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 1880, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1900, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 1890 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Any objection to including that as a summary of your transcript -- a summary along with your testimony as a part of your record?
MR. BATES: No, sir, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be done.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Stephen P. Bates
Home Address: Business Address:
4606 Arcadia Road 914 Richland Street, Suite A-200
Columbia, SC 29206 Columbia, SC 29201

2. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on August 11, 1962. He is presently 31 years old.

4. He is single.

5. Military Service: N/A.

6. He attended Presbyterian College, 1980-1984, Bachelor of Science Degree in Political Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1984-1987, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has fulfilled all MCLE and LEPR requirements, attending and/or participating in seminars dealing predominately with State Government issues.

9. Taught or Lectured:

December 19, 1991; Municipal and County Attorney Institute; Seminar on Effects of 1991 Ethics Act on Local Government

August 6, 1993; South Carolina Bar; Seminar on Administrative Law Judge Division

October 8, 1993; South Carolina Bar; Circuit Court Bench and Bar Update - Seminar on Administrative Law Judge Division

Printed Page 1891 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
May, 1987 - December, 1988: Associate with Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A. in Columbia, South Carolina. Practice included general litigation and workers' compensation work.
December, 1988 - October, 1993: Counsel to the Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, Robert J. Sheheen.
January, 1989 - January, 1991: Staff Counsel for The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening.
January, 1991 - October, 1993: Staff Counsel for the South Carolina House Legislative Ethics Committee.
November, 1993 - present: Private practice with Roy D. Bates. Practice predominately involves litigation and appellate work on cases dealing with local government issues.

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:No rating; assumes because of employment with the General Assembly.

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

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

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

Chief Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Burton, et al. v. Sheheen, et al. 793 F.Supp 1329 (D.C.S.C. 1992). Chief Counsel for the South Carolina House of Representatives in three-week trial before three-judge panel regarding legislative and congressional redistricting.

Printed Page 1892 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
(b) John Keitt Hare v. Group Therapy, et al. (87-CP-40-3711). Richland County Jury Trial before Judge Bristow involving issues of assault, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision of employees.
(c) Jane Hagood Reese v. Mary Moore (87-CP-40-5639). Represented Pro Bono Defendant in personal injury action in jury trial before Judge Connor in Richland County.
(d) W. C. Rahn v. James C. Jarrell, Individually and d/b/a Estill Service (88-CP-25-37). Property damage case in Hampton County involving issues of default status of Defendant and prior damages.
(e) Nadelda Jones v. Kevin Pleasant (Civil Case No. 116-C775756). Lexington County Magistrate Case involving breach of contract and conversion claims.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Statewide Reapportionment Advisory Committee, et al. v. Theodore, et al., 92-155 and Campbell v. Theodore, 92-219 (U.S. June 14, 1993).
(b) Kneece v. Kneece, 370 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. App. 1988).

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
None, except for part-time or summer jobs during high school and college.

29. Arrested or Charged: Yes. On March 26, 1982, at about 2 a.m., while camping with some college friends in the Sumter National Forest near Clinton, South Carolina, they were approached by a game warden. They were cited for camping on game management land without a permit and littering. He paid a $60 fine to Magistrate Jim Braswell in Clinton.

40. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
9/93 - 10/93
Postage: $99.18
Long Distance Telephone Calls: Approximately $15.00

45. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Richland County Bar; Columbia Young Lawyers Association

Printed Page 1893 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
46. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Presbyterian College Alumni Association, member of Fundraiser Steering Committee, member of Scotsman Club (Athletic Booster Club); Sigma Nu Alumni Association, Zeta Theta Chapter, President, Vice President; Richland Northeast High School Alumni Association, President; North Trenholm Baptist Church; Rosewood Drive Study Committee; Eastminster Presbyterian Church, Youth Basketball Coach

48. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Bruce Wrenn, Banking Officer
South Carolina National Bank
10134 Two Notch Road, Columbia, SC 29223
771-3536
(b) James R. Courie, Esquire
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A.
P. O. Box 1473, Columbia, SC 29202
254-2200
(c) Larry E. Gentry, Esquire
P. O. Box 673, Saluda, SC 29138
445-8165
(d) Isadore E. Lourie, Esquire
Lourie, Curlee, Barrett & Safran
P. O. Box 12089, Columbia, SC 29211
799-9805
(e) Virginia Crocker Lloyd
117 River Birch Lane, Columbia, SC 29206
738-9322

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. Records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, Richland County Sheriff's Office, Columbia City Police, SLED and FBI, are negative. The Judgement Rolls of Richland County are negative and Federal Courts as well. No complaints or statements were received. No witnesses are present to testify. We'll give you a chance at this time to make a brief opening statement if you'd like.
MR. BATES: Just one note. I'm sure all the members of the Committee are aware of this, but for the record, I'm not the Steve Bates with the ACLU.

Printed Page 1894 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Questions will come from Ms. McNamee. Ms. McNamee.
MR. BATES - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Thank you. Mr. Bates, I just note that you have not filed with the House or Senate Ethics Committee? Would you be doing that soon?
A. Pardon?
Q. You have not filed your statement with the House or the Senate Ethics Committee to our knowledge?
A. All right. Okay. I was not aware of that. I thought there was a notation that that would be forwarded from this committee, but I'll make sure that's done.
Q. Could you just clarify -- okay. Fine. Mr. Bates, who is your role model as a judge? Who do you think exemplifies those characteristics that you think are important in a judge?
A. I don't know that I've thought about that as a specific individual. Obviously, I have some role models as far as people I think who practice law in the manner in which they do that and the way they conduct themselves professionally and gain respect and probably the two that fall into that category, neither one of them being judges, would be the two that I have worked most closely with in my professional life and that would be House Speaker Bob Sheheen and my father, Roy Bates.
Q. Do the characteristics that you admire in those gentleman, would they be the characteristics that you'd like to emulate as an administrative law judge and what would they be?
A. I think those traits are probably transferrable to just about any profession and that would be to act with integrity and fairness, to be diligent and hard working and treat people like you'd want to be treated and to be straight forward.
Q. What is your concept, your idea of what this administrative law judge position is about?
A. I think that it has to be seen in the context of the piece of legislation in which it was included, the Restructuring Act. As all the members of the panel are well aware that that was a comprehensive piece of legislation that changes the way that this state will do and does do business including abolishing a great number of state boards and commissions.

I think in doing that, in transferring the decision making and conflict resolving functions of those former agencies and changing those over to a new division that we are saying that we want that -- those processes done in a more professional manner and also be done in a more objective manner where instead of having staff members from the effected agency involved in the decision making process where there is some contested

Printed Page 1895 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
case, that you have some outside authority sitting in judgment of those cases and you also have people with law degrees and expertise better able to deal with evidentiary problems in helping to build a good record in case there is some question of law to be taken to a higher level and into the judicial system.
Q. Your trial experience is somewhat limited. Would you like to comment on that? How you think that would effect your candidacy? What do you do to make up for that?
A. Sure. I went into private practice straight from law school. I worked as a law clerk for -- all through law school for the Columbia firm of Turner, Padget, Graham and Laney and was an associate with them for a while and then came to the State House to be legal counsel to the Speaker and held that post for five years.

And during that time very definitely had limited trial experience as the Speaker's counsel with one major exception. I represented the House of Representatives in the reapportionment trial before a three-judge panel and that was an experience within itself. There were probably 27, 28 lawyers involved in the trial aspect alone.

But apart from that, I've also represented the Speaker's interest in some other pieces of litigation. There is a case which at one time was a companion case to the reapportionment case, there were some citizens in the low country challenging the constitutionality of the county legislative delegation which is still pending.

I had also represented the Speaker in some interest in a case in which he was a defendant which former Representative B.J. Gordon brought suit having to do with some House rules and suspend members about upon indictment. I've been involved in some DYS litigation on a suit regarding overcrowding of some institutions there.

Apart from that, I've also taken part as staff counsel for some -- for a committee or joint committees of the General Assembly, one of which being this committee here. Between -- for two years, I was the staff counsel and sat where you sit now asking these questions.

And for about three, three and a half years, I also served as staff counsel for the House Ethics Committee and gave them legal advice, helped in drafting Ethics opinions and helping in conduct hearings, both public and executive session hearings, involving complaints and allegations against members or other investigations, so it's kind of been kind of a hodgepodge. It may not be the stereotypical experience in a courtroom that many lawyers have, but I think it's been beneficial.
Q. How will you go about making your decision in a case? What will you do?

Printed Page 1896 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. I think I would approach it as probably all the others candidates have or will answer that -- with an open mind, prepare myself, look at the pleadings before the parties come in to adjudicate the case and listen to the witnesses and accept any evidence.

I think it's important to make decisions evidentiary or dispositive issues of a case in a somewhat expeditious manner. I know that some people get fed up with having objections -- rulings and objections held over until a later time until the record is cold and that type of thing, but at the same time, I would like to be very cautious especially at the outset to make sure I make a fair and informed decision.
Q. As an administrative law judge, you would also be presiding over the rule-making hearings and this is going to be a new ball game, could you give us some of your ideas on that, the decision of what is reasonable? How do you --
A. That's going to be something that's going to have to be developed, I think. I know that language has been used by other states. I think Minnesota uses that same standard in reviewing proposed regulation. In having worked for the Legislature, I know that there are many legislators that are concerned whenever a huge package of proposed regulations comes across their desk and because either time constraints or because it's very technical language, many of them feel uneasy on the content -- on passing on what the content is. And I think that whether or not the proposed regs are found to be reasonable or needed, the fact that someone else has taken the time to preside over those hearings and to make those findings and present those to the General Assembly will be a great benefit to the members.

They can know that someone objective from outside the agency has taken a look at those regs and has listened to input from those who will be effected by the regs. I can't give you a pat answer for what the definition of need or reasonableness will be. I think that's going to be a question of fact and that's one of the reasons that you'll have an ALJ to hear those.
Q. Do you perceive this as being a sentence -- these regs are reasonable and needed or do you expect yourself to be perhaps writing some sort of little --
A. Having seen some of the regs come through, I don't believe many of them, you'd be able to surmise in one sentence whether they're reasonable or needed, that you'd most likely have to have a much more detailed report than that.
Q. This goes back a ways, Mr. Bates, but have you been camping on camp management land lately?
A. I've stayed away from those areas since about 1982.

Printed Page 1897 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. That's all cleared up. Yesterday we had a gentleman say that the leash law violation was still outstanding, so this one is not outstanding, is it?
A. I hope not.
Q. Would you please explain briefly how you've gone about discussing your candidacy with members of the Legislature and what you've done in that regard?
A. The first decision I made in this process was whether or not I was going to run for this position. Very soon after that, probably in the next breath, I had to come to the decision of how I'd go about doing that and the decision I made, and I consulted with the Speaker on that, and it was -- a mutual decision would be that I would resign my position as counsel to the Speaker simultaneously with submitting my application for this position.

Being involved in some things with the House of Representatives that my job required me to do, I felt that at worst there was some very serious conflicts. Since the issue of reapportionment is still hanging over the General Assembly and I was involved at the trial level and on the legislative side and the fact that I helped draft opinions for the Ethics Committee, there is very obviously if one were so inclined room for misusing that discretion.

At the very best, there would be the possibility for appearance of some impropriety. The General Assembly has been too good to me and my career for me to want to do anything to bring any type of political fallout to it and my entire career up here, I found that it's always best to take the high road whenever you come to a fork in the road.

I was fortunate enough -- my father is a private practitioner here in Columbia. I was fortunate enough to be able to go into practice with him, so on November 1 when I submitted my application to the Screening Committee, I tendered my resignation to the Speaker and went back into the private practice of law.

Prior to resigning, I did send one letter out informing members of the General Assembly that I intended to do just that. I used my father's office to have those typed and mailed out and then upon resigning and going into private practice, I sent out a double letter accompanied with a resume.

I made a number of telephone calls and made some visits to legislators at their home towns, at their places of business and have since tried to contact as many as possible in person or by telephone to inform them of my plans and discuss my qualifications. I've been standing out in the lobby with a lot of my peers.
Q. How do you like it?

Printed Page 1898 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. It's a humbling process.
Q. Have you ever been held contempt or sanctioned by a court for any reason?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been the subject of a disciplinary action as a public employee?
A. No.
Q. And finally have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of a legislator's vote for your candidacy?
A. No, I have not.
Q. That's all I have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the members? Senator McConnell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Have you sought the endorsement by any group of members of the General Assembly or the caucus of the General Assembly?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you participated in a formalized interview process other than this particular process here or the one at the South Carolina Bar Association?
A. No, sir.
Q. And have you directly or indirectly had any meetings or conversations pertaining to your candidacy with members of the South Carolina Bar Screening Committee, 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. Yes, sir. I had one discussion after I had submitted the requested information, a list of references to the Bar. That was about December 1st when I submitted that list of references and that information.

A day or two later I was contacted by Betsy Gray who was the chairman of the Bar's Judicial Qualifications Committee in a telephone conversation and she told me that they would -- they had a prohibition against interviewing or speaking to any legislators about candidates and I had listed Speaker Sheheen as one of my references.

And when I inquired as to why there was a prohibition to speaking to legislators, I was informed that they wanted to avoid any problem with the pledge rule, commitment rule.

They were afraid that getting a recommendation or evaluation of one's work from a legislator might rise to the level of giving a pledge. I told her that I didn't think that was the case, that this was a third party making inquiry and that I didn't think it would cause a problem just giving an

Printed Page 1899 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
evaluation of someone's past work performance, but -- and she was very pleasant about it and asked if I wanted to include anybody else in his place. And I informed her that about everybody I'd worked for for the last five years was a legislator.

And then she mentioned any -- if I wanted to include names of any other lawyers or judges. At which point I asked her a question. And I told her that I had thought about listing a current Circuit judge as one of my references and listed -- one of my references to this committee, but had looked at the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and I don't remember the specific number, but -- which prohibits a member of the judiciary from being involved in political activities. And in my interpretation, I felt uncomfortable asking the judge to be a reference for me because I feel like running for a position elected by the General Assembly and having someone act as a reference for you would be a political activity. And so I told her to feel free to ask anybody else she wanted to talk to. I didn't offer any other references at that time.

That's the only other contact I had besides a staff member calling me to set up an interview at the Bar Association on January the 5th.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator. Senator Moore.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:
Q. Mr. Bates, what is the day you were first contacted by the Bar regarding the interview?
A. I received -- about the interview?
Q. Yes.
A. I was called on January the 4th, which was a Tuesday and the interview was the next day.
Q. And where did it take place?
A. It took place at the State Bar offices.
Q. And how many interviewers participated in your interview?
A. There were two, Mr. Morris Rosen from Charleston and Mr. Howard King from Sumter.
Q. Did you have a previous acquaintances with any -- either one of those gentlemen?
A. I knew both of their names by reputation, but I had never met either one of them.
Q. You said you did furnish a list of references?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many did you furnish?
A. In addition to the five that were on the list for this committee, there were an additional five and they said they would not speak to Speaker Sheheen, so I guess nine total.

| Printed Page 1880, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1900, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index