| Printed Page 7000, May 17 | Printed Page 7020, May 17 |

When you come to situations like lunch, again, I think the appearance of impropriety is as important as the impropriety itself. It would be in my view that a judge would be ill-advised to go to lunch with litigants in a case.
Q. Since your last screening and in addition to the statement which you have made to the committee, are there any changes in your status or anything that you would like to tell this committee?
A. No. I think the prior status is accurate.
Q. Have you sought the pledge of a legislator prior to the completion of this screening process?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Even if that pledge which might have been sought was conditional upon being found qualified by the screening committee?
A. I have no such pledge.
Q. Have you authorized anyone else to talk to anyone or to solicit or seek pledges from --
A. I have not authorized anyone. I will echo the comments that others have made. It is quite logical that once having entered a race and certainly having gone down to the actual vote and I have no commitments. I have no reason to believe that those same individuals who vote for me again. There have been no discussions with those individuals about them voting for me again.

I have hopes that when the time comes that I will be able to talk with them and that the same results may occur with those individuals. But I have not solicited any of those votes nor have I received any commitments from any of those individuals.
Q. Thank you. And we do not show that you have expended any money on the campaign for this race?
A. That is correct. I have mailed one letter. I am well below the $100 limitation. When I reach that point, I will be happy to file the necessary documents.
Q. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Do you have a question?
SENATOR RUSSELL: No.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.
A. Thank you.

The number that you have before you is during a time period where I myself was acting as a advisor to them and on average 15 is probably low. It just depends on how many hearings they have.

During the course of the hearing, once it's concluded and the commissioners begin their deliberations, more often than not we are asked for our thoughts and usually what we do is give pros and cons of each position and they make their decision and we write a finding or what we call a finding for them. And the finding would consist of findings of facts, conclusions of law and then an order of the Department of Revenue.
Q. Who is representing the Tax Commission at this time?
A. Who is representing?
Q. Representing -- yes, the Tax Commission.
A. A division of the Department of Revenue will bring the case. Of course, the taxpayer is either representing himself or an attorney and then the commissioners hear it and then we advise when they ask us.
Q. In your opinion is it important that administrative law judges have a specialty of knowledge --
A. Well, I think the short answer is no because the idea behind the administrative law judge is that they become something of a specialist in an area of administrative law. It's not absolutely critical that they already have a specialty in a particular area of law. I think it is helpful. I think it shows the ability to master at least a designated area of the law.

I think the more important criteria is whether or not the individual has enough exposure to administrative law, has demonstrated the ability to accomplish the mastery of administrative law and then apply that to all types of hearings, whether it's DHEC, Tax Commission or any of the appeals that may come from some of the licensing boards.
Q. How will you prepare yourself in the areas that you're not familiar with?

A party should before you even take on a hearing of a particular type review the statutes, become familiar with the regulations. If there are court cases on it, it would behoove an individual to read them. I think you just have to immerse yourself in a particular area of law that you're going to be having a hearing on.
Q. Would you do that before the hearing --
A. Yes.
Q. -- as the --
A. Yes.
Q. If you were elected, how would you handle the Revenue Department cases that came up?
A. Well, I think initially I would have to recuse myself from any case that I had a substantial part in. As you know, it would be a year from now before tax cases do, in fact, reach the administrative law judge. Hopefully by that time any cases that I have had direct involvement in would either have been resolved or all of the ones that we'll be hearing hopefully would be new.

I think it probably -- initially, again drawing on the strengths of the judges, it probably would behoove the administrative law judges to have a person with expertise hearing those tax cases and that would be with the understanding that there was no conflict of interest.

In fact, probably what I would do is fully disclose at the time the hearing began that I had some input into that agency and if there was an objection to it, we would know that early on and assign another judge to it.
Q. How will you use or be bound by the previous decisions of the agencies in a previous era?
A. Well, those decisions, of course, are made by the agency and I believe the administrative law judges are that, they are administrative law judges. It is not the province of an administrative law judge to dismiss agency findings.

In fact, one of the primary duties of the administrative law judges will be to be sure that agencies do, in fact, apply their policies and procedures in a uniform fashion. If a position is taken which is contrary to their established position, it is the duty of administrative law judge to bring that the attention of the agency and correct them.

It is not a rubber stamp type of approach, but it is certainly a full awareness that administrative agencies do operate by rules and procedures

By the time we finally got to court, the issue was whether or not a taxpayer could sue the state as a violation of civil rights for having taxed the person incorrectly. The reason for that is that the taxpayer, if he won would be able to recover attorney's fees.

When the matter finally resolved itself in the United States Supreme Court, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, that court split four to four and that upheld the lower court which was fortunately was in our favor, so the answer has not been -- the question has not been decided, but at least for South Carolina, we know what the law in our state is. So that was my most interesting one.
Q. Is it also your most difficult?
A. Yes, it was. There's a couple of war stories I could tell you, but I won't in the interest of time.
Q. Would you please describe your method of separating your work for the state and your efforts to obtain this ALJ position?
A. I've done two things. One is the obvious one, anytime I appear here or any place else where I am doing something to further the Administrative Law Judge position, I'm on annual leave. Secondly, we do have occasions where some legislators may need an opinion from our office and I have directed that all of those opinions go to someone else, not to me.

It was a good firm. It was just a little too far away from parents and grandchild was currently new, so it was time to come back home. But I had been in private practice for -- I think it was right at a year or a little over a year with a Chattanooga law firm.
Q. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the members?
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator? Questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens.
A. Thank you.

END OF PRIOR TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVENS.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Well, I believe that completes our candidates for this afternoon, but I think we should make a note that all the records will be kept open and with
the information being relayed to our chairman and should there be a need to get back in touch with you, we will do it.
MS. MCNAMEE: I just wanted to make the statement that -- Mr. Anderson, I wanted to make sure that you agreed that I could keep the -- or use the transcript from the last screening in your screening this time? I'm not sure I asked you that question.
MR. ANDERSON: You asked that.
MS. MCNAMEE: I did?
MR. ANDERSON: And I certainly agreed.
MS. MCNAMEE: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: All right.
SENATOR RUSSELL: Mr. Chairman.
MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.
SENATOR RUSSELL: One thing I want to talk about is, and just out of curiosity, and I'll just put it on the record.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Okay.

They're going to have to have the Journal from February 10th and the Journal from whenever this is done in order to get a complete picture of these people. And it really only is nine, I think, members -- nine people for the ALJ slots and I don't know that it's going to be that much of them.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: I really think it ought to be there because for the benefit of the candidate.
SENATOR RUSSELL: That's fine. I was just curious.
MS. MCNAMEE: Actually, there's --
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: A lot of people lose their Journals. Not me, but a lot of people do. Anything else that you want?
SENATOR RUSSELL: No, sir. I think that's it.
REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER: Well, I don't think we're supposed to adjourn. Do we want to go into recess or adjourn? What are we supposed to do? Let's go into recess. The next notice will be from Chairman Hodges at the call of the Chairman.
(There being nothing further, the proceedings concluded at 3:40 p.m.)

Findings of Fact

The Committee in its review and investigation of the candidates for South Carolina Supreme Court, Family Court and Administrative Law Judge seats conducted two full days of screening hearings based, in part, on extensive background research compiled by the Committee's legal and administrative staff. To ensure full public input, the Committee asked for the assistance of all print and electronic media in the state in advertising the judicial vacancies and the Committee's desire for citizens to appear before the Committee and offer testimony regarding any or all of the candidates.

The Committee was impressed with the dedication and continued service of The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, Jr., who has served as a circuit court judge for the past fourteen and one-half years. Judge Anderson is a frequent lecturer at continuing legal and judicial education programs and has served as an Acting Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court on several occasions. Judge Anderson is known for his hard work, with ten-hour work days being common. He testified that he reads the briefs and available information in preparation for cases he hears and is committed to staying with a matter, reaching a decision and producing an order. The Committee also appreciates his legal scholarship. Judge Anderson has compiled approximately 50 notebooks of resource material that he uses as a basis for consideration of every case. The Committee believes Judge Anderson holds a deep commitment to fairness and appreciates the decorum he maintains in the courtroom and his understanding of a judge's ethical considerations.

The Committee finds The Honorable Julius H. Baggett has served as a circuit court judge with distinction and honor for the past eighteen years. In his testimony he described several difficult cases over which he presided. In the opinion of the Committee, his experiences as a circuit court judge and occasional acting appellate judge will have prepared him well should he be elected to the Supreme Court. The Committee was impressed that Judge Baggett has faced the challenges posed by increasing case loads and the substantive changes in the law by becoming innovative with the use of computers in his courtroom.

Judge Baggett articulated a clear understanding of the ethical concerns facing a judge. He also demonstrated his concern that the record clearly reflect his thoughts on a question concerning rules of evidence which was asked of him. His letter to the Committee has been incorporated in this record.

At his April 26, 1994 screening, Judge Baggett was given the opportunity to make a statement to the Committee. It appreciates his elaboration on his use of computers and his belief that they are a very necessary tool for use in the court room.

One witness, Ms. Gail Hull, testified against Judge Baggett concerning the sentence he imposed on a defendant who pled guilty to the offense of obtaining property under false pretenses. Judge Baggett sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment suspended on service of five years probation with six months of house arrest. Ms. Hull testified that this sentence was not sufficient punishment since the defendant had been prosecuted for similar acts many times previously, but imprisoned only

The Committee fully accepts Judge Baggett's explanation that he fashioned a sentence which would punish the defendant but not impose substantial liability on the State for the defendant's imminent medical treatment.

For the past ten years, The Honorable Randall T. Bell has served as a Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. In that capacity, he has researched and written hundreds of opinions. Judge Bell has also taught numerous subjects as a law professor at the University of South Carolina. He continues to teach as an adjunct professor at the School of Law and as a lecturer at continuing legal education programs. Judge Bell has experience practicing law in both the public and private sectors, including a period of specialization in complex litigation and appeals.

The Committee considers Judge Bell to be knowledgeable of the law and highly intelligent, with outstanding analytical ability. Judge Bell graduated with honors from demanding legal education programs at Oxford University and Harvard Law School, and he reported that a confidential survey of the Bar in 1985 rated him the highest of all judges on the Court of Appeals with regard to knowledge and application of the substantive law and awareness of recent legal developments. As an attorney, he has successfully handled complex and novel issues, and as a judge he has authored scholarly opinions. The Committee also finds that Judge Bell's ethics are unassailable and his concept of judicial temperament is proper.

The Committee was impressed with the dedication and hard work exhibited by The Honorable E. C. Burnett in his thirteen years on the circuit bench. He has developed an expertise in computers and uses one in many ways to facilitate his work as a circuit judge. In conjunction with the Clerk of Court's office he has facilitated the local Bar's access to the Clerk's office by using a computer bulletin board system for communication concerning schedules and notices. The Committee is satisfied that Judge Burnett understands the precepts of the Judicial Canons and strives to uphold them.

The Committee is very impressed with the record of The Honorable J. Ernest Kinard, Jr. He has practiced law for twenty-four years and has been a circuit court judge for the past six years. Judge Kinard has served

Judge Kinard demonstrated a keen awareness of the rules of recusal and the ethical considerations surrounding social engagements. He thoughtfully discussed issues concerning maintenance of docket control in an urban court such as the use of computers by the judge, the use of one judge for all hearings in complex cases and an expanded role for alternative dispute resolution. He spoke from experience as he has used these techniques himself.

Two witnesses testified concerning Judge Kinard at the April 26, 1994 screening. Gail Hull, the witness who testified against Judge Baggett, also testified against Judge Kinard. Judge Kinard presided over the probation revocation hearing of the same defendant three weeks after Judge Baggett imposed his sentence. The defendant had been on probation in Richland County; the guilty plea before Judge Baggett was a violation of her probation. Judge Kinard sentenced the defendant to thirty days imprisonment to be served one day each week. Judge Kinard elaborated that it was his personal philosophy to sentence defendants found guilty of embezzling to serve time in prison. He stated he balanced that philosophy with the serious medical evidence presented to him that the defendant had had three heart attacks, was on a heart transplant waiting list, needed another serious operation, and was on massive daily medication.

A second witness, Juan Ortega, testified concerning Judge Kinard's rulings and in court statements in a complicated series of legal actions over control of a time share corporation. Mr. Ortega was not a litigant. His testimony was particularly critical of the South Carolina statutes governing horizontal property regimes. Mr. Ortega specifically stated he did not believe Judge Kinard did anything wrong and he was not complaining about the judge's rulings. Judge Kinard responded that he worked with the attorneys in these cases to fashion a consent order from which the horizontal property regime could hold a proxy fight and election of a Board of Directors.

The Committee found The Honorable Costa M. Pleicones to possess outstanding credentials. He has an extensive twenty-three year career as a practicing attorney, including substantial appellate experience, and presently serves as a circuit court judge. Judge Pleicones has also served as an Acting Associate Justice for the South Carolina Supreme Court on several occasions.

The Committee was impressed with Judge Pleicones' commitment to service as a judge. He prepares for court and is thorough in his approach to decision- making. In addition, Judge Pleicones is industrious, making himself readily available to hear matters even when court is not in session. The Committee appreciates Judge Pleicones' approach to writing orders and believes him to be compassionate and respectful of litigants and lawyers while maintaining decorum in the courtroom. The Committee also found Judge Pleicones to possess a solid understanding of ethical concerns and was particularly impressed with his sensitivity to ex parte communications and conflicts of interest.

The Committee finds that The Honorable Charles B. Simmons, Jr. has experience which has prepared him for service on the Supreme Court. Judge Simmons has been a Master-in-Equity in Greenville County for nearly six years. As a Master-in-Equity, Judge Simmons sits without a jury and is required to function similarly to an appellate court judge. He must analyze the facts, determine and apply the applicable law, and render a written decision. In addition to his service as a Master-in-Equity, Judge Simmons has been a Special Circuit Court Judge since 1989 and has lectured on legal subjects in various programs, including continuing legal education seminars, law school classes, and Greenville Technical College's paralegal program.

The Committee appreciates Judge Simmons' community service and respects his view that judges should not become isolated from the people they serve. The Committee considers Judge Simmons to possess a solid

| Printed Page 7000, May 17 | Printed Page 7020, May 17 |