| Printed Page 1560, Mar. 21 | Printed Page 1580, Mar. 26 |

H. 4780 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, STATE CROP PEST COMMISSION, RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF PLANT PESTS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1889, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

The following Joint Resolution was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.

S. 627 -- Education Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO FACILITY SPECIFICATIONS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1765, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

At 10:20 A.M. the House in accordance with the ruling of the SPEAKER adjourned to meet at 12:00 Noon, Tuesday, March 26.

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The House assembled at 12:00 Noon.

Deliberations were opened with prayer by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the Rev. Dr. Alton C. Clark as follows:

Almighty God, be with us in such a full measure that we can stand tall in the knowledge that we are children of the Heavenly Father. We are grateful for the wonderful way You have made us. Grant to us the unimpaired use of all the powers with which You have endowed us. Deliver us from foolish worry, from envy which fails to count life's blessings and from jealousy which scars the personality. Save us from regrets that cannot be altered. Give us the ability to accept the inevitable. And so cleansed of selfishness and from sin, may our lives bring joy to others and contentment to ourselves.

We lift our prayer to a holy and righteous God. 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 Friday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.

Rep. ANDERSON moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Annie E. Harris of Greenville, which was agreed to.

TO: The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM: F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: March 26, 1996

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator John R. Russell
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Representative William Douglas Smith
Representative L. Hunter Limbaugh

Date Draft Report Issued: Friday, March 22, 1996
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Tuesday, March 26, 1996 --

12:00 Noon

Judicial Candidates are not free to seek or accept commitment until March 26, 1996, at 12:00 Noon.

The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Joint Committee has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found all of the candidates qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Joint Committee's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine evaluative criteria.

The Joint Committee conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Joint Committee's investigation focuses on nine evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria are: integrity and impartiality; legal knowledge and ability; professional experience; judicial temperament; diligence and industry; mental and physical capabilities; financial responsibilities; public service; and ethics. The Joint Committee's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) study of appellate record;
(10) investigation of complaints.

The Joint Committee expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Beth Atwater at 734-4851.

This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Court of Appeals.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Clary was screened on March 20, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Clary's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Clary has been an adjunct professor of Business Law at Limestone College with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law. He has also been a Moderator/Panelist for the Circuit Judges Forum at the South Carolina Defense Attorneys Annual Meeting in 1994.

The Joint Committee found Judge Clary to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

(3) Professional Experience:

Judge Clary graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974 and was admitted to the Bar in 1975.

From 1974 to 1975, Judge Clary was Minority Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to Senator Strom Thurmond. He was an adjunct professor of Business Law at Limestone College from 1976 to 1986. He had a private practice as an associate of J.P. Askins from 1975 to 1976. This practice included administrative law, workers compensation, insurance, public utility, hospital and health care, corporate, real estate law and civil and criminal trials. He was a sole practitioner from 1976 to 1980, a partner in the firm of Hall, Daniel, Winter, & Clary from 1980 to 1991, and a sole practitioner from 1991 to 1992. Judge Clary was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1992.

Judge Clary described his practice before being elected Circuit Court Judge as 65% civil, 5% criminal, and 30% domestic.

Judge Clary provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) State vs. Tanner - (Williamsburg County) Court of General Sessions.

(b) Thomas vs. Bryson Chevrolet Olds, Inc. (80-CP-11-82).

(c) Sossamon Construction Company vs. General Signal, a Division of BIF Corporation, (81-CP-11-304) JR, 15,472.

(d) Hambright vs. Peeler, (82-CP-11-68) JR, 810.

(e) Newton vs. Clement Brothers, (84-CP-11-84).

Judge Clary handled the following civil appeals:

(b) In re: Zaman, 329 S.E.2d 436, 285 S.C. 345 (Sup. Ct. 1985).

(c) National Health Corporation d/b/a National Health Care Center of Charleston vs. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, North Charleston Convalescent Center, Inc. and Cadam Corporation d/b/a/ Southeastern Geriatric and Rehabilitation Hospital, (S.C. Ct. App. not reported) (87-CP-40-4387). Settled prior to final hearing.

Judge Clary considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:

(a) The State vs. Johnny Babe Ray, Jr., (90-GS-42-3918).

(b) The State vs. Wade Parris, 96-MO-035 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed January 26, 1996).

(c) Adams, et al. vs. Texfi Industries, et al., Op. No. 24340 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 6, 1995) (1994, S.C. App.) 443 S.E.2d 913, Reh. Den. (June 16, 1994).

(d) Justice vs. BMG Distribution, Inc., et al., Op. No. 24235.

(e) Lentczner vs. Winthrop University, (93-CP-46-426).

The Joint Committee determined that Judge Clary had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication. He has also served with distinction as a Circuit Court Judge in South Carolina.

(4) Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Clary's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.

(5) Diligence and Industry:

Judge Clary was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.

Judge Clary is married and has two children.

(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Clary appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Clary has managed his financial affairs responsibly.

(8) Public Service:

Judge Clary served in the U.S. Air Force Reserve from 1968 to 1969. He received an Honorable Discharge.

Judge Clary is active in professional activities.

(9) Ethics:

Judge Clary testified that he has not:

(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;

(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or

(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Judge Clary testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

Judge Clary testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

10) Miscellaneous:

Judge Clary meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Clary qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Clary "has markedly broad experience in the law from his seventeen (17) years of private practice in administrative law, worker's compensation law, insurance law, public utility law, hospital and health care law, corporate law, real estate law, and civil and criminal litigation. He has been an adjunct professor of business and commercial law at Limestone College for ten (10) consecutive years. Furthermore, he has had significant experience in the judicial system by having served as Circuit Court Judge, At-Large Seat #5, since 1992. Judge Clary is highly respected by the vast majority of Bar members contacted for his impartiality, judicial temperament, legal skills, promptness, and industry in his work as Circuit Court Judge. He is viewed as an individual of exemplary character and integrity. By the overwhelming majority of those surveyed, Judge Clary was felt to possess outstanding

Judge Clary was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. The candidate's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of Judge Clary's public hearing. The Committee has included these responses soley for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.

Joint Committee's Finding:Qualified

Judge Gray was screened on March 20, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:

(1) Integrity and Impartiality:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct. The input the Joint Committee received from its own survey and the report of the Bar was that Judge Gray's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Gray demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, the acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality.

Judge Gray reported that he was named as a defendant in Jerry Screen v. Cassandra Green et al., 92-CP-06-96. The case was about a minor's claim in a structured settlement. Judge Gray stated that he represented one of the parties to the structured settlement.

(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:

Judge Gray has lectured at the New Family Court Judges Orientation on "Handling Pro Se Litigation" in July 1995.

The Joint Committee found Judge Gray to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Gray was graduated from South Carolina State University Law School in 1963 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Since his graduation from law school, Judge Gray practiced with Ernest A. Finney before he was drafted in 1963, part-time from 1965 to 1971, full-time until Justice Finney's election to the bench, and then with associates until July 1992.

Judge Gray described his practice before being elected Family Court Judge as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic.

Judge Gray provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:

(a) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Case tried in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Cite not available.

(b) State vs. Freeman Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ___S.E. ___(___).

(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Services Authority, 284 S.C. 397, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___S.E.2d ___(___).

(e) American Bankers vs. L.C. Frederick, Op. No. 2030, at trial level.

Judge Gray has handled the following civil appeals:

(a) S.C. Insurance Co. vs. White, 301 S.C. 133, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(b) Suburban Propane Gas Company vs. DesChamps, 298 S.C. 230, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(c) S.R. Barton et al. vs. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Court of Appeals.

(d) Joseph Johnson vs. Henderson, 279 S.C. 132, ___, ___S.E.2d___(___).
(e) Elijah Montgomery vs. Social Security Administration, U.S. District Court.

Judge Gray has handled the following criminal appeals:

(a) In re Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, ___S.E.2d___(___).

(b) State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, ____S.E.___(___).

Judge Gray considers the following to be his most significant orders or opinions:

(a) Patricia Ann Freeman vs. Ashby O. Freeman, Docket No. 92-DR-08-2717, Op. No. 95-UP-222 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995).

(b) Norman Henslee vs. Victoria S. Henslee, Docket No. 93-DR-08-1449.

| Printed Page 1560, Mar. 21 | Printed Page 1580, Mar. 26 |