Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator GIESE.

On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, with unanimous consent, the following opinions from the Senate Ethics Committee were ordered printed in the Journal of Friday, March 11, 1994.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: April 6, 1993
Re: Soliciting Support for College Board Candidate

The committee has been asked by a member whether it is appropriate for a member to solicit support for a college board candidate prior to the screening of all candidates.

Section 8-13-930 prohibits a candidate for an office elected by the General Assembly from seeking directly the pledge of a vote from any member of the General Assembly prior to the screening of all candidates. Likewise, that section prohibits a member of the General Assembly from offering a pledge of his vote until all candidates have been screened.

Although the question presented here is not specifically addressed by Section 8-13-930, the committee believes that it is inappropriate under the intent of Section 8-13-930 for a member to seek illegal pledges of support or votes from other members of the General Assembly on behalf of a candidate prior to the screening of all the candidates.

The committee finds, however, that it is permissible for a member to "introduce" a candidate to other members in person or by way of letter prior to screening of all candidates, provided the member does not indicate that he has pledged his vote to the candidate or seek pledges or votes from other members. In introducing a candidate, a member may refer to the candidate's background and qualifications for the particular office and may indicate how the member is acquainted with the candidate.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: April 13, 1993
Re: Use of Excess Campaign Funds for Ordinary Expenses

The committee has received several requests for advisory opinions related to the expenditure of excess campaign funds for various purposes. The committee has decided to address these several requests in a single opinion to give members an overview of the requirements of the controlling section of the Ethics Law, Section 8-13-1348(A).1

Section 8-13-1348(A) provides:
No candidate, committee, public official, or political party may use campaign funds to defray personal expenses which are unrelated to the campaign or the office if the candidate is an officeholder nor may these funds be converted to personal use. The prohibition of this section does not extend to the incidental personal use of campaign materials or equipment nor to an expenditure used to defray any ordinary expenses incurred in connection with an individual's duties as a holder of elective office.

The operative issue in each of the questions presented below is, "Is the desired expenditure being used to defray ordinary expenses incurred in connection with the member's duties as a Senator or is it a personal expense unrelated to such duties?"

A member has asked whether she may make a contribution from her campaign account to the South Carolina College Democrats. Information accompanying her request indicates that the South Carolina College Democrats is an organization formed by the national Democratic party and the national College Democrats for the purpose of coordinating college activity in South Carolina and its local legislative districts. The letter from the College Democrats requesting the member's support indicates that she is being solicited because she is a "prominent Democrat."

The committee concludes that contributions or dues paid by a member to a political or partisan group are generally office-related expenses; especially when, as in this case, the member is being asked to support the group because she is an officeholder.

The committee cautions members, however, that contributions to political organizations should be clearly marked, "To be used only for ordinary administrative or operating expenses," in order to prevent the contributions from being recontributed to other campaigns or candidates in violation of the intent of Section 8-13-1340.

A member has asked whether he may make a contribution from his campaign account to the University of South Carolina Law School to help pay for the mock trial team's trip to a competition.

The committee believes that, unlike in the previous case, this contribution is not related to the member's office or campaign but is more likely to be a personal expense not connected to the duties of the office. The committee concludes that Section 8-13-1348 prohibits the member from contributing from his campaign account to the University of South Carolina Law School Mock Trial Team.

A member has asked whether he may use campaign account funds to pay for legal research regarding the constitutionality of pending legislation.

The committee concludes that payment for legal research regarding pending legislation is related to a member's duties when the member intends to use such information to aid him in voting on the legislation.

The committee notes that, in this case, the member has represented that he has no business or other personal use for the information concerning the legislation and that the member is not associated with the legal research firm receiving payment from his campaign funds. The existence of either fact could alter the opinion.

The member is cautioned that, in making this payment from his campaign account, he must follow the restrictions of Section 8-13-1348(D) which provides, "[a]n expenditure may not be made that is clearly in excess of the fair market value of services, materials, facilities, or other things of value received in exchange."

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: April 2, 1993
Re: Invitation to Selected Members

The committee has been asked by a lobbyist's principal whether it may legally invite selected members to a dinner sponsored by it when the guest list includes only those members who represent areas served by the lobbyist's principal and does not include all members of the Senate or of a committee, subcommittee, joint committee, legislative caucus or county delegation.

S. C. Code Ann. Section 2-17-90 provides:
Except as otherwise provided under Section 2-17-100,2 no lobbyist's principal may offer, solicit, facilitate, or provide to a public official or public employee, and no public official or public employee may accept lodging, transportation, entertainment, food, meals, beverages, or an invitation to a function paid for by a lobbyist's principal, except for:
(1) as to members of the General Assembly, a function to which a member of the General Assembly is invited if the entire membership of the House, Senate, or the General Assembly is invited, or one of the committees, subcommittees, joint committees, legislative caucuses, or county legislative delegations of the General Assembly of which the legislator is a member is invited. . . .
(Emphasis added).

The committee concludes that the proposed invitation in this case would violate the requirements of Section 2-17-90(A)(1). The lobbyist's principal proposes to invite only those members who represent areas served by the principal. Though all members of a certain group are included, the group is not one of those specified in Section 2-17-90. The lobbyist's principal may hold its function without violating Section 2-17-90(A)(1) if it invites the entire Senate, or all the members of each committee, subcommittee, joint committee, legislative caucus or county legislative delegation represented at the function.

S. C. Code Ann. Section 2-17-90(6) allows public officials to accept an invitation from a lobbyist's principal if the activity involved is "reasonably related to state or local economic development efforts."

The committee understands that the function in question is a dinner honoring members who represent districts in which the lobbyist's principal does business. The committee concludes that this function is not reasonably related to economic development efforts and, therefore, does not fall under the exception given in Section 2-17-90(6).

In summary, the committee holds that the invitation in question may not be legally extended by the lobbyist's principal nor accepted by a member under Section 2-17-90.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: April 29, 1993
Re: Guidelines for Determining Permissible Use of Excess

Campaign Funds

The committee is increasingly being asked to decide whether a particular expenditure is permissible under Section 8-13-1348(A). That section prohibits expenditure of excess campaign funds for personal use but allows expenditures "to defray any ordinary expenses incurred in connection with an individual's duties as a holder of elective office."

The committee believes that the phrase "ordinary expenses incurred in connection with an individual's duties" as an officeholder is intentionally broad and that the determination whether a particular expense is permissible is by design left largely to the discretion of the member. While the committee will continue to address requests for advisory opinions on specific expenditures of excess campaign funds, the committee believes it may be more helpful to members to offer the following guidelines to aid members in expending excess campaign funds.

In determining whether a particular expenditure is permissible, a member should ask: (A) Is the expenditure "ordinary", that is, is the expense something "commonly encountered" or "usual" for a holder of public officer in the member's position?3; (B) is the expense incurred in connection with a member's duties as an officeholder, that is, would the member make the expenditure if he or she were not a holder of public office?; and (C) will the member realize no personal gain, aside from any benefit received by the public at large, from making the expenditure?

The first question takes into account local or cultural differences related to what is expected of an elected official in a particular district. A member should determine whether an expenditure is customary or usual for his district. The second question addresses directly the requirement that the expense be office or campaign related. If the member would not be making the expense but for his office, then the expense is office or campaign related. The third question addresses whether a member is indirectly converting campaign funds to personal use. The member should receive no personal benefit from the use of campaign funds.

The following hypothetical situations illustrate how the guidelines might be applied:

Example A. A member receives an invitation to a wedding or graduation which he otherwise would not receive except for his office. The member may choose to purchase wedding gifts from his campaign funds because the member has ascertained that it is common or usual for members in his position to receive invitations from persons with whom he has no personal relationship, that he would not receive or respond to such invitation were it not for his office, and that he will receive no personal benefit from responding to the invitation.

A similar situation exists when members purchase flowers or other memorials for funerals of constituents from campaign funds but use personal funds when the deceased is a relative or close friend of the member.

Example B. A member joins a civic organization as a way to keep in touch with the civic leaders in his district. The member would not otherwise be a member of the organization except for his office and receives no personal gain from being a member. The member may pay the dues of the organization from his campaign funds.

Assume the same facts except that the Senator was a member of the civic organization prior to being elected. The expenditure from campaign funds to renew his membership would probably not be appropriate because the member cannot say that he would not have made the expenditure but for his office.

Example C. A member makes a large contribution to a university athletic organization and in return gets preferred parking at games or special access to tickets. Because the member realizes personal gain as a result of this contribution, the contribution should not be made from campaign funds.

Example D. A member takes a group of civic leaders, including friends of the member, out to dinner for campaign or politically-related reasons. The member may pay for the dinner from campaign funds.

A member goes to dinner with the same civic leaders who are his friends but the dinner is purely personal. The member should not pay from his campaign funds.

Example E. A member takes a trip to California with his family and goes to Disneyland and other tourist attractions. While on the trip, the member goes to the library and reviews a book on campaigning or government. The member should not pay for this trip from campaign expenses because it is not usual or customary and because the member realizes personal benefit from the trip.

The above examples point to the difficulty of fashioning a set rule to cover every conceivable situation. As stated earlier, the committee believes that the Ethics Act intentionally grants each member the discretion to make good faith determinations on how to use his or her excess campaign funds. The committee is confident that the strict reporting and disclosure requirements of Section 8-13-1358 make members ultimately accountable to the public, constituents, and contributors for those determinations.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: June 28, 1993
Re: Reporting Requirements for Candidates for Offices Elected by General Assembly

The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening has asked the Ethics Committee to clarify when a candidate for office elected by the General Assembly must file the expenditure reports required by S. C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-920.

That section provides:
A person running for an office elected by the General Assembly must file a report with the Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee and the Chairman of the House of Representatives Ethics Committee of money in excess of one hundred dollars spent by him or in his behalf seeking the office. The report must include the period beginning with the time he first announces his intent to seek the office. The report must not include travel expenses or room and board while campaigning. Contributions made to members of the General Assembly during the period from announcement of intent to election date must be included. The report must be updated quarterly with an additional report filed thirty days after the election. Persons soliciting votes on behalf of candidates must submit expenses in excess of one hundred dollars to the candidate which must be included on the candidate's report.

The committee finds that, under Section 8-13-920, a candidate must file an initial report at such time as expenditures in behalf of his candidacy calculated from the time he announces his intention to seek the office reach a cumulative total of one hundred dollars. In calculating the one hundred dollar threshold amount, the candidate must include all expenditures made by him and all expenditures made by persons soliciting votes on behalf of his candidacy and must exclude expenditures for travel, room, and board incurred while campaigning. "Expenditure" means "a purchase, payment, loan, forgiveness of a loan, and advance, in-kind contribution or expenditure, a deposit, transfer of funds, a gift of money, or anything of value for any purpose." Section 8-13-100(14).

Although no form is specified for the reporting of expenditures, the committee believes that the report, at a minimum, should contain a statement of the amount spent by, or on behalf of, a candidate during the reporting period and a statement whether the candidate made any contributions to members of the General Assembly during the reporting period and the amount of those contributions, if any.

Once an initial report is filed, it must be updated quarterly until the election is held. An additional report is filed five days prior to the election and a final report must be filed thirty days after the election.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

Chairman, Senate Ethics Committee
Date: August 27, 1993
Re: Appointment of a member to the Trident Region's Better

Economic Solutions Together (B.E.S.T.) Policy Committee

An inquiry has been submitted to the committee as to whether a member could serve on the Trident Region's Better Economic Solutions Together (B.E.S.T.) Policy Committee.

Section 8-13-770 states:

A member of the General Assembly may not serve in any capacity as a member of a state board or commission, except for the State Budget and Control Board, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Legislative Audit Council, the Legislative Council, the Legislative Information Systems, the Reorganization Commission, the Judicial Council, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Commission on Prosecution Coordination, and the joint legislative committees.
Except for those entities listed, Section 8-13-770 clearly and expressly prohibits members of the General Assembly from serving on boards and commissions. The section also exempts certain entities that are not labeled as a board or commission (i.e. the Legislative Audit Council, the Legislative Council, the Legislative Information Systems, the Judicial Council, and joint legislative committees). Consequently, this analysis is not as simple as merely suggesting that the name of an entity is the controlling consideration. If that were the case, the exceptions referenced above would not have been necessary.

Created by Executive Order 93-17, the BEST Committee's objectives are to "coordinate planning and efforts to redevelop vacated military bases, implement said plans and efforts, ameliorate the economic adverse effects of military force reductions and base closures, and promote Charleston's and South Carolina's assets to preserve and locate future military missions within the Trident region (Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties)". The BEST Committee is composed of two members of each county council, one member of each city or town council, four members of the business community, Commander of the Charleston Naval Base, Chairman of the State Ports Authority, Chairman of S.C. State Development Board, presidents of the area colleges and universities, one member of the Trident Economic Development Authority, one member of the Charleston Trident Chamber of Commerce, both U.S. Senators or their designees, U.S. Congressmen of the first and sixth districts or their designees, one resident State Senator elected by the resident State Senators of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties, and one resident State Representative elected by the resident state Representatives of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester counties with the total membership not to exceed 39 members. Within the BEST Committee, there exists an internal Executive Committee consisting of eleven members. The Executive Committee is able to create ad hoc committees and sub-committees and nominate additional members for election by a two-thirds vote of a lawful quorum of the BEST Committee.

Although this entity is a creation of the executive, it seems wholly inappropriate to suggest that it is, or that it could be, an independent executive agency. It is obvious that the General Assembly has exclusive and absolute power to create agencies and departments of government.4 Article XII of the Constitution empowers the General Assembly to create the agencies and departments of government while the Governor has no such specific grant of authority. Even without this provision, our Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution is a limitation on the General Assembly's power while the Constitution serves as a grant of authority to the Governor. Put simply, only the General Assembly may establish the agencies and departments of government and the chief executive and the executive departments execute the statutory mission provided by the General Assembly for those entities.

Given the inclusion of entities other than boards and commissions within the exemptions, it seems appropriate to assume that Section 8-13-770 is intended to clearly recognize the separation of power5 between the executive or administrative branch of government which exercises certain sovereign powers and the legislative branch which exercises other sovereign powers. In this instance, the chief executive has chosen to include legislators on the BEST Committee. It is problematic at best to suggest that an independent agency exercising the sovereign powers could be created by executive order. Although it is not within the jurisdiction of this committee to resolve this question, in this instance, it is assumed that the BEST Committee would not be exercising the sovereign powers of the State.6 Therefore, the limitation the General Assembly chose to place upon its members with regard to service on the governing boards of independent state agencies would not be applicable.

Based on the foregoing, the committee concludes that Section 8-13-770 would not preclude a member of the Senate from serving on the BEST Committee.

To: Members of the Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., Chairman

Ethics Committee
Re: Ordinary Expenses
Date: November 16, 1993

A question has again come before the committee concerning the proper application of Section 8-13-1348. This provision provides that a candidate may not use campaign funds to defray personal expenses unrelated to the campaign but allows the expenditure of campaign funds to "defray any ordinary expenses incurred in connection with an individual's duties as a holder of elective office."

An expenditure for a family vacation would clearly be inappropriate whereas a contribution to the local chapter of Young Democrats or Young Republicans would be entirely appropriate. Although the principle underlying this code section is simple to express, when applied to factual situations that do not clearly fall at one of these polar extremes, a proper interpretation of this provision quickly and frequently becomes a conundrum.

Other related provisions within the same act can often provide meaning or insight when interpreting a vague provision. Section 8-13-1370 expressly authorizes an expenditure of campaign funds for charitable and other purposes upon final disbursement. One could reason that the presence of such specific language in Section 8-13-1370 and its omission from Section 8-13-1348 means that a contribution to a charitable organization prior to final disbursement is not appropriate. This reasoning, however, ignores the fact that Section 8-13-1370 expressly restricts disbursement to several specified items, while Section 8-13-1348 is devoid of such restrictions. Logic dictates that those acts that are not prohibited should be considered appropriate.7

In short, Section 8-13-1370, like most other provisions of the Ethics Reform Act, provides what is commonly referred to as bright-line tests which a member may use to determine what conduct is permissible or impermissible. By contrast, Section 8-13-1348 contains no such bright-line test.8 That the committee has only issued twenty one advisory opinions given the comprehensive scope of the Ethics Reform Act is evidence that most provisions of this legislation provide clear, definitive guidance and that, upon a careful reading, the act is not an impenetrable labyrinth. Section 8-13-1348, however, provides little meaningful guidance to assist in determining what is an ordinary expense "incurred in connection with an individual's duties as a holder of elective office."

In those instances where the act does not clearly enumerate permissible and impermissible conduct, disclosure becomes a mechanism for public scrutiny and accountability. The committee recognizes that what may be an "ordinary expense" in one district or area of the State may not be viewed as an "ordinary expense" in another, and public disclosure of these expenses should provide adequate limitations on unreasonable or inappropriate expenditures. Although this committee recognizes its responsibility to provide advisory opinions to members of the Senate, upon reflection, the committee concludes that each individual member, rather than this committee, must determine what expenses are ordinarily incurred in connection with an individual's duties as an office holder.9 Notwithstanding the placement of this responsibility, as a matter of prudence, this committee strongly suggests that in those instances that present a close question, the member would be wise to not make the expenditure.

The wisdom of the suggested course of action is further reinforced by the fact that while the committee is removing itself from an initial determination on expenditures made in reliance upon Section 8-13-1348, the committee may be compelled to resolve the matter if and when a complaint against a member is filed.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., Chairman

Senate Ethics Committee
Re: Soliciting Campaign Contributions from Registered Lobbyists in South Carolina for Federal Congressional Candidates who are not Legislators or State Employees and Those who are
Date: February 8, 1994

The committee has received two questions concerning the solicitation of campaign contributions from registered lobbyists in South Carolina for federal congressional candidates who are not legislators or state employees and those who are.

Question One is as follows:
Please inform me whether or not a candidate for the United States Congress who is not a state legislator or a state employee is prohibited by law from soliciting contributions from a registered lobbyist in South Carolina for the position of Congressman.

The committee has no jurisdiction to provide an answer to Question One as it does not concern the activities of a member of the State Senate or a candidate for the office of State Senator (Section 8-13-1300(1)(b)). To the extent that Question one concerns a registered lobbyist, the State Ethics Commission is the appropriate body to advise the member.

Question Two is as follows:
Please inform me whether or not a candidate for the United States Congress who is a member or a state employee10 is prohibited by law from soliciting contributions from a registered lobbyist in South Carolina for the position of Congressman only (i.e., not for the position of legislator).

First, the committee quotes three (3) sections of the Code.

Section 2-17-80 states:

(A) A lobbyist or a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist shall not offer, solicit, facilitate, or provide to or on behalf of any member of the General Assembly, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, any other statewide constitutional officer, any public official of any state agency who engaged in covered agency actions, or any of their employees any of the following:

(1) lodging;

(2) transportation;

(3) entertainment;

(4) food, meals, beverages, money, or any other thing of value;

(5) contributions, as defined in Section 8-13-1300(7).

(B) A member of the General Assembly, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, any other statewide constitutional officer, any public official of any state agency who engaged in covered agency actions, or any of their employees shall not solicit or receive from a lobbyist or a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist any of the following:

(1) lodging;

(2) transportation;

(3) entertainment;

(4) food, meals, beverages, money, or any other thing of value;

(5) contributions, as defined in Section 8-13-1300(7).

Section 8-13-1300(7) states:

`Contribution' means a gift, subscription, loan, guarantee upon which collection is made, forgiveness of a loan, an advance, in-kind contribution or expenditure, a deposit of money, or anything of value made to a candidate or committee to influence an election or ballot measure; or payment or compensation for the personal service of another person which is rendered for any purpose to a candidate or committee without charge. `Contribution' does not include volunteer personal services on behalf of a candidate or committee for which the volunteer receives no compensation from any source. [Emphasis added].

Section 8-13-1300(4) states:

`Candidate' means a person who seeks appointment, nomination for election, or election to a state or local office, or authorizes or knowingly permits the collection or disbursement of money for the promotion of his candidacy or election. `Candidate' does not include a person within the meaning of Section 431(b) of the Federal Campaign Act of 1976. [Emphasis added].

Read together, these sections prohibit a lobbyist from offering, and a member from soliciting, a contribution for a candidate for state or local office only. Section 8-13-1300(4) specifically excludes from the definition of "candidate" under the Ethics Act and, therefore, from coverage a person within the meaning of Section 431(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1976, i.e., persons who are candidates for federal elective office.

Therefore, the committee concludes that nothing in the Ethics, Government, Accountability, and Campaign Reform Act of 1991 prohibits a member from soliciting a contribution from a registered lobbyist if the contribution is for federal elective office only. The committee offers no opinion on what requirements, if any, federal election laws place on such contributions.

In rendering this opinion, the committee assumes that the contribution is solely for federal, elective office and no part of the contribution is used by the member for the Office of State Senator. The committee further assumes that the member has not promised or implied that he will act favorably or unfavorably on any matters pending before him as a State Senator in exchange for the federal campaign contribution. Finally, the committee assumes that the member has not used his Senate office or any other state property in soliciting contributions for, or in otherwise conducting, his federal campaign activity. The presence of any of these activities may result in a different opinion being rendered by the committee.

To: Members, South Carolina Senate
From: Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., Chairman

Senate Ethics Committee
Re: Voting on the Election of Administrative Law Judges and Practicing Before Them
Date: February 22, 1994

The committee has received the following question from a member:

May a Member vote on the new positions of Administrative

Law Judge and practice before them?

First the committee would like to quote from the Code that section which creates the Administrative Law Judges:

Section 1-23-500. There is created

the South Carolina Administrative

Law Judge Division, which is an

agency of the executive branch of

the government of this State.

Being an agency of the executive branch of the government and not considered a court under the unified judicial system, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 8-13-745(A), the committee would advise the members that a prior Opinion Number 92-7, a portion of which is attached, would be applicable in this case.

However, should a member choose to vote in the election of a particular seat of the Administrative Law Judge Division, then he nor any member of the firm with which he is associated may not practice for a fee before that judge for a period of twelve months. The member may choose to abstain from voting on other seats of the Administrative Law Judge Division and retain his ability to practice before those judges.

If a member abstains from voting on any of these positions, he may continue to represent clients before those Administrative Law Judges in whose elections the member did not vote. The committee advises the members who choose this course of action to have the necessary statement, outlined in our opinion 92-7, placed in the Senate Journal.

The following Bills were read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles be changed to that of Acts and enrolled for Ratification:

H. 4328 -- Reps. D. Wilder and Rudnick: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 768 OF 1973, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE GLENN SPRINGS-PAULINE RURAL FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE DEBT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE DISTRICT FROM FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS INCREASE MAY NOT RESULT IN A FEE OR PROPERTY TAX INCREASE WITHOUT A FAVORABLE VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT IN A REFERENDUM HELD ON THE QUESTION OF SUCH AN INCREASE.

(By prior motion of Senator COURTNEY)

H. 4866 -- Rep. Spearman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-480, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF PRECINCTS IN SALUDA COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE THE PRECINCTS, AND PROVIDE THAT THE PRECINCT LINES DEFINING THE PRECINCTS ARE AS SHOWN ON OFFICIAL MAPS ON FILE WITH THE DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICAL SERVICES OF THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD DESIGNATED AS DOCUMENT P-81-94, AND MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THE SALUDA COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE SALUDA COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION.

(By prior motion of Senator LANDER)

H. 4499 -- Reps. Harwell, McLeod, G. Brown, McKay, Hines, Baxley, Neilson, Canty, Neal, Askins and Houck: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-230, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF SCENIC RIVERS, SO AS TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE LYNCHES RIVER.

(By prior motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, with unanimous consent)

The following House Bills were read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 4532 -- Reps. Hodges, Corning, Cromer, Harwell, Jennings, Scott, D. Smith, J. Wilder, R. Young, Wilkins, Harrell, Clyborne and Boan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 58-9-570, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FACTORS WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER IN DETERMINING RATES FOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT ANY ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY PLAN THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST UPON DETERMINING THAT A TELEPHONE UTILITY IS SUBJECT TO COMPETITION WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR SERVICE OR WITH RESPECT TO ITS SERVICES GENERALLY.

(By prior motion of Senator HOLLAND, with unanimous consent)

H. 3635 -- Rep. Stone: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-1-647 SO AS TO DESIGNATE THE TIGER SWALLOWTAIL AS THE OFFICIAL STATE BUTTERFLY.

(By prior motion of Senator MOORE, with unanimous consent)

The following Bill was read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 1247 -- Senators Waldrep and O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 269 OF 1989, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ANNUAL BUDGETS AND SCHOOL TAXES FOR THE ANDERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX MILLAGE MUST BE SET BY THE ANDERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION BASED ON THE CERTIFIED ASSESSMENT VALUES PROVIDED TO THE BOARD BY THE ANDERSON COUNTY AUDITOR, TO DELETE REFERENCES TO OTHER DATES BY WHICH MILLAGE MUST BE SET, AND PROVIDE THAT THE MILLAGE MUST BE SET IN A TIMELY MANNER AND TO CORRECT AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE.

(By prior motion of Senator WALDREP)

MOTION ADOPTED
On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. Robert Hett Chapman, Jr. of Spartanburg, S.C.

At 12:00 P.M., on motion of Senator JACKSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, March 15, 1994, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 3:49 P.M.