| Printed Page 1940, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1960, Feb. 10 |

Later that day when I got around to reading the article, and I'm paraphrasing this for the sake of time, he had read it and was upset by it. That the letter -- that the letter had appeared. It had distorted our position in the matter and he wanted the case waived and we talked about the reasons why the case ought to be waived.

First, Doctor Faltas -- that the -- well, let me stick with my reasons. First off, we all -- we had Doctor Faltas -- case charge, an incomplete response from USC, that standing alone would not be enough for us to do anything and USC understood that, but the media and the public didn't know and Doctor Faltas knew that we had not completed the investigation, so therefore we could not issue a cause of termination.

Second, for the Commission to issue a cause of termination, three internal interviews must take place plus one external review by a federal agency, i.e. when we issue a cause of termination, it has to go to EEOC to be approved.

The Division Director must agree. The Deputy Commissioner must agree and legal counsel must also agree. All three must be satisfied with every aspect of the case. Any one of the three can remand the case back to the investigator for whatever reason appropriate and more importantly, no decision of one is binding on the other. Each is independent. None of these very relevant facts appeared in The State article.

Also during that same day, Doctor Altekruse, one of USC's -- one of the people named as being one of the culprits in all of this had been calling the Deputy Commissioner and wanted to see him. He deferred the matter to me. I then called her. She insisted on coming to our office. She came that afternoon. He had left.
DOCTOR FALTAS: She --
MR. WHITTLETON: She came to -- Doctor Altekruse came to the office and brought some information and requested that it be held confidential.

The Deputy Commissioner insisted again that the case be waived. As Deputy Commissioner -- this is the paragraph on the second page that I'd ask all of you to read and pay careful attention to. As Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Gist has absolute authority short of the commission over all administrative disposition concerning cases. He can direct where appropriate the administrative disposition on any case within my division and I am without authority to question his decision at all. No disposition concerning any case in order of compliance, and there are two other

I think that's the crux of what I heard Doctor Faltas say. She said I dumped her case. It was not my decision. In our organizational structure, I'm a Division Director reporting to a Deputy Commissioner.

When I make a recommendation or determination, I submit it for his approval. He has absolute authority to remand that case back to me, dissatisfied with the disposition, dissatisfied with the case file, dissatisfied with my recommendation.

On the day that the -- the day after the article ran, he read it. His inclination as based on his experience said the case ought to be waived. When I read the article, my insistence was that the case ought to be waived. When I spoke to him, we discussed the variables as to why. He agreed. I agreed. The Commission agreed and the case was waived.

And let me add this, this was on that Monday. The Deputy Commissioner had he had his way, the case would have been waived Monday afternoon. It would have been in the mail. I asked him that we not waive the case until we got a response from USC on the possibility of settlement.

They had received a demand. Cliff Scott, who was the assistant staff counsel at USC was out because he had a death in his family. Terry Potter called me and said that the department heads were out and that he would get back to me. It took two weeks for Terry to come back to me and tell me that the only thing that they would offer her was a lot less than what it was she was willing to accept, so when Terry said that then I simply waived the case as directed by the Deputy Commissioner.

In his affidavit, which you now have in front of you, he points out to you, he had read my affidavit and accepts it as the factual history and he points out that if he gives me a directive, I would be insubordinate not to follow that directive. It just so happens in this particular position, I agreed with his directive. And that's the crux of all of this. And I will -- I'll entertain any questions that the Committee have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Members? There being none, thank you very much. That concludes the hearing on Mr. John H. Whittleton. We will now take a ten minute break fifteen? Let's come back at 6:00, so a little past 6:00 o'clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next applicant is Ralph K. "Tripp" Anderson, III.
RALPH K. "TRIPP" ANDERSON, III, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

1. Ralph K. "Tripp" Anderson, III
Home Address: Business Address:
321 Fallen Oak Drive P. O. Box 11549
Columbia, SC 29223 Columbia, SC 29211

2. He was born in Florence, South Carolina on October 13, 1959. He is presently 34 years old.

4. He is married to Janet LeVeque Anderson. He has no children.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. He attended Francis Marion College, August, 1976 to August, 1980; Bachelor of Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August, 1981 to May, 1984, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In the past five years, he has focused his continuing legal education on trial advocacy, administrative law and criminal law.

9. Taught or Lectured:
S.C. Bar CLE - "Hiring and Firing" (lectured on employment law)
S.C. Bar CLE - "Ethics Act" (lectured on the Ethics Act)
Instructed the Supreme Court legal staff on the Ethics Act (January 5, 1993)

When he began working at the Attorney General's Office, his responsibilities encompassed the full-time extradition functions in the Criminal Division.
In time, and at his request, he was given additional work and transferred to the Prosecution Section, where he handled prosecution duties as well as his extradition duties. Thereafter, he also took on the responsibility as Counsel to The Ethics Commission.
With the passage of the Statewide Grand Jury Act, he occupied two offices, one in the Prosecution Section and one in the Statewide Grand Jury Section.
Afterwards, he left the Grand Jury Section to return to the Government and Civil Litigation Division/Prosecution Section, where he presently performs the following duties:
(1) Criminal Prosecution
(2) Counsel to the Ethics Commission
(3) Committee Attorney for the State Employee Grievance Committee
(4) Extradition
(5) Prosecutor for the Engineering and Land Surveyor's Board
(6) Medical Board Prosecutions, Attorney (General Opinions and Criminal Appeals, on occasion)

13. Rating in Martindale-Hubbell:He does not know if he is listed in Martindale-Hubbell. He has never requested to be evaluated by Martindale-Hubbell since he is a state employee.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - 20 times a year
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 75%
Criminal - 25%
Domestic - None

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:\
Jury - 25%
Non-jury -75%

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) State v. Dwight L. Bennett. This was a felony DUI case in which the victim suffered horrible physical injuries and lost the baby she was carrying. This case was used as an example as to the need to increase felony DUI punishment.
(b) Georgia v. Richard Daniel Starrett - a'ffd., Richard Daniel Starrett v. William C. Wallace. Starrett was convicted of several heinous crimes in South Carolina. Afterwards, George sought his extradition in an attempt to convict him under the death penalty. Starrett challenged the Attorney General's Office authority to hold extradition hearings.
(c) State v. Michael Goings. Goings was a Cayce police officer charged with assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.
(d) State v. Herbert Pearson and Terrance Singleton. The Defendants in this case were accomplices in the armed robbery, attempted murder and murder of attendants at an Exxon station.
(e) State v. William Keith Victor. After the Defendant was convicted of murder and kidnapping, he was given the death penalty. His case was later reversed on appeal and sent to the Attorney General's Office. This prosecution, under difficult circumstances, resulted in the Defendant's plea to murder and the aggravating circumstances of kidnapping.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Bergin Moses Mosteller v. James R. Metts
(b) Dennis G. Mitchell v. State of SC
(c) Ex Parte, Bobby M. Stichert v. Carroll Heath
(d) Patrick C. Lynn, et al. v. State of SC
(e) Paul David Tasker v. M. L. Brown, Jr.

22. Public Office: Assistant Attorney General since 1985.

23. Employment As a Judge Other Than Elected Judicial Office:
State Employee Grievance Committee Attorney (quasi-judicial). Since 1989, he has served as a committee attorney for the State

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
Self-employed salesman - March 26, 1980 to August, 1980
Florence School District #1 - Summers (1973-1975)

40. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
At present, no expenditures have been made.

45. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

46. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
S. C. Policy Review Committee for S. C. Vocational Rehabilitation

47. Although he lives and works in Columbia, for demographic purposes, he is a resident of Florence County.

48. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Jack Montgomery, Vice President/City Executive
First Union National Bank
P. O. Box 728, Columbia, SC 29202
251-4449
(b) Richard C. Jones, Esquire
Jones & Seth
P. O. Box 1268, Sumter, SC 29151-1268
778-1006
(c) John R. Lincoln, Pastor
Shandon Baptist Church
819 Woodrow Street, Columbia, SC 29205
799-0652
(d) Gary R. Baker, Executive Director
State Ethics Commission
P. O. Box 11926, Columbia, SC 29211
253-4192

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reports that no formal complaints or charges of any kind have ever been filed against you. The records of the applicable law enforcement agencies, I believe Richland and Florence Counties, because you are -- you live in Columbia at this time, but you are a resident of Florence as well, right? You have --
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: -- residency there. Both offices' reports are negative. Columbia and Florence City Police Departments are negative. The SLED and FBI records are negative as well as the Judgement Rolls of the Federal Court and Richland County and Florence County courts are negative. No complaints have been received against you. No person has asked to testify against you.

Prior to turning you over to Ms. McNamee for questioning I'll give you the opportunity, if you desire, to give a brief opening statement.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll waive that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. ANDERSON - EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Anderson, this is not a trick question or anything, but who is your role model for a judge who has good judicial temperament, because at least one person will be reading this transcript?
A. I think the obvious answer would be my father, but there is another and I'll address him, and that's John Hamilton Smith. I have a lot of respect for him, his temperament. He's a fair judge who is erudite on the law and I was always impressed by him.
Q. What are the particular qualities that you think an administrative law judge needs to have?
A. Senator Jennings wrote an article on administrative law judges in the, I think it was the South Carolina Trial Lawyers, and in there he described the driving force behind the Administrative Law Division and its enactment, was the need for professionalism, consistency in the rulings and efficiency, the perception of impartiality and independence, and the final one was actual fairness.

And I thought that encompasses real well the need of what an administrative law judge -- of what an administrative law judge needs to

I think the best approach would obviously be -- we, the Administrative Law Division needs to get together and develop training that encompasses the whole wide area of all the administrative law judges and -- a CLE type concept. And then for specific matters that come before you, then that's where you need to specifically get the statutes and case law down concerning that particular matter.
Q. Will you tell this committee about your work habits, your work ethics?

| Printed Page 1940, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 1960, Feb. 10 |