNOW; I NOTICED WHEN I WAS UP HERE EARLIER AND I GOT BACK, MY WIFE TOLD ME I WAS FIDDLING WITH A PAPER CLIP IN MY HAND, WHICH I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE. OUR COURTROOM IS SET SO THAT THE WITNESS SITS DOWN HERE (INDICATING), WHICH IS SOMEWHAT DOWN. THERE'S A RAIL ABOVE THE BENCH. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE JUDGE, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE CHEST AREA. SO I DON'T KNOW. I WAS JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHEREAS MRS. MCNEILL COULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAS OCCURRING. I CAN'T COME UP WITH ONE, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF IT, AND SO I DON'T THINK IT HAPPENED. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT ON WHAT SHE IS REALLY HAVING TO SAY, BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE DECORUM IN COURT. I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON TO -- SINCE SHE HAS BEEN SO GOOD AS TO DO THIS IN AN ORGANIZED WAY, I KIND OF WANTED TO RESPOND, USING HER EXHIBITS BECAUSE AS I LISTEN TO HER, I DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT MRS. MCNEILL BELIEVES EVERYTHING SHE JUST TOLD Y'ALL, AND I DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT SOME OF IT'S TRUE. I DON'T DOUBT THAT SOME OF IT IS HER PERCEPTION OF WHAT OCCURRED, WHICH I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHETHER IS TRUE OR NOT. IT MAY BE TRUE. BUT I DO KNOW THAT A LOT OF IT IS INACCURATE, AND A LOT OF IT ARE THINGS OUTSIDE OF COURT THAT NEVER CAME UP DURING THIS TRIAL. A LOT OF WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY HAD TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THIS CASE, WHICH I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT BACK BEFORE ME. REGARDLESS OF WHY, IT WAS NEVER APPEALED. I FIND IT SOMEWHAT INTERESTING THAT HER SON IS NOT HERE TODAY, WHO IS, AFTER ALL, THE PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT, WHO DID NOT GET CUSTODY. AND I'M GOING TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, BECAUSE I TRY TO BE HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT. IF YOU'LL TALK TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME, THEY'LL TELL YOU I DON'T HAVE MUCH TOO SAY. I'M PROBABLY CRITICIZED MORE FOR THAT THAN I AM FOR SAYING OR DOING ANYTHING ELSE, BUT I KIND OF KEEP TO MYSELF AND AM REAL LOW-KEY, AND THAT KIND OF THING. BUT I THINK, PERSONALLY, AND THIS IS JUST MY SPECULATION -- AND I ALSO BEAR NO ILL WILL TOWARD ANYBODY -- THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS TODAY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT I RECUSE MYSELF IN THE ACTION THAT SHE SAYS SHE IS GOING TO FILE. I SUSPECTED THAT, HAVING HEARD THE FIRST CASE; BUT I THINK THAT'S THE REAL MOTIVE BEHIND ALL OF THIS TODAY. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO HER EXHIBITS. I'M GOING TO USE THE LITTLE FRONT THING, AND NOT THE BIG COPIES OF THE THINGS, TO START WITH, BECAUSE I DID HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH. SHE REFERENCES, ON THE SECOND OR THIRD PAGE -- FOURTH PAGE, WHERE SHE ADDRESSES THE LETTER TO SENATOR POPE AND REFERS TO EXHIBIT "A," SHE SEEMS TO PUT A LOT OF MERIT IN THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT -- THEY AGREED THAT REGINA MCNEILL'S FATHER WOULD NOT BE AROUND THE CHILD, OR WHATEVER EXACTLY THE AGREEMENT WAS. I DON'T SEE THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, AS HAVING ANY PRECEDENTIAL OR PROBATIVE VALUE. THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT. PARTIES ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS ALL THE TIME, AND AGREE TO THINGS THAT THEY DON'T LIKE AND DON'T REALLY WANT AND DON'T BELIEVE. IT'S A COMPROMISE. IN AN EFFORT TO SETTLE A CASE, PEOPLE AGREE TO THINGS. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WHAT I WOULD HAVE CALLED, IF I WERE HER LAWYER, A THROW-AWAY -- SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT AND ARE WILLING TO AGREE TO, YOU KNOW, IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU GO TO TRY A CASE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, YOU DON'T GO BACK AND RE-TRY THE AGREEMENT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS RIGHT, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, OR GOOD REASON FOR IT. PEOPLE AGREE TO THINGS THAT THEY WOULD NEVER -- THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT --

Q JUDGE, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE SON OF MRS. MCNEILL CAME BACK TO COURT ON THE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS, HE CERTAINLY HAD A HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF THAN HE WOULD HAVE, IF HE HAD --
A OH, YES, SIR. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
Q -- IF HE HAD FOUGHT CUSTODY TO START WITH?
A RIGHT. AND IF MICHAEL AND REGINA MCNEILL HAD TRIED THIS CASE ON A STRAIGHT CUSTODY AT THE VERY BEGINNING, MICHAEL MCNEILL MAY WELL HAVE WON. I DON'T KNOW. BUT CERTAINLY, WHEN IT CAME BACK BEFORE ME AND WAS ON A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON MICHAEL MCNEILL, TO PROVE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, THAT WOULD MERIT CHANGE IN CUSTODY. NOW, WE ALL KNOW THINGS DON'T REMAIN STATIC. THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME KIND OF CHANGES. THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER IT'S SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH. I WOULD AGREE THERE WAS -- YOU HIT IT ON THE NOSE, SENATOR -- THERE'S ALL KINDS OF CONFLICTING TESTIMONY IN THIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T LIKE EACH OTHER. AS A JUDGE, THAT'S PART OF MY JOB; I'VE GOT TO DECIDE WHAT THE TRUTH IS, OR WHAT THE FACTS ARE. THAT'S NOT EASY. YOU DO IT BY OBSERVING THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND ANY INCONSISTENCIES IN THEIR TESTIMONY AND OTHER WITNESSES', AND SO FORTH. MRS. MCNEILL CHOOSES TO BELIEVE ALL HER WITNESSES; OBVIOUSLY, I DIDN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING ALL HER WITNESSES SAID, OR I WOULDN'T HAVE RULED THE WAY I DID.
Q JUDGE, IS MS. SNELGROVE CONSIDERED TO BE A THOROUGH GUARDIAN AD LITEM?
A I THINK IF YOU WILL INQUIRE, IN THE AIKEN BAR, YOU WILL FIND SHE IS. I'M NOT SURE -- SHE HAS SOMEWHERE ON THE ORDER OF TEN YEARS' EXPERIENCE, MAYBE, PLUS. SHE HANDLES EXCLUSIVELY FAMILY LAW IN HENDERSON JOHNSON'S LAW FIRM, THERE; THAT'S HER FATHER. SHE WORKS WITH HER BROTHER AND HER FATHER AND SOME OTHER LAWYERS, THERE; I THINK SHE'S VERY HIGHLY REGARDED. DOES A LOT OF LITIGATION IN FAMILY COURT, CONTESTED STUFF. AND SHE'S ONE OF THE -- THERE MAY BE THREE, FOUR, FIVE PEOPLE -- LAWYERS -- IN AIKEN, WHO DO PRIMARILY FAMILY PRACTICE, AND A LOT OF THEM DO A LOT OF THE GUARDIAN WORK, IN CASES THAT THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED IN. SHE AND JIM VEREENES, WHO WAS THE GUARDIAN IN THE EARLIER CASE, PROBABLY DO MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. BUT I WOULD MAINTAIN SHE'S VERY HIGHLY RESPECTED. AS FAR AS THE EXHIBIT "B," SHE REFERS TO A NOTICE OF MOTION AND RESTRAINING ORDER. EVERYTHING IN EXHIBIT "B" ARE ALLEGATIONS. THEY ARE PLEADINGS THAT WERE FILED. NO COURT DECISION, NO ANYTHING. THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. THE FACT THAT YOU FILE A COMPLAINT AND ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF SOMETHING, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS NOT EVIDENCE. HER EXHIBIT "C," THE COMPLAINT FOR CONTEMPT, THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT WAS COMBINED WITH THE OTHER ACTION; IT WAS ALL HEARD IN THE SAME PROCESS. AS I RECALL, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME TECHNICAL CONTEMPT, AND I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY ALL THE FACTS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT THE ORDER SAID TO DO IS NOT ENOUGH TO HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT; YOU MUST ALSO BE WILLFUL ABOUT IT. YOU MUST INTEND TO VIOLATE THE ORDER, AND SO FORTH. AFTER HEARING THIS CASE, I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS CONTEMPTUOUS. I THINK THERE WAS SOME BEHAVIOR ON REGINA MCNEILL'S PART WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT MERITED A CONTEMPT CITATION. HER EXHIBIT "D," THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ET CETERA, APPARENTLY WAS SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING. I WOULD MAINTAIN IT IS OF NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AT A HEARING ON THE MERITS. WE DO THINGS AT TEMPORARY HEARINGS ALL THE TIME BY AFFIDAVIT AND OTHER WAYS; THAT SETS NO PRECEDENT FOR THE CASE. IT'S NOT PROBATIVE OF ANYTHING, AND WHEN YOU GO TO TRIAL YOU START OVER CLEAN. SO I JUST THINK THAT DOESN'T -- IT'S JUST NOT MATERIAL. HER EXHIBIT "E," THE TEMPORARY ORDER, I WOULD MAINTAIN IS THE SAME; IT'S OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE OR ANYTHING. AND I MIGHT ADDRESS THE GUARDIAN'S FEE, SINCE SHE MENTIONS IT LATER ON, TOO, BUT WHILE I'M THINKING OF IT. I REVIEWED THE FILE, AND I'VE GOT IT IF ANYBODY WANTS IT -- WANTS TO COPY ANYTHING, OR ANYTHING ELSE. I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND HAPPENED WAS, AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING, JUDGE MOBLEY -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE, AS FAR AS WHO SAID WHAT, BUT THE RESULT WAS THAT A RETAINER FOR THE GUARDIAN WAS SET AT $700 AND WAS TO BE DEPOSITED AND DRAWN AGAINST, AS THE GUARDIAN HAD TIME IN THE CASE. IT DID NOT SET THE FEE FOR THE CASE. YOU DON'T SET GUARDIAN FEES AT TEMPORARY HEARINGS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GUARDIAN'S GOING TO DO. I MEAN, I HAVE CASES -- AND I'VE HEARD CASES RECENTLY WHERE GUARDIANS HAVE GONE TO BOSTON AND TEXAS AND PLACES LIKE THAT, AND HAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN EXPENSES. YOU CERTAINLY DON'T SET THE FINAL FEE AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING. IN THE FINAL ORDER, I SET THE FINAL FEE AT $1,500. SOMEWHERE IN HERE -- AND I CAN'T RECALL, EXACTLY -- IT APPEARS THAT MRS. MCNEILL WAS TRYING TO SAY -- ON THE ONE HAND, IT LOOKED LIKE SHE WAS SAYING THE TOTAL FEE WAS $2,200. WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE FINAL FEE WAS $1,500; THE $350 PUT UP BY EACH SIDE AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING WAS APPLIED TO WHAT THE COURT DETERMINED TO BE THEIR PORTION OF THE $1,500, WHICH I BELIEVE REGINA MCNEILL'S PORTION WAS THE $350 SHE PUT UP, AND MICHAEL MCNEILL PAID THE BALANCE, HAVING ALREADY BEEN CREDITED FOR THE $350 THAT HE PUT UP. NOW, SHE ALSO REFERS -- I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF -- TO MS. SNELGROVE'S TIME SHEET OR AFFIDAVIT LISTING 11.75 HOURS, AND AT THAT RATE, THAT COMES TO $127.65. WELL, IT DOES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU DIVIDE INTO THE FIGURE. BUT THAT WAS AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, DID NOT INCLUDE THE DAY OF TRIAL OR THE TIME OF TRIAL IN FEBRUARY AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF TRIAL IN APRIL, AND DID NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT MS. SNELGROVE MAY HAVE DONE IN BETWEEN. SO IF YOU TAKE THE HOURS OF TRIAL, WHICH -- I DON'T KNOW -- ARE SEVEN, MAYBE. SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, SIX TO EIGHT. YOU ADD THAT ONTO HER HOURS. THAT PROBABLY DROPS IT DOWN TO AROUND 80-SOME DOLLARS, AND THEN IF SHE'S GOT SOME OTHER TIME -- MY PRACTICE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME WAS TO AWARD $75 AN HOUR TO THE GUARDIAN, AND I BET YOU IF WE GOT THE TIME SHEET, WE WOULD FIND THAT WAS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT THAT $1,500 REPRESENTS. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP, ABOUT THAT FEE.
Q DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE HEARING?
A I HAVE SOME, YES, SIR. NOT EVERYTHING, NOT WHAT EVERYBODY SAID, OF COURSE, BUT I HAVE A GENERAL RECOLLECTION OF THE HEARING, YES, SIR. IN EXHIBIT "F" -- I'M SORRY.
Q BASICALLY, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, IN LOOKING AT THIS EVIDENCE AND LISTENING TO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, YOU BASICALLY ACCEPTED HER RECOMMENDATION?
A WELL, I THINK IT GOES WAY BEYOND THAT.
Q NO, I MEAN, THAT ISN'T ALL YOU DID, BUT, I MEAN --
A WELL, BY THE END OF THE CASE, MY PRACTICE IS -- BY THE END OF THE CASE -- YOU CAN'T LISTEN TO THAT MUCH TESTIMONY AND NOT HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT DIRECTION, OR AT LEAST THE THINGS YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT AND YOU WANT TO GIVE SOME MORE THOUGHT TO. I HAD AN IDEA OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE CASE. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE CASES LIKE THIS, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SLEEP ON IT A DAY OR SO, AND SEE IF I FEEL THE SAME WAY THE NEXT DAY THAT I FELT RIGHT THEN. I FORGOT WHAT ELSE I WAS GOING TO SAY ON THAT POINT, BUT -- OH, I KNOW. THE GUARDIAN. I HAD AN IMPRESSION OF THE CASE, OF COURSE. THE GUARDIAN MADE, IN THIS CASE, I THINK, AN ORAL REPORT AT THE END, WANTING TO WAIT UNTIL THE TESTIMONY WAS OVER TO MAKE HER REPORT. AND I FOUND THAT THE GUARDIAN WAS HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION I WAS AND HAD THE SAME CONCERNS, AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. YOU'VE GOT TO GET PAST -- WHAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES ABOUT THESE TYPES OF CUSTODY FIGHTS IS, IT'S NOT -- AS MUCH AS MAYBE IT OUGHT TO BE -- I DON'T MAKE THE LAW. I TRY TO GO BY THE BOOK, WHICH MEANS YOU GO BY WHAT THE LAW SAYS. AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, THE POSTURE WE WERE IN WAS NOT SIMPLY A QUESTION OF WHO THE BEST PARENT IS AND WHERE THE KID OUGHT TO GO. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE THAT WAS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE. AND LIKE I SAID, IF IT WAS, THE RESULT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. BUT I WAS BOUND TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CHANGE OF CONDITION, SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE CUSTODY. THE PREVIOUS ORDER, MICHAEL MCNEILL AGREED TO; AND TO ME, WHEN HE AGREED TO THAT, HE SAID, ONE, THAT SHE WAS A FIT PARENT, AND TWO, THAT THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT CHILD AT THAT TIME. AND HE MAY WELL HAVE BELIEVED THAT AT THAT TIME. SO HE -- I AGREE WITH YOUR EARLIER COMMENT. HE HAS A MUCH HIGHER BURDEN. HE HAS TO COME BACK, IN ONE SENSE OF THE WORD -- OR ONE SENSE OF IT, REGINA MCNEILL IS KIND OF LIKE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. IT'S UP TO MICHAEL MCNEILL TO FIRST PROVE THAT SOMETHING HAS CHANGED THAT WARRANTS A CHANGE IN CUSTODY. I CAN HIT THE REST OF THESE PRETTY BRIEFLY, I THINK. "F" REFERS TO AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES. AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, AND THEY WERE PROBABLY IN THERE AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING; AND THOSE ARE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED AT A HEARING ON THE MERITS, SO THEY WERE PROPERLY IGNORED. "G" REFERS TO DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE TAKEN. THOSE WERE NEVER PUT INTO EVIDENCE. THOSE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. THAT'S NORMALLY NOT THE REASON YOU TAKE DEPOSITIONS, AS LAWYERS KNOW. THEY WERE NOT USED TO IMPEACH A WITNESS, AS I RECALL, SO THEY SIMPLY WERE NOT IN THE RECORD. ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID IN THERE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. ON "H," ON THE MEDICAL RECORDS, MRS. MCNEILL INCLUDED ONE PAGE -- WELL, FIRST, SHE LEFT OFF THE FRONT PAGE, WHICH I AGREE WASN'T REALLY MATERIAL; IT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. IT HAD TO DO WITH HER CLAIM. BUT WHAT WENT INTO EVIDENCE -- THIS RIGHT HERE, THERE WAS KIND OF A COVER SHEET OR FIRST PAGE, AND THEN THERE WERE TWO PAGES. MRS. MCNEILL HAS ADDED NOTES, DOCTOR'S NOTES, WHICH WERE NOT PUT INTO EVIDENCE. AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO EXAMINE IT, IT'S RIGHT HERE. I'VE GOT -- I MEAN, NOT A TRANSCRIPT; I DON'T THINK THERE EVER WAS ONE. I'VE GOT THE EXHIBITS RIGHT HERE (INDICATING). SO -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS SAID; I CAN'T READ DOCTOR'S HANDWRITING ANY BETTER THAN I CAN READ MY OWN SOMETIMES, BUT ANYWAY, THERE WAS THAT EVIDENCE OF THE CHLAMYDIA, WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF, OR BY ITSELF, IS NOT DETERMINATIVE. HER WORK RECORDS, EXHIBIT "I," THERE WAS ONE EXHIBIT OF THE DATES AND HOURS AT BECHTEL THAT REGINA MCNEILL WORKED; WHEN SHE STARTED EMPLOYMENT; IT GAVE THE TERMINATION DATE, AND THAT'S ALL IT SAID. NOW, I DON'T KNOW BECHTEL'S PROCEDURE. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WRITE "TERMINATION," IF THAT MEANS "FIRED," OR NOT. MAYBE SHE WAS FIRED; I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT EXHIBIT DOESN'T PROVE SHE WAS FIRED, IN MY MIND. SHE SAYS SHE WAS FIRED FROM WATERFOWL U.S.A., A JOB WHICH MRS. MCNEILL SAYS REGINA MCNEILL LOST TWO TO THREE MONTHS AFTER THE HEARING ENDED. SO CERTAINLY, THE FACT SHE GOT FIRED FROM THIS OTHER JOB HAD NO BEARING ON THIS HEARING AND IS NOT MATERIAL TO WHAT HAPPENED. IT'S SIMPLY AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE FACT. I FIND EXHIBIT "J" TO BE SOME KIND OF VEHICLE AND ACCIDENT REPORTS. THEY WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE. NOW, MAYBE ALL THESE THINGS WERE GIVEN -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. MAYBE THEY WERE THERE, BUT THAT IS NOT IN THIS FILE; THEY ARE NOT ON THE LIST OF EXHIBITS. EXHIBITS "K," "L," "M," AND "N" ARE THINGS SHE REFERS TO, SOME KIND OF COLLECTION LETTER -- THAT WAS NOT IN EVIDENCE. CROSS' MEDICAL RECORDS WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE. SOME KIND OF LETTER TO VICKI SNELGROVE, IS NOT ON THE EXHIBIT LIST. THEY'RE JUST NOT THERE. I'VE COVERED "N," ABOUT THE FEE. AS FAR AS THE FACT THAT WE QUIT ONE DAY, AND ALL THAT STUFF, HINDSIGHT IS REAL GOOD ON SCHEDULING. YOU CAN GET ANY NUMBER OF LAWYERS TOGETHER ON HOW LONG A CASE IS GOING TO TAKE TO TRY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND AS A JUDGE, YOU TRY TO LEARN THE LAWYERS THAT COME BEFORE YOU REGULARLY AND HAVE AN IDEA YOURSELF. WHEN WE CAME BACK FROM LUNCH, AS I RECALL, I TALKED TO THE LAWYERS, "WHAT HAVE WE GOT COMING UP?" I DO THAT REGULARLY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IMPROPER ABOUT ASKING, "HOW MANY WITNESSES YOU GOING TO HAVE? HOW LONG YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE?" AND ALL THAT. THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVEN, AND NOBODY QUARRELED WITH IT, WAS THAT WE HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY. WELL, YOU MIGHT SAY, "WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU START, IF YOU HAD SO MUCH?" WELL, I FIGURED WE HAD ABOUT A DAY, AND THAT'S WHY WE SET IT A DAY LATER. I GUESS THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE. I LIKE TO QUIT -- IF YOU'VE GOT TO BREAK A HEARING, I'D RATHER BREAK IT WHEN THE PLAINTIFF'S ALL DONE OR THE DEFENDANT'S ALL DONE, BECAUSE WHAT I FIND IS, IF YOU BREAK IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT, THEN THE CASE GROWS BEFORE YOU COME BACK. AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ALL THAT.
Q JUDGE, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON, THOUGH, TO RECESS A HEARING --
A NO.
Q -- AND HAVE IT CONCLUDE ON ANOTHER DAY?
A NO. HEARINGS, UNFORTUNATELY -- BECAUSE SCHEDULING IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE, UNFORTUNATELY THAT OCCURS QUITE REGULARLY. OUR ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HAS A POLICY -- JUDGE INABINET -- AND THIS IS NO CRITICISM OF HIM; I'D DO THE SAME THING, IF I WERE HIM -- THAT HE PRE-TRIES THE CASE, AND HE SIMPLY WON'T GIVE YOU THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU ASK FOR SOMETIMES, BECAUSE OF THE REGULARITY WITH WHICH CASES ARE SETTLED; AND HE DOESN'T WANT A CASE SETTLED AND THERE'S A WHOLE BLOCK OF TIME. SO HE TRIES TO SQUEEZE MORE INTO A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD THAN THERE ACTUALLY IS TIME FOR, KNOWING SOME OF IT MAY SETTLE OUT. AND YOU MAY THINK YOU ONLY HAVE AN HOUR, AND YOU MAY REALLY HAVE TWO, WHEN YOU GET THROUGH WITH IT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S A VERY COMMON PRACTICE. SO I JUST DID OTHER WORK; WORKED ON ORDERS AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU DO. A JUDGE HAS A LOT OF WORK OUTSIDE COURT. SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T CONSIDER THAT, TOO. SHE QUARRELS WITH THE FACT OF THE TWO WEEKS TO GET THE ORDER. THE SUPREME COURT TELLS US WE'VE GOT 30 DAYS. I THINK TWO WEEKS IS PRETTY TIMELY. YOU POLL LAWYERS, AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND TWO WEEKS IS PRETTY TIMELY FOR A HIGHLY CONTESTED COURT CASE, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. IN HER EXHIBIT "P" SHE GOES INTO CITING SOME INDIVIDUAL THINGS IN THE ORDERS, WHERE SHE PICKS THE THINGS SHE LIKES. THIS STUFF ABOUT THIS ONE WITNESS LEAVING HOME AND BEING A PROSTITUTE; NONE OF THAT WAS AT THE TRIAL. A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT MS. MCNEILL TALKS ABOUT -- AGAIN, SHE SINCERELY BELIEVES THEM TO BE, AND THEY MAY BE TRUE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT THEY ARE SIMPLY INADMISSIBLE. THEY'RE SECOND- AND THIRD-HAND. PEOPLE WEREN'T THERE AT TRIAL, WHO COULD GIVE YOU THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE. THEY JUST WEREN'T THERE. THIS DOCTOR, HE NEVER CAME TO COURT. NOT SURPRISINGLY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY -- I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING ATTACKED ON THIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM THING, AND I TAKE PARTICULAR PRIDE IN THAT THING BECAUSE WE HAD A PROGRAM IN AIKEN COUNTY BEFORE THE STATE GOT IN BUSINESS. WHEN THE STATE GOT IN THE BUSINESS, THEY KIND OF -- THEY WANTED OUR PROGRAM, BECAUSE IT WAS UP AND RUNNING; THEY WANTED OURS TO BE PART OF THEIRS, SO THEIRS WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL. I MEAN, THAT WAS MY VIEW OF IT. WHEN I CAME ON THE BENCH IN FEBRUARY OF 1983, THERE WAS NO GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM IN AIKEN COUNTY. I DECIDED NOT LONG AFTER THAT, THAT WE NEEDED LAY GUARDIANS. WE NEEDED TO GET THE LAWYERS OUT OF THE GUARDIAN BUSINESS. GOOD FOR THE LAWYERS; GOOD FOR THE GUARDIANS; GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. I WENT TO A LOCAL ORGANIZATION, KNOWING THAT I COULDN'T SUSTAIN THAT -- I MEAN, THAT'S NOT MY ROLE IN THE COURT CAMP. DIDN'T HAVE ANY FUNDS TO HAVE SOMEBODY DO ALL THAT SORT OF THING. SO I WENT TO THE COALITION TO ASSIST ABUSED PERSONS, AND I SAID, "I'M LOOKING FOR SOME GROUP WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN TAKING THIS AND STARTING THIS PROGRAM UP, SO WE CAN HAVE LAY PEOPLE AS GUARDIANS AND APPOINT LAWYERS TO REPRESENT THEM." THEY DID THAT. IT TOOK THEM SOME PERIOD OF TIME, TOOK ABOUT A YEAR TO GET IT CRANKING AND ALL THAT --
Q EXCUSE ME, JUDGE. I'VE GOT TO GO VOTE. THERE'S SOMETHING I NEED TO TEND TO, IF YOU DON'T MIND. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT RECESS. I'M SORRY.
A YES, SIR.

Q JUDGE, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET YOU CONTINUE. I'M SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
A OKAY. I'M VERY CLOSE TO FINISHED. I'LL TRY NOT TO HOLD THE COMMITTEE ANY LONGER THAN NECESSARY. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE GUARDIAN PROGRAM. ANYWAY, I HAD GONE TO THEM, AND IT GOT UP AND RUNNING. AND AS TIME WENT ON, IT IMPROVED; IT WAS RUNNING FINE, AND IT ENDED UP PART OF THE STATE PROGRAM. FROM THE VERY INCEPTION OF THAT PROGRAM, BEFORE THE STATE TOOK OVER, JUDGE LARRY INABINET AND MYSELF, WHO HAD BEEN THE RESIDENT JUDGES IN THAT CIRCUIT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, BOTH AGREED -- IT STARTED WITH A LOCAL PROGRAM -- THAT WE SHOULD REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING GUARDIANS; AND THAT, IF WE FELT FOR SOME REASON WE WEREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH SOMEBODY SERVING, THEN WE WOULDN'T LET THEM SERVE. I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT GUARDIANS BE JUST AS ABSOLUTELY IMPARTIAL AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. FOR THAT REASON, EVERY YEAR, WHEN YOU GET A BATCH OF THEM, THERE'S ALMOST ALWAYS SOMEBODY IN THERE -- NOT A BAD PERSON. YOU DON'T -- I MEAN, THEY COULD PROBABLY DO A GOOD JOB. BUT THERE MIGHT BE THE APPEARANCE OF SOME IMPROPRIETY. NOW, PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE WITH THAT, AND THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH MY CHOICES, BUT I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH OR SOME OF THE OTHER STATE AGENCIES -- MENTAL RETARDATION; WE HAVE SOME LOCAL COUNTY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS WHICH DEAL WITH FOLKS --
Q JUDGE, EXCUSE ME. THEY'RE DRIVING US CRAZY, HERE. JUST HANG IN THERE, AND I'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

OKAY. SORRY, JUDGE. GO AHEAD.
A IN ANY EVENT, THE PEOPLE WHO I HAVE ELIMINATED FROM THE PROGRAM, IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR CHARACTER; IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR MOTIVATION OR THEIR GOOD INTENTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN CERTAIN PROGRAMS OR EMPLOYED BY CERTAIN AGENCIES THAT I FELT RESULTED IN A CONFLICT. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I ELIMINATED A WOMAN -- SHE HAD BEEN ON THE PROGRAM FOR A WHILE -- WHO WAS HEAD OF THE LOCAL MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING, BECAUSE IT WAS MY FEELING THAT SHE WAS SO INVOLVED IN THAT, AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH IT, THAT SHE COULD NOT BE COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL ON THE ISSUE OF ALCOHOL, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT COME UP. AND WHEN I'VE DONE THAT, THAT'S THE REASON. IN MS. MCNEILL'S CASE, THE REASON I DID THAT WAS I FELT IT WAS THIS LITIGATION. I FELT LIKE SHE HAD BEEN SO INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS, AND OBVIOUSLY CONTINUES TO BE -- SHE SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO FILE ANOTHER ACTION -- THAT WHILE SHE IS WELL-INTENTIONED, I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES FOR A COMPLETELY UNBIASED PERSON. IT CREATES A POSSIBLE CONFLICT, IN MY MIND, AND IT ALSO CREATES A PROBLEM OF HER SON'S CASE AND HER INVOLVEMENT, HAVING BEEN IN COURT, WHETHER OR NOT SHE COULD APPEAR IN A CASE THAT I WAS GOING TO HEAR. AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HER AS GUARDIAN IN A CASE, KNOWING THAT SHE WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE CASE THAT DID NOT PREVAIL, AND NOT KNOWING -- YOU KNOW, I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT LOOKED GOOD, AND IT WOULDN'T HELP ANYBODY. AND THAT'S WHY I DID THAT. I WOULD COMMENT ON SOME OF HER COMMENTS: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY RIGHTS YOU HAVE, TO BE A GUARDIAN AD LITEM. I'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED OR GIVEN ANY INFORMATION BY THE STATE PROGRAM, THAT I CANNOT DO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. AND I WOULD MAINTAIN THAT, AS A JUDGE, IT'S MY DISCRETION TO APPOINT THE GUARDIAN IN A PARTICULAR CASE, WHEN ASKED; AND NORMALLY, WE USE THE GUARDIANS. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM, AND I LOVE IT. BUT IN CERTAIN CASES, WE DON'T. SO I THINK THAT'S GETTING INTO THE COURT'S AREA. AND WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, THE COURT IS THE ONE THAT HAS THE DISCRETION TO SELECT THE GUARDIAN; IT'S NOT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT WITH ANY MALICE; I JUST THINK THAT'S WHAT THE SITUATION IS. IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT: SHE SAID I SAID SOMETHING ABOUT GETTING THE CASE OVER. WELL, I DON'T DOUBT THAT THAT COMMENT WAS MADE, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I WAS READY TO DECIDE THE CASE. I HAD HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE. I DON'T LIKE CASES TO HANG. I DON'T KNOW HOW JUDGES LET A CASE HANG FOR, YOU KNOW, AN EXTREMELY LONG TIME AND THEN -- YOU KNOW, THE FURTHER AWAY YOU GET FROM IT, THE HARDER IT IS, I THINK. JUST LIKE THE TRULY GOOD LAWYERS LEAVE THE COURTROOM AND GO BACK AND DO THE ORDER, BECAUSE IT'S FRESH IN THEIR MIND. AND I KIND OF RESENT THE COMMENT THAT SHE DOESN'T THINK I'M CARING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE BASES THAT ON. SHE SAYS SHE BASES THAT JUST ON THE COURT EXPERIENCE, AND THAT MAY BE, BUT I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, AND I THINK I COULD FIND A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE. SHE MAKES SOME REFERENCE TO CARROLL BRYANT AND SOME COMMENTS HE MADE. I DON'T DOUBT HE MADE THE COMMENTS. HE WAS THE LAWYER FOR HER SON, AND I DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT HE WASN'T SYMPATHETIC TO HER, AND I DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE THAT WHEN SHE WAS UPSET WITH THE RESULT, THAT HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH HER. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. AND I'M SORRY TO TAKE SO LONG. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WITNESS: YES, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I THINK THIS CONCLUDES THE HEARING, THEN, UNLESS Y'ALL HAVE SOME REASON --
MS. MCNEILL: MAY I ADD SOMETHING, PLEASE?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.
WHEREUPON, KATHERINE G. MCNEILL, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: JUDGE NUESSLE, IN HIS FINAL COMMENTS, MAKES IT APPEAR THAT I JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME OF OUR CASE. WELL, I DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME OF OUR CASE, AND THE CHILD'S SITUATION HAS WORSENED. BUT I'M NOT HERE TODAY -- BRETT'S CASE IS OVER AND DONE. THAT WAS OVER AND DONE WITH A WHILE AGO, OKAY? I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE QUALITIES THAT A PERSON MUST POSSESS, TO HOLD THIS HIGH POSITION; AND I CAME FORWARD, BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED FOR ALL THE OTHER CHILDREN THAT WILL GO THROUGH HIS COURT, AND WILL BE TREATED IN SIMILAR WAYS. THAT IS THE REASON THAT I'M HERE, AND I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT. I DID NOT COME HERE AS A LAST-MINUTE EFFORT TO KEEP FROM GOING BEFORE HIM IN COURT AGAIN. AND SENATOR POPE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT THAT IS THE TRUTH, BECAUSE I CONTACTED YOU ABOUT THIS CASE MONTHS, AND MONTHS, AND MONTHS AGO. SO THERE IS NO -- THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT I DID RIGHT AT THE LAST MINUTE, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ALSO, IF THE SITUATION REMAINS AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE DO ACTUALLY GO BACK INTO COURT THE NEXT TIME, IT WILL BE TRIED IN EDGEFIELD COUNTY. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IF THE SITUATION CHANGES -- AND IT COULD CHANGE -- AND WE DO HAVE TO TRY IT IN AIKEN COUNTY, THAT THERE WILL BE STEPS AND MEASURES TAKEN TO INSURE US -- AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS BY OUR LEGAL COUNSEL -- THAT HE WILL NOT BE THE JUDGE TO HEAR THE CASE. ON THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM THING, I WAS TOLD BY LYNN DOBSON, WHO IS THE STATE DIRECTOR OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, THAT SHE HAD INVESTIGATED THE SITUATION WITH HIM TRYING TO VETO MY APPLICATION TO BECOME A GUARDIAN, AND THAT SHE HAD BEEN TOLD, THROUGH HER INVESTIGATION -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILED -- THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT; AND THAT AS FAR AS THE STATE WAS CONCERNED, I AM CURRENTLY A GUARDIAN AD LITEM. ALSO, OUR ATTORNEY, RICHARD PIERCE, SAID THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND RICHARD TOLD US, HE SAID, "THE WAY THAT I SEE IT, THE JUDGE WAS JUST THROWING MORE FUEL ON THE FIRE BY DOING THAT." AND I WANT TO --
CHAIRMAN POPE: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S TRUE, OR NOT, BUT I WOULD SAY THIS: LAWYERS UNFORTUNATELY TEND TO TELL THEIR CLIENTS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, AND I THINK THAT'S --
WITNESS: LAWYERS DO, BUT WE'VE HAD TWO INDEPENDENT LAWYERS HERE, AND MRS. COBB, OF COURSE, AT THIS TIME, HERE IN COLUMBIA, IS NOT AWARE OF OUR SITUATION AT ALL. SHE IS NOT AWARE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM THING. SHE IS NOT AWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE CHILD AT ALL, RIGHT NOW. AND SHE DID SEE A LOT OF DISCREPANCIES AND EVERYTHING IN THE PAPERWORK AT THAT TIME. AND THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. THANK YOU.

JUDGE NUESSLE: COULD I RESPOND? I KNOW YOU ALL ARE IN A HURRY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YEAH.
WHEREUPON, PETER R. NUESSLE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: I NEVER SAID SHE COULDN'T GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM AND BE APPROVED, AND ALL THAT, AS A GUARDIAN. I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO COME BEFORE ME. THAT WOULD CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS. AND I CAN TELL YOU -- SHE SAID "MEASURES BEING TAKEN" -- SHE WON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY MEASURES. I DON'T KNOW A JUDGE IN THIS WORLD THAT WOULD HEAR THAT CASE AGAIN, HAVING HEARD IT ONE TIME. I MEAN, THERE'S NO DANGER OF THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, SIR.
WITNESS: I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU, JUDGE.
WITNESS: OKAY.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I SO MOVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SINCE THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN Y'ALL NOW, Y'ALL CAN LEAVE.

(WHEREUPON, AT 4:00 P.M., THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED.)

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and makes certain findings of fact.

The following persons were unanimously found by the Committee to be qualified to serve:
Steve C. Davis, candidate for Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit;
Daniel E. Martin, Sr., candidate for Judge of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit;

Gary E. Clary, candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at Large,
Seat #5;
T. Louis Cox, candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at Large,
Seat #5;
Thomas C. Dillard, candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at Large,
Seat #5;
Martha McElveen Horne, candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at Large, Seat #5;
Walton J. McLeod, III, candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at
Large, Seat #5;
The Honorable Alvin C. Biggs, candidate for Judge of the Family
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;
Wendell O. Brown, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the
Third Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;
Ruben L. Gray, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;
The Honorable Jamie F. Lee, candidate for Judge of the Family
Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;
The Honorable Robert H. Burnside, candidate for Judge of the
Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;
The Honorable Stuart H. Hall, candidate for Judge of the Family
Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;
The Honorable John M. Rucker, Judge of the Family Court of the
Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;
C. David Sawyer, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; and
The Honorable B. J. Warshaurer, for service as a retired Family
Court Judge.

Following the screening and prior to the issuance of this report, Thomas P. Cullen informed the Committee by letter dated April 8, 1992, that he was withdrawing as a candidate for Judge of the Circuit Court at Large, Seat #5.

In the screening of The Honorable William M. Campbell, Jr., candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4, Ms. Anita Dale Drenten testified against Judge Campbell. Ms. Drenten testified that the Judge had ruled erroneously in the case of Clinton A. Hughes v. Anita D. Drenten, (Docket No. 89-DR-28-587). In this case Judge Campbell presided at a temporary hearing held on November 8, 1989, in which the issue was change of custody. In his Pendente Lite Order dated November 14, 1989, Judge Campbell found and concluded that the custody of the child of the parties would remain temporarily with the Plaintiff, Mrs. Drenten's ex-husband. The Order also appointed a Guardian ad Litem for the child and held in abeyance the issue of venue.

The Guardian ad Litem, after investigating the case, subsequently recommended that custody be placed with Mr. Hughes. By Consent Order of Judge Robert H. Cureton, dated March 17, 1990, custody of Mrs. Drenten's daughter was placed with her ex-husband, Clinton Hughes. Both Mr. Hughes and Mrs. Drenten signed the Consent Order.

It is clear, and this Committee finds, that Mrs. Drenten consented to give her husband custody, at least temporarily, in October of 1989. At that time the child had moved to Kershaw County and had enrolled at a new high school there. Subsequently, Mrs. Drenten had a change of heart, and a pick-up Order for the child had been issued. Mrs. Drenten complained that Judge Campbell's refusal to change custody at the temporary hearing resulted in the child becoming unmanageable and incorrigible. The record does not support Mrs. Drenten's contention in this respect.

The Committee finds and concludes that Judge Campbell acted appropriately in all respects in this case. His Pendente Lite Order had the affect of maintaining the status quo only. The Order also appointed a Guardian ad Litem (Mr. Harry Davis), and Mr. Davis later investigated and recommended that custody stay with the father. Thus, the recommendation of the Guardian ad Litem was the same as the ruling of Judge Campbell and the Consent Order of Judge Cureton. Judge Campbell's Pendente Lite Order also clearly provided that the findings of the Court would not prejudice either party nor act as precedent in the case. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented, this Committee finds and concludes unanimously that the case of Hughes v. Drenten was handled appropriately by Judge Campbell in all respects and in no way diminishes his qualifications. The Committee unanimously finds that The Honorable William M. Campbell, Jr. is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4.

In the screening of The Honorable Peter R. Nuessle, candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, Lillian Espinosa testified against Judge Nuessle. Ms. Espinosa testified that the Judge ruled erroneously in the case of Ronald Espinosa v. Lillian Espinosa (Case No. 89-DR-02-769), in a hearing held on July 31, 1990. In that case the issue to be decided was the custody of the minor sons of the parties.

In an Order dated September 6, 1989, these parties had consented for the father to be the custodial parent. That Order further provided that the custody issue would be reviewed at a later date, and the hearing of July 31, 1990, was thus held. The testimony was hotly contested, and there was evidence that the mother had done acts to allegedly alienate the children from the father. The mother presented evidence unfavorable to the father. The Guardian ad Litem recommended that neither party have custody and that the children should be placed in foster care. The Judge granted custody to the father in his Order dated September 7, 1990. The mother, Ms. Espinosa, abandoned her appeal from this ruling.

This Committee finds and concludes that, while Judge Nuessle may have erred, he acted appropriately in this case. The complainant appears to be a very concerned parent and certainly loves her children. Being biased, naturally, she disagrees with Judge Nuessle's ruling. There is no evidence that Judge Nuessle is not qualified based upon his handling of Espinosa v. Espinosa.

Also complaining against Judge Nuessle was Ms. Katherine G. McNeill who testified about the candidate's handling of the case of Michael McNeill v. Regina McNeill (Case No. 90-DR-02-621). Ms. McNeill is the mother of the Plaintiff Michael McNeill and the grandmother of the minor child of the parties.

In this case Judge Nuessle held a hearing on February 28, 1991, and on April 23, 1991, concerning the issues of divorce and change of condition as to permanent custody. In February of 1990, the Property Settlement and Separation Agreement gave custody of the minor child to the mother. In November of 1990, the father brought an action to gain temporary and permanent custody of the minor child. A Guardian ad Litem was appointed by the Court, and she recommended that custody be placed with the father. In December of 1990, Judge Berry Mobley issued an Order which awarded temporary custody to the father. At the final hearing in May of 1991, the Guardian ad Litem recommended that permanent custody be placed with the mother, and the issue then became whether or not the father had proven a substantial change of condition to justify changing custody as of the date of the hearing conducted by Judge Nuessle.

This Committee finds that the evidence at the hearing in Family Court was contested, and the parties were naturally emotional. We also find that the Judge acted within his parameters in awarding custody to the mother, inasmuch as he followed the recommendation of the Guardian ad Litem. There was other evidence recited in his Order which appeared to support his decision. Further, the husband had a higher burden of proof due to the posture that the case was in at the time of the hearing.

Ms. McNeill also complained that Judge Nuessle was uncaring, inattentive and had a bad demeanor on the bench. Specifically, she testified that he clipped his nails and appeared inattentive while she was testifying in this matter. Judge Nuessle responded that he was not uncaring or inattentive, nor did he have a bad demeanor. As to the allegation that he clipped his nails, the Judge agreed that it would have been improper to have done this, but he denied doing so.

This Committee believes that judicial temperament is the most important attribute for a candidate to possess. Clearly, Ms. McNeill came away from the Family Court hearing with an impression that Judge Nuessle had not shown the best demeanor. Ms. McNeill appeared to be an intelligent, conscientious person who genuinely believed that Judge Nuessle had not conducted the hearing with the proper demeanor. Nevertheless, since only one complainant came forward alleging questionable judicial temperament, the Committee does not feel that this allegation is prevalent or serious enough to warrant disqualification. Therefore, the Committee unanimously finds that The Honorable Peter R. Nuessle is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat #1.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator 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. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

(On motion of Senator POPE, ordered printed in the Journal.)

Senator LOURIE introduced Dr. Vick Murdaugh of Columbia, South Carolina, Doctor of the Day.

At 11:25 A.M., Senator MITCHELL requested and was granted a leave of absence beginning at 3:00 P.M. today until 11:00 A.M. Thursday, April 30, 1992.

At 1:05 P.M., Senator MATTHEWS requested and was granted a leave of absence beginning at 2:00 P.M. today until 11:00 A.M. Thursday, April 30, 1992.

At 2:55 P.M., on motion of Senator ROSE, Senator McCONNELL was granted a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.

At 3:05 P.M., Senator GILBERT requested and was granted a leave of absence from 11:00-12:15 P.M. Thursday, April 30, 1992.

Senator MACAULAY rose to a Point of Personal Privilege.

Columbia, S.C., April 28, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the appointment:

Appointment, Member, State Ethics Commission, with term to expire May 31, 1995:

2nd Congressional District:

Ms. Sue C. Erwin, 601 Poinsettia Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 29204 VICE Emiliy Phillips (Resigned)

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 28, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it requests the return of:
S. 268 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 47 TO TITLE 43 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 43-41-10, 43-41-30, AND 43-41-40, RELATING TO THE GLEAAMS HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMISSION IN ANDERSON COUNTY; TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COMMISSION TO GLEAMS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTING ANDERSON COUNTY.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 28, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Reps. Waldrop, Wofford and Vaughn of the Committee of Conference on the part of the House on:
S. 883 -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Shealy, Leatherman, Giese, Waddell, Drummond, Moore, Bryan, Lourie, Long, Peeler, Mitchell, Hinds and Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 24 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 22 RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND ADULT CRIMINAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SO AS TO ESTABLISH AN OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ALLEVIATE PRISON OVERCROWDING BY PROVIDING FOR THE IDENTIFICATION, PREPARATION, AND PLACEMENT OF APPROPRIATE NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 24-3-1110 THROUGH 24-3-2060, THE PRISON OVERCROWDING POWERS ACT.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 28, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the Senate to:
H. 3433 -- Rep. Koon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HUNTING SEASON FOR SMALL GAME, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SQUIRRELS MAY BE HUNTED WITH WEAPONS AND DOGS DURING THE ENTIRE HUNTING SEASON.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 29, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has appointed Reps. Boan, Carnell and H. Brown of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the House on:
H. 4480 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, J.W. Johnson and Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REALLOCATE AND REDUCE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TREASURER TO TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE TO PURCHASE OR BUILD SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE RETIREMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASE MUST CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING ACQUISITION.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

H. 4480 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, J.W. Johnson and Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REALLOCATE AND REDUCE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TREASURER TO TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE TO PURCHASE OR BUILD SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE RETIREMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASE MUST CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING ACQUISITION.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH asked unanimous consent was recognized to make a Report of the Committee of Conference.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH moved for Free Conference Powers for H. 4480.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, Free Conference Powers were granted to the Committee of Conference, Whereupon, the PRESIDENT appointed Senators J. VERNE SMITH, MOORE and LEATHERMAN of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

H. 4480 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, J.W. Johnson and Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REALLOCATE AND REDUCE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TREASURER TO TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE TO PURCHASE OR BUILD SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE RETIREMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASE MUST CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING ACQUISITION.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, the Report of the Committee of Free Conference to H. 4480 (N05\8550.DW) was adopted as follows:

The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 4480 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, J.W. Johnson and Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REALLOCATE AND REDUCE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TREASURER TO TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE TO PURCHASE OR BUILD SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE RETIREMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASE MUST CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING ACQUISITION.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:

That the same do pass with the following amendments:

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

/SECTION 1. Subitem 13 of Section 3 of Act 1377 of 1968, as added by Section 1 of Act 518 of 1980, is amended to read:

"13. Educational Television Commission:

1. Greenville-Replacement of

Transmitter Equipment and

Transmitter Building on

Paris Mountain $1,171,900

2. Equipment-Conway

Station 485,000

32. Equipment-Spartanburg

Station 485,000

4. Equipment-Greenwood

Station 485,000

3. Equipment-Columbia

Facility 970,000

Total, Education

Television Commission $5,626,900

2,626,900".

SECTION 2. Subitem 5 of item 12 of Section 3 of Act 1377 of 1968, as added by Section 1 of Act 538 of 1986, is amended to read:

"5. Sumter Area Technical College

(a) Building 400 Roof

replacement 100,000

(b) Building 100 Class

renovations 170,000

(c) Building 200

Renovations 30,000

(d) Building 300

Renovation damage 10,000

(b) Building 400 Renovations 210,000".

SECTION 3. Sub-subitem (j), subitem 24(A) (Department of Youth Services), item (f), Section 3 of Act 1377 of 1968, as last amended by Section 6 of an act of 1991 bearing ratification number 256, is further amended to read:

"(j) Facility Roofing 309,284
269,284".

SECTION 4. Item (f) of Section 3 of Act 1377 of 1968, as last amended by an act of 1991 bearing ratification number 256, is further amended by adding:

"Ports Authority

Economic Development Project 25,000,000
__________

Total, Ports Authority 25,000,000

If the Joint Bond Review Committee and the Budget and Control Board determine that the Ports Authority Economic Development Project cannot be implemented, the authorization in this subitem is void."

SECTION 5. Subitem 34 (Horry County), item (f), Section 3 of Act 1377 of 1968, as last amended by Section 8 of an act of 1991 bearing ratification number 256, is further amended to read:

"34. Horry County

Multipurpose Arena

City of Myrtle Beach

Convention Center 5,000,000

Total, Horry County

Multipurpose Arena

City of Myrtle Beach 5,000,000

The funds authorized in this subitem for the Horry County-Multipurpose Arena must be matched on a three-to-one value basis as provided by the governing body of Horry County and any governing body of any municipality in Horry County, donations in-kind, and any other source of funds which may be obligated for the arena. The funds authorized in this subitem for the City of Myrtle Beach Convention Center must be matched on a three-to-one value basis as provided by the governing body of the City of Myrtle Beach or the governing body of Horry County, donations in-kind, and any other source of funds which may be obligated for the convention center, including funds of any nonprofit corporation pursuant to any certificate of participation financing of the convention center."

SECTION 6. (A)(1) The offices of the Retirement Division of the State Budget and Control Board have relocated three times in the downtown area of Columbia during the past fifteen years, bringing about administrative hardship and creating confusion on the part of the two hundred thousand members and retirees of the various state retirement systems.

(2) The Retirement Division is currently unable to provide adequate parking for its thousands of visitors.

(3) Many state retirement systems, after careful study, have determined it to be prudent to own administrative space acquired through the use of system funds.

(4) Leasing proposals indicate ownership is a wise option for our system to pursue.

(B) The General Assembly finds that the Retirement Division of the State Budget and Control Board needs adequate and suitable office space to fulfill its ordinary and necessary functions and that ownership of adequate and suitable office space will lend stability to the division's relationship with the members and retirees of the various state retirement systems, provide adequate parking for visitors, and, when compared to leasing, preserve the funds of the various systems.

(C) The State Treasurer may transfer an amount necessary from the funds of the various state retirement systems for use in purchasing or building adequate and suitable offices primarily for the use of the Retirement Division of the State Budget and Control Board. The purchase or construction must conform to applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing acquisitions.

SECTION 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2-7-105 of the 1976 Code, it is the intent of the General Assembly that state capital improvement bonds may not be authorized in 1993.

SECTION 8. Section 4 of Act 1377 of 1968, as last amended by an act of 1991 bearing ratification number 256, is further amended to read:

"Section 4. The aggregate principal indebtedness on account of bonds issued pursuant to this act may not exceed $1,765,539,125.10 $1,790,539,125.10. The limitation imposed by the provisions of this section does not apply to bonds issued on behalf of the Mental Health Commission as provided in Acts 1276 and 1272 of 1970, or to bonds issued on behalf of the Commission on Mental Retardation as provided in Act 1087 of 1970 or to bonds issued on behalf of the South Carolina Fire Academy. The limitation imposed by the provisions of this section is not considered to be an obligation of the contract made between the State and holders of bonds issued pursuant to this act, and the limitation imposed by the provisions of this section may be enlarged by acts amending it or reduced by the application of the Capital Reserve Fund or by amendments of this act. Within these limitations state capital improvement bonds may be issued under the conditions prescribed by this act."

SECTION 9. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

/s/J. Verne Smith /s/William D. Boan
/s/Hugh Leatherman /s/Marion P. Carnell
/s/Thomas L. Moore /s/Henry E. Brown, Jr.

On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH spoke on the Report and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Columbia, S.C., April 29, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on the following Bill:
H. 4480 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, J.W. Johnson and Foster: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REALLOCATE AND REDUCE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS, TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TREASURER TO TRANSFER AN AMOUNT NECESSARY FROM THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE TO PURCHASE OR BUILD SUITABLE OFFICE SPACE FOR THE RETIREMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASE MUST CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES GOVERNING ACQUISITION.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 28, 1992

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the Senate to:
H. 4688 -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1992, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO SUCCEED THOSE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE IN 1992.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

S. 1085 -- Senator Rose: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 24, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, PROSECUTORS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE AGE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CORONERS.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Resolution was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and ordered placed on the Calendar.

S. 1086 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 17-5-130 AND 17-5-140 SO AS TO PROVIDE QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR CORONERS; AND TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRAINING COUNCIL AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent, the Bill was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and ordered placed on the Calendar.

H. 4684 -- Reps. Wilkins, Kinon, McAbee and McGinnis: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-3-480 SO AS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL GUARD TO SUPPORT FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN DRUG ENFORCEMENT MATTERS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNOR TO DELEGATE HIS AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION TO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL WHO IS ALLOWED SPECIFICALLY TO ENTER INTO MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENTS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FOR ACTIVITIES WITHIN THIS STATE.

On motion of Senator LOURIE, with unanimous consent, the Bill was recalled from the Committee on Judiciary and placed on the Calendar.

H. 4695 -- Reps. Farr, Phillips, Sharpe, Wilkes, Bruce, Rhoad, Inabinett, Corbett, Bennett, Gonzales, Beasley, Riser, Meacham, Waites, Snow, Delleney and Manly: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE BRIDGE OVER LITTLE BROWN'S CREEK ON S. 44-57 IN UNION COUNTY AS THE CURTIS HARRIS BRIDGE.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent, the Resolution was recalled from the Committee on Transportation and placed on the Calendar.

There was no objection.

The following were introduced:

S. 1524 -- Senators Bryan, Wilson, Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Leventis, Carmichael, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Giese, Helmly, Hinds, Leatherman, Lourie, Macaulay, Martin, Martschink, McConnell, McGill, Moore, O'Dell, Peeler, Pope, Reese, Rose, Russell, Shealy, J. Verne Smith, Stilwell and Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT AND MAINTAIN A STRONG ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BY MANDATING THAT THE "END STRENGTH" OF THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BE NO LESS THAN 420,000 PERSONNEL AND THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD UNITS PRESENTLY SERVING THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA BE RETAINED AS PART OF THE FORCE STRUCTURE OF AMERICA'S ARMED FORCES.

Whereas, under the "Base Force Strategy" proposal of the Department of Defense, the strength of the Army National Guard will be reduced approximately from 459,000 to 338,000 personnel which will result in the deactivation of many National Guard units throughout South Carolina and the closing of many local armories; and

Whereas, these proposed reductions would reduce the National Guard to an ineffectual and insignificant role in our nation's defense and would deprive many communities of the services of their local National Guard units and would deprive the citizens in these communities from having the privilege of participating in their nation's defense; and

Whereas, the proposed reductions would cause increased reliance in expensive, unneeded active forces and a decreased reliance in the cost-effective National Guard forces which would be illogical at a time of reduced threat in the world and economic hardships; and

Whereas, the Army National Guard is appropriated only approximately two percent of the entire defense budget, and approximately four National Guard soldiers can be trained and made available for the cost of one active duty soldier; and

Whereas, the base force proposal is not only the least cost-effective method of providing a strong defense for our nation, but is inconsistent with the scheme for national defense of the framers of the Constitution who envisioned that our nation would be defended primarily by citizen-soldiers led and trained by a small active military to be no larger than dictated by "evident necessity"; and

Whereas, the framers of the Constitution were confident that the citizen-soldiers would quickly answer a call to their country's colors when the cause was just and were further confident that free men were well capable of defending their own freedom and would, in fact, prefer to do so; and

Whereas, in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison clearly indicate that the framers of the Constitution intended to discourage over-reliance on a professional military in order to reserve to the Congress, elected by and responsive to the people, both the decision and the ability to wage war and, accordingly, the base force proposal would alter the balance of authority and ability to wage war that currently exists between the Congress and the executive branch in a fashion contrary to the fundamental scheme of the Constitution; and

Whereas, the National Guard throughout our country's history has consistently proven itself to be a dedicated and effective means of national defense whenever called upon; and

Whereas, the recent "call-up" for the Persian Gulf War demonstrated that present-day National Guard personnel can well perform missions just as did the Minute Men of the past and can be ready for deployment overseas well in advance of the availability of transportation to theaters of operations; and

Whereas, the base force proposal ignores the constraints on available transportation for deployment of active duty divisions overseas demonstrated by the fact that it took approximately six months to build up forces in theater for the Persian Gulf War, and further ignores the absence of a specific threat causing a need for a large, expensive active Army; and

Whereas, in addition to being the most cost-effective means of having ample ground forces for national defense and being a ready, on-call force for local emergencies and drug interdiction, the National Guard has been and should continue to be the focal point for "grass roots" support of our country's defense and a breeding ground of future generations of patriotic, dependable, and fit young people who desire to serve their nation and State both in war and in peace as members of the National Guard; and

Whereas, an Army National Guard with a minimum "end strength" of 420,000 is necessary to maintain the Army National Guard in sufficient numbers to provide a ready force of sufficient size needed for our nation's defense, to maintain a balance between active and reserve forces consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and to maintain the traditional National Guard presence in local communities throughout the United States which tradition the citizens of our communities wish to continue; and

Whereas, the Congress has historically and constitutionally legislated the strength of the active Army and the Army National Guard and, except for the period between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the authorized strength of the Army National Guard has always substantially exceeded that of the active Army. For example, in 1916 the strength was 175,000 active and 400,000 Guard personnel, and in 1920-40, the strength was 280,000 active and 425,000 Guard personnel. Now, therefore,

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

That the members of the General Assembly hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States to support and maintain a strong Army National Guard by mandating that the "end strength" of the Army National Guard be no less than 420,000 personnel and that the South Carolina Army National Guard units presently serving the State of South Carolina be retained as part of the force structure of America's Armed Forces.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each house of the Congress of the United States, and to each senator and member of the United States House of Representatives from South Carolina.

Referred to the General Committee.

S. 1525 -- Senators Robert W. Hayes, Jr. and Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-25-25 SO AS TO CREATE THE CRIME OF CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OF A HIGH AND AGGRAVATED NATURE AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-25-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN A PERSON VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16-25-20 (CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) FOR A FIRST OR SECOND OFFENSE, THE COURT MAY SUSPEND EXECUTION OF ALL OR PART OF THE SENTENCE AND PLACE THE OFFENDER ON PROBATION CONDITIONED UPON THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFENDER IN A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO TREAT BATTERING SPOUSES OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PSYCHIATRIC OR THERAPEUTIC TREATMENT OR COUNSELING; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-4-20, RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS USED IN THE "PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT", SO AS TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER" "PERSONS COHABITATING OR FORMERLY COHABITING".

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1526 -- Senator Matthews: A BILL TO DIRECT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO DELETE A PORTION OF THE OLD UNITED STATES ROUTES 15 AND 301 IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND TO TRANSFER THIS PORTION OF THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

On motion of Senator MATTHEWS, S. 1526 was ordered to receive a second and third reading on the next two consecutive legislative days.

S. 1527 -- Senator Matthews: A BILL TO DIRECT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO REMOVE FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM THAT PORTION OF ROAD S-38-733 WITHIN THE CAMPUS OF DANTZLER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

On motion of Senator MATTHEWS, S. 1527 was ordered to receive a second and third reading on the next two consecutive legislative days.

H. 4783 -- Rep. Harrelson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE CONGRESS TO ENACT THE AMENDMENT TO THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT WHICH RAISES THE EXEMPTION TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR MONEY EARNED AND WHICH WOULD BENEFIT POLL MANAGERS IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS.

Whereas, Public Law 101-508 (Omnibus Reconciliation Act) amended the social security requirements to require that part-time employees, such as poll managers, would be required to come under the Social Security law and have deductions made from their income; and

Whereas, an amendment to the Older Americans Act has passed the United States House of Representatives and, pending consideration in the United States Senate, would raise the exemption to one thousand dollars benefiting these part-time employees; and

Whereas, the passage of this amendment would greatly aid part-time employees in the upcoming elections; and

Whereas, the members of the General Assembly express their desire to the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, especially Senators Hollings and Thurmond, that they vote for the passage of this amendment. Now, therefore,

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

That the members of the General Assembly memorialize the United States Congress to enact the amendment to the Older Americans Act which raises the exemption to one thousand dollars for money earned and which would benefit poll managers in the upcoming elections.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.

Referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4789 -- Reps. Wright, Sturkie and Riser: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO RENAME BOMBING RANGE ISLAND, FORMERLY KNOWN AS LUNCH ISLAND, IN LAKE MURRAY AS "DOOLITTLE ISLAND" IN HONOR OF THE COURAGE, PATRIOTISM, AND HEROIC FEATS OF THE DOOLITTLE RAIDERS OF WORLD WAR II FAME.

Whereas, the Doolittle Raiders completed their fiftieth anniversary celebration in Columbia in April, 1992, with much fanfare and excitement and with a tremendous amount of interest by the citizens of South Carolina; and

Whereas, Bombing Range Island, formerly called Lunch Island, located in Lake Murray was used by the Doolittle Raiders during the Second World War as a target on their practice bombing runs -- training for their momentous future air raid on Tokyo during the war; and

Whereas, it would be entirely appropriate and a fitting tribute to these courageous and patriotic individuals known as the Doolittle Raiders for Bombing Range Island in Lake Murray to be renamed Doolittle Island. Now, therefore,

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

That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, requests South Carolina Electric and Gas Company to take the necessary action to rename Bombing Range Island, formerly known as Lunch Island, in Lake Murray as "Doolittle Island" in honor of the courage, patriotism, and heroic feats of the Doolittle Raiders of World War II fame.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company in Columbia and to Mr. Edward H. Fetner, Jr., P.O. Box 86, Chapin, South Carolina 29036.

Referred to the General Committee.

H. 4798 -- Rep. Tucker: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MARY LIGHTSEY HALL OF ANDERSON COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4800 -- Reps. Kempe, McGinnis and Beatty: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING CHRIS BARRETT OF BOILING SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY UPON RECEIVING ONE OF THE NATIONAL BETA CLUB'S TOP FOUR SCHOLARSHIPS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4334 -- Reps. Wilkins, Kirsh, Beasley, M.O. Alexander, Altman, Baker, Bennett, H. Brown, Bruce, Cato, Chamblee, Clyborne, Cole, Cooper, Corbett, Cork, Corning, Cromer, L. Elliott, Fair, Farr, Fulmer, Gonzales, Hallman, P. Harris, Harrison, Haskins, Hendricks, Huff, Jaskwhich, Keegan, Kempe, Klapman, Koon, Lanford, Littlejohn, Manly, Marchbanks, L. Martin, McGinnis, McKay, Meacham, Quinn, Rama, Rhoad, Riser, Rogers, Sharpe, Shissias, Smith, Snow, Stone, Sturkie, Tucker, Vaughn, Waites, Waldrop, Wells, Wilder, D. Williams, Wofford, Wright, A. Young, R. Young and Council: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO STATE OFFICERS BY ADDING SECTION 10 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NOT LATER THAN JANUARY 15, 1995, BY GENERAL LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR AN EXECUTIVE CABINET OF THE GOVERNOR CONSISTING OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN MEMBERS AS HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ORGANIZED AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE ACCORDING TO MAJOR PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THOSE AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT INCLUDED IN THE EXECUTIVE CABINET SHALL PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE AUSPICES AND SUPERVISION OF THE CABINET DEPARTMENT HEAD UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION THEY COME.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

H. 4782 -- Rep. Gentry: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SALUDA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, SOUTH CAROLINA, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SALUDA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, SOUTH CAROLINA, TO ISSUE AND SELL GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($400,000), TO PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE BONDS MAY BE ISSUED AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDS MAY BE EXPENDED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

Senator COURSON, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from The Joint Legislative Committee on Children and the Nurturing Center to attend a luncheon at the Nurturing Center on May 6, or May 13, or May 20, 1992, beginning at 1:30 P.M. or upon adjournment.

The invitation was accepted.

Senator COURSON, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the Manufacturing Housing Institute of South Carolina to attend a reception at the State House Complex on Wednesday, May 6, 1992, from 6:00-8:00 P.M.

The invitation was accepted.

Senator COURSON, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the South Carolina Dairy Association to attend a breakfast at the Capitol City Club on Thursday, May 7, 1992, from 7:30-9:30 A.M.

The invitation was accepted.

Senator COURSON, from the Committee on Invitations, submitted a favorable report on:

An invitation from the Governor to attend a reception at the Governor's Mansion on Wednesday, May 20, 1992 from 6:00-8:00 P.M.

The invitation was accepted.

Senator HOLLAND, from the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry, polled out:

H. 4266 -- Reps. Harvin and D. Williams: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-13-2015 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A FISH SANCTUARY IN THE ST. STEPHEN REDIVERSION CANAL BETWEEN THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' POWERHOUSE AND THE ATLANTIC COASTLINE RAILROAD BRIDGE.

Drummond Fielding Hayes, R.W.
Holland Martschink McGill
Mullinax O'Dell Passailaigue
Peeler Reese Rose
Shealy Washington Williams

Carmichael Land

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MACAULAY, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

H. 4092 -- Rep. Rama: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 2 TO CHAPTER 43, TITLE 44 SO AS TO ENACT THE BONE MARROW DONOR ACT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MACAULAY, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 4120 -- Rep. Haskins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES CREDIT CONTRACTS, SO AS TO DEFINE THAT "BUSINESS DAY" MEANS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCLUDING STATE AND FEDERAL HOLIDAYS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator LOURIE, from the Committee on Transportation, polled out:

S. 1492 -- Senators Lourie and Giese: A BILL TO REPEAL A JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1992 BEARING RATIFICATION NUMBER 350, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ALLOW THE INCLUSION OF RIVER GRAVEL IN PROJECTS APPROVED BY BID.

Hinson Lourie Martin
Martschink McConnell O'Dell
Pope Russell Thomas
Wilson

Hinds Land Leatherman
Mitchell Patterson

Leventis McGill

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator MACAULAY, from the Committee on Medical Affairs, polled out:

S. 1436 -- Senators Leatherman, Peeler, J. Verne Smith, Helmly, Matthews and Nell W. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NEED AND HEALTH LICENSURE ACT, SO AS TO CHANGE REFERENCES FROM THE STATE MEDICAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE STATE HEALTH PLAN; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "AFFECTED PERSON", "HEALTH CARE FACILITY", "HEALTH SERVICE", AND TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF "LIKE EQUIPMENT WITH SIMILAR CAPABILITIES"; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-160, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING CERTIFICATE OF NEED, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT OWNED BY OR LOCATED IN A HEALTH CARE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS AND INSTITUTIONS EXEMPT FROM THE ARTICLE, SO AS TO DELETE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE INITIATION OF SERVICES THROUGH CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SHARED MOBILE DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC DEVICES; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-180, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STATE MEDICAL FACILITIES PLAN, SO AS TO CHANGE THIS PLAN TO THE STATE HEALTH PLAN, TO PROVIDE FOR A HEALTH PLANNING COMMITTEE, ITS MEMBERS AND TERMS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL ADVISE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE PLAN, TO REVISE THE CONTENT, APPROVAL, AND REVISION PROCEDURES FOR THE PLAN; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-200, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTIFICATE OF NEED APPLICATIONS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL FROM COMMUNICATING WITH OTHER PERSONS ABOUT PENDING APPLICATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF A CERTIFICATE OF NEED APPLICATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE NONTRANSFERABILITY OF CERTIFICATE OF NEED, SO AS TO REQUIRE PROJECT REPORTS AND INSPECTIONS TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE AND TO EXTEND A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FROM SIX MONTHS TO ONE YEAR ON MAJOR HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-240, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A STATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, SO AS TO CHANGE THE REFERENCE FROM STATE FACILITIES PLAN TO STATE HEALTH PLAN; TO PROVIDE FOR CERTIFICATE OF NEED EXEMPTIONS FOR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR STAGGERED TERMS FOR MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COMMITTEE.

Bryan Courson Helmly
Hinds Hinson Macaulay
Mitchell Moore Mullinax
Peeler Russell Smith, J.V.
Smith, N.W. Thomas Washington
Wilson

Giese Patterson

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

On motion of Senator PEELER, with unanimous consent, S. 1436 was read the second time with notice of general amendments on third.

S. 371 -- Senator Setzler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 29-5-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MECHANICS LIENS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ANY LIENS FILED BY A SUB-SUBCONTRACTOR OR SUPPLIER AGAINST A SUBCONTRACTOR TO WHOM THE SUB-SUBCONTRACTOR OR SUPPLIER HAS SUPPLIED LABOR, MATERIAL, OR SERVICES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT DUE BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THAT SUBCONTRACTOR; AND TO AMEND SECTION 29-5-60, RELATING TO MECHANICS LIENS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A PRORATED PAYMENT TO LIENORS IN THE EVENT THE AMOUNT DUE A SUBCONTRACTOR BY THE CONTRACTOR IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL LIENORS.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator SETZLER, 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. 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 House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator MULLINAX, 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. 1098 -- Senators Lourie, Giese and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-21-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON AGING, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CERTIFY HOMEMAKERS AND HOME HEALTH AIDES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT AND ESTABLISH AND COLLECT FEES FOR ADMINISTERING THIS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM AND CARRY FORWARD REMAINING FEES TO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator LOURIE, 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.

H. 3197 -- Reps. J. Brown, Scott, Glover and Cato: A BILL TO REQUIRE CERTAIN SECURITY DEVICES FOR CERTAIN LEASED OR RENTED ROOMS, LODGINGS, AND ACCOMMODATIONS, TO MAKE THE VIOLATION OF THIS REQUIREMENT A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT EVERY INSTANCE IN WHICH THE REQUIRED SECURITY DEVICES ARE NOT PROVIDED CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

On motion of Senator PATTERSON, 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.

At Twelve O'clock Noon, the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

The Clerk of the Senate read the Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4665 -- Reps. Gentry, Hendricks, Hodges and Glover: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1992, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR FOR AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JULY 31, 1992; AND TO ELECT SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1992.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Associate Justice, S. C. Supreme Court.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. A. Lee Chandler had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. A. Lee Chandler.

Rep. Felder moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable A. Lee Chandler was elected to the position of Associate Justice, S. C. Supreme Court, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, First Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. Charles W. Whetstone, Jr. had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated Judge Whetstone.

Rep. Felder moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Charles W. Whetstone, Jr. was elected to the position of Judge, First Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Second Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. Rodney A. Peeples had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. Rodney A. Peeples.

Rep. Gentry seconded the nomination.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Rodney A. Peeples was elected to the position of Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

I wish to be recorded as having voted "no" in the matter of the re-election of Rodney Peeples. It is as a result of his not having been judged qualified to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court and the matters that resulted in this rejection that bring me to this decision.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee indicated that the Hon. Paul M. Burch had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. Paul M. Burch.

Rep. Gentry seconded the nomination.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Paul M. Burch was elected to the position of Judge, Fourth Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. Don S. Rushing had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. Don S. Rushing.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Don S. Rushing was elected to the position of Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. Thomas L. Hughston, Jr. had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. Thomas L. Hughston, Jr.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Thomas L. Hughston, Jr. was elected to the position of Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. Sidney Thomas Floyd had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. Sidney Thomas Floyd.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Sidney Thomas Floyd was elected to the position of Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order to elect a successor to the position of Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

Senator POPE, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, indicated that the Hon. John C. Hayes, III, had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Senator POPE nominated the Hon. John C. Hayes, III.

Rep. Gentry moved that the nominations be closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable John C. Hayes, III was elected to the position of Judge, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

The Reading Clerk of the House read the Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4688 -- Rep. G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1992, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO SUCCEED THOSE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE IN 1992.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Second Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, nominated Charles E. Simons, III.

On motion of Rep. Rudnick, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Charles E. Simons, III was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Second Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Mr. Gus Hoffmeyer, Jr. and Mr. J. DuPre Miller had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Jennings nominated Mr. J. DuPre Miller.

Senators HINSON, CARMICHAEL and MARTIN and Reps. J. Harris, Kennedy, Harvin, M. Martin, Wilkes, Rogers, Tucker, Canty, Meacham, Holt and Mattos seconded the nomination of Mr. Miller.

Rep. Neilson nominated Mr. Gus Hoffmeyer.

Senators SALEEBY and Reese and Reps. Baxley, Glover, Wright and Beasley seconded the nominiation of Mr. Hoffmeyer.

The Reading Clerk of the Senate called the roll of the Senate and the Senators voted viva voce as their names were called.

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Hoffmeyer:
Bryan Courson Fielding
Gilbert Hayes, R.W. Helmly
Land Leatherman Lourie
Matthews McConnell Mitchell
Mullinax Patterson Peeler
Pope Reese Rose
Saleeby Setzler Smith, J.V.
Stilwell Washington Wilson

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Miller:
Carmichael Cork Courtney
Drummond Hinds Hinson
Holland Leventis Macaulay
Martin Martschink McGill
Moore O'Dell Passailaigue
Russell Shealy Smith, N.W.
Thomas Williams

On motion of Rep. Clyborne, with unanimous consent, the Members of the House voted by electric roll call.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Hoffmeyer:
Alexander, T.C. Anderson Baxley
Beasley Beatty Brown, G.
Clyborne Corbett Farr
Foster Fulmer Glover
Gonzales Harwell Haskins
Hodges Inabinett Keegan
Littlejohn Marchbanks McKay
McLeod Neilson Nettles
Riser Smith Vaughn
Whipper Wilkins Wright
Young, R.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Miller:
Alexander, M.O. Altman Bailey, G.
Bailey, J. Baker Barber
Bennett Boan Brown, H.
Brown, J. Bruce Burch, K.
Byrd Canty Carnell
Cato Chamblee Cobb-Hunter
Cooper Corning Council
Cromer Delleney Elliott, D.
Elliott, L. Fair Felder
Gentry Hallman Harrelson
Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison
Harvin Hendricks Holt
Houck Huff Hyatt
Jaskwhich Jennings Johnson, J.C.
Kempe Kennedy Keyserling
Kinon Kirsh Klapman
Koon Lanford Manly
Martin, L. Martin, M. Mattos
McAbee McCraw McElveen
McGinnis McTeer Meacham
Phillips Quinn Rama
Rhoad Rogers Ross
Rudnick Scott Sheheen
Shirley Shissias Snow
Stoddard Stone Sturkie
Taylor Townsend Tucker
Waites Waldrop White
Wilder Wilkes Williams, D.
Williams, J. Wofford Young, A.

Total Number of Senators voting 44
Total Number of Representatives voting 118
Grand Total 162
Necessary to a choice 82
Of which Mr. Hoffmeyer received 55
Of which Mr. Miller received 107

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable J. DuPre Miller was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Eighth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Mr. James Bradley had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Mr. James Bradley.

On motion of Rep. Hodges, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable James Bradley was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Sixth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Mr. Herbert C. Adams and James E. Wiseman, III had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Mr. Herbert C. Adams.

Rep. Stoddard indicated that the name of Mr. James E. Wiseman, III had been withdrawn from consideration.

On motion of Rep. Clyborne, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Herbert C. Adams was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Eighth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Tenth Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Ms. Lily-Roland Hall had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Lily-Roland Hall.

On motion of Rep. Tucker, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Lily-Roland Hall was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Tenth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Ms. Helen C. Harvey had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Helen C. Harvey.

On motion of Rep. Gentry, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Helen C. Harvey was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Mr. Eugene C. Floyd had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Eugene C. Floyd.

On motion of Rep. Felder, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Eugene C. Floyd was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for a position on the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that Mr. Samuel R. Foster had been screened and found qualified.

Rep. Stoddard nominated Samuel R. Foster.

On motion of Rep. Felder, the nominations were closed and, with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable Samuel R. Foster was duly elected to the Board of Trustees for the University of South Carolina from the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit for the term prescribed by law.

Election of Members to the Board of Trustees for Clemson University

The PRESIDENT announced that nominations were in order for three vacancies on the Board of Trustees for Clemson University.

Rep. Stoddard, Chairman of the Screening Committee on Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities, indicated that the John J. Britton, Louis B. Lynn, Patricia McAbee, and Allen P. Wood had been screened and found qualified to serve.

Rep. McLeod nominated Mr. John J. Britton.

Rep. Carnell nominated Ms. Patricia McAbee.

Senators DRUMMOND, O'DELL, MULLINAX, NELL W. SMITH, MITCHELL, GILBERT and CORK and Reps. Clyborne, Haskins, Keyserling, Rama, Holt, Felder, Meacham, Manly, Rhoad, Harvin, D. Elliott, K. Burch, P. Harris, Wilder, Huff, Stone, Townsend, Tucker, J. Harris, Shirley, Wilkes, Corbett, Keegan, Corning, Smith and Phillips seconded the nomination of Mrs. McAbee.

Rep. Joe Brown nominated Dr. Louis B. Lynn.

Senators WASHINGTON, FIELDING, PATTERSON, McGILL and GILBERT and Reps. L. Elliott, Rhoad, Felder, Chamblee, Beatty, Wells, Holt, Anderson, Inabinett, Glover, Baxley, Keyserling, Haskins, Harvin, Snow, Kennedy, Jennings, Harrelson, Bennett, Cobb-Hunter, J. Williams, Wright, Canty, Riser, Shissias, Smith, Corning, Wilkes, Cromer, Shirley, Scott, Taylor and Byrd seconded the nomination of Dr. Lynn.

Rep. Harwell nominated Mr. Allen P. Wood.

Senators McGILL, WILLIAMS, SALEEBY, SETZLER, GILBERT, LEATHERMAN and HELMLY and Reps. Glover, Inabinett, Fulmer, Hallman, Wells, McKay, Nettles, L. Elliott, Houck, Phillips, Rama, Littlejohn, A. Young, Corbett, Chamblee, Kennedy, Keegan, Harrelson, Sturkie, Wright, Riser, Wofford, Rogers, Stone, Huff, J. Brown, Wilder, Smith and Sharpe seconded the nomination of Mr. Wood.

The Reading Clerk of the Senate called the roll of the Senate and the Senators voted viva voce as their names were called.

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Britton:
Carmichael Cork Drummond
Fielding Hayes, R.W. Helmly
Hinds Hinson Holland
Land Leatherman Leventis
Martin Martschink Matthews
McConnell McGill Mullinax
O'Dell Passailaigue Patterson
Peeler Pope Reese
Rose Russell Saleeby
Shealy Smith, J.V. Stilwell
Thomas Washington Williams
Wilson

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Lynn:
Bryan Carmichael Cork
Courson Courtney Fielding
Gilbert Hayes, R.W. Helmly
Hinson Holland Land
Leatherman Leventis Lourie
Macaulay Martin Matthews
McConnell McGill Mitchell
Moore Mullinax O'Dell
Passailaigue Patterson Peeler
Pope Reese Rose
Russell Saleeby Setzler
Smith, N.W. Stilwell Thomas
Washington Williams Wilson

The following named Senators voted for Mrs. McAbee:
Bryan Cork Courson
Courtney Drummond Gilbert
Hinds Land Lourie
Macaulay Martschink Mitchell
Moore Mullinax O'Dell
Pope Rose Setzler
Shealy Smith, J.V. Smith, N.W.
Washington

The following named Senators voted for Mr. Wood:
Bryan Carmichael Courson
Courtney Drummond Fielding
Gilbert Hayes, R.W. Helmly
Hinds Hinson Holland
Leatherman Leventis Lourie
Macaulay Martin Martschink
Matthews McConnell McGill
Mitchell Moore Passailaigue
Patterson Peeler Reese
Russell Saleeby Setzler
Shealy Smith, J.V. Smith, N.W.
Stilwell Thomas Williams
Wilson

On motion of Rep. Clyborne, with unanimous consent, the members of the House voted by electric roll call.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Britton:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Altman
Baker Barber Baxley
Beasley Boan Brown, G.
Brown, H. Brown, J. Bruce
Burch, K. Byrd Canty
Cato Clyborne Cobb-Hunter
Cooper Corbett Corning
Council Cromer Delleney
Fair Farr Felder
Foster Fulmer Gentry
Glover Gonzales Hallman
Harrelson Harris, P. Harrison
Harvin Hendricks Hodges
Houck Hyatt Inabinett
Jaskwhich Johnson, J.C. Keegan
Kempe Kennedy Keyserling
Klapman Koon Lanford
Littlejohn Marchbanks Martin, D.
Martin, L. McCraw McElveen
McGinnis McKay McLeod
McTeer Meacham Neilson
Nettles Phillips Quinn
Rama Rhoad Riser
Ross Rudnick Scott
Sheheen Shissias Snow
Stone Sturkie Taylor
Townsend Tucker Vaughn
Waites Waldrop Wells
Whipper White Wilder
Wilkes Wilkins Williams, D.
Williams, J. Wofford Wright
Young, A. Young, R.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Lynn:
Alexander, M.O. Alexander, T.C. Anderson
Bailey, G. Bailey, J. Barber
Baxley Beasley Beatty
Bennett Brown, G. Brown, J.
Bruce Byrd Canty
Carnell Chamblee Cobb-Hunter
Cooper Corning Council
Cromer Delleney Elliott, D.
Elliott, L. Fair Farr
Felder Foster Fulmer
Gentry Glover Hallman
Harrelson Harris, J. Harris, P.
Harvin Harwell Haskins
Hodges Holt Houck
Huff Inabinett Jaskwhich
Jennings Kempe Kennedy
Keyserling Kinon Kirsh
Klapman Lanford Littlejohn
Manly Marchbanks Martin, D.
Martin, L. Martin, M. Mattos
McAbee McCraw McElveen
McGinnis McKay McLeod
McTeer Meacham Neilson
Nettles Quinn Rhoad
Riser Rogers Ross
Rudnick Scott Sharpe
Sheheen Shirley Shissias
Smith Snow Stoddard
Taylor Townsend Tucker
Vaughn Waites Waldrop
Wells Whipper White
Wilkes Williams, D. Williams, J.
Wright

The following named Representatives voted for Mrs. McAbee:
Alexander, T.C. Altman Bailey, G.
Bailey, J. Baker Barber
Beatty Bennett Boan
Brown, H. Burch, K. Carnell
Cato Chamblee Clyborne
Cooper Corbett Delleney
Elliott, D. Elliott, L. Farr
Felder Gentry Gonzales
Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison
Harvin Harwell Haskins
Hendricks Holt Huff
Hyatt Jaskwhich Jennings
Johnson, J.C. Keegan Kempe
Keyserling Kinon Kirsh
Manly Martin, M. Mattos
McAbee McCraw McTeer
Meacham Phillips Rama
Rhoad Rogers Ross
Scott Sharpe Shirley
Smith Stoddard Stone
Sturkie Townsend Tucker
Waites Waldrop Wilder
Wilkes Wilkins Wofford
Young, A. Young, R.

The following named Representatives voted for Mr. Wood:
Altman Bailey, G. Bailey, J.
Baker Baxley Beasley
Bennett Boan Brown, H.
Brown, J. Bruce Burch, K.
Byrd Canty Cato
Chamblee Clyborne Cobb-Hunter
Corbett Corning Council
Cromer Elliott, D. Elliott, L.
Fair Foster Fulmer
Glover Gonzales Hallman
Harrelson Harris, J. Harrison
Harwell Haskins Hendricks
Hodges Holt Houck
Huff Hyatt Inabinett
Jennings Johnson, J.C. Keegan
Kennedy Kinon Kirsh
Klapman Koon Lanford
Littlejohn Manly Marchbanks
Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos
McElveen McGinnis McKay
McLeod Neilson Nettles
Phillips Quinn Rama
Riser Rogers Rudnick
Scott Sharpe Sheheen
Shissias Smith Snow
Stoddard Stone Sturkie
Taylor Vaughn Wells
Whipper White Wilder
Wilkins Williams, D. Williams, J.
Wofford Wright Young, A.
Young, R.

Total Number of Senators voting 44
Total Number of Representatives voting 121
Grand Total 165
Necessary to a choice 83
Of which Mr. Britton received 129
Of which Mr. Lynn received 136
Of which Mrs. McAbee received 93
Of which Mr. Wood received 128

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT announced that the Honorable John J. Britton, Mr. Louis Lynn, and Mr. Allen Wood were duly elected to fill the three vacancies on the Board of Trustees for Clemson University for the term prescribed by law.

At 12:30 P.M., the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The PRESIDENT of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

The Reading Clerk of the Senate read the Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4181 -- Reps. Keyserling, Jaskwhich, Rogers, H. Brown, Waites and J. Harris: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE WINNERS OF THE 1992 SOUTH CAROLINA FOLK HERITAGE AWARDS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE 1992 FOLK HERITAGE AWARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ATTEND A JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1992, AT 12:30 P.M., AND TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE 1992 SOUTH CAROLINA FOLK HERITAGE AWARD WINNERS FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO FOLK ART IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

The PRESIDENT, on behalf of the Senate, appointed Senators LAND, MARTSCHINK, MATTHEWS and PASSAILAIGUE to the Escort Committee.

The Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, appointed Representatives Wilder, J. Harris, Byrd and Altman to the Escort Committee.

The Escort Committees of the Senate and House accompanied the winners of the 1992 South Carolina Folk Heritage Award and the members of the 1992 South Carolina Folk Heritage Award Advisory Committee to the rostrum to commend them for their outstanding contributions to folk art in South Carolina.

The PRESIDENT introduced the Speaker of the House who, in turn, introduced the respective award winners who were presented certificates by Representative Brown.

The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned, whereupon the Senate returned to its Chamber, and was called to order by its PRESIDENT.

The Senate reassembled at 1:45 P.M. and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

The following Bills were read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles thereof be changed to that of Acts and same enrolled for Ratification:

H. 3829 -- Reps. Boan, P. Harris, Harwell, Keegan, Nettles, Scott, Tucker, Wilkins, Kinon, L. Elliott and Houck: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 5 IN TITLE 48, RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION, BY ENACTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY REVOLVING FUND AUTHORITY ACT SO AS TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA WATER QUALITY REVOLVING FUND AUTHORITY; TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY; TO AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT BY THE AUTHORITY OF A REVOLVING FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING LOANS TO PROJECT SPONSORS FOR THE FINANCING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND OTHER CLEAN WATER PROJECTS; TO AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR DEPOSIT TO THE REVOLVING FUND; TO PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF ISSUANCE AND SECURING OF THE BONDS AND THE PAYMENT; TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPOSIT IN THE REVOLVING FUND OF FEDERAL GRANTS, STATE APPROPRIATIONS, LOAN REPAYMENTS, AND OTHER AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORITY; TO AUTHORIZE THE MAKING OF LOANS BY THE AUTHORITY TO PROJECT SPONSORS AND THE BORROWING BY PROJECT SPONSORS FROM THE AUTHORITY; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 48, RELATING TO THE WATER POLLUTION REVOLVING FUND.

H. 3296 -- Reps. Tucker, Huff, Smith, Clyborne and Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-53-480, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PERTAINING TO ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN CONTROLLED AND COUNTERFEIT SUBSTANCES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR FORFEITED SUBSTANCES AND PROPERTY TO BE USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

H. 4405 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-660, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FEES FOR SELF-PROPELLED PROPERTY CARRYING VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO VEHICLE IN EXCESS OF EIGHTY THOUSAND POUNDS WILL BE REGISTERED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4170, RELATING TO PERMITS FOR EXCESS SIZE AND WEIGHT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A FEE OF TWENTY DOLLARS FOR EACH PERMIT ISSUED.

Senator LOURIE explained the Bill.

H. 4105 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY TRUST FUND AND THE DISABILITY FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO AID DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, MENTALLY ILL, AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS.

The following House Bills were read the third time, passed and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 3787 -- Reps. J. Bailey, Barber, Fulmer, Hallman, Holt, Rama, Gonzales, R. Young, Whipper and D. Martin: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 452 OF 1973, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL RATHER THAN RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNTY DELEGATION.

(By prior motion of Senator FIELDING)

H. 4262 -- Rep. J. Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-195, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS FOR REHABILITATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RENTAL PROPERTIES, SO AS TO REVISE THE SPECIAL EIGHT-YEAR ASSESSMENT TO THE GREATER OF FORTY PERCENT OF FOUR PERCENT OF THE APPRAISAL VALUE AFTER REHABILITATION OR CERTIFICATION OR THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPERTY, TO MAKE INELIGIBLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROPERTY REHABILITATED AS A RESULT OF NATURAL DISASTER, CATASTROPHE, ACCIDENT, OR FORCE MAJEURE, AND TO REVISE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RENTAL PROPERTY.

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were severally read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 1396 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO REPEAL ACT 343 OF 1971, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CREATION, MEMBERSHIP, POWERS AND DUTIES, AND OPERATIONS OF THE UNION RECREATION DISTRICT IN UNION COUNTY.

(By prior motion of Senator POPE)

S. 931 -- Senator Martschink: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-111-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF FREE TUITION AT A STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR VOCATIONAL OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL, SO AS TO INCLUDE A PERSON PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES AT THE REQUEST OF AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A FEDERAL AGENCY.

Senator MARTSCHINK explained the Bill.

S. 142 -- Senators McConnell and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 47-13-160 SO AS TO REQUIRE A PET DEALER AND PET SHOP OWNER TO PROVIDE AN ANIMAL BUYER WITH A STATEMENT FROM A LICENSED VETERINARIAN THAT THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IS FREE OF DISEASE AND DEFORMITY, PROVIDE REMEDIES, AND DEFINE TERMS.

S. 1101 -- Senators McConnell and Hinson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 27-43-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REMOVAL OF GRAVES IN ABANDONED CEMETERIES OR BURYING GROUNDS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE CEMETERY OR GROUND IS LOCATED TO DETERMINE THAT REMOVAL BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY AND IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO REMOVAL BEFORE REMOVAL IS APPROVED.

Senator McCONNELL explained the Bill.

S. 1385 -- Senators McConnell, Giese, Hinson and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-3310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE FOR A RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HEART, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AFTER THE INITIAL FEE FOR ISSUANCE IS PAID, THE PLATE MAY BE RENEWED BY A STICKER FOR THE ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE CHARGED FOR A REGULAR PLATE.

S. 1416 -- Senators Rose and Courson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-31-40 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ADOPTION OF NEW TEXTBOOKS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO CONDEMN OR DISAPPROVE ANY SCHOOL TEXTBOOK CONTAINING ANY KNOWN FACTUAL OR GRAMMATICAL ERROR; TO AMEND SECTION 59-31-510 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONTRACTS WITH PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS FOR RENTAL OR PURCHASE OF BOOKS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CONTRACT MUST INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TEXTBOOKS RENTED OR PURCHASED BY THE STATE BE FREE OF ANY FACTUAL OR GRAMMATICAL ERROR; THAT THE PUBLISHER BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A CERTIFICATE OF ACCURACY GUARANTEEING THAT EACH TEXTBOOK IS FREE OF ANY FACTUAL OR GRAMMATICAL ERROR; THAT ANY PUBLISHER OR DISTRIBUTOR PROVIDING A TEXTBOOK CONTAINING A FACTUAL OR GRAMMATICAL ERROR BE ASSESSED A FINE OR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND BE PROHIBITED FROM SELLING OR RENTING A TEXTBOOK TO THE STATE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-31-600 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR TEXTBOOK ADOPTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TEXTBOOK EVALUATING AND RATING COMMITTEE BE MADE UP OF AT LEAST EIGHTY PERCENT NON-EDUCATORS WITH EXPERTISE IN AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION; THAT THE TEXTBOOK EVALUATING AND RATING COMMITTEE SHALL INCLUDE IN ITS RATING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCURACY OF FACTS AND GRAMMAR, SATISFACTION OF STATE MANDATES FOR GRADUATION CRITERIA, SUPPORT FOR THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, DEMONSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF FREE ENTERPRISE IN THE UNITED STATES, COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH TEXTBOOKS AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS OF THE BENEFITS OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FREEDOM, AND OTHER TRADITIONAL VALUES AND PRINCIPALS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND AMERICAN SOCIETY ESPOUSED IN THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND EMBODIED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND GIVE THE HIGHEST WEIGHT IN CHOOSING BOOKS TO THE ACCURACY OF FACTS PRESENTED IN THE MATERIALS; THAT THE CURRICULUM STAFF AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE WORK OF THE TEXTBOOK EVALUATING AND RATING COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT HIGH QUALITY ACCURATE TEXTBOOKS ARE RECOMMENDED; THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHO ARE CHARGED WITH OVERSEEING THE TEXTBOOK SELECTION PROCESS HOLD CURRENT TEACHER CERTIFICATES IN AREAS UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION; TO PROHIBIT PERSONS FROM SERVING ON THE TEXTBOOK SELECTION OR REVIEW COMMITTEE IF SUCH PERSON IS RECEIVING COMPENSATION FROM, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR IS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE, OR HAS BEEN AN EMPLOYEE OF A TEXTBOOK PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTION COMPANY WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS; TO REQUIRE THAT ANY STAFF MEMBER AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHO HAS BEEN AN EMPLOYEE OF A TEXTBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE SELECTION PROCESS OF BOOKS; TO PROHIBIT ACCEPTANCE OR SOLICITATION BY ANY STATE EMPLOYEE, OR OFFERING OR PROVIDING TO A STATE EMPLOYEE, ANYTHING OF VALUE BY A PUBLISHER OR SUPPLIER OF SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS OR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 31, TITLE 59 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-31-700, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PROPOSED TEXTBOOKS BE PLACED ON PUBLIC DISPLAY FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS IN EACH OF THE NINETY-ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICES WITH NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC IN PAID ADVERTISEMENT IN LOCAL NEWSPAPERS PRIOR TO ANY FINAL ADOPTION BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Senator BRYAN explained the Bill.

S. 1503 -- Senator Martschink: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-9-2540, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO MONITOR THE STATEWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY ACCESS SERVICE, SO AS TO INCREASE THE COMMITTEE FROM EIGHT TO NINE BY ADDING ONE MEMBER WHO MUST BE HEARING-IMPAIRED AND A MEMBER OF SELF-HELP FOR HARD OF HEARING PEOPLE.

S. 1505 -- Education Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO ANNUAL BUDGET DEADLINES AND SCHEDULES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1471, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Senator BRYAN explained the Joint Resolution.

S. 1506 -- Education Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO STATE AID, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1487, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Senator BRYAN explained the Joint Resolution.

S. 1507 -- Education Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO INTERVENTION WHERE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IMPAIRED, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1473, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

S. 1508 -- Banking and Insurance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-77-1120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE "MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT AND MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE FRAUD REPORTING-IMMUNITY ACT", AND SECTION 23-41-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA ARSON REPORTING-IMMUNITY ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT "AUTHORIZED AGENCY", OR "AUTHORIZED AGENCIES", INCLUDES THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ITS FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

(By prior motion of Senator SALEEBY, with unanimous consent)

S. 1509 -- Banking and Insurance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 32-7-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE BOARD OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LICENSE WHICH MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD BY PERSONS HOLDING OR ACCEPTING PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS MUST BE RENEWED ANNUALLY FOR A FEE IN AN AMOUNT ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD TO DEFRAY ITS EXPENSES IN ADMINISTERING ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS.

(By prior motion of Senator SALEEBY, with unanimous consent)

S. 1269 -- Senators Bryan and Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-290, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, AND ALTERATIONS UNDER THE BEACH MANAGEMENT ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PROHIBITION ON NEW EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES SEAWARD OF THE SETBACK LINE.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator SHEALY proposed the following amendment (RES1269.01):

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

/SECTION . Title 28 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 28-1-10. This act may be cited as the `Private Property Protection Act of 1991'.

Section 28-1-20. As used in this chapter:

(1) `Agency' means all state, county, or local agencies, political subdivisions, special purpose districts, or other bodies politic which engage in activity with the potential for taking private property, including any military department of the State of South Carolina, any entity of state government, local governments or municipalities, their agencies, or political subdivisions, or other agency of the executive branch of the State of South Carolina.

(2) `Taking of private property' means an activity where the value of private property is decreased more than five percent or where the private property is taken to the extent that compensation to the owner of that property is required by Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of this State.

Section 28-1-30. No regulation promulgated after the effective date of this act by any agency becomes effective until the issuing agency is certified by the Attorney General to be in compliance with procedures to assess the potential for the taking of private property in the course of regulatory activity established by the Attorney General.

Section 28-1-40. The Attorney General shall establish procedures to assess the potential for taking of private property similar to those procedures established for the federal government by the United States Executive Order 12630.

Section 28-1-50. (A) Judicial review of actions taken pursuant to this chapter is limited to whether the Attorney General has certified the issuing agency as in compliance with its procedures. The judicial review is permitted in the same forum and at the same time as the issued regulations are subject to judicial review. Only persons adversely affected or grieved by agency action have standing to challenge that action as contrary to this chapter. In no event shall the review include any issue regarding claims against the State not arising out of torts for which the courts have jurisdiction.

(B) This section does not affect any other available judicial review of agency action."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator SHEALY explained the amendment.

Senator SHEALY asked unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

There was no objection.

Senator PASSAILAIGUE desired to be recorded as voting against third reading of the Bill.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

S. 1450 -- Senator Holland: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ESTABLISHED BY THE CIRCUIT SOLICITORS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON PROSECUTION COORDINATION SHALL OVERSEE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR THESE PROGRAMS; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-40, RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF PRETRIAL INTERVENTION COORDINATOR, SO AS TO TRANSFER THIS OFFICE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO THE COMMISSION ON PROSECUTION COORDINATION AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COORDINATOR MUST BE EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION ON PROSECUTION COORDINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-50, RELATING TO PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRETRIAL INTERVENTION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE OFFENSES WHICH MAKE PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR PRETRIAL INTERVENTION; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-60, RELATING TO CERTAIN STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS APPROPRIATE FOR PRETRIAL INTERVENTION, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT INTERVENTION IS APPROPRIATE IF THE OFFENDER HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN ACCEPTED IN A PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAM; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-100, RELATING TO THE TIME FOR APPLICATION TO AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM, SO AS TO REVISE THIS TIME; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FEES FOR APPLICATION AND ACCEPTANCE, SO AS TO CHANGE THE TERM "ACCEPTANCE FEE" TO THE TERM "PARTICIPATION FEE" AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THESE FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-120, RELATING TO ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE SERVICES FOR OFFENDERS IN AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO SERVICES MAY BE DENIED DUE TO AN OFFENDER'S INABILITY TO PAY; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-130, RELATING TO REPORTS AND IDENTIFICATION AS TO OFFENDERS ACCEPTED FOR INTERVENTION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE RETENTION OF THESE RECORDS AND REPORTS AND FOR THOSE PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE CERTAIN INFORMATION IN REGARD TO INTERVENTION; TO AMEND SECTION 17-22-150, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF CHARGES AGAINST OFFENDERS ACCEPTED FOR INTERVENTION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED TO DESTROY RECORDS RELATING TO THE OFFENSE; TO ADD SECTION 17-22-170, SO AS TO MAKE IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO UNLAWFULLY RETAIN OR RELEASE INFORMATION ON AN OFFENDER'S PARTICIPATION IN A PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAM AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 17-2-160, RELATING TO THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE PRETRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAMS WERE REQUIRED TO BE FIRST ESTABLISHED.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator POPE proposed the following amendment (JUD1450.003), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 3, beginning on line 24, in Section 17-22-50, as contained in SECTION 3, by striking /or judge, if application is made to the court pursuant to Section 17-22-100,/ .

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 4, line 3, in Section 17-22-100, as contained in SECTION 5, by inserting after the word /waived./ the following:

/Applications received by the court under this section may be preliminarily approved by the court pending a determination by the pretrial office that the offender is eligible to participate in a pretrial program pursuant to Sections 17-22-50 and 17-22-60. Applications received by the court and information obtained pursuant to Section 17-22-70 must be forwarded to the pretrial office./

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, page 4, line 10, in Section 17-22-110, as contained in SECTION 6, by inserting after the word /program/ the words /or an offender who applies to the court for admission to a program pursuant to Section 17-22-100/ .

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

/SECTION ___. Section 17-22-70 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 17-22-70. Prior to admittance of an offender into an intervention program, the solicitor or judge, if application is made to the court pursuant to Section 17-22-100, may require the offender to furnish information concerning the offender's past criminal record, education and work record, family history, medical or psychiatric treatment or care received, psychological tests taken and other information which, in the solicitor's or judge's opinion, has bearing on the decision as to whether the offender should be admitted. Solicitor's office records under this section shall adhere to and abide by Federal Confidentiality Regulation 42 CFR part 2 and any other applicable federal, state, or local regulations."

SECTION___. Section 17-22-80 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 17-22-80. Prior to any person being admitted to a pretrial intervention program the victim, if any, of the crime for which the applicant is charged and the law enforcement agency employing the arresting officer shall be asked to comment in writing as to whether or not the applicant should be allowed to enter an intervention program. In each case involving admission to an intervention program, the solicitor or judge, if application is made to the court pursuant to Section 17-22-100, shall consider the recommendations of the law enforcement agency and the victim, if any, in making a decision."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator POPE explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

S. 531 -- Senator Fielding: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE 1992 GENERAL ELECTION THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSISTS OF NINE MEMBERS ELECTED FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE FILLING OF VACANCIES FROM THE DISTRICTS, TO ESTABLISH THE NINE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS, TO PROVIDE THAT TRUSTEES ELECTED IN 1990 SHALL SERVE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE 1992 ELECTION FOR TRUSTEES FROM DISTRICTS ONE, TWO, FIVE, SIX, AND NINE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE 1994 ELECTION FOR TRUSTEES FROM DISTRICTS THREE, FOUR, SEVEN, AND EIGHT; AND TO AMEND ACT 340 OF 1967, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO AS TO CONFORM THE PETITION REQUIREMENT FOR NOMINATION TO THE SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION PROVIDED IN THIS ACT.

Senator FIELDING asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senators PASSAILAIGUE, McCONNELL, FIELDING and WASHINGTON proposed the following amendment (RES531.07), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 7, after line 3, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read as follows:

/SECTION . Section 10 of Act 340 of 1967, as last amended by Act 1602 of 1972, is further amended to read:

"Section 10. The Board of Trustees of the Charleston School District shall prepare and submit to the Charleston County Legislative Delegation Council, as information, on or before the fifteenth day of August of each year beginning in 1968 a proposed budget for the ensuing school year. In order to obtain funds for school purposes the board is authorized to impose an annual tax levy, commencing in 1968, not to exceed ninety mills, exclusive of any millage imposed for bond debt service. In the event If the board determines that the annual tax levy should exceed ninety mills cap on the maximum annual millage should be raised, the board shall hold a public hearing on the question at least two weeks prior to before submitting such the request to the legislative delegation Charleston County Council. Notice of such the public hearing shall must be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, and shall must state the date, time, and place of the hearing as well as a clearly worded statement of the requested annual tax levy. Charleston County Council may raise or lower the cap on the maximum annual millage at any time, whether or not a request for a change has been received from the Board of Trustees of the Charleston County School District. Action by Charleston County Council changing the maximum annual millage may be either permanent or for a fixed number of years, as the council may determine from time to time. Should the council reject a request from the board for an increase in the maximum annual millage cap, the board may call for a referendum to approve a temporary increase in the cap, and upon favorable approval by referendum, the temporary increase becomes effective. The referendum proposal may be for an increase in the cap for a period of not more than two years and no temporary increase in the cap may exceed the previous cap by more than ten percent, with the exact term and amount to be determined by the board. No more than one referendum may be held each two calendar years. The school district shall bear the cost of the referendum. No public funds may be expended on the costs of the referendum except for those necessary to place the referendum on the ballot, conduct the election, and provide factual information relating to the referendum question. In no event may public funds be used for publication or distribution of advertising to influence the outcome of the referendum. Upon certification by the board to the county auditor of the tax levy to be imposed in each year, the auditor shall levy and the county treasurer shall collect the millage so certified upon all taxable property in the district."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senators McCONNELL and MARTSCHINK proposed the following amendment (RES531.10), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 4 in its entirety and inserting the following:

/SECTION 4. This act takes effect January 1, 1993, unless a referendum on the question of whether Charleston County School District trustees should be elected from single member districts as specified in this act is held prior to the expiration of this time period. If the result of the referendum favors the single member district method of election, a plan as specified in this act must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice within forty-five days from the date of the referendum. If the result of the referendum does not favor the single member district method of election, then the method of election in effect prior to the date of the Governor's approval shall remain in effect notwithstanding the provisions of this act./

Amend title to conform.

Senator PASSAILAIGUE proposed the following amendment (RES531.08), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 2, beginning on line 5, by striking through page 6, line 12, and inserting the following:
/DISTRICT 1

Area Population
Charleston County

AWENDAW 1,276

CHRIST CHURCH 1 1,888

CHRIST CHURCH 2 2,180

CHRIST CHURCH 3 1,027

CHRIST CHURCH 4 793

CHRIST CHURCH 5 1,682

CHRIST CHURCH 6 468

CHRIST CHURCH 7 1,637

CHRIST CHURCH 8 7,248

CHRIST CHURCH 9 2,998

MCCLELLANVILLE 1 852

MCCLELLANVILLE 2 339

MOUNT PLEASANT 10 1,110

MOUNT PLEASANT 11 1,175

MOUNT PLEASANT 5 1,637

MOUNT PLEASANT 7 1,254

MOUNT PLEASANT 8 1,334

MOUNT PLEASANT 9 3,345

ST JAMES - SANTEE 1,157

DISTRICT TOTAL 33,400

PERCENT VARIATION 1.884

DISTRICT 2

Area Population
Charleston County

CHARLESTON 10 1,743

CHARLESTON 11 564

CHARLESTON 1 1,128

CHARLESTON 2 1,203

CHARLESTON 3 2,610

CHARLESTON 4 478

CHARLESTON 5 3,076

CHARLESTON 6 1,471

CHARLESTON 7 789

CHARLESTON 8 1,438

JAMES ISLAND 17 950

JAMES ISLAND 18 496

JAMES ISLAND 19 749

JAMES ISLAND 20 1,507

JAMES ISLAND 21 1,372

JAMES ISLAND 22 1,809

SAINT ANDREWS 10 1,082

SAINT ANDREWS 23 2,181

SAINT ANDREWS 4 1,718

SAINT ANDREWS 5 1,418

SAINT ANDREWS 6 288

SAINT ANDREWS 7 1,627

SAINT ANDREWS 8 1,067

SAINT ANDREWS 9 1,065
DISTRICT TOTAL 31,829

PERCENT VARIATION - 2.907

DISTRICT 3

Area Population
Charleston County

FOLLY BEACH 1,255

ISLE OF PALMS 1 929

ISLE OF PALMS 2 2,751

JAMES ISLAND 10 1,718

JAMES ISLAND 11 1,898

JAMES ISLAND 12 1,586

JAMES ISLAND 13 965

JAMES ISLAND 14 1,223

JAMES ISLAND 15 2,259

JAMES ISLAND 16 594

JAMES ISLAND 2 0

JAMES ISLAND 4 809

JAMES ISLAND 5 2,527

JAMES ISLAND 8 1,289

JAMES ISLAND 9 2,110

JOHNS ISLAND 5 1,631

MOUNT PLEASANT 1 824

MOUNT PLEASANT 2 1,790

MOUNT PLEASANT 3 1,308

MOUNT PLEASANT 4 1,054

MOUNT PLEASANT 6 1,905

SULLIVANS ISLAND 1,623

DISTRICT TOTAL 32,048

PERCENT VARIATION - 2.239

DISTRICT 4

Area Population
Charleston County

CHARLESTON 12 734

CHARLESTON 13 1,116

CHARLESTON 14 881

CHARLESTON 15 722

CHARLESTON 16 984

CHARLESTON 17 1,676

CHARLESTON 18 1,469

CHARLESTON 20 1,570

CHARLESTON 21 1,338

CHARLESTON 22 730

CHARLESTON 9 1,123

SAINT ANDREWS 11 1,726

SAINT ANDREWS 12 2,272

SAINT ANDREWS 13 1,983

SAINT ANDREWS 14 2,108

SAINT ANDREWS 19 1,966

SAINT ANDREWS 1 1,141

SAINT ANDREWS 20 2,929

SAINT ANDREWS 21 1,849

SAINT ANDREWS 22 1,417

SAINT ANDREWS 2 1,745

SAINT ANDREWS 3 1,132

DISTRICT TOTAL 32,611

PERCENT VARIATION - 0.521

DISTRICT 5

Area Population
Charleston County

CHARLESTON 19 2,864

CHARLESTON 23 1,296

CHARLESTON 24 879

CHARLESTON 25 1,552

CHARLESTON 26 952

CHARLESTON 27 994

CHARLESTON 28 992

CHARLESTON 29 1,047

CHARLESTON 30 2,795

NORTH CHARLESTON 4 1,481

NORTH CHARLESTON 10 1,265

NORTH CHARLESTON 11 2,091

NORTH CHARLESTON 12 4,176

NORTH CHARLESTON 2 1,080

NORTH CHARLESTON 3 2,945

NORTH CHARLESTON 5 1,952

NORTH CHARLESTON 6 1,767

NORTH CHARLESTON 7 2,072

NORTH CHARLESTON 8 1,533

DISTRICT TOTAL 33,733

PERCENT VARIATION 2.900

DISTRICT 6

Area Population
Charleston County

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 10 182

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 11 90

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 12 314

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 13 398

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 14 309

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 15 172

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 16 0

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 17 346

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 18 0

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 19 0

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 1 0

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 20 0

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 2 617

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 3 704

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 4 524

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 5 19

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 6 305

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 7 116

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 8 120

AIR FORCE BASE NO. 9 62

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 10 24

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 11 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 12 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 13 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 14 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 15 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 16 2

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 17 110

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 18 56

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 19 256

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 1 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 20 33

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 2 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 3 5,694

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 4 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 5 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 6 4

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 7 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 8 0

NAVAL SHIPYARD NO. 9 92

NORTH CHARLESTON 16 1,300

NORTH CHARLESTON 17 1,886

NORTH CHARLESTON 18 1,701

NORTH CHARLESTON 19 1,479

NORTH CHARLESTON 1 3,431

NORTH CHARLESTON 20 1,564

NORTH CHARLESTON 21 727

NORTH CHARLESTON 22 681

NORTH CHARLESTON 23 1,195

NORTH CHARLESTON 24 1,282

NORTH CHARLESTON 25 1,168

NORTH CHARLESTON 26 1,750

NORTH CHARLESTON 27 623

NORTH CHARLESTON 9 3,541

DISTRICT TOTAL 32,877

PERCENT VARIATION 0.289

DISTRICT 7

Area Population
Charleston County

DEER PARK 1 3,600

DEER PARK 2 5,771

DEER PARK 3 2,300

LADSON 3,133

LINCOLNVILLE 1,050

NORTH CHARLESTON 15 1,949

NORTH CHARLESTON 28 1,155

NORTH CHARLESTON 29 1,155

NORTH CHARLESTON 30 2,190

NORTH CHARLESTON 31 2,195

NORTH CHARLESTON 32 3,632

NORTH CHARLESTON 33 4,531

DISTRICT TOTAL 32,661

PERCENT VARIATION - 0.369

DISTRICT 8

Area Population
Charleston County

NORTH CHARLESTON 13 3,617

NORTH CHARLESTON 14 4,852

SAINT ANDREWS 15 871

SAINT ANDREWS 16 1,567

SAINT ANDREWS 17 2,193

SAINT ANDREWS 18 990

SAINT ANDREWS 26 1,004

SAINT ANDREWS 27 2,781

SAINT ANDREWS 28 2,294

SAINT ANDREWS 29 3,146

SAINT ANDREWS 30 1,032

SAINT ANDREWS 31 5,830

SAINT ANDREWS 32 3,670

DISTRICT TOTAL 33,847

PERCENT VARIATION 3.248

DISTRICT 9

Area Population
Charleston County

ADAMS RUN 2 1,149

EDISTO 1,318

HOLLYWOOD 2,198

JAMES ISLAND 1 1,323

JAMES ISLAND 3 1,428

JAMES ISLAND 6 1,243

JAMES ISLAND 7 859

JOHNS ISLAND 1 3,057

JOHNS ISLAND 2 1,557

JOHNS ISLAND 3 3,004

JOHNS ISLAND 4 1,157

MEGGETT 1 2,340

MEGGETT 2 969

no name for (0190154) 1,764

RAVENEL 1 1,738

RAVENEL 2 1,210

SAINT ANDREWS 24 2,118

SAINT ANDREWS 25 1,031

WADMALAW 1 1,266

WADMALAW 2 1,304

DISTRICT TOTAL 32,033

PERCENT VARIATION - 2.285/

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.

Senator MARTSCHINK desired to be recorded as voting against third reading of the Bill.

H. 4580 -- Rep. Phillips: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-111-15 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE ANY STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY OR ANY STATE-SUPPORTED POST-HIGH SCHOOL VOCATIONAL OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL TO PROVIDE CERTAIN TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR ITS PERMANENT FACULTY AND STAFF.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator O'DELL proposed the following amendment (JUD4580.001), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 in its entirety and inserting therein the following:

/SECTION 2. Section 59-103-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 59-103-50. There shall be established, under the auspices of the commission, an Advisory Council of Private College Presidents to counsel with and advise the commission with regard to matters concerning nonpublic colleges and their role in overall programs of higher education in the State. The council shall consist of eight members selected by the South Carolina College Council. Terms of members shall be for four two years, except that of those first appointed two shall be for four years, two for three years, two for two years and two for one year. A chairman shall be elected by the members. The council shall meet upon the call of the chairman and shall meet at least once annually with the commission. The members of the council serving on this section's effective date may continue to serve until the expiration of their terms."

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered returned to the House of Representatives with amendments.

H. 3777 -- Rep. Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 13, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 47, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARTICLE TO APPLY TO DANGEROUS ANIMALS, REVISE PENALTIES, AND REQUIRE A SURETY BOND AND LIABILITY INSURANCE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSES IN ARTICLE 13.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the previously proposed amendment.

Senator LOURIE proposed the following amendment (JUD3777.007), which was adopted:

Amend the committee report, as and if amended, page 3777-2, line 33, in Section 47-3-720, as contained in SECTION 1, after /premises./ by inserting /The pen or run area must be clearly marked as containing a dangerous animal and must be designed to prevent the entry of the general public, including children, and to prevent the escape or release of the animal./

Amend title to conform.

Senator O'DELL proposed the following amendment (JUD3777.008), which was adopted:

Amend the committee report, as and if amended, page 3777-2, line 25, in Section 47-3-710, as contained in SECTION 1, by adding an appropriately numbered subsection to read:

/"( ) As used in this article, `injury' or `bodily injury' means (1) broken bones, (2) lacerations, (3) punctures of the skin, or (4) any physical injury resulting in death."/

Amend title to conform.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary (JUD3777.006) was adopted as follows:

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

/SECTION 1. Article 13, Chapter 3, Title 47 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 515 of 1988, is amended to read:

Section 47-3-710. (A) As used in this article `dangerous dog animal' means and includes an animal of the canine or feline family:

(1) a dog which the owner knows or reasonably should know has with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals;

(2) a dog which attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation (a) makes an unprovoked attack that causes bodily injury to a human being and the attack occurs in a place other than the place where the animal is confined as required by Section 47-3-720, or

(b) commits unprovoked acts in a place other than the place where the animal is confined as required by Section 47-3-720 and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the animal will attack and cause bodily injury to a human being;

(3) a dog which is owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dogfighting fighting or a dog which is trained for dogfighting fighting.

(B) `Dangerous animal' does not include:

(1) an animal used exclusively for agricultural purposes; or

(2) an animal which attacks a person who is trespassing or who appears to be trespassing. A trespasser is a person who is not lawfully upon the premises of the owner, as set forth in Section 47-3-770(A).

(C) An animal is not a `dangerous animal' solely by virtue of its breed or species.

(D) As used in this article `owner' means a person who owns or has custody or control of the animal.

Section 47-3-720. No person owning or harboring or having the care or the custody of a dangerous dog animal may permit the dog animal to go unconfined on his premises. A dangerous dog animal is `unconfined' as the term is used in this section if the dog animal is not securely confined securely indoors or confined in a securely enclosed fence or securely enclosed and locked pen or a dog-run area upon the person's premises. The pen or dog-run area also must have either sides six feet high or a secure top. If the pen or structure has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be imbedded into the ground at a depth of no less than one foot. However, the provisions of this section shall does not apply to any dog that is an animal owned by a licensed security company and is on patrol in a confined area.

Section 47-3-730. No person owning or harboring or having the care of a dangerous dog animal may permit the dog animal to go beyond his premises unless the dog animal is securely muzzled and safely restrained with a chain having a minimum tensile strength of three hundred pounds and not exceeding three feet in length.

Section 47-3-740. (A) No person may own or harbor a dog an animal for the purpose of dogfighting, fighting or train, torment, badger, bait, or use a dog an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the dog animal to unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals.

(B) No person may possess with intent to sell, offer for sale, breed, or buy or attempt to buy a known dangerous dog animal; however, this subsection does not apply to a person who is licensed to possess and breed an animal under the classifications specified and regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act as codified in Title 7 of the United States Code.

Section 47-3-750. (A) In the event If a law enforcement agent has probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog animal is being harbored or cared for in violation of Section 47-3-720 or 47-3-740 or 47-3-760(E), he may petition the magistrate court having jurisdiction to order the seizure and impoundment of the dangerous dog animal while the trial is pending.

(B) In the event If a law enforcement agent has probable cause to believe that a dangerous dog animal is being harbored or housed in violation of Section 47-3-730, he may seize and impound the dangerous dog animal while the trial is pending.

Section 47-3-760. (A) Whoever A person who violates this article Section 47-3-720 or 47-3-730 or subsection (E) of this section or who is the owner of a dangerous animal which attacks and injures a domestic animal is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, for a first offense, must be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days and, upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, must be fined one thousand dollars none of which may be suspended or remitted.

(B) A person who is the owner of a dangerous animal which attacks and injures a human being in violation of Section 47-3-710(A)(2)(a) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, for a first offense, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty-six months and, upon conviction of a subsequent offense, must be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years.

(C) A dangerous dog animal which attacks a human being or another domestic animal may be ordered destroyed when in the court's judgment the dangerous dog animal represents a continuing threat of serious harm to human beings or other domestic animals.

(C) (D) Any A person found guilty of violating this article shall pay all expenses, including, but not limited to, shelter, food, veterinary expenses for boarding and veterinary expenses necessitated by the seizure of any dog an animal for the protection of the public, medical expenses incurred by a victim from an attack by a dangerous animal, and other expenses as may be required for the destruction of the dog animal. Furthermore, anyone found guilty of violating this article shall pay any medical expenses incurred by the victim as a result of an attack by a dangerous dog.

(D) (E) All violations of this article are within the magistrate's jurisdiction. A person owning a dangerous animal shall register the animal with the local law enforcement authority of the county in which the owner resides. The requirements of the registration must be determined by the county governing body. However, the registration application must be accompanied by proof of liability insurance of at least fifty thousand dollars insuring the owner for personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous animal. In addition, the county governing body shall provide to the owner registering the dangerous animal a metal license tag and a certificate. The metal license tag shall at all times be attached to a collar or harness worn by the dangerous animal for which the certificate and tag have been issued.

(F) Nothing in this chapter is designed to abrogate any civil remedies available under statutory or common law.

Section 47-3-770. (A) A person is lawfully is upon the premises of the owner within the meaning of this article when he is on the premises in the performance of any a duty imposed upon him by the laws of this State, by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, when he is on the premises upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner, or when he is in the performance of a duty relative to public safety, which includes policemen, firemen, or other authorized personnel. A person has the right to may ingress to and egress from the premises for any a purpose connected with the performance of the public safety duty.

(B) A person who is lawfully is on the owner's premises and who is attacked by a dangerous dog animal or witnesses the attack may use reasonable force to repel the attack. A person is not liable in damages or otherwise for action to repel or any action taken to restrain or control a dog an animal from an unprovoked attack."

SECTION 2. In addition to the crimes classified as felonies in Section 16-1-10 of the 1976 Code, violation of Section 47-3-760(B) of the 1976 Code as amended in Section 1 of this act is a felony.

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered returned to the House of Representatives with amendments.

The following Bills having been read the second time were passed and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4280 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 46-26-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CITE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LIMING MATERIALS ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR IT TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CROP PEST COMMISSION INSTEAD OF THE CLEMSON UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SECTION 46-26-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT, SO AS TO DEFINE THE DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, AND THE DIVISION OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS, CLEMSON; AND SECTION 46-26-30, RELATING TO THE DELEGATION OF DUTIES TO THE FERTILIZER BOARD OF CONTROL BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DELEGATE THE DUTIES TO THE DIRECTOR WHO MAY ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THIS CHAPTER AND RELATED REGULATIONS; AND TO DIRECT THE CODE COMMISSIONER TO CHANGE THE REFERENCES TO "BOARD" TO "COMMISSION".

H. 4094 -- Reps. P. Harris, Waldrop and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 43-21-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON AGING, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CERTIFY HOMEMAKERS AND HOME HEALTH AIDES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT AND ESTABLISH AND COLLECT FEES FOR ADMINISTERING THIS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM AND CARRY FORWARD REMAINING FEES TO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.

S. 1474 -- Senators McConnell, Leventis and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 47-1-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, ILL-TREATMENT OF ANIMALS GENERALLY, AND CERTAIN PENALTIES, SO AS TO EXTEND APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION TO ALL OFFENDING PERSONS, INCREASE THE PENALTIES, AND PROVIDE THAT A FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATION SHALL BE TRIED IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TO INCREASE AND TO CHANGE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO TORTURES, TORMENTS, NEEDLESSLY MUTILATES, CRUELLY KILLS, OR INFLICTS EXCESSIVE OR REPEATED UNNECESSARY PAIN OR SUFFERING UPON ANY ANIMAL OR CAUSES THESE ACTS TO BE DONE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ACTIVITY AUTHORIZED BY TITLE 50 (FISH, GAME, AND WATERCRAFT).

Senator LEVENTIS explained the Bill.

S. 1496 -- Senator McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 46-41-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEALERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, SO AS TO ALLOW SUCH DEALERS TO DELIVER EQUIVALENT SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN LIEU OF A SURETY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

S. 1138 -- Senator Giese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-150, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SALE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE A PRESCRIPTION FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN DEVICES USED IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT AND TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EMERGENCY REFILL OF A PRESCRIPTION DRUG.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.

Senator BRYAN asked unanimous consent to have the minority report withdrawn from the Bill.

There was no objection.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs (BR1\2635.AC) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 40-43-150(A) by deleting on page 1, line 26 /It/ and inserting /Except as provided by Chapters 37 and 38 of Title 40, it/.

Amend further, Section 40-43-150(A), by inserting on page 1, line 31, /nurse practitioner/ after /dentist,/ and by inserting /, other than contact lenses,/ after /device/.

Amend further, Section 40-43-150(B), page 2, line 2, by inserting /nurse practitioner,/ after /dentist,/.

Amend further, Section 40-43-150(B), page 2, line 26, by deleting /filled/ and inserting /written/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator BRYAN explained the amendment.

Senator BRYAN proposed the following amendment (BR1\2644.AC), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 40-43-150(B), by deleting in the last paragraph of that subsection /one year/ and inserting /two years/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading with notice of general amendments.

S. 1285 -- Senators Nell W. Smith, Matthews, Setzler, Russell, Mullinax, Macaulay, Moore, Courson, Patterson and Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-35 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE COLLABORATION COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR PLANNING, COORDINATING, AND ENHANCING SERVICES TO CHILDREN CONCERNING THE MENTAL, PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, VOCATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVES.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs (BR1\2625.AC) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 20-7-35(A), by adding on page 2, line 15 /the Governor,/ before /the commissioners/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator NELL W. SMITH 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.

H. 3425 -- Rep. Baxley: A BILL TO ALLOW A PERSON SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT AND INCARCERATED IN A COUNTY PRISON OR JAIL TO BE RELEASED TO A PRISONER REHABILITATION PROGRAM APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY, TO AUTHORIZE A COUNTY GOVERNING BODY TO CONTRACT WITH A NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR GROUP WHICH HAS AS ITS CHIEF PURPOSE THE REHABILITATION OF PRISONERS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETURN OF RELEASED PRISONERS TO THE COUNTY PRISON OR JAIL UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR THE EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS, TO PROVIDE FOR A REDUCTION OF SENTENCE OR FOR RELEASE OF A PRISONER INTO SOCIETY AT LARGE UPON SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE REHABILITATION PROGRAM, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIABILITY OF THE PRISONER REHABILITATION PROGRAM WHILE A PRISONER IS IN ITS CUSTODY AND CARE.

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.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Corrections and Penology (BR1\2598.AC) was adopted as follows:

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

/SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of this act, a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which does not exceed ninety days, and who is incarcerated in a county prison or jail may be released to the custody and care of a prisoner rehabilitation program. A person who has committed a violent crime, as defined by statute, or is determined to be a violent offender under the guidelines established by the State Board of Corrections is not eligible for release to a prisoner rehabilitation program.

SECTION 2. A prisoner may be ordered released from a county prison or jail to the sole custody and care of a prisoner rehabilitation program under the following conditions:

(1) The prisoner must volunteer to participate in the rehabilitation program by making application for entry into the program.

(2) The prisoner must sign an agreement to release and indemnify the county and state governments and their officers and employees from all liability, whether in tort or otherwise, while in the custody of the program.

(3) The prisoner must agree to obey all rules and guidelines of the rehabilitation program.

(4) The prisoner's application for participation in the rehabilitation program must be approved by the rehabilitation program.

(5) The prisoner rehabilitation program must sign a written agreement to hold harmless, indemnify, and release from all liability, whether in tort or otherwise, the county and state governments and their officers and employees from any liability arising from its custody or responsibility for a prisoner released to it.

(6) The rehabilitation program must demonstrate proof of financial responsibility to the satisfaction of the court in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated.

(7) The prisoner's application for participation in the rehabilitation program must be approved and ordered by the court in the county where the prisoner is incarcerated.

SECTION 3. The prisoner rehabilitation program is authorized to return a prisoner released to it under this act to the custody of the county prison or jail if the director of the rehabilitation program determines that the prisoner is not participating sufficiently to receive the benefits offered or that the prisoner is not complying with all the rules and guidelines of the program.

SECTION 4. If a prisoner is returned by the prisoner rehabilitation program to the custody of the county prison or jail, the prisoner may not be released to the program again without a court order pursuant to Section 3 of this act.

SECTION 5. When a prisoner successfully completes the rehabilitation program, in the opinion of the director of the prisoner rehabilitation program, the prisoner may apply to the court in the county in which he was sentenced for a reduction of his sentence or for release from the county prison or jail into society at large, subject to any terms or conditions the court, in its discretion, may impose upon the prisoner.

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

Amend title to conform.

Senator SALEEBY 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. 1510 -- Senator Russell: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SPARTANBURG MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM COMMISSION MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-9-170 OF THE 1976 CODE.

On motion of Senator RUSSELL, S. 1510 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

S. 1519 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 267 OF 1987, RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF BUDGETS FOR DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 MAY SET THEIR OPERATING BUDGETS UP TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EDUCATION FINANCE ACT AND THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND THAT ANY INCREASE REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF DORCHESTER COUNTY COUNCIL; AND TO ALLOW DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 TO MAINTAIN A LIMITED CASH RESERVE AND TO PROVIDE THE METHOD OF CALCULATING AN INCREASE IN THE TAX MILLAGE.

(By prior motion of Senator ROSE)

H. 4710 -- Rep. Cato: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAYS MISSED ON MARCH 31, 1992, AND APRIL 1, 1992, BY THE STUDENTS OF THE TRAVELERS REST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE GREENVILLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THE CONDEMNATION OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING ARE EXEMPT FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, H. 4710 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

H. 4282 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 46-25-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CROP PEST COMMISSION TO DELEGATE DUTIES TO THE DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS, CLEMSON; AND TO AMEND SECTION 46-25-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO FERTILIZERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY AND DEFINE THE COMMISSION, DIRECTOR, AND DIVISION OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS, CLEMSON.

H. 4283 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, TITLE 46, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE STATE CROP PEST COMMISSION, SO AS TO ADD SECTIONS 46-9-15 AND 46-9-110 AND REVISE THE CURRENT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF SUBJECT MATTER ASSIGNED BY LAW TO IT BY REVISING THE MEMBERSHIP AND DUTIES, DEFINING TERMS, PROVIDING FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DETAILING THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY, AND REVISING PENALTIES.

S. 1399 -- Senators Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Holland, McConnell, Bryan, Moore, Wilson, Russell, Mullinax, Leventis, Giese, Thomas, Rose, Courtney, McGill and Martschink: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 73 TO TITLE 39 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE STATE COMMODITY CODE.

H. 4103 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-20-375, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CREATION OF COUNTY MENTAL RETARDATION BOARDS BY COUNTY ORDINANCE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS RATHER THAN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY EXISTING ON JANUARY 1, 1991, MUST BE PRESERVED IN THE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

H. 4104 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-15-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH BOARDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO CONSUMER AND FAMILY REPRESENTATION WHEN RECOMMENDING AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD.

H. 4182 -- Reps. Waldrop, Chamblee and Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-1310 AND 24-13-1340, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MUST NOT HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF THIRTY YEARS RATHER THAN TWENTY-SIX YEARS AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM.

H. 4399 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO SOFT DRINK BOTTLING PLANTS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1443, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Senator MACAULAY explained the Joint Resolution.

H. 4485 -- Rep. Waldrop: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS BEGIN TO SERVE UPON APPOINTMENT BUT THAT THE TIME FOR CALCULATING THEIR INITIAL STAGGERED TERMS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED; TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS BOARD SHALL SERVE AS EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD; TO PROVIDE THAT UNTIL REGULATIONS ARE PROMULGATED BY THIS BOARD, NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS SHALL MEET LICENSING STANDARDS AS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THIS BOARD AND THAT COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS MAY NOT BE LICENSED UNDER ACT 605 OF 1990; TO PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY FEE SCHEDULE FOR NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS AND TO REQUIRE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS TO OBTAIN TEMPORARY LICENSES AND TO SET THE FEE FOR THIS TEMPORARY LICENSE.

Senator MACAULAY explained the Joint Resolution.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, H. 4485 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

H. 4577 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF NURSING, RELATING TO FEES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1454, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Senator MACAULAY explained the Resolution.

S. 1516 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, RELATING TO PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1382, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

S. 1517 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS SPECIFYING THE CRITERIA FOR PHYSICIAN SUPERVISION OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND TO SUBMIT THESE REGULATIONS FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY REVIEW BY JANUARY 12, 1993.

Senator BRYAN explained the Resolution.

S. 1523 -- Senators Fielding, Gilbert, Matthews, Mitchell, Patterson, Washington and Williams: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-127-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE, SO AS TO REFLECT THE NAME OF THE COLLEGE TO UNIVERSITY, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO THIRTEEN, TO REDUCE THE TERM OF THE MEMBERS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION.

On motion of Senator FIELDING, with unanimous consent, S. 1523 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

S. 1361 -- Senators Giese, Reese and Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 38, TITLE 44 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA HEAD AND SPINAL CORD INJURY INFORMATION SYSTEM ACT ESTABLISHING THE SOUTH CAROLINA HEAD AND SPINAL CORD INJURY INFORMATION SYSTEM WHICH CREATES A CENTRAL INFORMATION SURVEILLANCE AND REGISTRY SYSTEM, BY ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL TO THE SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES, TO REQUIRE REPORTING OF CERTAIN PATIENT INFORMATION RELATED TO HEAD AND SPINAL CORD INJURIES, TO PROVIDE FOR CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND CONSENT, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, TO PROVIDE FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT AND STAFFING OF THE SYSTEM AT THE INTERAGENCY OFFICE OF DISABILITY PREVENTION WITHIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDING FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS MUST BE PROVIDED BY A GRANT FROM THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL RECEIVED BY THE INTERAGENCY OFFICE OF DISABILITY PREVENTION.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs (BR1\2369.AC) was adopted as follows:

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

/SECTION 1. Title 44 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 44-38-10. There is created the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System to provide a central information surveillance system and registry for head and spinal cord injuries.

Section 44-38-20. As used in this chapter:

(1) `Council' means the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System Council established pursuant to this chapter.

(2) `Head injury' means an insult to the skull or brain, not of a degenerative or congenital nature, but one caused by an external physical force that may produce a diminished or altered state of consciousness which results in impairment of cognitive abilities or physical functioning and possibly in behavioral or emotional functioning. It does not include cerebral vascular accidents and aneurysms.

(3) `Spinal cord injury' means an acute, traumatic lesion of neural elements in the spinal canal resulting in any degree of sensory deficit, motor deficit, or major life functions. The deficit or dysfunction may be temporary or permanent.

(4) `System' means the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System established pursuant to this chapter.

Section 44-38-30. (A) There is the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System Council established for the purpose of overseeing the daily activities of the system. The council is composed of the following ex officio members or their designees: the chairman, Developmental Disabilities Council, Office of the Governor, the chairman of the Joint Committee to Study the Problems of Persons with Disabilities, the State Commissioner of the State Department of Mental Health, the Commissioner of the State Agency of the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, the Commissioner of the State Department of Mental Retardation, the Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, the Executive Director of the South Carolina Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Dean of the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, the Dean of the Medical University of South Carolina, and the Executive Director of the South Carolina Hospital Association. The council shall elect a chairman who may appoint such other nonvoting members who may serve in an advisory capacity to the council, including representatives from the private service delivery sector.

(B) Members of the council shall receive no compensation, including subsistence, per diem, or mileage for service on the council.

Section 44-38-40. In carrying out the purposes of this chapter the council shall:

(1) determine and implement the most cost effective method:

(a) to collect, record, analyze, and disseminate data on the incidence and causes of head and spinal cord injuries;

(b) to gather such other data as needed from existing sources of the South Carolina Statewide Hospital Data System and the Trauma Registry of the Division of Emergency Medical Services, with identifiers and the patient's hospital record;

(2) provide information for initiation of case management services and preventive programs for head and spinal cord injured persons in this State;

(3) develop and promote primary prevention programs related to preventing head and spinal cord injuries;

(4) perform other duties and functions as determined by the council to be necessary for implementation of this chapter.

Section 44-38-50. (A) An admitting hospital must submit to the system:

(1) an initial report on an individual who has received a head or spinal cord injury, or both, within five days of an individual's admission as a result of the injury;

(2) a hospital discharge report in accordance with the schedule specified in the Medically Indigent Assistance Act.

(B) The initial report must include, but is not limited to: name; date of birth; gender; race; date of admission; residence of injured person, as given on the admission form, including county of residence; date of injury; Social Security number; the hospital name and identification number as required by the U.B. 82 report, as amended or replaced; cause of injury; the medical record number or the patient control number; and admitting diagnosis.

(C) The discharge report must include the information from the U.B. 82 report, as amended or replaced, and other information as may be required by the council.

(D) Information submitted pursuant to this section must be entered in the registry and may only be released pursuant to Section 44-38-70.

Section 44-38-60. The council shall develop:

(1) reporting forms and procedures for reporting the information required by this chapter;

(2) a system to provide follow up to individuals entered in the registry; and

(3) procedures for gathering information from other states in which a South Carolina resident may be admitted for a head or spinal cord injury, or both;

(4) procedures for approving research projects or participation in research activities.

Section 44-38-70. (A) All reports and records made pursuant to this chapter and maintained by the system, any agency, hospital, institution, other facility, or person pursuant to this chapter are confidential and may not be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. Information must not be released except to:

(1) appropriate staff of the system;

(2) submitting hospitals or their designees, except that no information identifying a subject of a report or a reporter may be made available to a submitting hospital unless consent is obtained pursuant to this section;

(3) a person engaged in a research project approved pursuant to Section 44-38-60 except that no information identifying a subject of a report or a reporter may be made available to a researcher unless consent is obtained pursuant to this section;

(4) a member of the council, except that no information identifying a subject of a report or a reporter may be made to the council unless consent is obtained pursuant to this section.

(B) The identity of a patient, physician, or hospital is confidential and may not be released, except that the identity of a patient may be released upon informed written consent of the patient, or the patient's legal guardian or legal representative; the identity of a physician may be released upon written consent of the physician; and the identity of a hospital may be released upon written consent of the hospital.

Section 44-38-80. The council shall submit an annual report to the Joint Committee to Study Problems of Persons with Disabilities, including, but not limited to, the incidence and status of head and spinal cord injuries in South Carolina, the administration of the system and recommendations for modifications in the system and for improving the delivery of services to persons with these injuries.

Section 44-38-90. No person, medical facility, or other organization providing or releasing information in accordance with this chapter may be held liable in a civil or criminal action for divulging confidential information unless the individual or organization acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose.

Section 44-38-100. A person subject to this chapter who intentionally fails to comply with reporting or confidentiality and disclosure requirements of this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of not more than one hundred dollars for the first violation time a person fails to comply and not more than five thousand dollars for a subsequent violation."

SECTION 2. The South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System as established in Section 1 of this act must be fully operational by July 1, 1993.

SECTION 3. The South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System as established by Section 1 of this act is initially and temporarily placed within and staffed and administered by the Interagency Office of Disability Prevention currently located within the State Department of Mental Retardation. The South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System Council, with the assistance of the Interagency Office of Disability Prevention, shall evaluate and recommend to the Joint Committee to Study the Problems of Persons with Disabilities by July 1, 1993, the most appropriate permanent placement for the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System.

SECTION 4. Funding for the first two years of the South Carolina Head and Spinal Cord Injury Information System must be provided by funds available to the Interagency Office of Disability Prevention through a Center for Disease Control grant.

SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Senator MACAULAY explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

H. 3364 -- Reps. Kirsh, Huff, Klapman, Beasley, L. Martin, Foster, Rama, Wilkins and R. Young: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 118 TO TITLE 59, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE PROGRAM; TO ESTABLISH THE SOUTH CAROLINA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM; AND TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO OBTAIN RULINGS FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROGRAM AND TO REQUIRE THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Education.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Education (EDU3364.01) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Page 1, by striking Lines 29 through 32 and inserting therein the following:

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-10, Page 1, beginning on Line 35 by striking /Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Program/ and inserting therein /Postsecondary Education Savings Program/.

Amend the bill further, SECTION 1, Section 58-118-20, Page 1, by striking Lines 42 through 43 in their entirety and inserting therein:

/(2) `Board' means the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program Board./.

Amend the bill further, SECTION 1, Section 58-118-20, Page 2, by striking Lines 1 through 4 in their entirety and inserting therein:

/(3) `Fund' means the Postsecondary Education Savings Trust Fund.

(4) `Program' means the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program./.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Page 2, Line 31, by striking /Section 59-110-25/ and inserting therein /Section 59-118-25/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-110-25, Page 2, beginning on Line 32, by striking /Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Program Board/ and inserting therein /Postsecondary Education Savings Program Board/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-30, Page 4, beginning on Line 37, by striking item (A) in its entirety and inserting therein

/(A) There is created the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program to provide a medium through which the cost of registration and dormitory residence may be paid in advance of enrollment in a state postsecondary institution at a rate lower than the projected corresponding cost at the time of actual enrollment. These payments must be combined and invested./.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-30, Page 6, beginning on Line 34, by striking Item (G) in its entirety and inserting therein:

/(G) The board shall solicit proposals for the marketing of the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program pursuant to the South Carolina Consolidated Procurement Code. The entity designated pursuant to this subsection shall serve as a centralized marketing agent for the program and is solely responsible for the marketing of the program. Any materials produced for the purpose of marketing the program must be submitted to the board for review. No materials may be made available to the public before the materials are approved by the board. Any educational institution may distribute marketing materials produced for the program; however, all the materials must have been approved by the board before distribution. Neither the State nor the board shall be liable for misrepresentation of the program by a marketing agent. All marketing materials for the program must include a statement in large, bold-faced type stipulating that the State of South Carolina does not agree to meet the obligations of the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program Board to qualified beneficiaries if monies in the fund fail to offset the obligations of the board and that the General Assembly is not obligated to appropriate to the Postsecondary Education Savings Trust Fund the amount necessary to meet the obligations of the board to qualified beneficiaries./.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-40(A), Page 9, Line 8, by inserting the following appropriately numbered subitem to read:

/(__) All contracts must include a statement in large, bold-faced type stipulating that the State of South Carolina does not agree to meet the obligations of the South Carolina Postsecondary Education Savings Program Board to qualified beneficiaries if monies in the fund fail to offset the obligations of the board and that the General Assembly is not obligated to appropriate to the Postsecondary Education Savings Trust Fund the amount necessary to meet the obligations of the board to qualified beneficiaries./.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-50(1), Page 11, Line 26, by adding after the words /Education System/ the following words /and on the average current and projected registration fees of state two-year postsecondary institutions/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-50(3) Page 13, by deleting on Lines 3 through 5 the following sentence which reads /Qualified beneficiaries must have the highest priority in the assignment of housing within residence halls./.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-50(4), Page 13, Line 19, by adding after the word /section/ the following words /and must verify that it does not practice discriminatory policies. If in the opinion of the board the independent college or university does engage in discriminatory practices, the board may prohibit that independent college or university from further participation in the program established by this chapter until such discriminatory practices are eliminated/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-60, Page 13, beginning on Line 36, by striking /Postsecondary Education Expense Program/ and inserting therein /Postsecondary Education Savings Program/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 59-118-120, Page 18, beginning on Line 5, by striking Section 59-118-120 in its entirety.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, Page 18, beginning on Line 22 by striking /Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Program Board/ and inserting therein /Postsecondary Education Savings Program Board/.

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, SECTION 3, Page 18, Line 27, by striking the SECTION in its entirety and inserting therein

/SECTION __. This act takes effect upon the approval of the Governor and upon the appropriation by the General Assembly of funds necessary to implement the program./

Amend title to conform.

Senator BRYAN explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

H. 4256 -- Rep. Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-600, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPIRATORY CARE PRACTITIONERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, PROHIBIT CERTIFICATION OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, AND DELETE REDUNDANT LANGUAGE; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RESPIRATORY CARE COMMITTEE FOR SIX YEARS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.

The amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs (BR1\2576.AC) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by deleting Section 1 and inserting:

/SECTION 1. Section 40-47-600 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 541 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 40-47-600. An applicant for certification as a respiratory care practitioner shall file a written application on forms provided by the board showing to the satisfaction of the committee and the board that he meets the following requirements:

(a) good moral character;

(b) successful passage of the applicant has successfully passed the entry-level examination given by the National Board for Respiratory Care, Inc., or other examination or requirement as the committee may administer or approve.

(c) successful passage of the entry-level examination given by the National Board for Respiratory Care, Inc., or other examination as the committee, in its discretion, may administer or approve."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator MACAULAY explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

H. 4505 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND SECTION 41-15-220, RELATING TO THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

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 (N05\8548.BD) was adopted as follows:

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

/SECTION 1. Section 41-15-220 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 41-15-220. (A) Prior to Before the promulgation, modification, or revocation of any rule or a regulation issued pursuant to this article, the commissioner shall conduct a public hearing at which all interested persons, including employer and employee representatives, shall must be provided an opportunity to appear and present their comments either orally, or written, or both. Notice of such the hearing shall must be published in the State Register and in at least three newspapers, at least one of which has circulation in upper, lower, and middle South Carolina, once a week for three weeks. The notice shall must contain the date, time, and place of the hearing and a brief description of the proposed rule or regulation.

(B) Occupational safety and health standards promulgated pursuant to this article are not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. After promulgation the department shall file a notice in the Legislative Council to be published in the State Register. This notice must refer to the federal occupational safety and health administration standards which have been repromulgated under this section and give specific notice of differences between the state and federal standard. Filing and publication of notice in the State Register give notice of the contents of the standard to a person subject to or affected by it.

(C) Publication of the notice creates a rebuttable presumption that the:

(1) standard to which it refers was promulgated under this section;

(2) notice was filed and made available for public inspection at the day and hour stated in it;

(3) copy on file in the Legislative Council is a true copy of the original."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Senator MACAULAY explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, H. 4505 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

H. 4038 -- Rep. Rhoad: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1090 OF 1972, RELATING TO MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAMBERG-ERHARDT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE AND DENMARK-OLAR SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO IN BAMBERG COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TRUSTEES FOR EACH DISTRICT; TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTION BY SINGLE MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL TAX LEVY FOR GENERAL OPERATING PURPOSES FOR EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PROVIDE THAT THE LEVY MAY NOT BE INCREASED MORE THAN THREE MILLS FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR UNLESS THE INCREASE IS APPROVED BY A REFERENDUM; TO ABOLISH THE BAMBERG COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION; AND TO REPEAL ACT 513 OF 1982, ACT 237 OF 1979, AND SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ACT 1090 OF 1972, RELATING TO THE BAMBERG COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senator MATTHEWS proposed the following amendment (BR1\2638.AC), which was adopted:

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

/SECTION 1. Section 3 of Act 1090 of 1972 is amended to read:

"Section 3. The Board of Trustees of Bamberg-Ehrhardt School District No. One and Denmark-Olar School District No. Number Two shall each must be composed of five members, to be appointed by the county board of education elected from each of five defined single member districts in a nonpartisan election to be conducted the same time as the 1992 general election for terms of three four years and until their successors are appointed and qualify. The terms of the trustees begin January 1, 1993. Each trustee shall must be a resident of the district he the trustee represents. Of the trustees first appointed elected, the two candidates with the highest number of votes from each district shall serve for terms of three four years, and the three candidates with the lowest number of votes shall serve two for terms of two years, and one shall serve for one year. Their successors must be elected in a nonpartisan election to be conducted on the second Tuesday in April and every two years after that time for those trustees whose terms expire, for terms of four years each. All vacancies shall must be filled in the manner of the original appointment for the unexpired portion of the term only. Members of the current boards of trustees for each school district shall serve until their successors are elected and qualify. The elections must be conducted by the Bamberg County Election Commission, at the district's expense."

SECTION 2. The five defined single-member election districts for Bamberg-Ehrhardt School District One and Denmark-Olar School District Number Two, from which members of the Board of Trustees of Bamberg-Ehrhardt School District One and Denmark-Olar School District Number Two must be elected, are as follows:

DISTRICT 1

Area Population
Bamberg County

SOUTH BAMBERG

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 321, 322, 323, 335, 336, 337, 338, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 370, 371, 403A, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416A, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433A, 433B, 434, 435, 436, 437A, 438, 439A, 440A, 628A, 628B, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633A, 633B, 633C, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649, 650A, 650B, 651A, 651B, 652A, 652B, 653, 654A, 654B, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 671, 672 1,692
DISTRICT TOTAL 1,692

DISTRICT 2

Area Population
Bamberg County

COLSTON

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 117

Tract 9604.00

Blocks: 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 232 120

EHRHARDT 1,257

GOVAN

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 0

KEARSE

Tract 9604.00

Blocks: 236, 268, 275, 276 12

SOUTH BAMBERG

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 359, 360, 367, 368, 369, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394 218

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,724
DISTRICT 3

Area Population
Bamberg County

EDISTO 468

HUNTERS CHAPEL 240

LITTLE SWAMP 239

NORTH BAMBERG

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 201, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252 107

SOUTH BAMBERG

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 397, 401, 402, 403B, 416B, 437B, 439B, 440B, 441, 442 729

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,783

DISTRICT 4

Area Population
Bamberg County

NORTH BAMBERG

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 202A, 202B, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236A, 236B, 237A, 237B, 238, 239, 240A, 240B, 240C, 241A, 241B, 242, 243A, 243B, 244, 253, 501A, 501B, 501C, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507A, 507B, 508, 509, 510A, 510B, 511A, 511B, 512A, 512B, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724 1,789

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,789

DISTRICT 5

Area Population
Bamberg County

COLSTON

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 173, 174, 181 49

Tract 9604.00

Blocks: 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 33

EAST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 228, 232, 233, 237 40

NORTH BAMBERG

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 229, 230, 231 0

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 701, 702, 703, 704, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712A, 712B, 712C, 713, 714, 715, 716A, 716B, 717A, 717B, 718, 725A, 725B, 726A, 726B, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734A, 734B, 734C, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743 703

SOUTH BAMBERG

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 234, 235, 236 16

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 601, 602, 603A, 603B, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608A, 608B, 609A, 609B, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626A, 626B, 626C, 627A, 627B, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 661A, 661B, 662, 663A, 663B, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670 987

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,828

DISTRICT 1

Area Population
Bamberg County

EAST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 216A, 220A, 220B, 221, 222, 223A, 223B, 224A, 224B, 225, 226, 227A, 227B, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411A, 412A, 413A, 414, 508, 509, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 539, 726, 727, 728 1,670

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,670

DISTRICT 2

Area Population
Bamberg County

EAST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128A, 128B, 129, 130A, 130B, 131, 132, 133A, 133B, 134A, 134B, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 201, 202A, 202B, 203, 205, 206, 207, 212, 213A, 213B, 214, 216B, 217, 241, 418, 419, 420, 605, 606, 644, 645, 646, 652A, 652B, 653A, 653B, 654 1,601

NORTH BAMBERG

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 215 0

Tract 9602.00

Blocks: 705 35

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,636

DISTRICT 3

Area Population
Bamberg County

WEST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 540, 601, 602, 603, 604, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 635, 636, 637A, 637B, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 655, 656A, 656B, 659, 660, 665, 666, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 707, 708A, 709, 710A 1,635

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,635

DISTRICT 4

Area Population
Bamberg County

EAST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 218, 219, 242, 243, 411B, 412B, 413B, 415, 416, 417, 421, 422, 423A, 423B, 424, 425, 426, 427 613

HIGHTOWERS MILL 132

WEST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 616, 633, 634, 657A, 657B, 657C, 658, 661, 662, 663, 664A, 664B, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 706, 708B, 710B, 711, 712, 713, 714, 720, 721, 722A, 722B, 723, 724, 725, 729A, 729B, 730, 731A, 731B, 731C, 732A, 732B, 733A, 733B, 734A, 734B, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742A, 742B 816

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,561

DISTRICT 5

Area Population
Bamberg County

COLSTON

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 187, 188 6

Tract 9604.00

Blocks: 217, 233, 237 11

EAST DENMARK

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 238, 239, 240, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 443, 444, 445, 446 205

GOVAN

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122A, 122B, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134A, 134B, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142A, 142B, 143A, 143B, 144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154A, 154B, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159A, 159B, 160A, 160B, 161A, 161B, 162, 163, 195, 196, 197 359

Tract 9605.98

Blocks: 192B 0

KEARSE

Tract 9603.98

Blocks: 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 277, 278, 280, 281, 294, 295, 296, 297 138

Tract 9604.00

Blocks: 234, 235, 269, 270, 271, 272, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 79

OLAR 781

SOUTH BAMBERG

Tract 9601.00

Blocks: 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 447, 448 5

DISTRICT TOTAL 1,584.

SECTION 3. Effective with the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993, and thereafter, the school tax levy for general operating purposes for Bamberg-Ehrhardt School District One and Denmark-Olar School District Number Two must be determined by the board of trustees of the respective districts. The tax levy for general operating purposes may not be increased more than three mills above the inflation factor from the previous fiscal year unless the increase is approved by a referendum, at the districts' expense, of the qualified electors of the district. Before the budget is finalized by the board, there must be a public hearing with notice to the public. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the respective school districts and must state the time, date, and location of the hearing. The notice must be published at least two weeks before the date of the hearing. Residents of the school district must have the opportunity to give input on the proposed budget.

SECTION 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bamberg County Board of Education is abolished upon the election and qualification of the board of trustees of each school district as provided in Section 1 of this act, and the powers and duties of that board are devolved upon the respective boards of trustees of the school districts of the county.

SECTION 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the office of the county superintendent of education is abolished effective December 31, 1992, and the powers and duties of that office are devolved upon the respective boards of trustees of the school districts of the county.

SECTION 6. Bamberg-Ehrhardt School District One and Denmark-Olar School District Number Two may be consolidated only if the provisions of Section 59-17-20(2)(a) and (2)(c) are satisfied.

SECTION 7. Act 513 of 1982, Act 237 of 1979, and Sections 1 and 2 of Act 1090 of 1972 are repealed.

SECTION 8. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.

On motion of Senator MATTHEWS, H. 4038 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, April 30, 1992.

S. 1275 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 23, TITLE 15 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-15-115 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL TO ASK OR REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO PARTICIPATE IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL TO DERIVE INCOME FROM PROVIDING GOODS OR SERVICES TO A PRISONER.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator ROSE proposed the following amendment (JUD1275.008):

Amend the committee report, as and if amended, page 1275-1, line 33, Section 23-15-115, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking the word /ask/ and inserting therein the word /coerce/ .

Amend title to conform.

Senator ROSE explained the amendment.

On motion of Senator ROSE, the Bill was carried over.

H. 4281 -- Rep. Snow: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES AND RELATED DEVICES, SO AS TO CHANGE THE REGISTRATION RENEWAL DATE AND REVISE THE FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPLICATORS OF PESTICIDES, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE LICENSE OF AN APPLICATOR WHOSE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAPSES, EXPIRES, OR CEASES TO COMPLY IS SUSPENDED AND DELETE THE REFERENCE TO CANCELED LICENSES; TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-100, RELATING TO EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR'S LICENSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COVERAGE OF THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES BY THE APPLICATOR OR HIS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, REVISE THE AMOUNT AND EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SURETY BOND OR INSURANCE POLICY, PROVIDE FOR AERIAL APPLICATORS, PROVIDE FOR SELF-INSURANCE, AND PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSURANCE OR BOND COVERAGE FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-210, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ACTION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF REGULATORY AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR REVIEW ONLY OF CONTESTED CASES AND PROVIDE THAT A WARNING OR A CAUTIONARY LETTER IS NOT JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senators HINDS proposed the following amendment (N05\8555.BD):

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

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

"Section 46-13-175. The director shall use discretion to waive any provisions of this chapter, as necessary, to insure the availability of pesticides for minor uses."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator HINDS explained the amendment.

On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3630 -- Rep. Hodges: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-16-210, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CORPORATION IS REQUIRED TO REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS SHARES ISSUED FOR PROMISSORY NOTES OR FOR PROMISES TO RENDER SERVICES IN THE FUTURE, SO AS TO EXEMPT A CORPORATION THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, IF THE SHARES ARE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION.

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 (JUD3630.001) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, line 37, in Section 33-16-210(b), as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting after the word /of/ the words /Section 12 of/ .

Amend title to conform.

Senator WILLIAMS proposed the following amendment (JUD3630.002), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, beginning on line 28, by striking subsection (b), as contained in SECTION 1, in its entirety and inserting therein the following:

/"(b) If a corporation issues or authorizes the issuance of shares for promissory notes or for promises to render services in the future, the corporation shall report in writing to the shareholders the number of shares authorized or issued, and the consideration received by the corporation, with or before the notice of the next shareholders' meeting. However, this report is not required for a corporation subject to the registration requirements of Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, if the shares are issued or authorized pursuant to a plan that has been approved by the shareholders of the corporation."/

Amend title to conform.

On motion of Senator LOURIE, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3892 -- Rep. Gonzales: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 340 OF 1967, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CHARLESTON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ANNUAL TAX MILLAGE FOR THE DISTRICT IS DETERMINED, SO AS TO REVISE THIS PROCEDURE INCLUDING PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING A REFERENDUM FOR INCREASING THE MILLAGE CAP AND AUTHORIZING CHARLESTON COUNTY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN THE ANNUAL MILLAGE CAP.

On motion of Senator PASSAILAIGUE, the Bill was committed to the Charleston Delegation.

S. 1103 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds, Hinson and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 44 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY TRUST FUND AND THE DISABILITY FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO AID DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, MENTALLY ILL, AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, with unanimous consent, the Bill was recommitted to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

There was no objection.

H. 3127 -- Reps. Wilkins, Sheheen, J.W. Johnson, T.C. Alexander, Keyserling, Beasley, Boan, Huff and McElveen: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ANNUAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMMENCE ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN FEBRUARY INSTEAD OF THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JANUARY AND THAT THE SENATE SHALL HAVE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS IN THE YEARS FOLLOWING THE ELECTION OF ITS MEMBERS AND TO DELETE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE RELATING TO EARLIER SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Senator POPE asked unanimous consent to take the Resolution up for immediate consideration.

Senator McCONNELL objected.

H. 4692 -- Reps. Inabinett, Rogers, Whipper, Vaughn, Scott, Jaskwhich, Holt, L. Elliott, Kennedy, Sturkie, Kempe, McCraw, Anderson, Littlejohn, Cobb-Hunter, Manly, Beatty, Cato, D. Martin, Phillips, Byrd, Barber, J. Brown, Townsend, Lanford, Shirley, Snow, McLeod and Canty: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRST THURSDAY IN MAY (MAY 7, 1992) AS "LEGISLATIVE FAMILY DAY 1992" IN RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF THE PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING SHOWN BY THE FAMILIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE WONDERFUL SUPPORT GIVEN BY THESE GREAT FAMILIES TO THE MEMBERS AS THEY CARRY OUT THEIR LEGISLATIVE DUTIES, AND INVITING A FAMILY MEMBER OF EACH MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE STATE HOUSE AS SPECIAL GUESTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ATTEND AND OBSERVE THE RESPECTIVE SESSIONS IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON "LEGISLATIVE FAMILY DAY 1992".

The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4520 -- Reps. McElveen, Mattos, J. Bailey, Farr, Keyserling, Whipper, Jennings, Waites, Houck, D. Martin, Snow, Phillips, T.C. Alexander, Barber, Rogers, Byrd, Wilkes, Harvin, Felder, J. Harris, Hodges, McTeer, Boan, Marchbanks and Kennedy: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO STUDY ISSUES RELATING TO MIDDLE, JUNIOR HIGH, AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO LIKELY WILL NOT ATTEND COLLEGE OR WILL DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, INCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO APPRENTICE PROGRAMS, MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY SERVICE AND BUSINESS APPROACHES, THE TECH-PREP PROGRAM, POST-SECONDARY OPTIONS PROGRAMS, AND INCENTIVES FOR GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Concurrent Resolution. The question being the adoption of the Resolution.

Senator SETZLER proposed the following amendment (EDU4520.01), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, on Page 5, by striking Lines 1 through 4 in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following

/Of the funds allocated to the EIA Select Committee for the evaluation of education programs and policies, up to $50,000 may be expended for the studies and work of the committee./

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Page 5, Line 26, by adding the following sentence /In its discretion, the committee may contract with independent entities for any evaluations or studies deemed appropriate by the committee to carry out its role as prescribed herein./

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Page 5, Line 41, by adding after the word /necessary./ the following sentence /All reports of this committee shall be submitted to the House Education and Public Works Committee, the Senate Education Committee, the EIA Select Committee, the Business-Education Subcommittee and the Business-Education Partnership./

Amend the bill further, as and if amended, Page 6, by deleting Lines 1 through 3 in their entirety.

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

S. 1012 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-650, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF LOCAL CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIALLY DETERMINED REPORTS INSTEAD OF INDICATED INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE STATEWIDE CENTRAL REGISTRY, DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR A LOCAL REGISTRY AND REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE, AND PROVIDE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, BIRTH DATES, AND OTHER IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS NAMED IN JUDICIALLY DETERMINED INSTEAD OF INDICATED REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.

On motion of Senator ROSE, the Bill was carried over.

S. 1483 -- Senator Shealy: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-625, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND THE PROHIBITION ON INCREASING AN INSURED'S REINSURANCE FACILITY RECOUPMENT CHARGE IF HE IS INVOLVED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT WHERE HE IS NOT THE AT-FAULT DRIVER, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONALLY THAT THE RECOUPMENT CHARGE MAY NOT BE INCREASED UNLESS THE INSURED IS GUILTY OF A MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATION WHICH MANDATES THE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS.

On motion of Senator SHEALY, the Bill was carried over.

H. 4093 -- Reps. P. Harris, Waldrop and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-81-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENTS IN LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE FACILITY'S REFUND POLICY WHICH A FACILITY MUST ADOPT, TO CHOOSE A PERSONAL PHYSICIAN AND RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH TREATMENT AND CARE, TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE THIRTY-DAY TRANSFER NOTICE REQUIREMENT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR FAMILY ACCESS TO THE RESIDENT AND THE RIGHT OF FAMILY TO MEET WITH OTHER FAMILIES AT SUCH FACILITIES.

On motion of Senator LAND, the Bill was carried over.

S. 1520 -- Medical Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION BOARD, RELATING TO BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS, PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1390, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

Senator MACAULAY explained the Resolution.

H. 4382 -- Rep. Koon: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE ALERT ACTIONS OF MR. MARTY HILYER OF LEXINGTON COUNTY IN SAVING THE LIFE OF AN ABANDONED INFANT LEFT IN A DUMPSTER IN RICHLAND COUNTY ON JANUARY 31, 1992, AND URGING APPROPRIATE ACTION BY STATE AGENCIES IF THE INFANT IS PUT UP FOR ADOPTION TO GIVE THE HILYER FAMILY EVERY CONSIDERATION IN ADOPTING THE INFANT.

Senator MARTSCHINK spoke on the Resolution.

On motion of Senator GILBERT, the Resolution was carried over.

At 3:10 P.M., on motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 8:55 A.M.