| Printed Page 6910, May 17 | Printed Page 6930, May 17 |

18. Five (5) civil appeals:
(a) Anderson Armored Car Service, Inc. v. S.C. Public Service Commission, 366 S.E.2d 444 (S.C. App. 1988). Opinion No. 1117, heard 11-16-87, filed 3-14-88.
(b) Welch Moving & Storage Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of S.C., 377 S.E.2d 133 (S.C. App. 1989). Opinion No. 1289, heard 12-12-88, filed 2-6-89.
(c) Welch Moving & Storage Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of S.C., 391 S.E.2d 556 (S.C. 1990). Opinion No. 23188, heard 1-22-90, filed 4-2-90.
(d) Hilton Head Center of S.C., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of S.C. and Hilton Head Plantation Utilities, Inc., 362 S.E.2d 176 (S.C. 1987). Opinion No. 22793, heard 9-23-87, filed 11-9-87.
(e) Red Bus Systems, Inc. d/b/a Kannapolis Transit Co. v. S.C. Public Service Commission, et al. Docket No. 87-CP-40-2995, Order of Judge Kinon dated 9-17-87.

25. Occupation, business or profession other than the practice of law:
Carpenter's Helper, M&N Construction Co., 1981-1982

39. Expenditures Relating to Candidacy:
None

44. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar

45. Civic, charitable, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Transportation Lawyers Association; Springdale Hall Club; Camden Country Club; Friends of Kershaw County Library; National Conference of State Transportation Specialists - Education Committee and Rails Committee; Camden K-5 PTA; Buckley School of Public Speaking - Orator's Award; Tennessee Squire

46. During his professional development, he has worked to acquire knowledge and skill concerning administrative law practice and pertinent regulatory precepts. For example, while working at the Public Service Commission, he attended three national seminars

47. Five (5) letters of recommendation:
(a) Kenneth L. Lannigan, Vice President
Merrill Lynch
P. O. Box 11269, Columbia, SC 29211
733-2152
(b) Robert T. Bockman, Esquire
McNair & Sanford, P.A.
P. O. Box 11390, Columbia, SC 29211
799-9800
(c) Sarena D. Burch, Esquire
P. O. Box 102407, Columbia, SC 29224-2407
699-3182
(d) Arthur G. Fusco, Esquire
Sherrill and Rogers, PC
P. O. Box 100200, Columbia, SC 29202-3200
771-7900
(e) Susan A. Lake, Esquire
Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard
P. O. Drawer 2426, Columbia, SC 29202
253-8257

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: Kershaw County Sheriff's Office are negative; Camden City Police Department are negative; SLED and FBI records are negative. The Judgment Rolls of Kershaw County are negative. Federal court records are negative. No complaints or statements were received. No witnesses are present to testify.
So do you have a statement, opening statement you want to make before Steve asks you a few questions.
MR. CARRUTH: No, sir, Representative Alexander. I have none.

First of all, how do you think it's important for a judge to act toward both litigants and attorneys?
A. Well, I think it's important for a judge to act dignified and to be courteous. I think he should by his demeanor command the respect which the offices do, but at the same time provide a convenient forum to all who must come before him and to show proper respect to those individuals as well.
Q. All right, sir. In the area of gifts, what is going to be your measure of impropriety?
A. Well, my measure would be, I guess, a bright line standard. And I would say that gifts, when it comes to anybody who would come before me, anybody who is before me or anybody who is likely to come before me, gifts would be out of the picture. That's just something that I wouldn't consider.

When you get into the area of ordinary social hospitality, that historically has been problematical, I would say that my general conception is that anything that anybody would do on the basis of friendship and long-standing acquaintance would pose that issue. Anything as to which I could rule that out as a motivation, I would just reject out of hand.
Q. The committee has over time sort of taken the position that almost anything of value possibly constitutes a gift, even business lunches, and you've just talked about social hospitality. How would a business lunch fit in between social hospitality and gift?
A. Well, I would say that a business lunch when you're talking about the business of the judiciary is one as to which if it's just not outright prohibited, clearly according to your conception, you should err on the side of abstaining from it and I think you should not participate generally or encourage it at all, not to be generally receptive to it.

There are some nuances to be considered that according to the burden of legal standard might be applicable, but I would say, as I did, I believe, before in testimony, that without trying to make a difficult subject out of it, if you have to think about it, you probably shouldn't do it and you

There are about four specific matters and as to two of them, I think remittal of disqualification is possible, but that's only after you go on the record and you inform the parties and their attorneys of any kind of a personal relationship or financial relationship that you might have or anything which might bear. And without your participation in it, if they do agree that you should hear it and they desire that you hear it and they put it in writing and you incorporate it in the record, then there is that provision for remittal of disqualification.

But as far as disqualification itself is concerned, that should be a hair trigger and I -- here again, to err on the side of maintaining the appearance of propriety and that you cannot be effected and that you cannot be bought, that you cannot be swayed, that you're impartial and unbiased and not subject to influence.

I think that you should be quick to take stock of yourself as the Canons require you to do, financially, and to be conscious of conflicts of interest which might arise, and to do everything you can to minimize the potential for conflicts, so that you will not have to disqualify yourself and that where this looms as a possibility, you be quick to disqualify yourself.
Q. Since your last screening, have there been any changes in your status or anything of that nature that the committee might need to know about?
A. I cannot conceive of any at this time. I have -- my stock portfolio, such as it has been, is different from what I reported earlier. I sold one stock which promptly went up. I've retained the ones that were going down and they've kept on going down. If you want to be a profitably invested contrarian, you might find out what I intend to do. There may be some potential represented there. I've already indicated that by letter.
Q. Yes, sir. We have that. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator for this particular position prior to this screening?
A. I have not.

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF MR. CARRUTH AT PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 12, 1994:

MR. CARRUTH - EXAMINATION BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Q. From looking at your Personal Data Questionnaire, it looks like you have a fair amount of experience in administrative contested case proceedings through your work with the Public Service Commission and I see that you even served as a hearing officer on occasion from '92 -- 1982 to 1984. However, most of your experience is with the Public Service Commission. What do you know about the substantive and procedure of administrative law that relates to other agencies?
A. Well, to the extent that you can universalize because whatever your experience has been, if it's not unlike that other places, what you learn in specific circumstances, you can import. It's kind of hard to tell how to articulate it except that as far as what the courts have said -- what the Court of Appeals and what the Supreme Court have said, these matters are generally applicable and I think everybody who keeps up with administrative law, every practitioner is aware of what the case law is and I think it's generally applicable as far as construction and application of the APA. And as far as the regulations and procedural regulations of the agencies, there is a great deal of similarity agency to agency.

You can pick up some things and especially if you've been at this for a while in any particular area you can intuit rather easily and rather quickly right much from just reading a few printed words and I think first of all, I'd have recourse to that part of the code which pertains to it. I think part of it's recently been redone. I have glanced at that and I haven't seen anything in there that strikes me as strange or surprises me given what my experience in other areas has been.
Q. While you were at the Public Service Commission, and I think that was five and a half years you were there; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. I believe you said you appeared about -- approximately two times a week before the Commission during that period of time or in court in some fashion during that period of time?
A. (Witness nods in the affirmative).
Q. So you do have some litigation type experience?
A. (Witness nods in the affirmative).
Q. How will that benefit you as an ALJ and would it make any difference if you did not have that?
A. I appreciate the question. Having that experience, I think it's a plus. People have the tendency to play their trumps if they've got something they tend to value greatly. If they don't have it, especially if a rival does have it, they tend to denigrate it.

It's possible to look at this much the same way. People who don't have much of it say for a position like this it's not essential and according to the

When it comes to the fine points of qualification, you know, when somebody is well qualified, super qualified based on how much of this particular thing he has as a criterion, I wouldn't fight you for the difference and I think it might even be fair to say it's like beauty in the eyes of the beholder, but I do think it's been a big help to me and I think that a certain amount of it is essential for your understanding.

You can't get away from procedure no matter what else is supposed to be involved and substantive in the proposition and I think a familiarization with the procedure is essential, having undergone it yourself, having dealt with all kinds of people, having dealt before tribunals and having taken that and gone before appellate courts and accounted for it and having some experience to make you aware of how they view these matters, I would think is a very important qualification, but I wouldn't set myself as any great arbitrator of how much of it is necessary.
Q. You have some stock. What would be your ethical considerations, for example, if you owned stock in a hospital and a question of the certificate of need for that particular hospital came before you as an ALJ?
A. That would in my mind put forth a rather stark set of circumstances dictating disqualification. That's -- as to that particular matter, we don't have a delineating standard in my regard and that's a conflict that requires you to disqualify yourself.

There is a narrow provision I think in the Judicial Canons for some sort of remittal of disqualification and I think that that can be applicable generally in the area of a financial conflict of interest if I'm not mistaken.

But what you've just described to me seems so stark that the important thing is first the disqualification and then if you get down the road after the disqualification, you shouldn't -- should there be a desire of the parties and their attorney for you to go on for any reason, then the remittal procedure is provided for in the Canons of Ethics.
Q. You're a Senate staff member. You have been, I think, since 1990 --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- if I remember correctly. If you're elected as an ALJ, what's your responsibility if legislators seek your support in political campaigns or your counsel in other political matters?
A. Well, the same as would be the case for any other judge and we would be governed according to the statute by the Canons that are applicable to judicial members and that is politics in general is verboten, strictly out of bounds. It's just not to indicate any participation in any

Most cases, it can be turned away gently. If gently doesn't work, it needs to be turned away nonetheless. There is no participation.
Q. What have you done and what do you plan to do to avoid any kind of conflict between your public duties as a member of the staff and your efforts to become an ALJ?
A. I have not campaigned.
Q. Well, for example --
A. Except for sending around a letter toward the end of the summer to all the members of the General Assembly telling them who I was, in general terms what I had done and tell them I was interested in running for ALJ. I haven't campaigned.
Q. Well, for example, members of the Senate will come to you for -- to have bills drafted or to seek some assistance with constituent matters, what will be your approach to that?
A. Do my job the way I always have. I'm paid by the taxpayers to do a certain job and the way I do the job if you'll forgive this and I hope it doesn't seem full of presumption, but it's an important job and I take it seriously and instead of leaving it and leaving some folks in the lurch to go do something else like campaigning, if it got to be something for which campaigning in my mind was in order and was required, go on annual leave, do something like that to do that. That's one matter.

But as far as doing the job, you not only can do the job without campaigning, you should do it. You're required to do it, morally, ethically, legally without campaigning and if you do it that way, that should not present a problem not withstanding the appearance it might have to some people and what some people might read into the situation.

And in my regard it's not ethically required that somebody in a position like mine interested in running for a position like this quit his job, but I can envision circumstances in the race where that might be required, where it would be required and upon reaching that bridge, I certainly would cross it in the right direction.
Q. What criteria did you use to select your -- the cases you listed as the most significant cases that you've personally handled that you listed on your Personal Data Questionnaire, what criteria did you use and what do those cases tell the Committee about you?
A. They tell what kind of cases I had over the run of years at the Commission. I started out just taking a proportional share. There were four lawyers on the staff and had a lot of work to do and each just took

Before that, I had done some electric cases and water and sewer cases and some telecommunications cases, gas utility cases and what I tried to do was choose some cases that were not particularly significant to me in that they were unusual given the run of cases out there, but were fairly exemplary of the work out there and illustrated the peculiarity of that work, what there is about it that makes it different than work at DHEC or ABC or the Real Estate Commission or anything else and illustrate some of the concepts that you deal with there.
Q. And they're fairly representative of the kind of issues you handled at the PSC?
A. Pretty much.
Q. You did have some familiarity with the APA as I understand it. Have you given any thought to what kind of discovery is available under the APA in a contested case?
A. Well, historically, discovery in lots of agency practice around here has been a matter pursued according to the agency regulations for procedures. These have reflected to some extent what civil practice takes, generally.

There are some references in the APA which are pertinent and might help perhaps, but for the most the discovery matters have depended upon what people import from civil practice frankly to the particular agency arena that might set law apart from say domestic law or criminal law or something like that and I think a knowledge of that is very important and I would rely heavily upon it.

In my experience, the rules that we have used have been derived substantially -- you know, the various discovery devices come from requests for admission, interrogatories, things like that, data request in the case of the Public Service Commission. You know, matters peculiar to public utilities, things that have to do with cost accounting rendering and things like that, you know, subpoena duces tecum. You come bring the books, this is what we want is one way to get at it an agency data request just requires you to bring the books. We want you to give us the pertinent data.
Q. Have you ever been held in contempt or sanctioned by a court for any reason?
A. No.

| Printed Page 6910, May 17 | Printed Page 6930, May 17 |