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 2010, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 2030, Feb. 10 |
Printed Page 2020 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
worked for litigation attorneys. I had been in courtrooms prior to law school. I think I have extensive litigation experience that I can take to this job that will help in getting on my feet right away in hearing cases.
Q. The experiences of being an advocate, of being one of the attorneys in the courtroom, would be different than the demeanor, et cetera, that you would need to be a judge. Could you go into how you would make that transition?
A. Well, as a guardian I've had more of the compromise, mediation aspect. I prefer to be a mediator rather than an advocate. Adversarial, I've done a lot of years of adversarial positions and I really prefer compromise, I prefer settling cases, I prefer working things out.

I think most of the judges that I admire are very good at making attorneys work together, narrowing the issues that are going be before them. And I have had to do that as a guardian, I have had to make the attorneys on both sides work together.
Q. What are the most important qualities for an administrative law judge, as you see it?
A. Open-mindedness, fairness, courtesy in the courtroom. I believe that everyone deserves to be heard, and I think also the demeanor on the bench is very important as to how you are perceived from the bench.
Q. What is your best quality?
A. Sense of humor.
Q. Okay, and how will that help in you being an administrative law judge?
A. I think you have to keep a sense of humor in any job. With those of us who have been in private practice, you have to have a great sense of humor some days. But it, I think, makes you a real person. Every day of my career I have worked with people, and there's going to be people coming before you in this job, and I think I have enough ability to deal with a person -- I image that we will have a lot of pro se people that will appear before the administrative law judges and I think I have the ability to deal with them, to give them their day in court and to be fair with them.
Q. You have a lot of experience, it said in your PDQ, in Social Security matters and in Workers' Comp areas. Are there any other areas of administrative law that you --
A. I have been co-counsel in a couple of employee grievances for the state system.
Q. It sounds like in being an advocate, as you have been for so many years, you have -- and working in Family Court, as you have, you have come up with some -- up against some stressful situations and everyday

Printed Page 2021 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
probably an amount of stress. As we've been talking around here, we think that the administrative law judges are going to be stressed by the amount of work that they have, and I wanted to know how you deal with stress?
A. As you know, you may know, I practice with my husband and some days that puts some stress in your life. But we deal with it together a lot. That has helped, actually, in dealing with a stressful situation. I try to -- we try to leave it at the office.

I think as an administrative law judge, I don't think you can take all of this home with you. I think the first year of this court is going to be terribly stressful. I think that it's going to take a lot longer than a year to get this up and running totally efficiently, and -- but I think that in private practice I have dealt with about as much stress as this is probably going to be.
Q. Do you consider you have any weaknesses in the area, procedural or substantive, in administrative law and, if you do, how will you deal with that?
A. There's not a possibility of knowing all of the different regulatory matters that are going to come before this court. I don't think any candidate could possibly have dealt with every agency that's going to be before this court. I have the ability, I think, though, to read the law, to apply the law; I've been doing that every day over the past seven years. I don't think that it's a problem.
Q. I think I did read in your PDQ that you Am. Jured in Con Law.
A. I did.
Q. I admire that. Could you tell us a little bit about your philosophy about ex parte communication? Even now, even these days as an attorney, have you ever engaged in any ex parte communication with a judge on a case that was pending before that judge?
A. As a guardian, we are allowed ex parte communication when I represent children. That is absolutely allowed. The judges invite you into their chambers to discuss a particularly difficult case. As an attorney and an advocate, no, it's absolutely barred. I don't even attempt it and I don't appreciate it being attempted.
Q. How will you deal with that if you become an administrative law judge?
A. I would stop it immediately if it was in my presence or if someone tried to approach me about a pending matter. I think sometimes, especially if you have inexperienced attorneys, it could be inadvertent. I would cut it off. If it continued or they tried to press on with it then I would feel I had to report it.

Printed Page 2022 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
Q. And if you just finished a hearing at lunchtime and the attorneys wanted to take you out to lunch, what would you say?
A. Although I love to go out to lunch, I'd have to say no.
Q. Have to say no?
A. Yes.
Q. You will be required to meet a lot of deadlines, discipline is going to be important for it, and I just wanted you to speak to that.
A. I have a problem that probably drives my husband crazy. I come back from a hearing, if I have been told to draft the order I have to do it then because I can't stand to have something hanging over my head. If at all possible, I try to draft it within a couple of days of the hearing. I don't like things that are hanging undone. I am too organized, I can't stand disorganization.
Q. What if it's been a two month hearing?
A. I agree with one of the other candidates that said the notes are going to be important. You're going to have to have notes. There's no way to recreate a two month hearing. I think I would take as good of notes as I could, that I thought would help me in the decision process. Obviously, if you have a two month hearing and the issues are complex, you're probably going to have a complex order to write. In that situation, I might ask the attorneys involved, if there were attorneys on both sides, to submit proposed orders to help with that situation.
Q. Have you ever been found in contempt or sanctioned by any court that you've appeared before?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Are there any outstanding actions that you are a party to?
A. Yes, there is. In my PDQ, there is a lawsuit against me for a loan closing I handled.
Q. How far along is that?
A. It's just -- we've just answered. It's in the initial stages, it was just filed.
Q. You were just one of the attorneys --
A. I was the attorney who handled the loan closing. Also named were the Realtor and several other entities.
Q. How are you going to go about introducing yourself to members of the General Assembly?
A. I have sent a letter previously to all of the members stating my qualifications, that I was a candidate. I intend to introduce myself wherever I can, either here in the buildings or over on the floor, or at their home offices if I need to.
Q. Have you made any trips out to meet any --
Printed Page 2023 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. No, I haven't.
Q. -- representatives or senators? Have you spent any money on this campaign?
A. $49.50 on postage.
Q. I didn't hear you.
A. $49.50 on postage.
Q. What guidelines will you operate under to avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?
A. I don't have any agency connections at this point that I think are going to be conflicts for me. I don't see many cases where I would have to recuse myself from a case, unless it involved the parties or the litigants, perhaps, were personal friends or family members, and, of course, it's an absolute recusal. Full disclosure I think is warranted even if there is a question that someone might object, and I would offer myself to be recused if there was an objection.
Q. Have you sought directly or indirectly the pledge of any legislator?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Are you aware of any solicitation that has been done on your behalf?
A. No, I'm not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. McNamee. Senator McConnell.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MCCONNELL:
Q. Have you sought the endorsement of any group of members of the General Assembly or of any caucus of the General Assembly?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you participated in a formalized interview process other than before this screening committee or before the Bar Screening Committee?
A. No, I have not.
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. Just one phone call setting up the meeting.
Q. Have you seen the Bar's report on you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Can you tell me what -- I find their report interesting on almost every page, their use of the language. The particular interest is a phrase called "About her projected judicial temperament."
Printed Page 2024 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
A. I'd like to know what that is, too. I don't know -- I wasn't even hardly asked about judicial temperament in the meeting, so -- they must -- they may have gotten that from someone they interviewed, I don't know. That was not even brought up with me. The first time I saw it was in the report.
Q. And I heard your earlier statement that if you had a strong point you thought it was your sense of humor.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, I find the report interesting, too. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Moore.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR MOORE:
Q. Ms. Wiggins, what was the date you were first contacted by the Bar regarding scheduling an interview?
A. December 30th.
Q. What date did the interview take place?
A. January 5th.
Q. Where did the interview take place?
A. The Bar Building in Columbia.
Q. How many interviewers participated in your interview?
A. Two.
Q. Do you know what section of the state they reside?
A. Yes. Donnie Myers from Lexington and Bob Thomas from Columbia.
Q. Since you're from Lexington, I assume you had previous acquaintance with Mr. Myers?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the other person?
A. Yes, Bob Thomas and I have known each other since I was a legal secretary.
Q. Did you furnish a list of references?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How many?
A. Five extra, other than the five given to this committee.
Q. Do you have any knowledge if they were contacted?
A. I've had about six or seven phone calls that, yes, they were contacted. And two other attorneys stopped me on the street and said they'd been contacted, who were not references.
Q. When and how were you notified of the results?
A. I received a hand delivered letter on Monday the 10th.
Q. No more questions.
Printed Page 2025 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Wiggins, your husband practices -- well, you both practice in Columbia. Do you think the presence of that practice or the nature of that practice would create any problems with you being an administrative law judge?
A. Absolutely not. My husband doesn't do that type of practice at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anybody in your firm do substantial administrative law work?
A. My husband and I are the only members of my firm.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further questions from the Members? Ms. McNamee? All right, thank you very much.
To everyone, we appreciate your patience with us as we worked through these 25 administrative law judge candidates that we had over the past two days. We'll adjourn the meeting now.
SENATOR MOORE: Mr. Chairman, if I could make one comment. You know, you and I were on the Conference Committee when we were trying to incorporate this restructuring business.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
SENATOR MOORE: First of all, I'd like to say I appreciate very much your professionalism chairing this committee, and the staff folks who have spent so much time and effort. And also, I am very, very impressed with the slate of candidates we have for the administrative law judge positions.

I feel vindicated somewhat, I suppose, as a result of us agreeing to the compromise of having administrative law judges, especially now seeing the caliber of people that we have as candidates, who make it very difficult for us to choose three people out of this. But I think the state will be well served by the people who are offering their service.
THE CHAIRMAN: I echo your sentiments. I'm thoroughly impressed with the candidates that we have. I think we probably would all agree with that, that we're blessed with a fine field of candidates, which is certainly a good position to be in. Any other comments?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator McConnell.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I've just got one other comment, and I also echo the comments of my colleague regarding, I think the staff did an excellent job and I'm impressed with the candidates. I might say, though, that the Bar's report will not be a great weight on my shoulders.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me make one point, too. In several of the hearings we referenced the fact that we would keep the record open, and we will do that because there are instances where witnesses testify in reply to complainants and in other instances we may, if we get further information that we think's pertinent to the case, to the applicants before

Printed Page 2026 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
us, then we will consider that information. So we will keep the record open. That's been our standard practice in the event that we gain additional information prior to our final review of the candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: If we are asked by some of the candidates when can they start making contact, now, we need to be able to answer that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me tell you what our practice has been, for the candidates who are still here. We will hopefully in the course of the next week or week and a half try to meet again after our staff has had a chance to review all the information that we have compiled here -- it may take longer, we wait for the transcript generally, do we not, which will take two weeks, minimum of two weeks. So actually, it will be more than that. We have to wait for the transcript.

After we get the transcript the staff will review that along with the information that they have compiled, and then we will gather again to make our final decisions regarding screening. My guess would be we're talking about three to three and a half weeks. Let's do this, if you all have no objections, Barbara's got some prepared dates here. The transcript is due on the 27th, which would allow us to, when we reconvene on the 1st, we can meet on Wednesday, the 2nd of February, the committee can meet again to try to make its final determination, and hopefully we would be able to authorize a draft report that -- is staff going to be able to have draft reports to us by the 2nd? Is that reasonable?

All right, so our goal is going to be to try to meet on the 2nd, again, of February to try to release the report at that time. Our standard has been that when we finalize a report, generally the next, either that -- if we meet in the morning, either that afternoon, if we don't have any changes to make, or the next morning we will authorize the candidates to begin seeking commitments.

Now, what we do so that no one can get a head start is that we ask Barbara to call and notify the candidates well in advance that the screening report will be available at this time and give them plenty of -- so you don't need to call her, she's going to call you to tell you that the screening report will be available at a certain time.

We try to make sure that no one has a significant advantage by happening to find out before others do. So our effort will be to try to meet again on the 2nd of February and finalize our report and hopefully we'll be ready by the 3rd to begin the process.
Any further comments? Do I have a motion that we adjourn? Second? All in favor say aye. We're adjourned.

Printed Page 2027 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
(There being no further matters, the hearing was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.)

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1994

THE CHAIRMAN: We are re-opening the hearing of Marvin Kittrell, and we have two witnesses that we'd like to call. First, Senator John Land, if you'd step forward please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
SEN. LAND: Yes, I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. Senator Land, the purpose of this hearing is to explore a news account that appeared in today's edition of the State, Thursday, February 3, 1994, in an article written by Miss Scoppe about certain contacts between yourself and Mr. Kittrell that relate to efforts to try to receive assistance to secure commitments from members of the General Assembly for an election for Chief Administrative Law Judge that is coming up in the near future. If you would, would you please answer some questions that Mr. Elliott, our staff counsel, has regarding this article and any other matters that might be pertinent.
SEN. LAND: Yes, sir.
SENATOR LAND - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. Senator, did Mr. Kittrell make a request of you to assist him in any way with his candidacy for Administrative Law Judge?
A. In the last couple of weeks, I think it was last Tuesday but I cannot be sure. Either in the lobby or in the foyer downstairs, Marvin Kittrell asked me to introduce him to a number of Senators that he did not know or did not know well. That was the long of it; that is the short of it; that is it; completely. He asked me to introduce... me to introduce him to members of the Senate. I would have done that for him or for any other candidate. I did not take that to in any way be improper or unethical, unprofessional or in any way wrong. And I've known Mr. Kittrell for a number of years and know him to be a person of outstanding character and ability, and I don't think what he asked me... that's my opinion... was anything wrong.
Q. He just asked for an introduction?
A. He asked me to introduce him to members of the Senate that he did not know and did not know well.
Q. Did he provide you with a list of those he wanted you to....
A. He handed me a list... I don't... I don't have it... don't know where it is, and just by memory, it was on a white sheet of lined paper. One

Printed Page 2028 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
side had a list of senators and he had a designation above it, either "good feeling" or "good pulse", and on the other side of the same sheet was a list of names, and I don't think it had any designation above it. But those are the ones that he pointed to and asked me if I would introduce him to those Senators. And I told him I would... in fact, we never have had an opportunity to do that.
Q. There have been no introductions by you?
A. No, there have not.
Q. Did he explain to you or give you any indication of how he arrived at the conclusion to list some Senators under "good feeling" or "good pulse?"
A. Other than the fact that I would take it that any candidate moving around the General Assembly, introducing himself to the various members of the General Assembly would have either neutral feelings, good feelings or bad feelings concerning how that particular person reacted to him, how that particular legislator -- the time they devoted to him or whatever.
Q. And, your testimony is, you do not have this list any longer?
A. No, sir. I do not know what happened to it. I think I misplaced it that very same day. Not misplaced it... It's just, I don't have it anymore.
Q. Let me read you the two quotes from the State newspaper and get you to respond to those, please; we'd like to know if they're accurate? First one, "He just said that these were some people that would vote for him, and that he wanted me to check with these, parentheses, other, people to see if they would vote for him," with he and him referring to Mr. Kittrell talking about the list that he had provided you.
A. That is totally... that is totally incorrect. Marvin Kittrell asked me to introduce him to certain members of the Senate, period.
Q. Do you have any explanation for the....?
A. You're not... I don't, I don't think it matters what I said. What matters at this particular point, what I tell you under oath, and that is that he asked me to introduce him, period, nothing more, or nothing further. If I had said something that misled somebody to think that; if I have been misquoted or if I made a mistake in what I said, I don't think that's important to this committee. What's important is what Marvin Kittrell did, and he asked me to introduce, which I took it to be highly proper and in no way improper.
Q. But your testimony is that this is not an accurate quote.
A. That is not an accurate quote.
Q. Then going on, the news report says, "Told later of Kittrell's explanation, Land still said he was asked to put in a good word for the candidate," and here's where it begins to allegedly quote you again: "He
Printed Page 2029 . . . . . Thursday, February 10, 1994
handed that out to me, and said he had a list of senators that he had talked to and felt good about, and others he didn't know about well enough to talk to, and asked me if I would talk to them for him and introduce him." Is that an accurate quote?
A. That's not an accurate statement of what Mr. Kittrell asked me. He asked me to introduce him. I think it's an incorrect quote, but I don't think it is necessary for me to get into a debate back and forth as to who's telling the truth on that. All I can tell you is what he said. He said introduce, and if I misquoted it and misstated it from somewhere, I apologize to the world and ask forgiveness, but he did not ask me to help him; he asked me to introduce him, period.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions? Let me ask a few questions. The article mentions one conversation that you had with Ms Scoppe about this. I'm just curious... were there any other instances in which Mr. Kittrell had conversations with you, requesting your assistance in any manner in this election.
A: I, of course, I see him often up here and we have talked about his race, but nothing in any way other than is entirely proper, introducing himself, speaking to him, and so forth, but he's never asked me to vote for him. I would expect that after this committee acts that he will ask me that and, of course, as a member then I'll make up my mind at some point in time, but he's never done anything but be polite to me, and I hope I've never done anything but be polite to him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have pending cases before him now?
A. You know I was thinking about that; in fact, the Commissioner and I even talked about that. I think I have had three cases in front of him. And then I may have had one or more appeals to where he sat on the full Commission or a panel of three, and other than that, I've had very little contact with Commissioner Kittrell since he's been serving on the Commission. And I did not know Mr. Kittrell before his appointment there, and when he was introduced to me by Senator Pope, I think at that particular time.
THE CHAIRMAN: But your testimony then is that Mr. Kittrell never sought your help in trying to secure votes from any members of the General Assembly, whether they were members of the House or members of the Senate?
A. No, sir. He simply asked me to introduce him to some Senators that he did not know or did not know well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you aware of any other lists other than the one that was referenced earlier?
A. No, sir, I do not.

| Printed Page 2010, Feb. 10 | Printed Page 2030, Feb. 10 |
Page Finder Index