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 1810, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1830, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 1820 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
agencies, but that's been an awful long time ago and, of course, my memory of those would not be very strong, but I'm a quick study and I do my homework.

If I would have a case dealing with an agency with which I was not familiar, I would prepare myself for a hearing.
Q. And how would you do that?
A. By reading the law and reading the regulations.
Q. What are your thoughts on presiding over cases involving ABC licensing if you become an ALJ?
A. I would not see any problem or difficulty with doing that. I think while the rotation scheme that is set up is very healthy and valuable, I think that is good. But on the other hand, I think you need to build a level of expertise in a certain area, so I would not be at all uncomfortable with hearing ABC cases, but also think that needs to rotate, so you don't have someone that becomes too set in a particular area and keeps a broader view of the State administrative agency.
Q. Would you participate in any of the ABC licensing matters in which you prosecuted?
A. Oh, absolutely not.
Q. I notice on your Personal Data Questionnaire that you do some pro bono Family Court work?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you avoid a conflict there between your service with the State and performing those pro bono -- or handling those pro bono cases?
A. I haven't seen any conflict at all because the type of case that I handle has generally been in the Family Court. I have not taken anything that could possibly conflict with my state duties.
Q. Well, how do you handle the typing of pleadings, the appearances in court, the time you have to be away from the office?
A. I've taken annual leave to do that and, of course, all the pleadings, I have a PC and printer at home that I do that on my own time with my own equipment.
Q. Same sort of question, now how do you separate your public employment with seeking this position as ALJ?
A. I have not used any state time or equipment to do this and would not. Of course, all I've done up to this point is mailed out a letter to members of the General Assembly informing them of my candidacy and that was, of course, done on my time with my equipment.

Once this committee has rendered its report, I will take annual leave until the matter is resolved.

Printed Page 1821 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. You've been Executive Director of the ABC Commission and as you said, you managed the day to day affairs of the commission. I guess as my father used to say, "Are you bragging or complaining?"

It's been a rough time in the last several years, what responsibility do you bear for some of the troubles at the ABC Commission, if any?
A. I don't feel that I really bear any responsibility for what happened. Someone's criminal activity that's done out of my sight, I don't think I can -- I'm not going to sign off and bear any responsibility for that. Any activity of which I was aware of that was criminal, I reported it to the proper authority immediately upon my knowledge of the activity. And that was done on two separate occasions years before this thing came to a head, so I think I did the appropriate thing at the appropriate time and will not bear any responsibility for what transpired.

I also think it's a real shame. There are a tremendous number of dedicated and hard working employees that serve the public very, very well. Not only before this very troubling period, but during it and I don't think they should be slammed by the improper conduct of the -- of a few people.
Q. All right, sir. There were some indications of the commission handling at lot of the hiring decisions during the time you were Executive Director and some other similar kinds of allegations. As Executive Director was there any way you could have handled any of that differently?
A. Hiring decisions were a constant battle with the Commission. I worked very hard and we eventually were able to put into the law that agents would be hired based on specific criteria which we had a very sophisticated hiring procedure that was eventually put into place in response to the tremendous Commission input on the hiring decisions, so that situation had pretty much been fixed and a lot of the things that were in the paper were things that predated our formalized hiring policy.
Q. Did you initiate that formalized hiring policy?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I also saw on your Personnel Data Questionnaire that you've lectured at the Regional Conference of State Liquor Administrators on ethics in a regulatory agency and made a presentation at the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators on certain ethical dilemmas. What was your message?
A. My message was basically telling them what can happen to an agency, especially an agency that regulates alcoholic beverages which is very vulnerable to people constantly pushing to obtain an advantage in the market place. The message was, though, you really have to exercise with

Printed Page 1822 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
caution everything -- any time you interact with the industry that you regulate, that you must maintain separation from that industry. And not only it has to be legal, it has to -- the appearances must be above reproach and that was generally my message to my fellow administrators.
Q. As an administrative law judge, what deference do you owe to an agency's interpretation of statutes?
A. Under existing case law, you owe deference to an agency's interpretation of the statutes and regulations that they are empowered to administer. However, that is not to rubber stamp what the agency is doing. I think also in the case law, once the agency has found fact, you're pretty much bound by those facts unless it's clearly wrong, but I think the role of administrative law judge is to make ultimately sure that the people are being treated fairly and that the agency is correctly interpreting the laws and regulations. And I certainly would not be rubber stamping an agency's interpretation of anything, but I think it would -- it needs to be given some deference and looked very closely as to why you're overturning something before you do.
Q. You mentioned the standard of which you would review the facts or the evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that standard?
A. Well, under the existing -- if you're holding a hearing, of course, this is a -- the situation is changing as the administrative law judges come on. If the administrative law judge is the initial fact finder, then it's -- you'll be making your own determination of the facts.

On the other hand, if you're reviewing an agency decision, the standard is it must be clearly wrong I think before you can overrule it.
Q. What thought have you given to the resources and staff that the division will need?
A. I've given a great deal of thought to it. I'm extremely concerned with -- of course, as we know, the budget only gives salary for the administrative law judges for the remainder of this year and then I think a few thousand dollars of supplies and travel and whatnot.

The resourcing of this agency, which has to be up and running by March 1, is going to be a very serious problem and I'm not sure exactly how that -- can be accomplished without drawing on other existing agencies or the executive branch of government to borrow people to get this thing functioning because effective March 1, a lot of people will not have services, will not be able to obtain, for example, a beer and wine permit if it's contested until this division is up and running, so it must --

Printed Page 1823 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
there can't be a long period of time where the agency is getting organized and -- organized and deciding how these things are going to be done.

It's really got to hit the ground running on the 1st of March. Numbers of personnel, I don't have an exact figure I can give you, but certainly court reporters are going to be required and secretarial assistance will be required.
Q. Where would you borrow resources or borrow office space? Would it be fair, for example, to move down to the Department of Revenue and Taxation?
A. Well, they might not smile at that, but I think you would have to look at the agencies that absorbed the functions, for example, the ABC commissioners, those functions and personnel were absorbed by the Department of Revenue and SLED, so for ABC matters. I think you would need to look to those agencies to provide those resources.
Q. Well, does that create any kind of conflict if you're going to be sitting and hearing their cases?
A. You would have to look at what roles those employees are playing. If it's merely court stenographer or if it's merely secretarial, I'm not sure that would be any problem at all. In fact, I don't think it would be.
Q. Have you ever been held in contempt or sanctioned by a court for any reason?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever been the subject of a disciplinary action in the course of your public employment?
A. I received a letter of reprimand approximately 12 years ago for making a written recommendation to the Commission on a hiring situation that offended them greatly. And I was reprimanded for doing so.
Q. Is that during the period of time when they were making the hiring decisions?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were there any others?
A. No.
Q. Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of a legislator's vote for you for the position of administrative law judge?
A. I have not.
Q. Are you aware of any solicitation without your authorization or request?
A. No.
Q. And I think we note that he's only -- you've only filed your campaign expenditures with this committee. You need to -- is that correct

Printed Page 1824 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
-- you need to file that with the House and Senate Ethics Committees as well.
A. Okay.
MR. MCCONNELL: Do any members of the committee have any questions?
SENATOR RUSSELL: You want me to go first?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: If you wish, go ahead. Senator.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR RUSSELL:
Q. You've just completed a hearing and two of the individuals that appeared before have asked you to go to lunch with them, what will you do?
A. I would decline. I think it's probably legal to do so and perhaps ethical as long as if -- as long as I paid my own way, but I would still decline because I really think appearances are everything and if I'm sitting there smoking and joking with one or both of the attorneys that have just argued their case before me and a member of the public or one of the people that had the case comes in and sees that, they're automatically going to think the worst and that's just not the type of image that we need and I would not accept the invitation.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Any other questions? I have a few for you.
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. I have not.
Q. Have you participated in a formalized interview process other than this panel here or the South Carolina Bar?
A. No.
Q. Have you directly or indirectly had any meetings or conversations pertaining to your candidacy with members of the Bar Screening Committee, the South Carolina Bar employees or lobbyists representing the South Carolina Bar either before you were screened or after you were screened, but prior to the Bar's screening report being made public?
A. The only communication I had was a telephone call that I received telling me when and where to appear for my screening. It was a two-minute telephone call and, of course, the letter I received from the Bar asking that I provide the various information, which I provided, and that's the only communication I've had.
Q. All right. Some additional questions, Senator Moore is down on the floor at the moment. What was the date you were first contacted by the Bar representative?
Printed Page 1825 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. I received a letter from the chairperson of the committee late November, I believe it was, asking that I provide additional references and information which I provided.

I received a telephone call Monday, I think that's December (sic) the 2nd from the chairman of the subcommittee that was going to do the interviewing and was told to appear the following Wednesday for the hearing.
Q. And did the interview occur on that date?
A. It did. Wednesday, I think around either the -- I think the 5th at the -- at the Bar Association.
Q. And the interview, it took place at the South Carolina Bar?
A. That is correct.
Q. And how many interviewers participated?
A. There was supposed to be three on the subcommittee. One of the interviewers, his wife was sick and did not appear, so there were two people there.
Q. And how long did that interview last?
A. I would estimate around 25 minutes. 20 to 25 minutes.
Q. And do you know from what section of the state those interviewers came from?
A. Yes. One was Richland County, one was Lexington County and the gentleman that was unable to appear because his wife was sick, I think was Greenville County or Anderson County, one of those. I'm not sure which.
Q. Did you have any previous acquaintance with any of those interviewers?
A. I knew the chairman of the subcommittee, yes. Just in a casual -- I've had some contact with him of a professional nature in my job as director of the ABC commission.
Q. Did you furnish a list of references?
A. I did.
Q. How many references did you give them?
A. Five.
Q. And do you know how many were contacted by the Bar of your knowledge?
A. I don't know. Three or four of the references have made contact with me in passing that they were contacted.
Q. And how were you notified of the results?
A. I received a letter in the mail. I think it came this past Monday.
Q. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Printed Page 1826 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator. Senator Moore, do you have any questions?
SENATOR MOORE: No, I think mine have been answered.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Elliott.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Just one thing, to sort of correct something I told you, I found my statement of your campaign expenditures. Do you have any expenditures beyond the fifty some odd dollars you reported?
A. I do not.
Q. Then you do not need to file with the --
A. When I cross a hundred dollars, is that when --
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes. I have not expended anything since I filed my report.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Sipe.
REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY: Oh, one question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Beatty.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY:
Q. Are you active in the Bar?
A. Active in the Bar, my membership is valid, but I'm as far as active, I do volunteer with the pro bono program and that's my only --
Q. Have you ever been active in the Bar?
A. I have not.
Q. You never served on any committees or anything of that nature?
A. I have not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
A. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate N. Steven Steinert. Mr. Steinert.
MR. STEINERT: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you would raise your right hand please.
N. STEVEN STEINERT, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CHAIRMAN: Have you had a chance to review your Personal Data Questionnaire Summary?
MR. STEINERT: Yes, sir, I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: And is it correct?
MR. STEINERT: It is correct. I would make one comment on the financial disclosure, the potential conflict, I thought in terms of financial only and indicated that there were none. Having reviewed it again, realizing that my wife is the Chairman of the Board of a hospital in
Printed Page 1827 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Charleston and also a member of a board of another hospital, I think the record needs to reflect that and I would recuse myself on any matter that related to CONs or any other hospital issue that would impact in the Charleston area.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right, the record will be amended to reflect that addition. Any other changes?
MR. STEINERT: Only I'm going to have to update postage on the financial side, a few dollars.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection to our making the summary a part of the record of your sworn testimony?
MR. STEINERT: No, sir, I don't believe so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and we'll do that at this point.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. N. Steven Steinert
Home Address: Business Address:
42 Hasell Street 15 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401 Charleston, SC 29401

2. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina.

4. He was married to Harriett Rittenberg on September 3, 1967. He has two children: Leslie, age 20; and Joanna, age 18.

5. Military Service: Sgt; U. S. Air Force Reserve; AF14990087; Honorable Discharge; 1967-1972

6. He attended the University of Virginia, 1963-1967, B.A., Government; the University of South Carolina, 1967-1969, M.A. in International Studies; Emory University, 1970-1972, Ph.D., Political Science; and the University of South Carolina, 1984-1987, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In addition to the required hours, he has taken a 50-hour course and has been certified as a mediator.

9. Taught or Lectured: No law-related courses, but he has taught both graduate and undergraduate courses at the College of Charleston. He is presently teaching Introduction to Urban Studies.

Printed Page 1828 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
10. Published Books and Articles:

"The Quasi-Experiment as a Tool for the Study of Public Law," presented at the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 4-8
"The Impact of Supreme Court Decisions as a Function of Personal Political Factors: An Experimental Approach;" GPSA Journal, II; Fall, 1974
Co-Author: "Southern Jews: Old Wine in New Bottles," presented at Virginia Conference on Urban Studies; Norfolk, Virginia; February 13-14, 1975
Co-Author: "Court Reform: State of the Art;" presented at 1975 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; San Antonio, Texas; April, 1975
Co-Author: "State Court Management:The State of the Art;" Public Service; January, 1976
Co-Author: "Southern Jews: Old Wine in New Bottles;" Jewish-Social Studies, XXXVII; Summer-Fall, 1976
Editor: South Atlantic Urban Studies; Vol. I; University of South Carolina Press; Columbia, South Carolina
Editor: South Atlantic Urban Studies; Vol. II; University of South Carolina Press; Columbia, South Carolina

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

January, 1986 - December, 1989 Associate, then partner - Finkel, Georgaklis, Goldberg, Sheftman, and Korn - Attorney in charge of Charleston office of Columbia law firm
January, 1990 - December, 1992 Associate; Wise & Cole; Charleston, South Carolina
January, 1993 - present solo practitioner - general civil practice

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:Not listed in Martindale-Hubbell; cannot be considered until you have been in practice for five years. He has requested that he be rated.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - once/year

Printed Page 1829 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
State - three/year
Other - City and County Boards and Commissions:8/year

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 100%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 0%

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

Sole counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Medical University of S. C., Housing Authority of the City of Charleston, Charleston County School Board, State PRT, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, State Wildlife Department, et al. v. County of Charleston. Significant in the area of public finance. Challenge by tax exempt agencies to a county imposed user-fee. Resulted in creation of true user fee rather than a tax in the guise of a fee.
(b) DeLee v. South Carolina Department of Corrections. Presently pending in Federal Court. Raises substantive questions in area of sexual harassment. What is obligation of employer once he is made aware of impermissible behavior on part of his supervisory employee?
(c) State Resources, Inc. v. Gerald Arthur, et al. Presently pending in Federal Court. Interesting issue as to whether or not accountant, relying on data presented to him by client, has duty to unknown third parties.
(d) Botchie v. O'Dowd. Presently on remand from State Supreme Court. Significant question relating to limits on authority of a sheriff to fire a deputy. Can a deputy be fired for exercising a constitutionally protected right?
(e) Bunch v. City Council of the Isle of Palms. Successfully represented the Isle of Palms Council when mayor refused to recognize change in form of government. Presented novel issues of local governance.

| Printed Page 1810, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1830, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index