Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 110th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 11, 1994

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 1780, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1800, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 1790 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. I see.
A. It was my intention at the time I submitted my resignation to file for it. As it turned out, a friend of mine who had assured me he would not run decided to run. We would have split the same vote. Another friend who had said he wasn't going to run if I was going to run and I told him my reasons for not running, he got it in.

It got to where it would be two stage -- had a run off and maybe might have been two. I don't know. But there were about four or five candidates in it. I think Jack Gregory was a candidate at that time.

I had to do what I had to do to be eligible.
Q. I see.
A. But once it's done, you can't go back.
Q. Going back to the fact that your law office was open until 1991, first of all, have you resolved all those personal situations that caused you to close?
A. I will elaborate on that a little bit, so maybe you can understand. At the time my son was born, we were not aware of it, but he has a severe visual disability. We have had him to probably the best doctors that are available primarily the Storm Eye Institute in Charleston, the medical university. His situation is stable.

There is nothing that can be done for him under the current state of technology. The disease -- the defect was primarily of the retina. Retinas can be reattached, of course, if they detach, but his is in the optic nerve and the fact that his retina is hypo -- let me see if I can the whole word, it's either called oculoalbinism and hypopigmentation which means that his retina, like yours -- is not like yours and mine. The back of his retina is like a piece of film in a camera, it's black. His is not completely black. It's gray and the light actually bleeds through the retina, so short of a retinal transplant and knowing how to hook up the optic nerves, there is nothing that can be done.

His mother and I discussed it at the time that we found out how severe his problem was. She and I felt like he needed extra attention. We put him in a private school and God bless him, he's made the head master's list. So far he's making real good grades. He's a very bright child, but at this time his condition is stabilized. There is nothing more that either one of us can do. But I wanted to spend as much time with him as I possibly could at that point in time, so I had the wherewithal to do it and I did it. And I don't regret doing it and I'd do it again.
Q. When your law office was open, you said 35 percent of your practice was nonjury?
A. Right.

Printed Page 1791 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. Is this specific administrative law experience that you're talking about?
A. No. Not specifically there. That, of course, refers to the five years previous.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. So nonjury in that regard would primarily -- and I would think in terms of civil cases, these would be nonjury roster versus jury roster cases.
Q. The Administrative Law Division is going to have its principal office in Columbia and you live in Walterboro, does that pose a problem for you?
A. No, it does not. None at all. In fact --
Q. How will you accommodate that?
A. I'll be where I'm needed at my expense, if necessary. Down the road, it may well be this plays into my plan, too. If nothing happens with the current state of facts, he will never be able to drive and he will need to be in a place where there is public transportation where he can get along and get around, get to and from places.

Because with his vision now, which is corrected at best is twenty-one sixty in his best eye, he'll never be able to have a driver's license, so that was in the back of my mind. At the present time, I'd stay in Walterboro.
Q. What do you foresee doing as a chief law judge the first three months? How are you going to start up your office?
A. I see the first three months primarily as the ground zero for organization. I've heard it asked several other candidates and you've asked me, but I'll go ahead and volunteer, I think one of the biggest benefits of having a new administrative law judge organization is the fact that there will be a central organization to process these type of hearings rather than a piecemeal hearing officer here, hearing officer there.

It will give us more information. Of course, any decision you make is as good as the information and input you receive. I would consult with the members of both the Senate and the House who were instrumental in this bill to see exactly what their visions are insofar as setting it up and getting it running.

And I would look closely as other candidates have said to see very quickly what's going to have to be budgeted to carry this function out and that's going to need input from the various agencies as to what needs to be done now, how quick and so forth and so on, what kind of staff and support personnel we're going to -- we'll have to have word processing. We're going to have computer services, these sorts of things, but my plan would be to hit the ground running.

Printed Page 1792 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. And what are your relevant experiences that make you a good -- or the best candidate for Chief Administrative Law judge?
A. Well, you have to have managerial -- a sole practitioner has to have managerial abilities to survive. If you don't have managerial abilities, you don't win cases and you don't make money and you don't eat.

In addition to that, I have had a great deal of administrative background. I have appeared before the Board of Pharmacy concerning a license revocation. I have appeared before DHEC on two or three occasions. I have represented another attorney before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. I have represented a client in the matter of a disputed contract with United States government before the Armed Services Board of Contract disputes and that is under the --
Q. Are you currently practicing law?
A. I am not currently practicing right now. Well, I take that back. I have one friend that I do stuff for from time to time as needs to be done. That would, of course, Mr. Isaiah Crawford of the Wildewood Landscape Contractors, Incorporated.

I have been his attorney since, oh, I would say early eighties, '81, '82. I've handled numerous matters for his corporation. I have tried contract disputes for him, construction matters.

I have represented numerous members of his family in various capacities, traffic tickets, divorce, will needs doing, whatever.
Q. How will you go about making your decision in a case? What analytic process method would you use? Are you going to ask for proposed orders in each case? Are you going to write your own? What's your order going to look like?
A. That would depend on the case. Certain cases are usually fairly straight forward and it's been my experience over the years, the quicker you do something, the better it is. If you put something off, you bedevil yourself and create your own trap to fall in. Your memory fades and it's not quite as clear as it was at the very earliest.

In a complex case, I think it would probably be appropriate to have both sides submit a proposed order with supporting legal authority for it and you may end up writing your own order taking the best from both.
Q. What's going to be your standard of review, standard of evidence for your order?
A. I don't know that I understand your question. A standard of review of evidence?
Q. What -- when -- what's the burden on you when you're making that decision what the order is going to be?
A. What is the burden? I still don't --

Printed Page 1793 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. The preponderance of the evidence.
A. Oh, I -- oh, the --
THE CHAIRMAN: What's the burden that's required or the standard of proof required, I guess is the way to phrase it?
A. What's the standard of proof?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
A. It'd be the preponderance of the evidence.
Q. What's your understanding about the rights of parties to intervene in administrative hearings? What is the law of standing?
A. As I understand, they would have to have some standing of sufficient nexus or connection to be able to be allowed to be an intervener.
Q. And does the ordinary taxpayer have that?
A. Well, it would depend on the particular type case you're talking about. I don't know that an ordinary taxpayer might have the right to intervene in a hearing between a citizen and the Tax Commission concerning an allowance or disallowance of a deduction that they took. I don't see where -- you know, I mean, if they want to be there, they can be there, but I don't see where they would particularly have the right to intervene.
Q. Okay.
A. If you have a complicated case concerning DHEC and there may well be good reason to allow some intervention, I suppose, but that's what -- I think that's what you're looking for.
Q. Could you go into how you have gone about you informing the legislators that you're interested in this job?
A. I have not really. Until yesterday, I just go around and spoke to people, shook hands, told them who I am, told some of them I know from 1985. I would have said I hadn't seen you since 1985. I have not solicited any candidates pledge directly or indirectly. Just basically say I'm here, I sent you a letter.

One person, he told me, "Well, that's good, but I didn't read it. I threw it in the trash can." I said,
"Thank you, Senator, but I'm here to see you and if you have any questions you'd like me to answer for you, I'd be glad to answer them." That's basically been it.

Insofar as the contact, I've had with the Legislature, I sent a letter to -- and I'm sure each one of this committee got one with a brief resume, not an extensive resume announcing my candidacy and I specifically stated therein that I was not seeking any support or vote from any party either directly or indirectly according to the appropriate code section and this Committee's interpretation thereof.

Printed Page 1794 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. We do not show any expenses on our behalf.
A. Well, the only expenses I would have would be for postage stamps for 170 people. It's about $79. I have not calculated it up and I will file it at the appropriate time.
Q. Have you ever been held in contempt or sanctioned by a court for any reason?
A. Not at any time.
Q. Have you ever been the subject of any disciplinary action in any court?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. And are you aware of any solicitation without your authorization or without your request of a legislator?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions? Senator McConnell. Surprise.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Have you sought the endorsement of any group of members of the General Assembly or the caucus of the General Assembly?
A. No, Senator, I have not.
Q. Have you participated in any formalized interview process --
A. No.
Q. -- other than doing this?
A. Other than going to the Bar. This -- I wouldn't say the Bar. This is the only formal process.
Q. Have you directly or indirectly had any meetings or conversations pertaining to your candidacy with members of the Bar Screening Committee, Bar employees or lobbyists representing the Bar either before you were screened or after you were screened, but prior to the Bar's screening report being made public?
A. Have I had any contact with any member of the Bar Screening? I received a letter.
Q. Other than receiving your letter, which I think Senator Moore is going to examine you on that?
A. I received a call from Wade Logan. Other than that, no. And I met with Mr. Logan.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Moore.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:
Q. Mr. Chairman.
A. I was looking for the letter, Senator. I know where you're coming from.
Printed Page 1795 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let him at least ask the question first.
Q. Do you recall you were contacted -- that the Bar contacted you to set up the interview?
A. They contacted me Wednesday last week at approximately 4:35 p.m. and asked me to be in Columbia at 7:00 o'clock the next morning.
Q. To be in Columbia?
A. Yes. I asked Mr. Logan, I said, "Well, would it be permissible if I meet with you in Charleston? It's a lot shorter drive, if you'd want to do it that way." And he said, "No, someone else is supposed to join us in Columbia," the other party and I don't know who he was.

He just advised me Leevy Johnson was detained, but didn't show up. He talked to me for about five minutes.
Q. You don't feel Mr. Longtin was given preferential treatment going to Charleston and you had to come to Columbia?
A. Once you're on the road, it's just a matter of riding.
Q. All right, sir.
A. Counting miles.
Q. So your interview took place on Wednesday, you said the --
A. Thursday. Thursday.
Q. Thursday.
A. At 11:00 o'clock.
MS. SATTERWHITE: January the 6th.
A. I stopped by to say hello.
Q. January the 6th. How many interviewers participated in yours?
A. One.
Q. One person. Mr. Logan. And you obviously had -- he's from Charleston; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you had known Mr. Logan prior to this?
A. I had seen him over at roster meetings and I think I may have met him one time when I was in Charleston with Gerald Smoak and we had a workers' comp. case, I think I spoke to him briefly, but I don't really know him.
Q. All right, sir.
A. And I don't think he really knows me.
Q. Just a casual acquaintance?
A. I know who he is.
Q. Did you furnish a list of references?

Printed Page 1796 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. Yes, sir. I gave him five in addition to the five that I gave this committee. Well, I sent them to Mr. Wells at the Bar and I assume he had access to that.
Q. Are you aware if any of those references were contacted?
A. To the best of my knowledge, let me look at that list to be sure.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. One of the individuals I think was contacted before I ever even gave him a reference because he was a prior employer. To the best of my knowledge, two on that list were contacted and two of the original five. That's to my knowledge.
Q. And when and how were you notified of the results of that interview as far as your being found --
A. Monday morning about 9:45, 10:00 o'clock, a Federal Express man knocked on the door.
Q. Monday the 10th?
A. Yes.
Q. And their findings were qualified?
A. They said qualified, yes.
Q. Approximately how long was your interview with Mr. Logan?
A. Five to ten minutes.
Q. Five to ten minutes?
A. Very brief. When I had spoken with him on the phone, I asked him what was the purpose of our meeting. He said, "Well, it's to get an opportunity to get you to respond to anybody that may have said anything bad about you." He said, "But quite frankly, I've heard nothing but good things about you." I said, "Well, fine. What do we need to meet for?" He said, "Well, we kind of want to just eyeball you."
Q. Well --
A. See you face to face.
Q. Well, let me ask you if I were in your role of being interviewed and I was told everybody -- nothing but good was said, why would I get qualified rather than very qualified or well qualified?
A. Senator, that is a good question and I do not know the answer to it. I can say this, I was extremely dismayed that I did not get well qualified.
Q. And based on --
A. It hurts my feelings and my pride and I think it's an inaccurate reflection of how I've conducted myself all my legal career.
Q. All right, sir.
A. The types of cases I've handled, difficulty and complexity.
Q. Based on how I understand how the Bar operated the interviews or how the process worked, there is no way of knowing why you received
Printed Page 1797 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
qualified versus well qualified. If there was some concerns raised, there is no way of knowing what those concerns were and who raised them; is that correct?
A. Assassination in the dark. I don't know who raised them or why. I just -- I didn't mean to be lighthearted about it, but I guess that's what you would call it.
Q. No, sir, I believe you swung a big bat and that ball is going out completely out of the park. I don't have any more questions, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Moore.
A. You know, he asked me -- you know, he said nice things about me and he kind of jumped on me with some hard questions, one, why I closed my practice and one other thing and, of course, he said, "Well, I understand that you got a little bit fed up with the court appointment system," and I said, "Well, that is not entirely inaccurate." I said, "I was a little bit tired of it because some of us were bearing the burden more than others," I said, "but that wasn't the reason I closed my practice."

I think we all of us at the county bar recognized that some of us get more than our fair share of work than others. It wasn't -- and at that point.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q. Did you discuss any of your cases -- any of your practice cases you've had during your active --
A. With Mr. Logan?
Q. Yes.
A. No, sir. Not at all. He didn't ask me about the cases I put, one of them, of course, was a very complicated case. It's got a file this is about this thick on it. That was the -- both cases involved questions of admiralty, strict liability, implied warranty. It was an overlay of state and federal law and a right complicated matter to handle and I admit that I was assisted with others on the admiralty. I was so bound and that's how I got associated in the case, but I did all the pleadings myself and was complimented by the judge for them.
Q. You didn't discuss that case at all with Mr. Logan?
A. No.
Q. Did you -- excuse me --
A. He didn't ask me nothing. He didn't ask me about any cases.
Q. At the conclusion of the hearing if you are chosen for this position, one of the attorneys that appeared before you are an attorney that you

Printed Page 1798 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
might know that appeared before you regularly later came to you and asked you to go play a round of golf with him, would you go?
A. I wouldn't have any problem with that, Senator Russell. I don't play golf.
Q. Let me rephrase it.
A. The happiest day of my life was when I sold my brother-in-law my golf clubs.
Q. Would you accept a gift in the form of a meal or --
A. No, sir. No, sir. And I think it is important not only that things to be right, they have to look right. And I'm not saying that it might not be permissible you'll have lunch with somebody. When you're in the public eye, when you're in a judicial position, I think you have to give people the impression that you're fair and impartial.

While it may not compromise that if you went to lunch with somebody, it could certainly give the public who doesn't understand lawyers or the citizens out in -- that it was fair -- it did compromise your fairness and impartiality. And I think the best policy is to just to avoid and say, "Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it, but I'm going to have to decline. I've got other work to do."
Q. No further questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mayer.
A. Thank you all so much. I appreciate you're getting through with us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for being so patient with us. All right. That concludes our hearings for tonight. We talked about an Executive Session, why don't we wait for tomorrow when we've got the rest of the members here?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I think that'd be good.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
(There being nothing further, the proceedings adjourned)

Printed Page 1799 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF JANUARY 13, 1994

THE CHAIRMAN: Call the meeting to order. And I would suggest to the members, we have a brief Executive Session. We have some administrative matters and a few other matters we need to take up. Motion from Senator McConnell. Second by Representative Alexander. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. If you would help you us by clearing the room, we'll call when we're ready to start back. Thank you.

(Executive Session)
THE CHAIRMAN: Our first candidate for Administrative Law Judge, Seat 1, Sheila D. McMillan. Ms. McMillan is seated in front of me. Would you raise right hand, please.
SHEILA D. MCMILLAN, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. McMillan, have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MS. MCMILLAN: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is it correct?
MS. MCMILLAN: Yes, it is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any amendments or clarifications that need to be made?
MS. MCMILLAN: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: If not, do you have any objection to our making that summary a part of the transcript of the record at this time.
MS. MCMILLAN: No, I don't. No, I don't.
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be ordered at this point.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Sheila D. McMillan
Home Address: Business Address:
125 Wood Court P. O. Box 142
Columbia, SC 29210 Columbia, SC 29202

2. She was born in Monroe, North Carolina on January 30, 1953. She is presently 40 years old.

4. She is single.

5. Military Service: N/A

| Printed Page 1780, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1800, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index