Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:
O God, it is easy to do right when it is easy, but, oh, so hard when it is difficult. Teach us to know that the only chance we have of doing what is right is by following Your will and relying on Your strength. So when we are tempted to run away from the storms of life, lead us straight into the paths You would have us to go. Hold us secure in our discipleship even when the shadows fall enabling us to hear clearly Your words of assurance: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you."
Thank You, Lord, for this privilege of prayer. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. FLEMING moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Michael and Alex Smith, which was agreed to.
June 29, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning H. 4820, R-609, the 1994-95 Appropriations Act, with my vetoes.
Unlike previous years, revenues for next year's budget provide opportunities to fund numerous items which previously did not receive the desired level of financial commitment from the State. Nevertheless, I am concerned about some excessive spending commitments in both the Supplemental and General Appropriations Act which threaten to lead the State down an imprudent path.
I am pleased that the past eight budgets have not included general tax increases. However, there are several areas that concern me.
First, efforts by the General Assembly to increase appropriations for the Departments of Corrections, Juvenile Justice, and Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services underscore our financial commitment to provide the facilities and infrastructure necessary to house those individuals determined by the courts to require incarceration and other custodial programs. The Department of Corrections is receiving almost $24 million in additional funding in this budget while Juvenile Justice and Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services have received an additional $5.7 million and $5.9 million respectively.
I believe this budget clearly indicates the State's commitment to provide the necessary financial resources to remove itself from the 1986 consent decree entered into by the Department of Corrections in the Nelson v. Leake (Plyler v. Evatt) lawsuit. These funding levels should also help convince the Court in the current litigation involving the Department of Juvenile Justice (Alexander, et al. v. D.J.J., et al.) that the plaintiffs' request for relief are unnecessary. The appropriations include monies for new facilities, staffing, and alternative sentencing programs to reduce populations at existing adult and juvenile facilities. The General Assembly adopted legislation to limit offenders sentenced in magistrate's court to the custody of county detention centers rather than state correctional facilities. Additionally, Community Control Centers established in 1993 are expanded. South Carolina has made the necessary legislative and financial commitments to demonstrate to the Federal Court that we are doing everything possible to adequately house those individuals who pose a threat to society.
Second, I am concerned about the budgetary commitments to new and unnecessary expenses which may impose long-term obligations on the State. These long-term obligations include new programs with goals that may be speculative at best and contrary to encouraging the preservation of families at worst. In my State of the State Address, I asked the General Assembly to amend our tax laws to double the exemption for each child under six years of age from $2,350 to $4,700, and you have done so. This is a good start toward relieving the economic strain on working families caused by taxes, but cannot alone stem the rising tide of juvenile crime and delinquency. Our laws should be further amended to provide incentives that encourage parents to provide the kind of attention and supervision that our children need to develop and mature into productive citizens. Instead of the State continuing to bear the increasing burden of trying to repair broken families after the damage has already been done, I believe that redirected funds should go toward measures which prevent the breakup of families and encourage family unity.
I strongly encourage the General Assembly to adopt additional family incentives to address the front end of this problem in future legislative sessions. The additional projected surplus for 1993-94 is estimated to be $20 million above the $174 million currently appropriated under the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. My vetoes from the General and Supplemental Appropriations Bills total $18 million. Those amounts combined equal $38 million that could be used by the General Assembly to design additional tax relief programs for families in South Carolina. I believe we should consider either extending the exemption to children over 6 years of age or further increasing the amount of per child exemption.
Of course, parental responsibility is paramount. But if the General Assembly continues to resist general tax increases and adopts similar tax relief measures for families, we will finally begin to address constructively some of the family pressures that threaten the future of our children. The State cannot be the surrogate parents of our youth, particularly after years of neglect, but it can provide economic incentives which give families greater freedom to care for and support their children.
Thirdly, Section 107 in Part II of the 1994-95 General Appropriations Act was intended to correct what I believe to be an unfortunate decision in the case of Southeastern Freight Lines v. The City of Hartsville and SCDHPT, (Southeastern Freight Lines), Opinion No. 24054, filed April 25, 1994. I have agreed not to veto this proviso because the Office of Insurance Services of the Budget and Control Board has asked me not to do so because of the potential for courts to misinterpret my veto. Also, I am convinced that the amendment does not intend to increase the exposure of the State or its political subdivisions for tort claims actions. Second, I would not want our State Supreme Court to use the Southeastern Freight Lines case to expand the financial exposure of governmental entities beyond the $250,000 per incident statutory cap of South Carolina Tort Claims Act.
I believe the General Assembly acted responsibly by providing the necessary funds to eliminate existing deficits. I sincerely hope that the adoption of the language in Part IB, Section 17G.36, will ensure that other State agencies do not run deficits and provide additional safeguards to force appropriate cuts in expenditures. To permit this practice to continue, in effect, circumvents the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget. Additionally, as I review this Bill, I am concerned about an earlier decision to consolidate line items in the Appropriations Bill. While it does allow a clean document, it restricts a governor's ability to assert constitutional line item veto authority and could violate Art. IV, Section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution. Because of this, I have had to veto lines not directly related to my concerns simply to get a like amount of budgeted revenue.
My vetoes are as follows:
Veto 1 Part I, Section 16, Election Commission, page 53, line 24, Aid to County Boards of Registration - $220,300
The Election Commission received $700,000 for the updating of paper ballot counties to automated voting systems. I do not believe that there are enough paper ballot counties to warrant this total amount of money and believe $500,000 is a more appropriate sum. For that reason, I am vetoing this line. I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by the vetoed line, and I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage the reduction.
Veto 2 Part I, Section 20, Educational Television Commission, page 210, line 26, Reception Match $250,000
I do not intend to eliminate the purpose of this line and will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the agency manage the reduction. However, I believe this is another example of where State agencies need to control their growth.
Veto 3 Part I, Section 31, Department of Mental Health, page 250, line 12, School Based Counseling Services, $800,000
This provision creates a pilot School Based Counseling Program that is intended to be expanded to a statewide program at a cost of approximately $20 million. I believe an expenditure of this amount on a relatively untested and experimental program without first taking significant steps to address the root causes of the problems confronting our children such as absentee parents, broken homes, and lack of discipline and respect for authority amounts to the kind of social engineering that is counter-productive to family preservation. I do not believe we should consider such a program until we first do everything we can to eliminate present societal disincentives to the maintenance of strong families.
Veto 4 Part I, Section 39, Human Affairs Commission, page 292, line 10, Other Operating Expenses - $174,227
I do not intend to eliminate the function supported by this line. The Human Affairs Commission recently notified the Budget and Control Board that their projected deficit will only be $25,000. They were allocated an additional $225,000 in their base budget to cover the agency deficit which was anticipated to be a recurring expense. Obviously, the agency no longer needs the additional money.
Furthermore, this sets a bad precedent as a back door way to increase an agency's budget. A base budget increase should be analyzed and broken down by the appropriate financial standing committees. By giving a general increase, there is no oversight as to how the agency is accounting for the increase. I will support transfer requests to the Budget and Control Board to help the Agency manage the reduction.
Veto 5 Part IB, Section 3.57, page 438, State Agency Mission and Goals
I am vetoing this proviso as it infringes upon the executive budget authority granted during the 1993 Legislative Session by making the agency missions submitted by the Governor subject to approval by the Legislature during the budget process. I regret that the performance-based budgeting system amendment to this Proviso was not adopted, as I would have supported that activity.
Veto 6 Part IB, Section 17E.12, pages 460-461, Museum Food Service
I am vetoing this Proviso at the request of the Budget and Control Board, Office of General Services with the consent of the State Museum. OGS has informed me that their efforts to secure a food vendor for this space have been unsuccessful and that the flexibility provided by this veto will allow income for the State.
Veto 7 Part IB, Section 17G.6, page 465, Compensation Increases Appropriated Funds Ratio
This Proviso establishes a dangerous precedent by using State Appropriations to fund increases in "Other Funds" positions. It is not equitable to provide Higher Education with a supplement for raises while denying the same to the other state agencies who would expect equal treatment in the future. Additionally, Higher Education entities received $57.6 million new dollars over the 93-94 base appropriation.
Veto 8 Part IB, Section 19.84, page 497, Other School Personnel Pay Increases
According to information received by my office, this proviso is inappropriate. The South Carolina Association of School Administrators, the Palmetto State Teachers Association, and the School Boards Association requested this veto. School districts already have the ability to accomplish what this proviso directs. The increase in EFA funds over the prior fiscal year can be used to help fund pay increases for those school personnel who are not receiving EIA salary supplements. EFA appropriations are used every year along with locally generated funds to meet the obligations of the school district. These obligations include the local share of raises for all teachers and the entire salary burden for teacher aides, secretarial, and maintenance staffs. This proviso does not mandate a different use nor in any way change the local authority of a school district.
Veto 9 Part IB, Section 44.1, page 545, Compensation Supplements
Duplication, replaced by Section 8, Part II.
Veto 10 Part IB, Section 44.2, page 545, Revenue Retained and Carry Forward
Duplication, replaced by Section 9, Part II.
Veto 11 Part 1B, Section 67.1, page 558-559, Procurement Review Panel Membership
Replaced by amendment to 11-35-4410(2) in Act 178 of 1993.
Veto 12 Part IB, Section 31.15, page 597, Department of Mental Health, School Based Counseling Services
This proviso is vetoed since it is the companion language to the money line item in Veto 7 as discussed above.
PART II PERMANENT PROVISOS
Veto 13 Part II, Section 2, pages 591-592, Constitutional Officers Compensation
As well-intentioned as it might be to "tie" the salary increase of constitutional officers with that of state employees, this proviso as written by the General Assembly is an unconstitutional enactment. Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that the salaries of constitutional officers "shall be prescribed by law and their compensation shall be neither increased nor diminished during the period for which they shall have been elected." The yearly two percent (2%) salary increase, as provided by this proviso, is not fixed rather it is contingent or conditional upon the occurrence of another event -- the enactment of at least a two percent salary increase for classified state employees in the same year. In the 1977 opinion of Attorney General Daniel McLeod, Opinion No. 77-342, the salaries of constitutional officers can be gradually increased during their terms of office provided "it is fixed and set prior to the commencement of the terms for such officers." 1976-77 Op Atty Gen, No. 77-342, p. 273. This legal conclusion is further supported by the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in State ex rel. McLeod v. Mills, 256 S.C. 21, 180 S.E.2d 638 (S.C. 1971).
Finally, this proviso also affords the potential for a conflict of interest for the state's executive officer. The executive officer, as well as the eight other constitutional officers, would receive a direct pecuniary benefit from signing into law or by allowing a state employee salary increase of two percent (2%) or more to become law without his signature. This quid pro quo could amount to a technical violation of the ethics laws, which sought to eliminate the practice of public officials monetarily benefiting from their official actions.
Veto 14 Part II, Section 89, page 699, Additional Federal Retirees
I am vetoing this proviso because it is duplicative of H. 4691, R. 599, which I intend to become law this same day. This should not be interpreted as opposition to the federal retirees refund but only administrative cleanup.
Veto 15 Part II, Section 95, page 700, Department of Archives and History
I am vetoing this proviso as it is duplicative of SECTION 4, of H. 4911, R. 620 relating to the issuance of capitol improvement bonds and will be signed into law this same day.
Veto 16 Part II, Section 114, page 711, Citizenship of the State Guard
This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
Veto 17 Part II, Section 126, page 723, Motor Vehicle Inspection Fee Increase
I am vetoing this proviso because of the concerns that I have regarding its inclusion in the Appropriations Bill. First, I do not believe that this proviso is germane. It mandates a $2.00 increase per vehicle inspection that does not follow through any state entity or the general fund. The net accomplishment of this proviso is an additional cost of approximately $5.4 million to the public.
Secondly, the matter of increasing the motor vehicle inspection fee was not thoroughly debated by the General Assembly; in fact, the S.C. House of Representatives voted to repeal the motor vehicle inspection laws altogether. I believe that a matter affecting 2.8 million vehicle owners should go through the appropriate legislative review rather than as a last-minute amendment to the Appropriations Bill.
Finally, this proviso, regardless of its name, is a "backdoor tax" on the citizens of this State.
A $2.00 increase in the fee does not solve the problems in this system. If I could, I would do one of two things: (1) abolish the entire inspection program; or (2) overhaul it by determining the real cost of conducting effective inspections and charging the appropriate fee.
Veto 18 Part II, Section 138, page 736, Definition of Life Guard
This proviso is not germane to the Appropriations Act.
For these reasons, I hereby veto these items.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. SHEHEEN moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
June 29, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 4822, R-611, the 1994 Supplemental Appropriation Act with my vetoes.
Actual revenues have far exceeded budget estimates and have resulted in surplus revenues as of the latest budget report. This fortuitous surplus revenue has provided the State with the opportunity to pay for many nonrecurring expenses and fund important state obligations such as higher education, the General Reserve Fund and aid to subdivisions.
In addition, this money will help with critical needs in the Departments of Corrections, Juvenile Justice, and Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services. I strongly support crime-fighting expenditures.
While it is a luxury to have supplemental funds, I feel that there have been some inappropriate allocations of this money. There is no compelling reason to spend it on programs of questionable merit and ill-defined purpose. For that reason, I have vetoed $16 million.
Veto 1. Section 2, item (4), Budget and Control Board-Employee Benefits Higher Education Other Funds Pay Increase-$8,248,122
This Proviso establishes a dangerous precedent by using state appropriations to fund pay increases for employees paid by "other funds" such as federal monies. It is not equitable to provide Higher Education with a supplement for raises while denying the same to other state agencies who would expect equal treatment in the future. I have noted and strongly support the fact that higher education entities this year received $57.6 million new dollars over the 93-94 base appropriation.
Veto 2. Section 2, item (13), Department of Forestry Fire Control Equipment-$4,600,000
This money was to be used to purchase 46 fire fighting units consisting of a truck, tractor, and plow with a unit cost of $100,000. I have been informed by the Forestry Commission via their Supplemental Budget request that the units will be allocated one per county. The preservation of our forest for recreation, conservation, and logging purposes is a vital interest of the State. My executive budget included a total allocation of $1.25 million for fire control equipment in recognition of the need for new equipment.
I am vetoing this provision because the allocation formula of one unit per county is clearly inefficient. An allocation of the units according to forested acres per county or similar criteria would seem to be a better use of the money. I would support the purchase of fire control units in the future with more efficient allocation guidelines.
Veto 3. Section 3, item (4), Clemson PSA Garrison Livestock Arena-$1,900,000
Although the livestock arena serves a worthwhile and important purpose, I am vetoing this appropriation. This capital expenditure may be more appropriately placed in the next Bond Bill.
Veto 4. Section 3, item (21), Budget and Control Board Office of Executive Director Public Service Partnership-$100,000
I am vetoing this appropriation because I believe there are other areas and programs in greater need of financial support. If this teacher exchange program is important to the betterment of higher education, the money can be obtained from the current budgets of the Budget and Control Board or higher education agencies.
Veto 5. Section 3, item (26), Department of Health and Human Services Other Medicaid Services-$445,000
This money was intended to provide additional reimbursement to the Federally Qualified Health Centers in excess of the Medicare Rural Health Clinic rate cap. In the past, these centers filled a gap in rural health care needs. However, with the advent of this state's movement toward a managed care system for Medicaid, the continued state support of these centers signals a reluctance to change. Furthermore, the Palmetto Health Initiative (our Medicaid managed care waiver) which is pending before the Department of Health and Human Services could be placed in jeopardy by appropriating these funds.
I am vetoing this appropriation in an effort to help continue the states move towards a more cost efficient and medically effective system of health care.
Veto 6. Section 3, item (29), DHEC-Coastal Council Developer's Handbook-$20,000
This expense could be absorbed by DHEC's current budget if the project is deserving. While this is not a great sum of money in light of the total budget, it is a good example of how state agencies must more actively attempt to control the rising cost of government.
Veto 7. Section 3, item (30), DHEC-Coastal Council Coastal Zone Management Plan-$20,000
I am vetoing this message for the same reason stated in Veto 6.
Veto 8. Section 3, item (32), John de la Howe Sewer Repairs-$425,000
This agency's original request was for only $50,000 to pay for an engineering study to upgrade the sewer system at the school. My executive budget allocated the full fifty thousand dollars for the study. Apparently, the additional money was to be used to pay for the upgrade itself; the cost of which has not been determined. I am vetoing this allocation because it is more sensible and cost effective to have the study done before additional money is allocated for the upgrade. This veto may require the school to pay for the study out of other money, but I would support reimbursement to the school for the study in next year's appropriations as well as the actual cost of the upgrade.
Veto 9. Section 3, item (40), University of Charleston Center for Entrepreneurship-$300,000
This $300,000 allocation is for the purchase of equipment. Item number (18) of Section 2 of this Bill appropriated $1,000,000 to the same program for infrastructure. I did not veto that item.
Veto 10. Section 3, item (41), Adjutant General Armory Maintenance-$200,000
Section 3, item (18) of this Bill appropriated $209,000 to Adjutant General for maintenance which I did not veto. I am vetoing this appropriation because I believe this money should be used in conjunction with the other vetoed money to more directly benefit the taxpayers of this State.
Veto 11. Section 3, item (43b), Department of Education Tugaloo Environmental Education-$150,000
Programs such as this one for at-risk children are worthwhile and I am supportive of their efforts. However, I am vetoing this item because it was added at the last minute of the budget debate. There ought to be some discussion and thought concerning these programs at the committee level, where a more deliberate and thorough approach can be taken.
I am vetoing this allocation because I believe there are other educational areas and programs that could better use such an appropriation.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. CARNELL moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
June 29, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4691, R-599, the 1992-93 Surplus General Fund Revenue Appropriations, with my vetoes. While I support many of the provisions and sections of this legislation, I do not support certain other sections that are either nongermane to the purposes of this legislation or otherwise inappropriate. The following sections are vetoed:
SECTION 2. Repeal of Section 12-47-447 of the 1976 Code. After discussing this provision with the Department of Revenue, I believe this provision should not be repealed since it was originally adopted to deal with future litigation in addition to the settlement of the federal retiree lawsuits.
SECTION 7. Retirement Incentive: This provision violates Art. III, Section 34, of the South Carolina Constitution because it is special legislation. I also believe it conflicts with the original intent of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993. Section 17P.6 of the 1993 Act was intended to encourage those individual receiving higher compensation to retire so that others being compensated at a lower rate could replace them, thereby creating considerable long-term savings for the State. This new section will neither create savings nor serve any worthwhile public purpose other than to unduly profit one individual.
SECTION 8. Retirement Incentive: I am vetoing this section which expands the purpose of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993 to those individuals who face certain unexpected "hardships." However, it fails to provide sufficient clarity to ensure a subjective application by individual agency heads is not used. Under current law, employees with health problems may apply for disability benefits, so this provision is unnecessary. To extend the same principle to individuals for other undefined "hardships" is contrary to the original intent of the 1993 provision and may result in unfair application.
SECTION 9. This section deletes paragraph 3.54 of Part I, Act 164 of 1993 Appropriations Act which in effect would have returned approximately $550,000 in carry forward money to the General Assembly. The anticipated 1993 revenue shortfall resulted in the shared sacrifices of each branch of state government, and I believe this should not be changed. I do not believe a return of these carry forward monies serves any purpose at this time.
For the reasons stated above, I am vetoing Section 2, 7, 8 and 9 of the 1992-93 Surplus General Fund Revenues and returning H. 4691, R-599 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. ROGERS moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
September 7, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4460, R-589, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 9-1-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PRIOR SERVICE CREDIT FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE CREDIT MAY BE ESTABLISHED FOR MATERNITY LEAVE AS PROVIDED BY LAW IF THE MEMBER APPLIED FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN TWO YEARS OF GOING ON MATERNITY LEAVE AND WAS REHIRED WITHIN TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LEAVE AND TO PROVIDE THAT MATERNITY LEAVE INCLUDES PATERNITY LEAVE, TO EXTEND THE ELECTION PERIOD FOR THE RETIREMENT INCENTIVE IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN STATEWIDE APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF INSURANCE SERVICES OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD THROUGH DECEMBER, 1995, TO WAIVE CERTAIN YEARS OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE-PAID HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR A RETIREE.
I am returning H. 4460, R-589 without my signature. I previously vetoed an identical provision in H. 4691, R-599, the 1992-93 Surplus General Fund Revenue Appropriations Act. This legislation is improper for several reasons.
The form of the legislation is improper because it is not a Supplemental Appropriations Bill. Additionally, Section 2 of this legislation violates Article III, Section 34, of the South Carolina Constitution because it is special legislation. I also believe it conflicts with the original intent of Section 17P.6, Part I, Act 164 of 1993. Section 17P.6 of the 1993 Act was intended to encourage those individuals receiving higher compensation to retire so that others being compensated at a lower rate could replace them, thereby creating considerable long-term cost savings for the State. This section was not designed for political appointees who, by electing the incentive, create no reduction in manpower and no cost savings. This new section serves no worthwhile public purpose other than to unduly profit one individual.
It is for these reasons that I return H. 4460, R-589 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. HUFF moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
September 14, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4142, R-582, an Act:
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 15 TO CHAPTER 25, TITLE 50, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR RESTRICTIONS, NO WAKE ZONES, PENALTIES, AND FINE DISBURSEMENTS FOR WATERCRAFT ON LAKE MURRAY.
I am returning H. 4142, R-582 without my signature. While all the parties interested in the legislation agree that measures need to be taken to curb excessive wakes and noise on the lake, the legislation, as drafted, does not provide with any specificity exactly what would constitute "disturbing, excessive and useless noises" making enforcement extremely difficult. The Department of Natural Resources agrees that this legislation would be extremely difficult to enforce and has requested a veto. It is my understanding that the department, the Bill's sponsors, and other parties are willing to meet to clarify the ambiguity and reintroduce this legislation next year. For these reasons, I believe vetoing this legislation is in the best interest of all those who live on and use Lake Murray.
It is for these reasons that I return H. 4142, R-582 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. ROGERS moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
September 22, 1994
The Honorable Robert J. Sheheen
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 4631, R-597, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXAMINATIONS TO PRACTICE PODIATRIC MEDICINE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO OFFER THEM TWICE ANNUALLY; TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-110, RELATING TO RECIPROCITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR LICENSURE RECIPROCITY, TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-130, RELATING TO RECORDING OF LICENSE WITH COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, SO AS TO DELETE THIS REQUIREMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-160, RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY THE BOARD, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO REQUIRE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS AND ACCESS TO RECORDS AND TO USE THEM IN PROCEEDINGS AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO THESE EXAMINATIONS AND ACCESS TO RECORDS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-70, RELATING TO REPORTS BY THE STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS CONCERNING DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST PHYSICIANS, SO AS TO REQUIRE SUCH REPORTS ON PODIATRISTS; TO REAUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF PODIATRY EXAMINERS FOR SIX YEARS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PODIATRY, ITS MEMBERS, TERMS, AND REMOVAL, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES FOR NOMINATING MEMBERS AND FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO A MEDICAL CONSULTANT AND A LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE BOARD TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF CURRENT BOARD TERMS, INTERIM GOVERNANCE OF THE BOARD; AND STAGGERED TERMS FOR NEW APPOINTEES; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTICIANRY FOR SIX YEARS.
I am returning H. 4631, R-597 without my signature. While all the parties interested in this legislation agree that South Carolina needs more practicing podiatrists, the legislation, as drafted, does not specifically serve this need. Rather, the Bill simply changes the process for appointment to the Board of Podiatry and erodes the appointment power of the Executive Branch. Although some problems have existed in the past, the present board should be given the chance to rectify past inconsistencies while continuing to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. I do not believe that simply changing the appointment authority for the Board will bring more qualified practicing podiatrists to our State.
Additionally, there is no need for the reauthorization of the Dentistry Board as contemplated by this legislation. On June 29, 1994, I signed into law a provision in H. 4820, the General Appropriations Act, (Part II, Section 117) which eliminated the automatic sunsetting of boards and commissions on a set schedule. An opinion of the Attorney General issued June 29, 1994 indicates that the adoption of Section 117 preempts the June 30, 1994 sunset deadline for the Dentistry Board since it was effective upon my signature on June 29, 1994. The State Reorganization Commission now has the authority to conduct agency reviews and determine which agencies shall be terminated. The Board's June 30th deadline no longer has any legal effect; therefore, the Board has been extended indefinitely until such time as the State Reorganization Commission might determine.
For these reasons, I believe vetoing this legislation is in the best interest of the citizens of our State. Therefore, I return H. 4631, R-597 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. KIRSH moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
January 10, 1995
The Honorable David H. Wilkins
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning H. 3385, R-568 without my approval.
Through the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. Section 1973gg, Congress has required all states to enact provisions that provide for voter registration opportunities by mail, through the driver licensing and renewal process, and through other state agencies that provide public assistance. The federal Act requires that these changes be implemented in South Carolina by January 1, 1995.
Yet, while the State Election Commission estimates that it will cost approximately $850,000 annually to implement this legislation in South Carolina, there is no reimbursement mechanism in the NVRA and Congress has appropriated no funding to assist the State in meeting these costs. The NVRA is yet another example of the unfunded federal mandates that have become increasingly common - and increasingly burdensome on the states - in recent years. For too long the federal government has freely passed the mandates and policy intrusions of an over-active government to the states without being forced to figure how to pay for its enthusiasm to govern. At some point, someone must say "enough." I choose to draw the line here, and therefore have vetoed this legislation.
I exercise my veto prerogative in this instance because I believe the manner in which the federal government has imposed this mandate on the states is unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court has stated that Congress may not commandeer the legislative process of the states by "directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n., 452 U.S. 264, 299 (1981). By compelling South Carolina and other states to enact legislation within the narrow latitude afforded by the National Voter Registration Act, I believe that Congress has commandeered the state legislative process in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Hodel, and subsequent Supreme Court holdings. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992). I recognize that the General Assembly has proposed this legislation, H. 3385, R-568, in order to bring South Carolina into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act. Because I believe that the NVRA is an unconstitutional exercise of federal power, however, I will not be swayed from my firmly-held conviction that, absent federal funding, this federal mandate will not be implemented in South Carolina.
In addition to my concerns over implementing a federally mandated program in South Carolina without any federal funds to support our efforts, I fear that H. 3385, R-568 may be rife with increased opportunities for election fraud in South Carolina. This legislation would create more than 500 additional voter registration sites in South Carolina. It would be difficult if not impossible to police or even to monitor registration activities at all of these additional locations. I would be more comfortable with this legislation if meaningful safeguards against voter fraud were incorporated into the multiple site registration provisions.
I firmly believe that access to the ballot box is a fundamental right of every American. I applaud the Palmetto Project's "Voter Van" and other efforts to increase voter registration among our citizenry. The ends, however, no matter how important, in this instance fail to justify the means. The manner in which Congress has directed its NVRA mandates to the states is unsound and violates the sovereignty reserved them under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Moreover, the unfunded federal mandates of the National Voter Registration Act are inconsistent with responsive and accountable government at the federal level. Those who presume to make policy should also fund policy. Unfunded federal mandates such as the NVRA are an abdication of federal responsibilities inherent in our federal system. Sixty years ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis saw the states as "laboratories of democracy," tools, through experimentation and innovation, for advancing the quality of our democracy and furthering our progress as a people. The rampant unfunded mandates of an unbridled federal government threaten the role of the states in our federal system. Balance must be restored. My objections on this point are heartfelt, and I will not, absent federal funding, be a party to the implementation of this federal mandate in South Carolina.
As I have stated, I wholeheartedly support efforts to increase voter registration among our citizenry. In order to make the voter registration process as simple as possible, and more accessible to the public, I have issued today an Executive Order which directs the State Election Commission to promulgate a simple election registration form, with a post paid return envelope, which can be completed and returned by mail to the State Election Commission. These forms will be made available for public distribution statewide, at offices of the Department of Revenue, driver licensing offices of the Division of Motor Vehicles, and facilities of the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Once completed forms are returned to the State Election Commission, the registration information will be verified for accuracy and forwarded to the appropriate county Board of Voter Registration, which will then enter the information on the voter registration rolls. I believe that this is a reasonable and fiscally sound effort to increase voter registration in South Carolina. I believe that it will significantly increase voter registration. Without federal funding for the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, it is as much as I am willing to do.
For these reasons I return H. 3385, R-568 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. CHAMBLEE moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
January 10, 1995
The Honorable David H. Wilkins
Speaker of the House
State House
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 5146, R-628, an Act:
TO AUTHORIZE THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CHARGE MATRICULATION AND OTHER INCIDENTAL FEES; AND TO AMEND ACT 340 OF 1967, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN VACANCIES ARE FILLED.
While this Bill may bring the appointment procedures for the Charleston County School Board into compliance with general state law, it does not address some important underlying issues upon which the legislation was initially introduced.
First, the Act does not resolve the constitutional questions regarding malapportionment of representation within the Charleston County Legislative Delegation. Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution both imply that members of a delegation should represent an equal number of people from the represented area. However, the members of the Charleston County School Board are elected by legislators who do not reside inside the County, and who represent grossly unequal numbers of constituents. Therefore, the Board's representation may violate the well settled "one man-one vote" rule of both the South Carolina Constitution and the United States Constitution.
Second, the Act does not address the issue of whether or not the judicial branch may enjoin an appointment by the executive branch, as was done by Circuit Court order in the case of Fowler v. Campbell. The separation of powers doctrine in Article 1, Section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution appears to preclude this action. However, no clear authority exists to resolve this question. The Bill's enactment will render the lawsuit which sparked this Act moot. As a result, no chance will exist for the judiciary to resolve the separation of powers question. Since the litigation could aid in resolving these questions, I have been advised by counsel not to sign this legislation at this time.
Finally, I understand that the recommendation of Richard L. Mock remains a point of contention among the members of the Charleston County Legislative Delegation. The amendment to change the manner in which vacancies are filled was attached to the legislation during the waning moments of the legislative session with little time for substantive debate. It is merely a good faith effort to temporarily resolve an issue that more realistically requires more meticulous and open review. I believe that this issue will be best resolved through thoughtful debate amongst the members of the Charleston County Legislative Delegation. A veto of this legislation will allow all of the members of the delegation the opportunity to fully participate in a resolution of this dispute.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am vetoing H. 5146, R-628.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. KINON moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
January 11, 1995
The Honorable David H. Wilkins
Speaker of the House
South Carolina House of Representatives
State House, Second Floor, North Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my signature H. 4414, R-588, the "Schoolhouse Safety Alliance Act of 1994."
This legislation forms several plans, teams, groups, committees and workshops to study the juvenile crime problem in South Carolina. Layer upon layer of new bureaucracies are created, each studying what the other is doing and reporting to each other or some previously established bureaucratic entity. For example, instead of using the John De La Howe and Wil Lou Gray Schools to establish alternative sentencing programs as I called for in the State of the State Address, this Bill creates yet another advisory committee to meet, study and report about alternative sentencing. Finally, most of the committees required to be established by this legislation are not funded in this Bill, and I continue to oppose unfunded mandates at all levels of government.
The time for study has passed. The time for action is now. Young people need to know that they will be punished for carrying guns to school, not that a committee will meet to study the event. Perhaps more importantly, the General Assembly needs to continue to attack the root cause of juvenile crime -- the breakup of families. So I ask that the 1995 General Assembly consider a new, tough juvenile crime package, with measures such as mandatory boot camps for youths who bring guns to school and expansion of the Wil Lou Gray and John De La Howe facilities for alternative sentencing. Additionally, I encourage continuation of efforts to revise our tax structure, providing more tax incentives for families raising young children, giving parents the financial freedom to devote more time to their children. Finally, we should pay for the programs we put into place. Let us join together in taking realistic, concrete steps to build up families and make our public schools a safer place for our children to learn, grow, and develop the qualities and skills that will allow them to succeed us as leaders of the State of South Carolina.
It is for these reasons that I return H. 4414, R-588, without my signature.
Sincerely,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Rep. SHARPE moved to adjourn debate upon the veto until Tuesday, January 17, which was adopted.
The following was received.
January 4, 1995
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the "advice and consent of the General Assembly," and is, therefore submitted for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor
Initial Appointment, Member, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence September 17, 1993, and to expire June 30, 1995:
At-Large:
Ms. Adriene B. Wright, 18 Kenlauren Avenue, Greenville, S.C. 29607
The SPEAKER ordered the appointment confirmation referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The following were received.
Document No. 1712
Promulgated By Department of Education
School Improvement Councils and The Annual School and District Improvement Reports (Repealed in its Entirety) District and School Comprehensive Planning (Replaces)
Referred to House Committee on Education and Public Works
120 Day Review Expiration Date January 30, 1995
Withdrawn and Resubmitted January 10, 1995
Document No. 1713
Promulgated By Department of Education
Parent-Oriented Education Programs (Repealed in its Entirety) Parent/Family Literacy Programs (Replaces)
Referred to House Committee on Education and Public Works
120 Day Review Expiration Date January 30, 1995
Withdrawn and Resubmitted January 10, 1995
On motion of Rep. WALKER, with unanimous consent, the following was taken up for immediate consideration:
H. 3227 -- Reps. Baxley, Walker, Fleming, Cobb-Hunter, Allison, J. Harris, Shissias, Quinn, Wells, R. Smith, Wright, Sheheen, Wilder, Gamble, Cromer and Harrison: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995, AS "DISABILITIES DAY"; TO ENDORSE THE "B.A.C.-COFFEE DAY FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES" PROJECT AND OTHER OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS OF LIFE ABILITIES - THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A JOINT SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1995, AT WHICH TIME THE STATE LIFE ABILITIES REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR PARENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Whereas, Life Abilities - The Easter Seal Society of South Carolina has again embarked upon its most worthwhile project to raise funds for citizens with disabilities, culminating in the forty-third annual "B.A.C.-Coffee Day for Children and Adults with Disabilities" in South Carolina on Good Friday, April 14, 1995; and
Whereas, under the statewide leadership of Lynn B. Bagnal, State Easter Seal Chairwoman, ably assisted by Rick Johnson, State President and John L. Caudle II, Executive Director of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers Association, Thomas L. Sponseller, Executive Director and Skip Condon, State President of the South Carolina Restaurant Association, this program is destined to raise thousands of dollars to aid our very deserving children and adults and assist them in overcoming their disabilities; and
Whereas, the "B.A.C." buttons go on sale Wednesday, March 22, 1995; and
Whereas, the "B.A.C." project and all other programs of Easter Seals deserve the support, merit, and praise of all citizens of the State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That Wednesday, March 22, 1995, is designated "Children and Adults with Disabilities Day" in South Carolina and that Robert Clay Smith, son of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith of Darlington County; Amy King, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Javan King of Spartanburg County; Brittany Ann Carter, daughter of Regina Carter of Georgetown County; Angela and Amber Gail Lowe, mother and daughter, of Anderson County; Luther and Mary Ellen Gower, husband and wife, of Richland County; and Christopher Lawrence, son of Judy Lawrence of Pickens County, who have been chosen to serve as State Easter Seal Representatives, be presented to the General Assembly in a joint session in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, March 22, 1995.
Be it further resolved that the General Assembly extends to Easter Seals and its many dedicated supporters its sincere wishes for continued success in its many constructive and compassionate programs on behalf of persons with disabilities.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Joseph D. Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer of Easter Seals, for distribution to the state chairmen of the various phases of the Easter Seal campaign and the "B.A.C." project and to the state Easter Seal Representatives.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 342 -- Senators Courson, Giese, Patterson and Jackson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR CAPTAIN DAVID NEWTON DENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RICHLAND COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICER, ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The Reading Clerk read the following House Resolution:
H. 3180 -- Rep. Wilkins: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO SET THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1995, AT 10:15 A.M. AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE HOUSE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.
The SPEAKER announced that nominations were in order for a member of the House Operations and Management Committee.
The following name was placed in nomination: Rep. COBB-HUNTER
On motion of Rep. FELDER, nominations were closed, and with unanimous consent, the vote was taken by acclamation, resulting in the election of the nominee.
Whereupon, the SPEAKER announced that Rep. COBB-HUNTER was duly elected for the term prescribed by law.
The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 3237 -- Reps. Jennings and Baxley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 14-1-215, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RETIRED JUDGES OR JUSTICES BEING ASSIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PRESIDE IN CERTAIN COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO FURTHER SCREENING OF ANY JUDGE, RATHER THAN JUST JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS BEING ASSIGNED TO SIT ON SUCH COURTS, IS REQUIRED UNTIL THE TERM OF THAT JUDGE WOULD HAVE EXPIRED IF HE RETIRED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF HIS THEN CURRENT TERM.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3238 -- Judiciary Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 24-3-435 SO AS TO ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO USE INMATES TO PERFORM CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES; BY ADDING SECTION 24-13-100 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS A PRISONER MUST MEET TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR WORK RELEASE; BY ADDING SECTION 24-13-150 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS A PRISONER MUST MEET TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR EARLY RELEASE; BY ADDING SECTION 24-13-175 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SENTENCES IMPOSED AND TIME SERVED BE COMPUTED BASED UPON A THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE DAY YEAR; BY ADDING SECTION 24-21-560 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PERSON WHO COMMITS A CRIME SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM BEFORE HIS RELEASE FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OF AN INMATE'S PROJECTED RELEASE DATE, AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION TO NOTIFY VICTIMS AND THE LOCAL SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF THE PLACE WHERE THE INMATE IS TO BE RELEASED WHEN HE IS PLACED IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-30-10 AND 1-30-85, RELATING TO DEPARTMENTS RESTRUCTURED WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PARDON, AND PAROLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPECTIVELY; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SEPARATE SENTENCING PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SENTENCE SHOULD BE DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF MURDER, SO AS TO REVISE THE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT THAT MAY BE IMPOSED DURING THIS PROCEEDING; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-625, RELATING TO RESISTING ARREST WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, SO AS TO REVISE THE AGE OF A PERSON WHO MAY BE CHARGED WITH THE CRIME, REVISE THE PENALTY, AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "DEADLY WEAPON"; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1180, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF CRIME VICTIMS, SO AS TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM AWARD A CRIME VICTIM MAY RECEIVE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1260, RELATING TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE STATE BY A CONVICTED PERSON FOR PAYMENT FROM THE VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS' RIGHT TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE DEBT OR A PORTION OF THE DEBT A CONDITION OF PAROLE, TO SUBSTITUTE "STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM ASSISTANCE" FOR "VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND" AND TO SUBSTITUTE "SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS"; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1530, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES", TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DISCLOSE BETWEEN THE TWO DEPARTMENTS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO VICTIMS AND WITNESSES, AND TO ELIMINATE RESTITUTION AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1550, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR THE "PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD"; TO AMEND SECTION 16-11-311, RELATING TO BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, SO AS TO ELIMINATE PAROLE FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME; TO AMEND SECTION 17-25-45, RELATING TO A SOLICITOR'S DISCRETION TO INVOKE A LIFE SENTENCE UPON A PERSON CONVICTED THREE TIMES FOR CERTAIN CRIMES, SO AS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO TWO BEFORE A LIFE SENTENCE MAY BE IMPOSED, EXCEPT FOR A CRIME FOR WHICH A SENTENCE OF DEATH HAS BEEN IMPOSED, TO DEFINE "LIFE IMPRISONMENT", AND REQUIRE THE SOLICITOR TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF HIS DECISIONS TO INVOKE SENTENCING UNDER THIS PROVISION BEFORE TRIAL; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A PRISONER'S PLACE OF CONFINEMENT, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY" FOR "STATE PENITENTIARY"; TO ALLOW AN INMATE'S SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH A SENTENCE RENDERED IN ANOTHER STATE OR A SENTENCE RENDERED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO NOTIFY THE SOLICITOR, SHERIFF, JUDGE, AND REGISTERED VICTIMS BEFORE RELEASING INMATES ON WORK RELEASE, TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO DENY WORK RELEASE BASED ON OPINIONS RECEIVED FROM THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND TO ALLOW INMATES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RESTITUTION PROGRAM; TO AMEND SECTION 24-3-410, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SALE OF PRISON-MADE PRODUCTS, SO AS TO ADD THE TERM "COMMUNITY SUPERVISION"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REDUCTION OF A SENTENCE FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR, SO AS TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING GOOD BEHAVIOR CREDITS, TO ELIMINATE AN INMATE'S ABILITY TO HAVE SERVED A FULL SENTENCE WHEN HE HAS SERVED THE TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS SENTENCED, LESS CREDIT FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CREDITS EARNED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO PREVENT FULL PARTICIPATION IN A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM; TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REDUCTION OF A SENTENCE FOR PARTICIPATION IN AN ACADEMIC, TECHNICAL, OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM, SO AS TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING ACADEMIC AND WORK CREDITS, TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL CREDIT FOR BOTH WORK CREDIT AND ACADEMIC CREDIT, TO NOT ALLOW A REDUCTION IN SENTENCE BELOW CERTAIN MINIMUMS, AND TO PROVIDE NO CREDIT EARNED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE APPLIED TO PREVENT FULL PARTICIPATION IN A COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM; TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-1320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SHOCK INCARCERATION SELECTION COMMITTEE, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "COMMISSIONER" AND SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-1330, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AN INMATE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, SO AS TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURE AN INMATE IS CONSIDERED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, TO SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "COMMISSIONER", TO ELIMINATE PAROLE FOR INMATES WHO COMPLETE THE SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM, BUT REQUIRE THEM TO BE RELEASED TO COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND TO PAY RESTITUTION IF APPLICABLE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-1520, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER "HOME DETENTION ACT", SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-13-1590, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROVISION THAT PROBATION AND PAROLE AUTHORITY IS NOT DIMINISHED BY ANY PROVISION OF THE "HOME DETENTION ACT", SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES", AND TO NOT DIMINISH THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, OR THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TO REGULATE OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; TO AMEND SECTION 24-19-160, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS THAT THE COURTS' POWERS AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON BOARD ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION'S TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES" AND TO ELIMINATE THE PROVISION THAT MAKES FOR PAROLE PURPOSES A SENTENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-19-5, SIX YEARS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES AND THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES" AND SUBSTITUTE "BOARD OF PARDONS" FOR "BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-13, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR AND BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DIRECTOR TO DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURE TO PLACE AND SUPERVISE OFFENDERS ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, TO DEFINE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND AN INMATE'S RIGHT TO BE PLACED IN THIS PROGRAM, AND TO LIMIT THE CASES THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-30, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES MEETINGS, SO AS TO ELIMINATE GRANTING PAROLE TO INMATES WHO COMMIT A CRIME AFTER JUNE 30, 1996, AND TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING PAROLES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-50, RELATING TO HEARINGS, ARGUMENTS, AND APPEARANCES BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO LIMIT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ONLY HEARINGS FOR PAROLE OR PARDONS AND NOT TO ALLOW AN INMATE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION DURING THESE HEARINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC AGENCY AND OFFICIALS COOPERATING WITH THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT SURVEYS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SUPERVISION FEES PAID BY PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES, SO AS TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION IN THE PROGRAMS COVERED BY SUPERVISION FEES, TO GRANT THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE SUPERVISION FEES, TO MAKE PAYMENT OF A SUPERVISION FEE A CONDITION OF PROBATION, PAROLE, OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT" FOR "BOARD" AND "COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAM" FOR "SUPERVISED FURLOUGH PROGRAM", AND TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS FOR WHICH A PERSON MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM PAYING SUPERVISION FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AMONG THE PROGRAMS HE MUST EMPLOY STAFF TO CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND EXAMINING OF PROBATION AGENTS AND CLERICAL ASSISTANTS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TRAINING AND EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN AGENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-280, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF PROBATION AGENTS, SO AS TO REQUIRE PROBATION AGENTS TO PROVIDE PERSONS RELEASED ON PAROLE OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE TERMS OF THEIR RELEASE AND MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH AND ENCOURAGE THOSE IN COMMUNITY SUPERVISION TO IMPROVE THEIR CONDUCT AND CONDITION, AND TO MAKE PROBATION AGENTS OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND THE BOARD OF PARDONS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-300, RELATING TO THE ISSUING OF A CITATION AND AFFIDAVIT THAT A PERSON RELEASED PURSUANT TO THE PRISON OVERCROWDING ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS TERMS OF RELEASE, SO AS TO ALLOW PROBATION AGENTS TO ISSUE CITATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS TO COMMUNITY SUPERVISION RELEASEES, TO SUBSTITUTE "OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ACT" FOR "PRISON OVERCROWDING POWERS ACT", AND TO ALLOW A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TO BE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERVICE THAT A CITATION HAS BEEN SERVED; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-910, RELATING TO THE DUTY OF THE PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES BOARD WITH RESPECT TO REPRIEVES OR COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCES, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "BOARD OF PARDONS" FOR "PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES BOARD"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-950, RELATING TO GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR PARDONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A CRIME VICTIM OR A MEMBER OF A CONVICTED PERSON'S FAMILY TO PETITION FOR A PARDON FOR A PERSON WHO HAS COMPLETED COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OR HAS BEEN DISCHARGED FROM A SENTENCE AND TO ALLOW PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM A SENTENCE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF SUPERVISION BE CONSIDERED FOR A PARDON UPON THE REQUEST OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANYTIME AFTER DISCHARGE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-20, RELATING TO THE CASE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL REVISIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-30, RELATING TO THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PLAN, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "SUPERVISED PRISONERS" FOR "PAROLEES", TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PLAN, SUBSTITUTE "STATE PROBATION AGENTS" FOR "STATE PROBATION AND PAROLE AGENTS", AND TO SUBSTITUTE "COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "PAROLE"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PLAN, SO AS TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION RELEASEES AMONG INDIVIDUALS OBTAINING TREATMENT UNDER THE PLAN AND TO ELIMINATE THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH AND SPECIAL STUDIES ON THE ISSUE OF PAROLE OUTCOMES BY THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-115, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES"; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF SUPERVISION OF A PROBATIONER UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICE, SO AS TO ELIMINATE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD A PROBATIONER OR SUPERVISED PRISONER MUST WAIT AFTER SATISFACTORILY COMPLETING THE CONDITIONS OF HIS PROBATION OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR TERMINATION OF SUPERVISION; TO AMEND SECTION 24-23-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISION FROM RELEASE FROM PRISON, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION" FOR "DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES", AND TO SUBSTITUTE "TREASURER" FOR "TREASURY"; TO REPEAL SECTION 24-1-200, RELATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION'S ABILITY TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE'S SENTENCES, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INMATES ARE CONFINED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLEMENCY; SECTION 24-13-60, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT CLERKS OF COURT MUST NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS CONVICTED EACH TERM; SECTION 24-13-270, RELATING TO THE PREMATURE RELEASE OF PRISONERS; SECTION 24-13-610, RELATING TO THE EXTENDED WORK RELEASE PROGRAM; SECTION 24-13-620, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXTENDED WORK RELEASE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS; SECTION 24-13-630, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REGARDING THE EXTENDED WORK RELEASE PROGRAM; SECTION 24-13-710, RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SUPERVISED FURLOUGH PROGRAM; AND SECTION 24-13-720, RELATING TO INMATES WHO MAY BE PLACED IN A SUPERVISED FURLOUGH PROGRAM; TO DIRECT THE CODE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE REVISIONS TO THE CODE; AND TO SAVE PENDING MATTERS.
Without reference.
H. 3239 -- Reps. Anderson, McMahand and Breeland: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-35-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS OF TRUSTEES PROVIDING FOR KINDERGARTENS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96, THE FIVE-YEAR-OLD KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM IN EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT MUST BE A FULL-DAY PROGRAM WITH AT LEAST THE SAME HOURS OF OPERATION AS HAVE THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 3240 -- Reps. Richardson, McKay and Harvin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-234 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THERE MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE APPRAISED VALUE OF AMENITIES OWED BY A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE IMPUTED VALUE OF ACCESS TO THE AMENITIES INCLUDED IN THE APPRAISED VALUE OF EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT.
Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H. 3241 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1705, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXECUTION OF CONSENTS AND RELINQUISHMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTION, SO AS TO ADD A JUDGE ADVOCATE AS A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO WITNESS THE CONSENT OR RELINQUISHMENT.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3242 -- Reps. Anderson, McMahand and Breeland: A JOINT RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO RECOMMEND TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT WILL ENCOURAGE A GREATER NUMBER OF INSURANCE COMPANIES TO OPERATE IN THIS STATE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO FOSTER BROAD-BASED COMPETITION IN THE MARKET PLACE AND RESULT IN REDUCED PREMIUMS FOR THE STATE'S CONSUMERS.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
H. 3243 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 29-6-35 SO AS TO PERMIT A SUBCONTRACTOR TO RECLAIM CERTAIN MATERIALS EVEN IF A MECHANIC'S LIEN OR ANY OTHER LIEN HAS BEEN FILED WITH RESPECT TO THE REAL PROPERTY, AND PROVIDE THAT ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT, UPON REQUEST OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR, SHALL RENDER ASSISTANCE IN THE RECOVERY OF SUCH MATERIALS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 29-6-60, RELATING TO THE INSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6, TITLE 29 (PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND SUPPLIERS) DO NOT APPLY.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3244 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS, BY ADDING CHAPTER 6 SO AS TO ENACT THE "UNIFORM PREMARITAL AGREEMENT ACT".
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3245 -- Rep. McElveen: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, BY ADDING SECTION 15 TO ARTICLE XVII SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIED PROCEDURE FOR THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE PETITION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3246 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 2-1-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CANDIDATES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR TERMS OF OFFICE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE MAY NOT SERVE MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE TWO-YEAR TERMS IN OFFICE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-65 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE SENATE MAY NOT SERVE MORE THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS IN OFFICE.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3247 -- Rep. Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-3-610, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 7-13-611, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BALLOT SPECIFICATIONS AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF PRIMARY BALLOTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT ON WHICH AN ELECTOR MAY VOTE IN THE PRIMARY OF THE ELECTOR'S CHOICE IN EACH OFFICE TO BE FILLED.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3248 -- Rep. Davenport: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS, BY ADDING SECTION 4 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES FILLED BY A VOTE OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENACT IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3249 -- Rep. Davenport: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN OFFICERS, BY ADDING SECTION 4, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES FILLED BY A VOTE OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS AND TO REQUIRE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENACT IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3250 -- Rep. Davenport: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-33-117 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE FEDERAL AGENCY REQUIRING IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THIS STATE AND DEFINE TERMS.
Referred to Committee on Education and Public Works.
H. 3251 -- Rep. McElveen: A BILL TO ENACT THE "RESPONSIBLE PARENTING ACT OF 1995" BY ADDING SECTION 43-5-67, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO REQUIRE PARENTS RECEIVING AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC) TO BE COUNSELED ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARENTHOOD AND ON CONTROLLING FAMILY SIZE; TO PROHIBIT AN INCREASE IN AFDC BENEFITS BECAUSE OF AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN A FAMILY; TO PROVIDE THAT A FAMILY THAT DISCONTINUES RECEIVING AFDC MAY NOT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CHILDREN IN ITS FAMILY SIZE WHEN REAPPLYING FOR BENEFITS UNLESS THE FAMILY DID NOT RECEIVE AFDC FOR TWENTY-FOUR OR MORE MONTHS; TO PROVIDE THAT A CHILD NOT INCLUDED IN THE FAMILY SIZE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FAMILY RECEIVING AFDC MAY RECEIVE MEDICAID IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE; AND TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER IF NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACT.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3252 -- Reps. L. Whipper, McMahand, Moody-Lawrence, Williams, Lloyd, J. Brown, Breeland, Beatty, Byrd and Inabinett: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1080 SO AS TO MAKE IT A CRIME FOR AN OWNER OF A DWELLING UNIT TO INSTALL A SECURITY MEASURE WHICH WOULD HINDER THE EXIT OF A PERSON FROM THE UNIT IN CASE OF A FIRE AND REQUIRE AN OWNER OF A DWELLING UNIT TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO ALL EXITS OF THE DWELLING UNIT OR BUILDING IN WHICH THE UNIT IS LOCATED AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Allison Anderson Askins Bailey Baxley Beatty Boan Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cain Canty Carnell Cato Cave Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Davenport Delleney Easterday Fair Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Harvin Haskins Herdklotz Hines Hodges Howard Huff Hutson Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Marchbanks Martin Mason McAbee McCraw McElveen McKay McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Quinn Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Rogers Sandifer Scott Sharpe Sheheen Shissias Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Thomas Townsend Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkins Williams Witherspoon Wofford Worley Young, A. Young, J.
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, January 12.
James N. Law Curtis B. Inabinett Timothy C. Wilkes John W. Tucker, Jr. David A. Wright B. Hicks Harwell
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Rep. SEITHEL a leave of absence for the day due to illness.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. INABINETT a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
Announcement was made that Dr. Ned Nicholson of Edgefield is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
The following was introduced:
H. 3253 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 8.7 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO A MOTION TO RECESS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SPEAKER, UNLESS A MEMBER OBJECTS, TO ORDER THE HOUSE TO STAND AT EASE TO BE RECONVENED AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That Rule 8.7 of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read:
"8.7 A motion to recess may state the time for reconvening and in the absence of such time stated, reconvening shall be at the call of the Chair. The Speaker may at anytime, unless a member objects, order the House to stand at ease to be reconvened at the call of the Chair."
Rep. HUFF explained the House Resolution.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 3254 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 8.11 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH MOTIONS ARE DECIDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY, SO AS TO DELETE THE MOTION TO TAKE UP ANY MATTERS IN THE ORDERS OF THE DAY NOT REGULARLY REACHED.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That Rule 8.11 a. of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read:
"a. The following motions shall must be decided by simple majority unless otherwise specified and without debate after such any short remarks as the Speaker may permit permits:
to adjourn;
to take a recess;
to continue;
to commit or recommit;
to lay on the table;
for the previous question;
to take up any matters in the orders of the day not regularly reached;
to proceed to the orders of the day;
to postpone indefinitely, or to a day beyond the session;
to adjourn a debate;
to recur to the morning hour;
to fix the hour to which the House shall next meet;"
Rep. HUFF explained the House Resolution.
The Resolution was adopted.
Rep. HUFF, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a favorable report, on:
H. 3048 -- Reps. Cromer, Simrill, Wilder, Keyserling, Tucker, Kirsh and Shissias: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS RULES BY ADDING RULE 10.10 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEETINGS OF A LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2-17-10(11), CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, MAY NOT BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PURSUANT TO SECTION 30-4-60.
The following House Resolution was taken up for immediate consideration.
H. 3048 -- Reps. Cromer, Simrill, Wilder, Keyserling, Tucker, Kirsh and Shissias: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO MISCELLANEOUS RULES BY ADDING RULE 10.10 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEETINGS OF A LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2-17-10(11), CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, MAY NOT BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PURSUANT TO SECTION 30-4-60.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That Rule 10 of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amending by adding:
"10.10 Meetings of a legislative caucus as defined in Section 2-17-10(11), Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, may not be closed to the public and must be open to the public pursuant to Section 30-4-60."
Rep. HUFF explained the House Resolution.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 3255 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 8.6 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR INVOKING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ON A MATTER.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That Rule 8.6 of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read:
"8.6 The previous question upon any matter may be invoked as follows:
a. Immediate cloture. Upon an affirmative vote on a motion for the previous question (fifty percent of those present and voting, a quorum being present, plus five, being required to interrupt debate and a simple majority vote at all other times), the amendments then upon the desk shall be considered, but no further amendments shall be allowed to be offered unless the amendment has at least two-thirds of the membership of the House as its sponsor. The sponsor of an amendment shall be allowed an opportunity to make a short explanation of his amendment for a period not to exceed three minutes, then opponents to the amendment shall be permitted not more than three minutes to oppose the proposed amendment. Then two hours of debate shall be allowed on the bill as and if amended, the time being equally divided between opponents and proponents with no person to speak more than ten minutes.
Provided, any member who has been recognized by the Speaker and is speaking from the podium, is considered to be debating the issue and a call for the previous question, whether by the member or any other member, requires the necessary fifty percent of those present and voting plus five.
b. Delayed cloture. Upon an affirmative vote upon a motion for the previous question to take effect in two hours (fifty percent of those present and voting, a quorum being present, plus five, being required to interrupt debate, and a simple majority vote at all other times), the previous question will be invoked to take effect two hours from the time such affirmative vote is made, provided that such two-hour period may not be extended and may not be shortened if five (5) members object. After the previous question is in effect pursuant to this subsection, consideration of amendments and further debate shall proceed in the same manner and under the same limitations as those set forth in subsection (a) of this rule, including that no further amendments shall be allowed to be offered unless the amendment has at least two-thirds of the membership of the House as its sponsor.
Provided, further, that during the two-hour period immediately preceding delayed cloture, but after the vote for same, all actions otherwise possible, including putting amendments on the desk, may be accomplished."
Rep. HUFF explained the House Resolution.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 3256 -- Rules Committee: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 3.11 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO ALLOCATION OF OFFICE SPACE FOR THE MEMBERS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE MANNER IN WHICH OFFICE SPACE IS ALLOCATED.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That Rule 3.11 of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read:
"3.11 As soon as practicable, after the House has been organized, office space of members shall must be allotted as follows:
The Clerk shall prepare a ballot for each county with only its name printed thereon. Ballots shall be placed in a closed box and the Speaker shall then direct a person or persons to draw them out one by one. After each ballot is drawn, the members from that county shall select their office space Each member shall choose an office in the Blatt Building on the basis of their seniority in the House in accordance with the county in which the member resides based on a floor plan prepared by the House Operations and Management Committee with the consent of the Speaker. In the event a member's district consists of more than one county or parts of more than one county, or represents a county with only one district, the member concerned may select office space with or adjoining the delegation the member desires provided the member indicates his preference to the House Operations and Management Committee prior to balloting and, providing that space in the area selected by a particular county is available, provided, however, in order to contain the cost of office relocation, a A member who has served in the immediately preceding session shall have first preference on retention of his previously assigned office. This preference must be stated before ballots for offices are drawn. If such reelected member does not express a preference for his old office, he must ballot by county for his office in the manner above specified. The House Operations and Management Committee is authorized to make necessary adjustments in the assignment of office space with the consent of the Speaker when available space cannot be reasonably adjusted to conform with the county selections made pursuant to this subsection.
The provisions of this rule shall do not apply to office space for the Speaker, Speaker Pro Tempore, Chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman of the Invitations and Memorial Resolutions Committee, Chairman of the Interstate Cooperation Committee and Chairmen of any other standing study committees or any other caucus having assigned space in the Blatt Building."
Rep. HUFF explained the House Resolution.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
H. 3217 -- Reps. Neilson, Hines and Baxley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-210, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN DARLINGTON COUNTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE PHILADELPHIA PRECINCT AND REVISE THE MAP DOCUMENT NUMBER ON WHICH SUCH PRECINCTS ARE SHOWN.
H. 3218 -- Rep. Askins: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE FORMER BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A DISSOLVED NONPROFIT CORPORATION OR ELEEMOSYNARY ORGANIZATION LOCATED IN FLORENCE COUNTY TO DISTRIBUTE THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE ORGANIZATION; AND TO DELAY THE EFFECTIVE DATE BY TWO YEARS FOR CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.
H. 3214 -- Rep. D. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-47-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES AT THE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, SO AS TO INCLUDE HARD OF HEARING AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS.
On motion of Rep. ASKINS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3218 be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. D. SMITH, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 3214 be read the third time tomorrow.
Rep. SHARPE moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.
At 11:30 A.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. FLEMING adjourned in memory of Michael and Alex Smith, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:49 P.M.