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.
Since June of 1995, the Joint Committee has implemented some changes to its screening format. The Joint Committee has asked candidates offering for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Circuit Court their views on constitutional interpretation and sentencing philosophy. These questions were asked in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes. These questions should not suggest that the Joint Committee believes that there are right or wrong answers to those questions. The Joint Committee has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office they are seeking. The Joint Committee has attempted to ask each candidate offering for the Court of Appeals for his experience in the areas of criminal, civil, and domestic law since those are the cases that would generally be heard by members of this court. The Joint Committee feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the court for which they offer. In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Joint Committee has placed candidates in one of three categories: failed to meet expectations, met expectations, or exceeded expectations. The Joint Committee feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
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.
While the law provides that the Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.
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.
Judge Clary 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.
(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:
(a) Roper Hospital vs. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, 410 S.E.2d 558, 306 S.C. 138 (1991).
(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.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
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 judicial characteristics which reflect well upon the people of South Carolina and the bar of this State."
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.
(3) Professional Experience:
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.
(c) Franklin H. Shaefer vs. Stephanie Ann Shaefer, Docket No. 93-DR-10-8988.
(d) Susan Newman vs. John Lee Newman, Docket No. 93-DR-43-2139.
(e) Susan L. Jessen vs. Eric C. Jessen, Docket No. 93-DR-1924, Op. No. 95-MO-183 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995).
In response to a request of the Joint Committee, Judge Gray provided the following additional professional experience as indicative of his trial practice prior to his service as a Family Court Judge:
(a) Barton v. Department. This case involved a condemnation action by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(b) State v. Poinsett. A criminal action challenging the legality of service of a warrant on a Sunday.
(c) Finney & Gray vs. S.C. Public Service. Condemnation action.
(d) Johnson v. Henderson. Negligence case in which an auto struck a child riding a moped. The case was appealed on the basis of an incorrect verdict being entered. The Supreme Court reversed.
(e) American Bankers vs. Frederick. Agency case wherein the Plaintiff alleged that the agent caused loss of business because of his actions.
The Joint Committee determined that Judge Gray 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 Family Court Judge in South Carolina.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Gray's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Gray 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 Gray is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Gray appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Gray has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Gray served in the U.S. Army from 1962 to 1965. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Gray is active in professional activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Gray 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 Gray testified that he is aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Gray 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 Gray meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Gray qualified for service on the Court of Appeals. The Bar reported that Judge Gray has "an excellent work ethic and reputation for diligence which has apparently served well in control of his docket and timely issuance of orders. He is respected for his fairness, ability to recognize issues, and evenhanded disposition of matters before him. Judge Gray is of unquestioned character and integrity. Members of the Bar interviewed were unanimous that he is fair and not influenced by litigants or counsel. In general, he is well thought of by attorneys who have appeared before him."
Judge Gray was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. The candidate's actual response to each of these questions is included in Judge Gray's transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Judge Gray 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 Gray'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 Howard 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 Howard's character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.
Judge Howard 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.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Howard has taught numerous CLE courses, new judge classes, and conferences for the S.C. Defense Attorneys' Association.
The Joint Committee found Judge Howard to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Howard graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Howard had a general practice including civil defense, criminal defense, domestic law, plaintiff tort, workers' comp, real estate, trust and will preparation from 1973 to 1988. Further and while in private practice, Judge Howard had an extensive appellate practice. Judge Howard was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1988.
Judge Howard was appointed as an acting judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in August 1994 and served until June 1995.
Judge Howard provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant orders or opinions which he listed as follows:
(a) State v. Susan Smith, June 1995. Order proscribing publication of mental competency report.
(b) In re the Estate and Last Will and Testament, John D. Muller, Jr. The Evangelical Lutheran Charities Society of Charleston, South Carolina vs. South Carolina National Bank as Trustee of the Charitable Testamentary Trust Created Under the Last Will and Testament of John D. Muller, Jr., 91-CP-10-2766, January 3, 1995.
(c) W.O Thomas, Jr., et al. vs. Cooper River Park and Playground Commission, et al., 93-CP-10-1647, November 17, 1995; Order after Petition for Reconsideration, December 16, 1994.
(d) John and Lorna Osborne, Eric Staton, and L.E. Spence vs. Glen P. Carver, Claude Surface, C&S Properties of Beaufort, Inc. and Standard Federal Savings & Loan Association, 87-CP-07-1491.
(e) Charles M. Condon, as Solicitor, Ninth Judicial Circuit vs. All that certain lot, et al., 91-CP-10-1410.
Judge Howard listed civil and criminal appellate opinions he has handled as follows:
(a) Southern Contracting vs. H.C. Bryon Const., ___S.C.___, 450 S.E.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1994).
(b) Jefferies vs. Phillips, ___S.C.___, 451 S.E.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1994).
(c) Wright vs. Marlboro County School District, ___S.C.___, 452 S.E.2d 12 (Ct. App. 1994).
(d) Sanders vs. Emery, ___S.C.___, 452 S.E. 2d 636 (Ct. App. 1994).
(e) Pearson vs. Church of God, Op. No. 2336 (Ct. App. 1995).
Judge Howard provided the following criminal appeals he has authored:
(a) State vs. Guess, Op. No. 2332 (Ct. App. 1995).
(b) City of Columbia vs. Moore, Op. No. ___ (Ct. App. 1995).
(c) State vs. Sammie Brown, Op. No. 2338 (Ct. App. 1995).
(d) State vs. Brownlee, Op. No. 2313 (Ct. App. 1995).
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Howard's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Howard 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 Howard is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Howard appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7) Financial Responsibility:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Howard has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Howard was a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves from September to December 1973. He was honorably discharged.
Judge Howard has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Howard 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 Howard testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Howard 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 Howard meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Howard qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Howard "has significant experience in the judicial system having served as Circuit Court Judge since July 12, 1988, for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. He also was appointed as Acting Judge for the Court of Appeals from August 1994 until June 1995. He is respected by an overwhelming majority of members of the Bar contacted for impartiality, judicial temperament, legal skills, promptness, and industry in his work as Circuit Court Judge. He is an individual of impeccable character and integrity. He received excellent ratings for his courtroom demeanor and temperament. The overwhelming majority of those contacted felt that Judge Howard has brought credit to the Circuit Court Bench and the Court of Appeals through his professional behavior in the courtroom, and has demonstrated through his personal demeanor and behavior the type of attributes which represent fairness and equality to the people of South Carolina and the Bar of this state."
Judge Howard 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 Howard'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.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/Rep. L. Hunter Limbaugh
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
On motion of Rep. DELLENEY, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.
MEMORANDUM TO: Clerk of the Senate
Clerk of the House
RE: Transcript of Hearings
In compliance with the provisions of Act 119 of 1975, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene C. Stoddard
Chairman
Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, the Committee to Screen Candidates for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities was convened to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking to fill certain positions on boards of trustees of the state's colleges and universities. The committee conducts such investigation of each candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. The purpose of the committee is instead to determine whether a candidate is qualified and under the statute, the committee's determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly. The candidates are:
The Citadel - Two seats (at-large)
Col. Leonard C. Fulghum, Jr. (Charleston)
J. Palmer Gaillard, III (Charleston)
Douglas A. Snyder (Columbia)
Xavier Starkes (Columbia)
Clemson University - Three seats (at-large)
T. Moffatt Burriss (Eastover)
Joel W. Collins, Jr. (Columbia)
Louis B. Lynn (Columbia)
Davis T. Moorhead (Pendleton)
Howard N. Rawl (Gilbert)
Virginia C. Skelton (Clemson)
William C. Smith, Jr. (Columbia)
Allen P. Wood (Florence)
College of Charleston - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
lst District, Seat 2
Cherry Daniel (Charleston)
John B. Williams (Moncks Corner)
2nd District, Seat 4
Joel H. Smith (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
J. Philip Bell (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Merl F. Code (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
J. Vincent Price, Jr. (Gaffney)
6th District, Seat 12
Marie M. Land (Manning)
At-large, Seat 14
Timothy N. Dangerfield (Aiken)
Francis Marion University - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
J. Michael Murphree (Summerville)
2nd District, Seat 4
Gail Richardson (Barnwell)
3rd District, Seat 6
William A. Collins (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Alex Kiriakides, III (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
Lorraine H. Knight (Hartsville)
6th District, Seat 12
William W. Coleman, Jr. (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
M. Russell Holliday, Jr. (Galivants Ferry)
Lander University - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
Nancy J. Cash (Charleston)
2nd District, Seat 4
George R. Starnes (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
Jean T. McFerrin (Aiken)
4th District, Seat 8
C. Tyrone Gilmore (Spartanburg)
5th District, Seat 10
S. Anne Walker (Columbia)
6th District, Seat 12
Walter D. Smith (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
Ann B. Bowen (Greenwood)
Glenas Deloris Green (Greenwood)
Medical University of S.C. - Six seats (Congressional districts - three from medical and three non-medical professions)
Medical
4th District
Dr. Charles B. Thomas, Jr. (Simpsonville)
5th District
Dr. Cotesworth P. Fishburne, Jr. (Rock Hill)
6th District
Dr. E. Conyers O'Bryan (Florence)
Non-medical
1st District
Melvyn Berlinsky (Charleston)
2nd District
H. Donald McElveen (Columbia)
3rd District
Jack F. McIntosh (Anderson)
Fred Moore (Honea Path)
South Carolina State University - Two seats (at-large)
At-large, Seat 11
John Williams, Jr. (Orangeburg)
At-large, Seat 12
Walter L. Salters (Orangeburg)
Johnnie M. Smith (Greenville)
University of South Carolina - Eight seats (Judicial circuits)
2nd Circuit
Patrick D. Cunning (Aiken)
Miles Loadholt (Barnwell)
4th Circuit
J. DuPre Miller (Bennettsville)
6th Circuit
James Bradley (Lancaster)
8th Circuit
Herbert C. Adams (Laurens)
10th Circuit
Brian A. Comer (Anderson)
Robert N. McLellan (Seneca)
14th Circuit
Helen C. Harvey (Beaufort)
15th Circuit
M. Wayne Stanton (Conway)
16th Circuit
Samuel R. Foster, II (Rock Hill)
Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School - Four seats (at-large)
Dr. Marvin Efron (Cayce)
Wilhelmina McBride (Columbia)
Mary F. "Frankie" Newman (West Cola)
Suzanne Turner Reynolds (Gaffney)
Olive Wilson (Williamston)
Winthrop University - Two seats (at-large)
Jane C. Shuler (Orangeburg)
Walter H. Smith (Columbia)
David A. White (Rock Hill)
The proceedings taken at Room 433, Blatt Building, Columbia, South Carolina, on the 6th day of March, 1996 before Rita L. Creel, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of South Carolina.
Representative Eugene C. Stoddard, Chairman
422B Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Senator Addison "Joe" G. Wilson, Vice Chairman
211 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Senator Warren K. Giese
512 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Senator James E. Bryan, Jr.
501 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Senator Maggie W. Glover
613 Gressette Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Representative Curtis B. Inabinett
328D Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Representative Lanny F. Littlejohn
402B Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Representative Jennings G. McAbee
522C Blatt Building
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
ALSO PRESENT:
Ms. Paulette Geiger, Secretary
The Citadel - Two seats (at-large)
Col. Leonard C. Fulghum, Jr. (Charleston)
J. Palmer Gaillard, III (Charleston)
Douglas A. Snyder (Columbia)
Xavier Starkes (Columbia)
Clemson University - Three seats (at-large)
T. Moffatt Burriss (Eastover)
Joel W. Collins, Jr. (Columbia)
Louis B. Lynn (Columbia)
Davis T. Moorhead (Pendleton)
Howard N. Rawl (Gilbert)
Virginia C. Skelton (Clemson)
William C. Smith, Jr. (Columbia)
Allen P. Wood (Florence)
College of Charleston - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
lst District, Seat 2
Cherry Daniel (Charleston)
John B. Williams (Moncks Corner)
2nd District, Seat 4
Joel H. Smith (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
J. Philip Bell (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Merl F. Code (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
J. Vincent Price, Jr. (Gaffney)
6th District, Seat 12
Marie M. Land (Manning)
At-large, Seat 14
Timothy N. Dangerfield (Aiken)
Francis Marion University - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
J. Michael Murphree (Summerville)
2nd District, Seat 4
Gail Richardson (Barnwell)
3rd District, Seat 6
William A. Collins (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Alex Kiriakides, III (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
Lorraine H. Knight (Hartsville)
6th District, Seat 12
William W. Coleman, Jr. (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
M. Russell Holliday, Jr. (Galivants Ferry)
South Carolina State University - Two seats (at-large)
At-large, Seat 11
John Williams, Jr. (Orangeburg)
At-large, Seat 12
Walter L. Salters (Orangeburg)
Johnnie M. Smith (Greenville)
THE CHAIRMAN: The meeting is called to order. We appreciate the attendance of all of you this morning. We certainly appreciate and on the behalf of the General Assembly appreciate the job that those of you who are incumbents are doing; and those of you who desire to run, we certainly appreciate your attitude. It's kind of hard this day and time to find people who will come forward and serve for no pay or no salary. We have with us this morning on the end, Representative Littlejohn; Representative Inabinett; myself, Gene Stoddard. The other members will be coming in. They have several conflicts this morning. In the interest of time, we're going to proceed. We have our recorder, Ms. Rita Creel, here with us. Mr. Inabinett.
MR. INABINETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that all members present who are incumbents and are unopposed be excused at this time.
MR. LITTLEJOHN: I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is made by Mr. Inabinett and seconded by Mr. Littlejohn that we exempt the screening for all those unopposed. All in favor, say aye; opposed, no. The ayes have it. Those of you who are unopposed, you may feel free to leave if you desire, or you may stay. We appreciate your attendance.
THE FLOOR: Sometimes we don't know whether we are opposed or not.
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll read those for you. College of Charleston - Joel H. Smith, J. Philip Bell, Merl F. Code, J. Vincent Price, Marie M. Land, Timothy N. Dangerfield. Francis Marion University - J. Michael Murphree, Gail Richardson, William A. Collins, Alex Kiriakides, Lorraine H. Knight, William W. Coleman, M. Russell Holliday. South Carolina State University - John Williams. I might add for the record that the SLED reports and Highway Department reports were all good on those or we certainly would have held them and questioned them further. First on the agenda, we have the Citadel, two seats at-large, four candidates. Our first candidate is Col. Fulghum. Could you take the stand, please, Colonel?
COL. LEONARD C. FULGHUM, JR. - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Colonel, do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do, sir.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: None that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions of the Colonel? No question, Colonel. Thank you, sir.
A: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Next we have J. Palmer Gaillard, III.
J. PALMER GAILLARD, III - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Gaillard, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Gaillard, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Gaillard? We now have Senator Joe Wilson with us. Thank you, sir, for coming. The members might note that you have a statement from the candidates in your file. Next, our candidate is Mr. Snyder.
DOUGLAS A. SNYDER - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Snyder, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you for coming, sir. Our next candidate is ...
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: I'd like to note that on the past two, that both had statements which were presented to us, and that's why there were no questions, because they've answered so many of the questions by their very eloquent statements.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator. And those statements will be entered into the record. Our next candidate is Mr. Starkes.
XAVIER STARKES - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, sir. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir, I do not.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you for coming, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Starkes on his statement, also, which is now attached. The persons who filed for The Citadel each had very eloquent statements of interest in their very fine institution.
A: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: That completes The Citadel slate. We move now to Clemson University. I might add that as we have finished with you, you may leave if you desire, or you may stay. Clemson University. Our first candidate is Mr. Burriss.
T. MOFFATT BURRISS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Burriss. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Mr. Burriss, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Burriss?
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that if there are any institutions which have enthusiastic supporters, it would be The Citadel and Clemson, and in particular, Mr. Burriss who is widely remembered as a former member of the Richland Delegation who in the height of the football season, attended a joint legislative dinner of Richland and Lexington legislators with the President of the University at his home in an orange jacket.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that his orange ran even deeper than a jacket.
A: It does, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Burriss. Our next candidate is Mr. Collins.
JOEL W. COLLINS, JR. - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Collins, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you, Mr. Collins.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We now have Senator Bryan to join us. Next, we have Mr. Lynn. Senator, we're in the middle of the Clemson University candidates.
LOUIS B. LYNN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, Mr. Lynn. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Lynn, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Lynn?
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Littlejohn.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: I'd just like to emphasize Mr. Lynn, how he brought out Clemson on his resume. I love Clemson. It's a good point.
A: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Next we have Mr. Moorhead.
DAVIS T. MOORHEAD - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Moorhead, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do so swear.
Q: Mr. Moorhead, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: I would.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: None, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: I do not.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you, Mr. ...
A: I have a brief statement, sir, if I may, about a hundred and twenty seconds. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about my desire to serve my university once more. I've served Clemson University for over forty years and over twenty years in elected positions in the alumni volunteer organization. I've served as a member of the alumni national council, vice president and president of the alumni, and I've served my Clemson, and I just seek one more opportunity to do so. Also, the thing that you do not have before in the data submitted before the Committee, my wife and I have left $100,000.00 to Clemson University in our wills to provide for unrestricted scholarships, and fifty percent of that money will be for minority scholarships.
THE CHAIRMAN: That's mighty decent of you, sir. Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you, sir.
A: Thanks to the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: You might note that Mr. Moorhead did not have a statement with his resume. Next on the list is Mr. Rawl.
HOWARD N. RAWL - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Rawl. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, I would.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir, I don't.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? We have your statement, Mr. Rawl. Thank you.
A: Thank you.
SENATOR WILSON: A very fine statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
SENATOR BRYAN: Which part did you like the most, the part about being from Lexington County?
SENATOR WILSON: I think the reference to being a resident of Gilbert is very important.
THE CHAIRMAN: Next on our agenda is Ms. Skelton.
VIRGINIA C. SKELTON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Ms. Skelton. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ms. Skelton, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: I do not.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, I would.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No.
Q: Any questions of the lady? Thank you, ma'am. We now have Senator Giese with us. Our next candidate will be Mr. Smith.
WILLIAM C. SMITH, JR. - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Smith. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Mr. Smith, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you, sir.
A: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we have Mr. Wood.
ALLEN P. WOOD - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Wood. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: I would, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Mr. Wood, how long have you served on the Board?
A: Eight years, Senator.
Q: Could you tell me what you feel the largest accomplishments are that have been made since your service on the Board?
A: I think the number one accomplishment during my service on the Board has been the major restructuring of Clemson University. It was restructured from nine colleges to five. And in that, we were able to turn or send to the academic side of the university, the teaching side, about $2.4 million. Clemson University, to my knowledge, is the only University in the United States that has been able to restructure their university or their college in that dramatic a fashion. I think that's the major accomplishment. The second one is that Clemson University had never made, or never had a capital campaign in the history of the university. We had one, the goal was some $70 million. The university, through its alumni and its constituent groups, raised $102 million in a capital campaign. That really gave the university and its family a lot of confidence in its ability to help itself. I think those are the two major accomplishments during my service of eight years.
Q: And how is the Board structured, is that committees dealing with different aspects of the university or does it just serve as one large committee?
A: No, sir. Clemson University, for many, many years, has been a little unique in its committee structure in that we've had an audit committee of the board for some six or seven years that is a little unique, is a trend that is occurring in other universities now. We have five standing committees; student affairs, business and finance, academic affairs, institutional advancement, and agricultural and natural resources. I am currently serving as chairman of agricultural and natural resources. I also serve as vice chair of the audit committee, and vice chairman of the board.
Q: Vice chairman of the board?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When were you elected to that?
A: I think it was in January ... it was in January of this year. It's a two year term.
Q: And what are your special duties as vice chair? I know you serve when the chair isn't there, but is there anything special that you do?
A: In actuality, no, sir. It's in case the chairman cannot be in attendance, and I'm called upon on occasion to attend functions when the chairman cannot be there, and I'm encouraged, in addition to the regular committee meetings and the regular board meetings, to attend as many Clemson functions as possible, statewide, to show the support of the board for the ongoing activities of the university.
Q: Let me congratulate you for being elected vice chairman. It must have been a productive eight years. Thank you.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, gentlemen? Thank you, Mr. Wood.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: That completes the Clemson candidates. As with the Citadel candidates, you may leave or you may honor us with your continued presence. Next, we have the College of Charleston, the 1st District, Seat 2. First we have Dr. Daniel.
CHERRY DANIEL - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Dr. Daniel, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir, I do not.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the Doctor? Thank you, ma'am.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Mr. Williams.
JOHN B. WILLIAMS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Mr. Williams, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the our former colleague?
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: I'd just like to say that we appreciate Jack coming back and running for this.
A: Thank you, Mr. Littlejohn. It's always a pleasure to see old friends again. Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is South Carolina State University, at-large, seat 12, Mr. Salters.
WALTER L. SALTERS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, sir. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do, sir.
Q: Mr. Salters, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: None to my knowledge, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: I would, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman?
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Just a very quick look. Could you tell us what you've done in the last ten years of your life?
A: Served for twenty-six years, up until May of 1994, I served on the faculty of South Carolina State University in the capacity of professor of biology.
Q: And you're retired and enjoying it?
A: Well, it's one of the best jobs I've ever had.
Q: Very good.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, gentlemen? Thank you, sir. Our next candidate is Johnnie M. Smith.
JOHNNIE M. SMITH - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Smith. Do you swear that the following testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Smith, do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the Constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Smith?
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Mr. Smith, that's a very impressive list of things you do on the side. What is your full time job?
A: The ministry. I'm a pastor. And my church feels that we should get out in the community. And we serve by serving. But I am a pastor.
Q: You certainly have served. Thank you.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, gentlemen? Thank you, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Senator Wilson.
SENATOR WILSON: I am familiar with Mr. Smith, and we're delighted to have you offer your candidacy in this particular position. We are fortunate to have good people to offer for this Board.
A: Thank you, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: Very fine institution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Smith. That completes ...
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
SENATOR WILSON: Inquiry as to persons ... it has come to my attention that some persons sent a letter of intent and that it was received or whatever after the filing period. How many persons were involved in that? What's the status?
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if they came after the cutoff time, which was noon, I believe, on Thursday, it would be, of course, too late. We had one who was just a little over twenty-four hours. We had others which were a little bit later than that, not to any great degree. There is no ... if they're late, they're late. It's just like filing, I guess, for a seat in public office.
SENATOR WILSON: Do we have ... from my experience of many years on this ...
THE CHAIRMAN: If we had no candidate, of course we'd have had to have kept it open. But since there was a candidate for that position, there's nothing we can do but end it.
SENATOR WILSON: Is there any procedure that it could be waived for good cause? And again, I know you've made every effort, and I appreciate all that you've done to notify people. But if there's good cause, as we've seen today, we've gotten so many qualified people to file, because it's just pure dedication that anybody would want to serve on such a board with the time that's required. But if there's a good cause, is there some way that we could waive the filing deadline for those who have sent ... and possibly invite the persons who have sent letters and asked ... and review at our next meeting what the circumstances were. And of course, to give notice to any of their prospective opponents, too. And when I say opponents, competition. So that everybody has notice of what's going on.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, it's really gratifying to see so many qualified people offer, but, sir, it is indeed sad that those did not get the message for some reason and did not file timely. Under the law, I see no way of entertaining them at this time. It is closed ...
SENATOR WILSON: Would it be in order for me to move that we invite the persons who sent letters of intent to hear as to why, if they have good cause, as to why they were unable to file timely for the purpose of considering a waiver of that filing period? I'd like to so move ...
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I second it.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR BRYAN: Before I make a comment, could I ask a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
SENATOR BRYAN: This is the first time I've done this. Do we not have the ones who don't have competition, they don't come before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: They've already come ...
SENATOR WILSON: They were excused.
THE CHAIRMAN: We always excuse those who have no opposition, if their SLED report is good.
SENATOR BRYAN: So the same questions you asked, weren't asked of them, that you asked the others?
THE CHAIRMAN: No questions are asked of those. The law allows us to exempt screening for those who have no opposition.
SENATOR BRYAN: But we have their SLED reports that we can review?
THE CHAIRMAN: Correct.
SENATOR BRYAN: Going back to the other subject. As a forgetful, neglectful person, as I am, I have complete sympathy for a person who files late and forgets to do something on time. The only problem I have with that is, someone has filed for that seat, it's my understanding. And if someone has filed for the seat, I think there's an element of fairness to that person, if someone filed after the deadline, opening it up and letting someone run against someone who did take the time to file. Then you've got another issue, too. If you open that one up for someone who wants to file, what is your deadline, is it twenty-four hours, is it forty-eight hours, is it six days, seven day, ten days; what is your standard if you open it up? Then are you not obligated to open all the rest of them up? And like I said, that sounds like something that I would do, that's why I'm sympathetic to a degree. But I worry about what will happen if we open it up in some form or fashion, what is the precedent going to be there, when is the deadline going to be, and how does it affect the rest of these races. Someone told me that the person who signed up only signed up because the other person had not filed. Well, if that was the person's feelings, then possibly they would withdraw. If they withdrew, it would be vacant and then we could open it up without setting a precedent.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm proposing, just the letters of intent you received, not wide open. Because there does have to be a deadline. But people in good faith can not receive notice or know the final deadline.
SENATOR BRYAN: But, Mr. Chairman, what about those that may be out there that did not send it in because they realized, quote, yesterday was the last day or today's the last day, I can't get it in? And I think what you do is create a gray area there that is going to come back to haunt us and create problems in the future in the system. And that's what concerns me. I don't know, is the ...
THE CHAIRMAN: We have turned down so many who called too late. Like I say, this has caused me more concern than anything that's happened to me since I've been chairman of this committee; and it's sad, especially with the individual you're speaking of being so qualified and meaning so much to the institution. But, you know, if we're not going to go by the law, the cutoff date, what are we going to go by?
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman, what is the law? Is there any statute?
THE CHAIRMAN: The statute says that we shall set a period for filing. And of course when that ends, why we quit receiving the applications. And this particular one came in a little over twenty-four hours after it ended.
SENATOR BRYAN: Was it mailed?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, it was delivered in person, by someone else.
SENATOR WILSON: But I believe we could waive for cause. That's my position. In a very positive way, and not to open it up to everything, but to those who filed a letter of intent. And I don't know how many those are, is it three?
SENATOR BRYAN: Is this Seat 11 that we're talking about, John Williams, Jr.? Is he here?
THE CHAIRMAN: Is Mr. Williams here?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am.
THE CHAIRMAN: The only avenue I see we have is if the candidate who fills the slot now ...
SENATOR BRYAN: If he wanted to withdraw, it's open. We can open it up.
THE CHAIRMAN: If he withdrew, is the only way that I see that we could open it back up.
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the ... do people fax these things in to you?
THE CHAIRMAN: We have had faxes, yes, but they've followed up in letters, you know.
SENATOR GIESE: And typically it comes by letter?
THE CHAIRMAN: Typically through the mail.
SENATOR GIESE: What was the date that ... was it a Monday that they were due, or was it a Friday that they were due?
THE CHAIRMAN: Thursday at noon.
SENATOR GIESE: Thursday at noon. So, there wasn't any possibility of something over the weekend that ...
THE CHAIRMAN: It was hand delivered, not by post. It was hand delivered shortly after noon on Friday.
SENATOR GIESE: Was there any conversation with somebody about why it was late? I know I've been overseas sometimes and get back two weeks. Things have accumulated and you end up being late on some. Were any details given?
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe they said they were out of town.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman, this fellow that ran late with his application, why did he bring it personally instead of ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I'll tell you exactly what happened. We never contact candidates because that would be unfair. I mean, it's not our jobs, you know, to get out there and contact incumbents or candidates. But now, a fax was sent to their legislative liaison at State University on the day that filing commenced. Is that correct?
MS. GEIGER: February 2nd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Two days later, I believe, a letter was written containing the same information to the president of the institution. So, I felt like we had made ... plus the advertisement in the paper. Certainly we had done everything that we could humanly do, other than call all the incumbents and say, "Now, it's time for you to file and run," which I don't think is our job. Senator Bryan.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is accurate, but someone had told me that Mr. Williams, I assume, had filed only because he thought the other person was not going to, only after he heard the other person was not going to run. And if he has no objection to answering the question, I'd just like to ask him that; is that his position? If he wants to withdraw, that would settle this problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Williams, would you mind taking the stand for a minute, please, sir?
MR. WILLIAMS: Not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Williams, I believe you called the office two or three minutes before the deadline and asked if this gentleman had filed, didn't you?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You talked with Ms. Paulette Geiger.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: It was your intention of not filing against the gentleman, is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is right.
THE CHAIRMAN: And since he did not file, you went ahead and told her what seat you wanted ...
MR. WILLIAMS: That's exactly right. I hand carried my information to the office. And of course we're talking about Freedom of Information data. I looked on the screen and I saw that there was no opposition in that particular seat. And certainly I have met with Mr. Darby in the past and I was just concerned that he had not filed. But since he did not, there was no need for me to get in a long, protracted opposition with the other seat, because I had intended to file for one of those seats. So, I did what I thought was right and what I was supposed to do. I took the time to keep up with when the elections were going to be held. I have a legislative manual, and I know that there are going to be four seats open next year, and right on down the line. I have the time. I'm a retired faculty member from South Carolina State. And if I take the time to research and do this type of work, then I think it's only fair that I have an opportunity to serve. I regret the circumstances that were created by this, but I did not create the situation. I followed the rules and I've done what I was supposed to do. I don't have a major corporation behind me. I'm just a citizen, an alumnus of the institution. I have the institution at heart. I want to do what's good for the citizens of this state and for the students that we serve. And that is my only desire. And I have a strong determination to serve, and I think there are a number of things that I can do and I can offer our university.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Bryan.
SENATOR BRYAN: The gentleman in question was an incumbent?
THE CHAIRMAN: Correct.
SENATOR BRYAN: You know, he knew his term was up. He knew he had to run again. Once again, it sounds like something that I would personally do myself. I just think if we open this thing back up, we are opening a can of worms that we would not be able to close. And in all due respect to that gentleman, I understand he is top-notch, a great trustee and all of that; but I just think it's something unfortunate that's happened and there are four seats that are open in two years. He can run in two years. And I'm sure he can muster the support he needs to get elected then. But I really feel like that this would be a real bad mistake on our part.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a motion, sir?
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
SENATOR WILSON: I think I've got a motion on the floor. But I respectfully disagree. I think that good people, as we've seen everybody today, including Mr. Williams who just made an eloquent statement, that there may be a good faith cause as to why somebody doesn't know what the filing is. And I think that's the motion that I made, it related to the ability of somebody to come and made a presentation for then the committee to determine, but it's not wide open. There has to be some showing as to a good faith misunderstanding.
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman, is there some deadline that we have to complete these screenings? I'm thinking in terms of do we meet again?
THE CHAIRMAN: We meet again to take up the other group, yes, sir.
SENATOR GIESE: So, there would be an opportunity to get that information? I'm just saying unless there's some real significant reason, I would agree that the gentleman that has filed, certainly followed due process and stayed on top of the thing, but I don't know what the other side of the picture is, the gentleman that ...
SENATOR WILSON: And that's what I'm asking ... Mr. Chairman ...
THE CHAIRMAN: But he wasn't in the hospital, he wasn't sick. I don't ... yes, Mr. Inabinett.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I have a letter that was addressed to the Committee to Screen Candidates, evidently all of you did not receive a copy of it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have one, too. It's from some law firm.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: And in it it outlines the reasons that Mr. Darby's letter was not received. It cites some precedents or codes.
SENATOR BRYAN: I've seen that. And I would question the legal ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I see nothing here that ... he's in error in several instances. When he quotes the codes, he doesn't quote them in their entirety.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem if we've got to meet next week, if the committee wanted to hear from Mr. Darby. But I just cannot imagine anything Mr. Darby could say that could create a situation where we would do that. I think your legality, your legal problems come if you open it back up. I think you've got a legal problem with this seat. I think you've got a legal problem with every other seat. Because there may be people who want to run for other seats in this, and if they say, "You know, I thought about it at five minutes to twelve, but I didn't have time to get over there and get an application in, get it delivered. And if I had known they were going to take it twenty-four hours later, I would have had mine there fifteen minutes later, twenty minutes later." You've got a thousand different scenarios that can come up this time, and they can come up every time we do this, every year. And that's the problem I have. If the senator from Lexington just wants to give him the chance to speak his peace, I don't have a problem, you know, listening to him, but I just think that there is a can of worms here that if it gets open, it will never be shut.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I have one other question that was asked of me, can or would a nomination from the floor be in order or allowed. And this is on the day of, I guess, of the actual vote.
SENATOR GIESE: Doesn't he have to go before screening before, isn't that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the statute says that you have to be screened, correct.
SENATOR BRYAN: He had been screened twice before, I think. Wouldn't that fulfill ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, he has been screened before, of course, we don't know how many murders or what he has committed since that.
SENATOR WILSON: For the record, I know of none. Mr. Chairman, really, I think that ... and I wasn't even aware of the letter.
THE CHAIRMAN: The letter is from some attorney out there, John Doe.
SENATOR WILSON: A good attorney, I'm sure. I don't even know who that is.
THE CHAIRMAN: No, he's not that good because when he quotes the law, he doesn't quote it in its entirety.
SENATOR WILSON: Well, whatever the case is, I think that there should be, and I'm sure that they want to be able to show in good faith how they acted. I just really believe that we should encourage people to offer for these, not to bar them due to some technicality.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: I talked to some people yesterday about there were some other people who wanted to file for other seats, two other seats. Are we talking about one seat?
THE CHAIRMAN: We're talking about opening it up ...
SENATOR WILSON: I'm actually ... I'm actually, what I intended was for any letters of intent that were received.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: So, we're opening it up to all the other ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, a lot of them didn't write letters because they called and the deadline was gone. I mean, they called that day later, they called the next day.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: So, we're talking about opening the whole thing up, right? Is that the proposal?
SENATOR WILSON: Well, my intent was those that have letters of intent filed. I understood there may be three. That was the number that I heard.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Are we going to honor the other three, all three?
SENATOR WILSON: That would be my intent, to invite the three to see if in good faith, as to what reason they had that they were not aware or for whatever reason, they did not file timely.
SENATOR BRYAN: My understanding is that we are not opening it up, just allowing them to come up and give them five minutes to state why they didn't file on time. But once again ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Let's have a motion, if you've got a motion ...
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: At that time, would you be in a position to maybe consider them as candidates?
SENATOR BRYAN: That's the problem I have, you're going to be facing them here, and you're going to have that temptation to do it. If you open this back up, you are opening up a legal can of worms.
THE CHAIRMAN: Correct.
SENATOR BRYAN: And every time, not only this time, but every time and for every race, you're opening it up then. I don't know if there is anybody ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I got sued about enough when I was on the University board. I'd prefer not to be sued anymore.
SENATOR BRYAN: I think if you've got a procedure, you've got to follow it. And I don't know whether we have the legal authority to open it up. It would be my ... I believe that if we open it up for this one, we've got to open it up for every one or them.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have two weeks for them to file. We have followed the law. I mean, it's really regrettable, and I hate it.
SENATOR BRYAN: I regret that it's getting on a person basis because we're dealing with this individual, who I understand is a great individual.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean it personal because, in fact, I've been involved in this in a controversy before regarding Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School. And this was several years ago, you may remember. There were people who were not aware of the filing deadlines. And in fact, I supported at that time that they be allowed to file. And I'm not being critical of anybody else. I'm just telling you that I have a generic interest in people filing.
SENATOR BRYAN: In this particular case, though, this gentleman is apparently a well thought of person, a very good trustee. He has some status in the community, a status in the business community. You know, would another person have that support behind him?
SENATOR WILSON: In fact, I did with a lady who had no political ties whatsoever except that she was a person who wanted to serve.
MR. BRYAN: What did you do in that situation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, aren't you an attorney?
SENATOR WILSON: I got ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Aren't you an attorney?
SENATOR WILSON: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You know, I used to be a magistrate. That's a right lowly judge, but you know, I was always told that ignorance of the law was no excuse.
SENATOR WILSON: No, and I'm not saying that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Ignorance of the filing, I don't think would be any excuse.
SENATOR WILSON: But I do think you can have a good faith reason. You've identified, Mr. Chairman ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I've got good faith when I get up every morning.
SENATOR WILSON: But you identified one, and I don't think it applies this time, but you very well identified one. And that is that somebody could be in the hospital. And I would really hope that if they were, or as the senator from Richland pointed out, somebody may be out of the country. That could occur. I think there are good faith reasons. And I would hope that we would hear from the persons who have sent letters of intent and then make a determination as to whether to waive the deadline.
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've seen this letter. But it does go along with the point that I made that in his new position, he's required to be out of town for a substantial period of time and returned the day after the filing deadline.
THE CHAIRMAN: When did he leave town, sir?
SENATOR GIESE: I think that's the kind of thing we'd want to know. Was it a week, let's say, or that whole week. It would seem to me that one wouldn't necessarily file the first day or the second day. And he wouldn't know he was going to be out of town. Here, I open my mail Sunday after church, the whole week's mail. I would be five or six days later ... not late, but use that much time before I found out ...
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, this is an incumbent. This is not somebody out there who doesn't have any ties and they shouldn't know about it. He knows when his term is up. If he's out of town or if he's in the hospital, if you start opening these things back up or making any exceptions to it, you get ... it's my understanding that you pretty much always have several that are late.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
SENATOR BRYAN: So, you know, is it twenty-four hours, is it forty-eight hours, is it seventy-two hours; what is your time line? I don't know the man, didn't know this man. Just saw him right there when he just spoke. I don't know any of them. But this is not one race at South Carolina State. This is Clemson, the University of South Carolina, it's the College of Charleston ... it's every one of them.
THE CHAIRMAN: If we open up one, all they've got to do is to go to the court and we've got to open up everything. But now, Senator, you make ... what's your motion?
SENATOR WILSON: That we invite those persons who have filed a letter of intent to come to our next meeting, which will be next Wednesday, to come and make a presentation as to why in good faith they should be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: If that's the motion, I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: If they come and tell us why they filed late.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: Just those three.
THE CHAIRMAN: No motion as to opening or closing ...
SENATOR WILSON: Not at the time ...
THE CHAIRMAN: That will come that day.
SENATOR WILSON: Yes, that would come that day if it's appropriate. And I don't know the circumstances, and I am particularly not aware that there was a two page letter from an attorney explaining the circumstances, I wasn't aware of that.
REPRESENTATIVE LITTLEJOHN: But you have three letters of intent.
THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't think his letter was a very good explanation.
SENATOR WILSON: Well, I haven't still read it.
SENATOR BRYAN: I think it was sent to everybody on the Screening Committee. You should have it in your office. I got it this week.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can have my copy.
SENATOR WILSON: Thank you.
SENATOR BRYAN: If you're ready to make a motion next week, you'd better be ready to make a motion to open all of them up. That's all I can say. I think you're creating a problem. I don't have an objection to his motion, I just ...
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Wilson moves that we invite those who filed late to appear at our meeting next week for an explanation as to their tardiness. Is there a second?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: It's seconded by Mr. Inabinett. All in favor say aye; opposed no. The ayes have it. Well, gentlemen, what do we do about those we've just seen today? We generally approve them at the end of the meeting.
SENATOR WILSON: I move we carry it over until next Wednesday.
SENATOR BRYAN: Is there any reason we shouldn't go on and approve the ones we've heard today? We've got more to do next week, too.
SENATOR WILSON: I defer to the wisdom of the Chair.
SENATOR BRYAN: I mean, I don't see any reason not to approve them.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve those that were screened and found qualified today.
SENATOR BRYAN: I second it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Inabinett moves that we find them qualified. Seconded by Senator Bryan. All in favor, say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. Mr. Littlejohn moves the Committee adjourn. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it.
The proceedings taken at Room 433, Blatt Building, Columbia, South Carolina, on the 13th day of March, 1996 before Sonya S. O'Cain, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of South Carolina.
Lander University - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
Nancy J. Cash (Charleston)
2nd District, Seat 4
George R. Starnes (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
Jean T. McFerrin (Aiken)
4th District, Seat 8
C. Tyrone Gilmore (Spartanburg)
5th District, Seat 10
S. Anne Walker (Columbia)
6th District, Seat 12
Walter D. Smith (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
Ann B. Bowen (Greenwood)
Glenas Delois Green (Greenwood)
Medical University of S.C. - Six seats (Congressional districts (three from medical and three non-medical professions)
Medical
4th District
Dr. Charles B. Thomas, Jr. (Simpsonville)
5th District
Dr. Cotesworth P. Fishburne, Jr. (Rockhill)
6th District
Dr. E. Conyers O'Bryan (Florence)
Non-medical
1st District
Melvyn Berlinsky (Charleston)
2nd District
H. Donald McElveen (Columbia)
3rd District
Jack F. McIntosh (Anderson)
Fred Moore (Honea Path)
University of South Carolina - Eight seats (Judicial circuits)
2nd Circuit
Patrick D. Cunning (Aiken)
Miles Loadholt (Barnwell)
4th Circuit
J. DuPre Miller (Bennettsville)
6th Circuit
James Bradley (Lancaster)
8th Circuit
Herbert C. Adams (Laurens)
10th Circuit
Brian A. Comer (Anderson)
Robert N. McLellan (Seneca)
14th Circuit
Helen C. Harvey (Beaufort)
15th Circuit
M. Wayne Stanton (Conway)
16th Circuit
Samuel R. Foster, II (Rock Hill)
Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School - Four seats (at-large)
Dr. Marvin Efron (Cayce)
Wilhelmina McBride (Columbia)
Mary F. "Frankie" Newman (West Cola)
Suzanne Turner Reynolds (Gaffney)
Olive Wilson (Williamston)
Winthrop University - Two seats (at-large)
Jane C. Shuler (Orangeburg)
Walter H. Smith (Columbia)
David A. White (Rock Hill)
THE CHAIRMAN: The meeting is called to order. Several of our members have other meetings and will be trickling in. I have on my right Representative Inabinett, on my left I have Senator Giese, and my far left I have Senator Brown, and I'm Gene Stoddard. We certainly appreciate you all attending this morning. On behalf of the General Assembly we certainly thank you for your service. I know at times it seems very unrewarding, but of course you can't put a monetary value on that good feeling that you have when your institution has done a good job. We certainly appreciate that. Representative Inabinett moves that we waive the appearance of those unopposed candidates and I read your name you leave or you may attend and listen to the testimony. Lander University -- we have Nancy Cash, George Starnes, Jean McFerrin, Tyrone Gilmore, Anne Walker, Walter D. Smith. From the Medical University -- we have Dr. Charles B. Thomas, Dr. Cotesworth P. Fishburne, Dr. E. Conyers O'Bryan, Melvyn Berlinsky, H. Donald McElveen. University of South Carolina -- we have J. DuPre Miller, James Bradley, Herbert Adams, Helen C. Harvey, M. Wayne Staton and Samuel R. Foster, II. I believe that completes the unopposed candidates, you may feel free to go.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: Mr. Chairman, this is ... just before everyone leaves.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Inabinett has something to say. The temporary date for the election, I guess most of you know, is the 10th of April. Thank you very much. We now proceed with the round of candidates, Ann B. Bowen.
ANN B. BOWEN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Ms. Bowen, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ms. Bowen, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: None.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Ms. Bowen? Thank you Ms. Bowen.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Next we have Ms. Glenas D. Green.
GLENAS D. GREEN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Ms. Green. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ms. Green, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Thank you, Ms. Green. Any questions of Ms. Green?
SENATOR GIESE: Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: I notice, Ms. Green, that you're an early childhood education graduate?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And I wonder if you ... are you actively teaching now?
A: I'm a middle school guidance counselor at North Side Middle School in Greenwood.
Q: Just one quick question. Why are we having such a great problem with discipline and control of children, especially in the area in which you're working now in middle school?
A: Well, sir, if you look at it in a isolated situation, it's not a problem across the board in my area. We do have some isolated situations. A lot of times children are coming from homes with single parents, and they don't have the guidance that they need and we have to provide a lot of guidance for them at an early age. We need a lot of programs at an early age to try to prevent some of the things that are happening now in our schools.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you Ms. Green.
A: You're welcome.
THE CHAIRMAN: That completes Lander University. We proceed now to the Medical University of South Carolina. We have opposition in the 3rd District. First, we have Jack F. McIntosh.
JACK F. McINTOSH - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. McIntosh, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Mr. McIntosh, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. McIntosh?
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Can you tell me what specifically interested you in offering for this position?
A: Well, in 1990 there was an unfilled term. There was two years left on a term and one of the House Members called me and asked me if I would be interested in it and I told him I was. I served for two years, until '92. I enjoyed the service and I felt that it was a very important position to be in and I enjoyed being there, and I felt that I made a good contribution and I'd like to do it again. I also have a son in a position in the academic area. He's up at Duke. And he's a graduate of MUSC and he and I talk a lot and we have interest in public health.
Q: So the interest comes naturally. Thank you.
A: Yes, it does.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Senator Giese. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh. Our next candidate is Fred Moore.
FRED MOORE - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Fred. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir. I submitted a doctor's statement to that effect.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman?
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Senator Bryan.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR BRYAN:
Q: Someone had asked me to ask him about his Honorary Degree to Cokesbury College.
A: Uh-oh. I don't think an Honorary Degree from a non-existent Board of directors would have any direct effect of me serving in a capacity of this sort.
Q: The individual that asked me that thought you would take great pride in it.
A: I don't know if these people know what an Honorary Degree from Cokesbury College is. But after about 40 years, 30 years down in here in the legislature, they honored me with this degree from a Financial Education Doctorate, I thinks the way that was worded. But it looks pretty on a wall with the blue ribbons and gold and all that stuff. I don't think that would have any effect on this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I have one.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Representative Inabinett.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q: Sir, this may be an unfair ... I have one question, sir.
A: Excuse me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abinett has a question.
Q: Mr. Moore, this may be an unfair question, but do you have any views, pro or con, with reference to the proposed merger of MUSC and the private health provider?
A: I've studied this over and I talked with Dr. Edwards about it and several of the administrators, and I see it as a growing, progressive step that should be taken under certain conditions that would enhance the ability of the University and its research departments to serve more people more adequately. And I don't think that it ought to become a monster because Anderson County ... I mean, Anderson hand led Greenville and Spartanburg as having a sort of a merger between those people to use the same facilities to keep cost and things like this down and I think this could possibly apply to the Medical University ...
Q: Thank you.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Moore. That completes the Medical University. We now go to the University of South Carolina. Our first candidate is Patrick D. Cunning.
PATRICK D. CUNNING - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Cunning. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Miles Loadholt.
MILES LOADHOLT - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Counsel, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Mr. Loadholt, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: Possibly. I serve as Vice Chairman of the Western Carolina Higher Education Commission and have for the last 20 years, which is in essence the Board of Trustees for USC Salkehatchie, which governs the Allendale campus and Walterboro campus. If elected to the USC Board of Trustees, I would, of course, resign that position and I am also on the Executive Committee of the University of South Carolina Gamecock Club and have been there since it's inception, and I would necessarily resign that position also, if elected to the Board of Trustees.
Q: Thank you, counselor. Any questions of the gentleman?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: How dare you put down here you belong to the Gamecock Club, it costs you half of your votes. I wanted to ask you a question because Barnwell's name comes up so frequently in our discussions. And, could you in 60 seconds tell me the attitude of the people in Barnwell towards the low level nuclear facility?
A: In my opinion, they are very supportive of the Chem Nuclear Facility in Barnwell. It is of course a source of great tax revenue, not only to the State of South Carolina, but for Barnwell too. So, just speaking for the general public I would have to say that they would be highly supportive of that.
Q: Thank you. And what ...
A: My wife is Chairman of the Barnwell County Counsel, you may direct that question to her and she probably is a little more qualified to answer that than I am.
Q: That was my impression, but you hear so much criticism from people that are right down there, apparently are very comfortable with it and it is a source of jobs, et cetera. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, sir.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We go now to the 10th Circuit, Brian A. Comer.
BRIAN A. COMER - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please. Mr. Comer, do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir, absolutely.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: I was a bit concerned of being a current House page, but I have an opinion from Gary Baker with the State Ethics Commission, that even if I were to carry on that service that it wouldn't be a problem, but I am prepared to resign it if I have to.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE: Chairman, I notice he's a member of the Gamecock Club, also.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Brian, tell me just a little bit about your background at the University. You are a fairly recent graduate. And what has peaked your interest about being a member of the Board?
A: Sir, about two years ago I began a term on the Board, actually, as Student Body President at the University. It was a wonderful experience. Not only did I get a chance to serve with some extraordinary people that truly care about the University, but I also felt like I made a significant contribution. I learned a lot about the University during that time, about its ... the things that we need to do to make it fiscally responsible and keep it fiscally responsible, as well as what is involved with student life there as well. And as a current graduate student, I think I have a vested interest in maintaining a fiscally responsible University. So, that's why I want to possibly seek position and continue to contribute.
Q: You had an opportunity to participate in the discussions, your background was such that you could contribute?
A: Oh, yes, sir. I was considered an ex officio member without a vote, but I was at every meeting and made sure to speak up. That was job as a representative of the students.
Q: Thank you.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Senator Bryan.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR BRYAN:
Q: What year are you in law school?
A: I'm first year.
Q: I just wondered. Is being a student and on the Board, is that any kind of a conflict?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: I mean a degree is awarded by the Board of Trustees.
A: Actually, I also ... there could be some influence there. I actually also took the opportunity whenever I wrote my letter to the ethics commission, to ask them about possibly being a scholarship student, and they said that also would not be a problem. And I think that if there was a problem with the degree conference from the Board, that they would have said so.
Q: Do you have a copy of that.
A: Yes, sir, I can submit it to the Committee, if you'd like.
Q: Yes. And the only thing I would add, Chairman, is that I think being a House page, pays more than being a Member of the Board of Trustees.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, son. Thank you, Mr. Comer.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Robert N. McLellan.
ROBERT N. McLELLAN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please, sir. Mr. McLellan, you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: I do not.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: I will.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: I do not.
Q: Any questions of the gentleman? Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Of course, I've always had a high regard for Mr. McLellan, but this is the first time I've realized his degree was in Journalism. I might have to re-evaluate ...
A: I would understand.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I have one question.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q: I note that you indicate that you had no plans to make an extended statement with reference to your candidacy. Can you just give us a rationale for that statement?
A: Yes. I was not totally familiar with procedure here. I assumed that I would submit myself to questions, which apparently I'm doing. But, my interest in serving on the Board is to utilize my experience in Government and business to lend what assistance I can to help the University.
Q: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE: Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: I'm familiar with your background, of course, heading up the very important committee dealing with fiscal affairs. What special insight would you think you would bring to the Board of Trustees?
A: Well, I think to understand the funding cycle would be one thing, that I'm not sure totally that everybody has understood. I'm also, Senator, interested in doing what I could to encourage the holding down of tuition increases. I think that one of the missions of the University of South Carolina is to afford an affordable education to as many students in the state as we can. And I'm not quit so sure that has happened. I think the University looks at the General Assembly as short funding them on the formula and as long as we stay on the formula I think we can see that the percentage going to higher ed is being reduced. And I would like to have some input in that to help the Board have an understanding of what it's about and also to try to influence the General Assembly to increase the funding for the formula.
Q: You think your background in politics might be of assistance in the University's Board of Trustees communicating needs and so on to the legislature? I've often felt that so many times, and this would be kind of global with all the universities, that the leadership, the policy makers, somehow aren't the ones that we hear from.
A: Yes, sir. I would definitely think so, Senator Giese. I think the fact that I know the majority of the members in the General Assembly and feel free to communicate with them would be of some assistance to the Board and to the University.
Q: If you look at things a little bit from a political point of view, you've got the academic point of view, the administrative point of view, so often that third point of view about what's realistic and what's possible somehow doesn't get injected.
A: Yes, I agree with you. I've observed that myself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of the gentleman? Thank you.
A: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: That completes the University of South Carolina. We now go to Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School. Our first candidate is Dr. Marvin Efron.
DR. MARVIN EFRON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: How are you, Doctor?
A: Fine, thank you.
Q: Raise your hand, please, sir. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Doctor, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No. No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the doctor?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Chairman, I just say that I recognize Dr. Efron as being a party to many, many activities, voluntary activities and so on through many years. And are you still president of the ...
A: Partners of the America?
Q: Yes.
A: Executive Director this year.
Q: Executive Director. Have you retired as a ...
A: Optometrist? No, I work two days a week as an optometrist. Sort of semi-retired.
Q: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Glover.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q: Good morning.
A: Good morning.
Q: Doctor, presently are there any specific projects that you have with Wil Lou Gray that you think would enhance our knowledge of the school and your desire to continue to serve?
A: Well, the mission I think all of you are familiar with. This is ... right now it's for at risk students. Students who have had a problem in school and need a second chance. That's where opportunity comes in. As Dr. Wil Lou Gray formed it under that purpose. The school has been very flexible over the years, and any time a need in South Carolina has arisen we have tried to meet that within our capabilities. Right now we are working with an addition to our at risk students, working with the schools. We are recognizing need with the Department of Social Services to assist them with some of the programs for teenage mothers, for example, who, before they can become employed to increase both their academic and vocational training to reach the level of competency they can to make good employees. So, this is one of the things that we're looking at in the future and we're in the process right now of working out the details.
Q: Thank you, Doctor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Ms. Wilhelmina McBride.
WILHELMINA McBRIDE - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
A: Good morning.
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Ms. McBride. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ms. McBride, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the lady? Dr. Glover.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q: Ms. McBride, in looking at your application, is there a reason you don't have a voter registration number?
A: No, because I can use my driver's license. I am a registered voter.
THE CHAIRMAN: We feel better.
Q: I also wanted to know ... I don't think you have had previous service. Tell me why you would like to serve on this Board?
A: I do have previous service.
Q: Okay.
A: I've been on the Board for 12 years.
Q: Okay, yes. I'm sorry. I see it now. But tell me. Tell me about your service on the Board ...
A: Well, I have ...
Q: ... and why you would like to continue.
A: Because I have a good working relationship with the other Board members and also because I'm an advocate with education for everyone and the opportunity at school offers this to all of our students.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Our next candidate is Ms. Frankie Newman.
FRANKIE NEWMAN - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Raise your right hand, please. Ms. Newman, do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ma'am, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir, I would.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: I'm not certain it would be a conflict, sir, but I do Chair the Lexington County Board of Assessment Appeals. My term in ending in September. If I would be fortunate enough to be elected to this Board, I'd be happy to resign that position.
Q: I fully understand. Any questions of the lady? Thank you, ma'am.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Suzanne Reynolds.
SUZANNE REYNOLDS - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
A: Good morning.
Q: Raise your right hand, please, Ms. Reynolds. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ms. Reynolds, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, I would.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of the lady? Thank you, ma'am.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next and final candidate is Ms. Olive Wilson.
OLIVE WILSON - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Ms. Wilson, do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ms. Wilson, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: None, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: I've been doing that.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions? Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: Mr. Chairman, in light of Ms. Wilson's long service in the Board, I wonder if you would tell us what you consider to be the biggest problem facing Wil Lou Gray at the present time?
A: You might not like to hear this, but our funding is our biggest problem, generally. We run a very tight budget. If you'd noticed our operating budget, and we have a good many students who come who have no financial resources to back them, and it's ... we have to sort of scramble. And we have a foundation that Ms. Wil Lou Gray really, basically, started funding for years ago with a grant or I think she left us money for it, and we use the interest from that. And it is used up every year with scholarships for our students.
Q: Hasn't the mission really of Wil Lou Gray changed through the years?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: I think that's why the perceptions of what it used to do and what it does now is ...
A: We began as an alternative school for adults who had not had the opportunity as young people to get an education. And we have just evolved through the years as to what the state needs. And right now we see our mission as, basically, those who have failed in public schools. And somebody has to pick up the slack and we're trying.
Q: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. That completes Wil Lou Gray. We go now to Winthrop University. We have two seats and we have three candidates. Our first candidate is Jane Shuler.
JANE SHULER - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
A: Good morning.
Q: Good morning, ma'am. Raise your right hand, please. Ms. Shuler, do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: I do.
Q: Ma'am, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Ms. Shuler?
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: I have one question.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT:
Q: I know that you allude to accountability?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In any way that you would like, just tell us your feelings with records to accountability.
A: Okay. My opinion as a public school guidance counselor or my opinion as a Trustee?
Q: As a Trustee.
A: All right. Good. I feel like our college and universities need to be accountable for what the students are learning at their schools. I feel just like the previous speaker that funding is a problem, nd we've seen that at our school, at our Winthrop University. I've served on the Board for six years. I would like to continue doing this. But I think our professors need to be made accountable. I know the tenure issue is a problem, but we need to know what they're doing in the classroom. We need to know how our students face the world when they need to go into the world to work. With the School Board Transition Act, that's very, very important. And I've really been talking with Winthrop University and the Department of Education, because I feel like these students deserve the opportunity to get a job. And if aren't being accountable at Winthrop, in our programs. And I know some of the new changes with the Commission of Higher Education will make this probably come into focus more. And I look forward to the changes. I see no problems with it. As far as accountability act for K through 12, that's many a different story.
Q: Thank you.
A: Uh-huh (affirmative response).
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir. Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: I served 28 years with the University of South Carolina faculty. And I notice that you felt it was important in your statement to quote testimony to state that I support President DiGiorgio.
A: Correct.
Q: And I think the problem was that the faculty had some feelings about his service.
A: Very few faculty. There have been a lot of problems. A lot of bad publicity you might say. But I feel like when you're on the campus as much as I am and I'm on the campus a lot, there's a lot of support there too. But newspapers don't tend to print, you know, all the good stories. I think recently one particular example is Vice President Cormier receiving a job as president of a school in Virginia. Well, it was publicized as being so terrible that she was leaving. Well, it was really a wonderful honor that they chose one of our vice presidents to be a president of another school. We didn't feel that it was detrimental at all, but the way the story came out, you know, that's the way it was. So, I think that there's always going to be faculty who are not pleased with administration. That's part of the job. And that's part of our job as Board of Trustees to see that those things can be worked out the best they can.
Q: Thank you.
A: Uh-huh (affirmative response).
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Glover.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GLOVER:
Q: Yes. You mentioned, Ms. Shuler, that the last two years have been kind of difficult.
A: Right.
Q: How do you think, as a Trustee member, what do you think the Board can do?
A: The Board has done a whole lot in the last year. I hope that we have made correct steps. One thing we have done, Ms. Glover, is to offer the students and faculty a thirty minute period before all Board meetings to come in and speak on subjects that are on the agenda. It's amazing. I've been a chairman of committees. No one comes to the committee meetings. If there are problems, I've asked, why don't we see you? So we are offering these opportunities. I think that the president has done a very good job in trying to get out into the community on the campus. All these things we are very aware of, and we've really worked extremely hard to improve them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Walter H. Smith.
WALTER H. SMITH - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
A: Good morning.
Q: Good morning, Mr. Smith. Raise your right hand, please, Mr. Smith. Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Ms. Smith, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No, sir.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: No, sir.
Q: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No, sir.
Q: Any questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you, Mr. Smith.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Our next candidate is Mr. David White.
DAVID WHITE - EXAMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Q: Do you swear that the foregoing testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God, Mr. White?
A: I do.
Q: Mr. White, do you have any health-related problems that the screening committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
A: No.
Q: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend Board meetings on a regular basis?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any interests, professionally or personally, that present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
A: Mr. Stoddard, I practice law in Rock Hill and have a lot of business clients. And occasionally we have a client who has some business relationship with Winthrop and on very rare occasions these matters come to the attention of the Board and I have to excuse myself and not participate. So, I'm bound to say to the Committee that there are very rare occasions in which a conflict of interest arises out of my representation of clients in Rock Hill. But it is my belief and view that that in no way precludes or adversely affects my ability to serve Winthrop.
Q: But you always rule yourself out in ...
A: Oh, indeed, yes.
Q: In terms of ... do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that, if elected to the Board, would cause you to violate the dual office holding clause of the constitution?
A: No.
Q: Any questions of Mr. White?
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Senator Giese.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR GIESE:
Q: In your statement you mentioned that there's continuing concern about the faculty relations, and some issues remain unresolved. Could you mention a couple of issues that remain unresolved by the faculty?
A: Well, the faculty, some members of the faculty, I would say a good number still believe that it's not a sufficient opportunity for them to communicate their concerns to the Board of Trustees. These concerns are varied. There are many, many kinds of concerns. For example, Senator Giese, the fact they are very concerned that because of funding cuts of recent years, certain expense monies or no longer available for programs that are important to them. Such as, travel funds for the Winthrop course would be an example. The budgetary system whereby appropriations for different purposes are made is not well understood by the fact that I believe that we need more communication, not only between faculty and the administration, between faculty and the Board, to air these kinds of problems and to ventilate some of this anxiety and animosity that exists. And as a member of the Academic Affairs Committee of the university I have advocated that our Committee meetings be open and that we have ... give opportunities in that context, what's more meaningful dialogue than you can have in a full Board meeting. That's an example. I don't know. That's not very specific, but I could give you some more examples at a better time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. White.
A: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes our screening of the candidates for the year. Do I hear a motion for approval of the candidates?
SENATOR BRYAN: So moved.
REPRESENTATIVE INABINETT: Second.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Bryan moves that we find all candidates qualified. Seconded by Representative Inabinett. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it. Now, that would allow them to commence with their seeking of pledges for the gentleman and lady. So you may proceed to seek those cherished votes. Thank you for coming. Correction - Representative Inabinett seconded the motion last week by Senator Wilson. Before the Committee takes testimony from the two individuals who filed after the deadline, I want to make the chair's position clear. I believe it would be imprudent and improper to allow late applicants to be screened, and I consider it a mistake to even hear their testimony today. By inviting these two individuals to appear before us this morning, the Committee has built some expectation that if their excuse is good enough, the Committee will activate their applications and proceed with their screening. My position is that the deadline is final, regardless of excuse, and I will not vote to excuse these late letters of intent. My position has nothing to do with the two late applicants personally. I want that to be clearly understood. My position has to do with my responsibility - and yours - to protect the integrity of this Committee and the General Assembly. If the Committee allows the late applicants to be screened, the public will undoubtedly view our process as a Kangaroo system in which legislators take care of their own and their special or powerful friends. Mr. Darby, would you like to take the stand and give us your ...
MR. DARBY: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. DARBY: My name is Warren Darby. I'm a member of the Board of Trustees of the South Carolina State University. This was my first position as Elective Trustee of the University of South Carolina. I was unaware of the process of running again. I expected to be notified that my term had expired. I knew it expired in 1996, but I did not know the deadline for when you had to refile. The week of February the 15th, in which the filing deadline occurred, I was out of town that week, and was contacted by a member of the University staff on the 16th, telling me that I had missed the deadline and to get a letter to them as quickly as I could in order to ask this Committee for some exception in order to file after the deadline. I had a letter dictated and was hand delivered to this Committee within two hours of the notification I had missed the deadline. We had a Board meeting the following Thursday and at that meeting I had planned to inquire about what the deadline was, knowing that this process occurred in 1996. I sent the letter. I had it delivered. I would have delivered it personally, had I been in Columbia, but I had someone deliver it for me. And then on, that was on Friday the 16th. On the 21st I was informed that my petition to have my name entered as a Trustee candidate had been denied. So, on the 21st I wrote a letter to President Davis, telling him that I would not be able to run again because this request had been denied. I have a copy of that letter if you would like it, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have a copy of your letter.
MR. DARBY: I was speaking of the letter I wrote Dr. Davis, telling him that I was sorry, but I would no longer be a Trustee because I had missed the deadline, basically.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. DARBY: The Board of Trustees met on the 23rd, and I informed the Board of the dilemma that I was in. That I had missed the deadline. Six of the Trustees came forward and wanted to help me see if this Committee would be willing to make an exception, since I honestly did not know when the deadline occurred. I take full responsibility for that, but I did miss the deadline and understand the ramifications of that. In addition, the leadership of faculty senate came forward and asked what they could do to help me, as well as certain key members of the administration. So that's where I am right now, asking for some understanding of this issue. I think the other question is why am I so interested in continuing to serve on the University's Board. I joined the Board of Trustees three years ago, right after President Smith had resigned and Dr. Hadden had been appointed. A year and a half later Dr. Hadden had left, shortly thereafter the vice president of finance had been arrested for embezzlement. I was then named Chairman of the Physical Policy of the Finance Committee of the Board, and a number of interesting things have happened since then. The legislative audit counsel in 1992 had issued a report of 42 different recommendations of fiscal mismanagement, poor management practices. And as a result of my working with the president and others, we were able to get the legislative audit counsel report resolved. They commended the school on its new management practices and I feel like the Committee that I served on helped deal with that. There's an issue of accreditation. Several of the schools are in jeopardy of accreditation and we've done two things to deal with that; one is the music department needed a new building, the accreditation depended on it, it'd been six years since the accreditation ... since a building had been planned. Finances were a problem. We brought in Harvey Gantt, the architect, to ask him to rescape ... scale down the building that would meet up to creditation, but also meet the schools budget. The Trustees last meeting approved that and we've moved forward with that building. The main issue facing the school was its issue of the lowest SAT scores, some of the lowest graduation rates, the lowest faculty salaries, and the lowest tuition of any state supported institution. The tuition is half of what other historical black institutions in South Carolina is.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Darby.
MR. DARBY: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: We realize that your contribution there was superlative, but our issue here is the reason for your tardiness.
MR. DARBY: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: And that's what we want to limit that to. I have a letter dated the 14th, which we received on the 16th. Your letter of intent.
MR. DARBY: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Now, your institution was informed, I believe, February the 2nd of the upcoming elections and vacancies. Then later, your ... not only your institution, but an employee of theirs was notified. And the only way, I guess, that a Trustee knows that his term is up, is if not when he's elected he doesn't remember it, why, contact with his institution. And that's generally, I think, pretty common place. And we always let the institutions know, all of them that have Trustees whose terms expire. And through that grape vine they're notified. But our issue here, entirely, is just to hear your reason for not filing on time.
MR. DARBY: Yes, sir. I apologize for getting that detailed. But the first meeting in 1996 was on February the 23rd and at that meeting I'd planned to inquire with the administration of what the process was for refiling, having not served in public position before. And my unfortunate situation was that the filing deadline was a week before that. And like I said, the employee of the University, Sandy Gillum, contacted me by car phone on the 16th as I was returning from Charleston, and as a result of that conversation I, on the car phone, I dictated a letter which was delivered, like I said, two hours later. The situation is totally my fault and I accept that. I do ask the Commission for some consideration, however.
THE CHAIRMAN: We certainly appreciate your appearing, and ... Senator Bryan.
SENATOR BRYAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of sympathy because ... with Mr. Darby, because this, frankly, sounds like something that I would do, getting so busy that you forget these filing dates. I don't think we notify the candidates and I guess if we did, maybe we should. If we did, maybe it would like we are trying to help the incumbents over the people running, and you get into that type of problem. But there's a ... I think there's a broader problem then Mr. Darby here. And I think this is the biggest problem we have. There are other people who file late. There are other people who called in and wanted to file and were not allowed or were told you can't because the time period has run. While our system may not be perfect and we may need to improve it, it was in place. And I am very concerned that if we do not leave the system in place for this particular time, Mr. Darby, I understand has made a great contribution and has been an excellent Trustee, and I hope he will consider running in the future. But I worry if we open this thing up now, how can we not open up every other race that we've screened. I don't see any possible way we cannot open up everything out there if we did that. If we do that it'll be a mess. It will set a precedent and we will have a mess from now on. So, while I understand his busy schedule and all, I would respectfully express my opinion that I don't see how we possibly could open this race up.
SENATOR WILSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Wilson.
SENATOR WILSON: How many people filed late at the last meeting? And I'm not critical of anybody.
THE CHAIRMAN: I don't ...
SENATOR WILSON: Was it three that filed late? Is that ...
THE CHAIRMAN: I think only two really submitted.
SENATOR WILSON: Two.
THE CHAIRMAN: Several inquired the day after and the next day.
SENATOR WILSON: I'd like to reiterate that my motion will only pertain to those that filed late, not people who made calls. And another question for Mr. Darby. Did the school ever notify you? Until it was too late or?
MR. DARBY: They notified me on the 16th, Senator Wilson. The day after the filing, telling me that I had missed the deadline. They had tried to reach me, I think, prior to that, but being out of town I did not make contact with them until the 16th.
THE CHAIRMAN: We had this letter received on the 16th and back dated to the 14th.
SENATOR WILSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been through this before. Eighteen years ago, in this building, we had a circumstance where for filings for public office, a number of people didn't file for the first time in statements of economic interest and we had a hearing here in this building to disqualify a number of candidates. And then, during the course of disqualifying, in effect, challengers, it was discovered that some of the incumbents had filed late too. And so they reopened it. And so we have a process of reopening and I have been working on that for a number of years, if there's good showing. And I know that two years ago there was a lady, I believe, sent here from Florence, who was a lady from Florence who wanted to serve on the Wil Lou Gray Board and didn't know about it until late, and I tried to make an effort at that time that she be able to file, because she was not aware. And so, I, over the years, I've always been in favor of trying to open up the process, because people can't know all the things that we know and I feel like Mr. Darby has shown that he didn't know and I'm not blaming the school or anybody but he didn't realize about the filing. And so I would move that it be reopened.
SENATOR GIESE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese.
SENATOR GIESE: I was particularly interested in the beginning part of your testimony. I served on the particular Committee, both in the South Carolina State. I know about the forty problems. It's down to thirteen. They've still got work to do in order to fiscally be somewhere even close to being stopped. And I've also checked and with the administration and the people, I would reiterate to the group here the tremendous job you've done and the responsibility that they look forward to you to carry on, because of the fiscal problems. Any way you look at South Carolina State, its Board of Trustees has been its problem. They absolutely have not exercised any control whatsoever. And I think, as a Committee, Mr. Chairman, making an exception in this particular case, would be by far the wisest, not the easiest. You know, it's easy to exactly follow the rules and say that somebody is going to ... we're going to have whole mess if we make an exception, but in my opinion we would be doing South Carolina State a real disservice by not allowing this election to take place. I know the other gentleman. I'm sure ... and I've read his credentials. But the unusual part about this particular member of the Board, if he would be reelected, is he can play a leadership role in solving South Carolina States problems. And they've been fiscal. The management, as you know, can you imagine the comptroller running off with $800 or whatever it was, writing checks to himself and all that. There just hasn't been management. And I would agree with Senator Bryan that it might possibly cause us a problem, if we made an exception and reopened this. It's the kind of mistake I would make. But I don't think that on a Board it's the same thing as making a mistake and running for an office where you're going to have three or four months of build up and spend thousands of dollars. This is a position of honor, and one in which he can feel exceptionally well. He hasn't won the job if we open this up to him, because he still has to be elected. But I hope we would temper to use our judgement about whether we're going to settle on a date like this and it was very, very close, or think of the contribution I think he can make to this school.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Bryan.
SENATOR BRYAN: I honestly don't think 24 hours would have been any different than seven days. There's a date and you have to have a filing date. And I don't doubt this gentleman's contribution to it, but you have one other that filed late. I know personally of one who wanted to file and realized he missed the deadline and did not file. Are you going to open it up for him, when he was told, no, it's too late, and he did not submit his application? Do you open it up for him? It's not just a possible mess. You will have a mess. More than likely you'll have a legal mess with this one. And I think you ... this whole Committee may have a mess with other ones who wanted to file. How do you go back to the legislature and tell people who had people in their district who wanted to file and missed the deadline, we opened it up for one, but we're not going to open up for the rest of them. And I think it is a monumental mess if we open it up for one and don't open it up for all of them. And if you open it up for all of them you create another mess on top of that. So, you know the notion that you can just do it on this one, because he happens to be standing here and was a nice guy and was a good Trustee? I don't think the issue is the quality of his Trusteeship. I don't think the issue is, as you indicated. I think the issue is the integrity of this process, which once again, may not be perfect, we need to look at it, maybe try something else, some other way to notify them. Maybe we should notify the candidates. If you notify the candidates, then, once again, you get into someone saying, well you're favoring the incumbents and so it's a touchy situation there. I would ask the Committee to vote not to reopen this matter, because I think that we are really creating a can of worms if we do. And this ... if you are to reopen it today, you will hear from this again. This won't be the last day you hear about this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any question as the motion to reopen filing for the State University?
SENATOR GIESE: I would second the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Giese, moves to second.
SENATOR GIESE: May I ask one other thing, Mr. Chairman? That is of my friend and colleague next to me. How often do we sit in the Senate and say we don't have a ... we're doing business without a quorum, and unless it's challenged, we do business without a quorum. I think yesterday or the day before we were passing something that we questioned whether it was constitutional. Do you remember how many times we talked about that? And we passed it, recognizing that there might be some conflict or challenge and it takes, we thought that was in the best interest of what we were doing. Subcommittee meetings, two people don't show up, unless someone questions a quorum we do business. I think that this dictates that we consider circumstances and the eventual outcome. And, again, I think the easiest thing to do is to take a vote and say here's ... I mean, I'd be happy to go by the rules, but there are exceptions that we have to consider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of opening up say aye, opposed no. The nos have it. The Chair entertaining a motion?
SENATOR BRYAN: We adjourn.
THE CHAIRMAN: Senator Bryan moves to adjourn, all in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it.
The Committee to Screen Candidates for Boards of Trustees of State Colleges and Universities finds the following candidates for Boards of Trustees qualified. Background reports from the State Law Enforcement Division show no felony charges against any of the candidates.
The Citadel - Two seats (at-large)
Col. Leonard C. Fulghum, Jr. (Charleston)
J. Palmer Gaillard, III (Charleston)
Douglas A. Snyder (Columbia)
Xavier Starkes (Columbia)
Clemson University - Three seats (at-large)
T. Moffatt Burriss (Eastover)
Joel W. Collins, Jr. (Columbia)
Louis B. Lynn (Columbia)
Davis T. Moorhead (Pendleton)
Howard N. Rawl (Gilbert)
Virginia C. Skelton (Clemson)
William C. Smith, Jr., (Columbia)
Allen P. Wood (Florence)
College of Charleston - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
Cherry Daniel (Charleston)
John B. Williams (Moncks Corner)
2nd District, Seat 4
Joel H. Smith (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
J. Philip Bell (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Merl F. Code (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
J. Vincent Price, Jr. (Gaffney)
6th District, Seat 12
Marie M. Land (Manning)
At-large, Seat 14
Timothy N. Dangerfield (Aiken)
Francis Marion University - Seven Seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
J. Michael Murphree (Summerville)
2nd District, Seat 4
Gail Richardson (Barnwell)
3rd District, Seat 6
William A. Collins (Greenwood)
4th District, Seat 8
Alex Kiriakides, III (Greenville)
5th District, Seat 10
Lorraine H. Knight (Hartsville)
6th District, Seat 12
William W. Coleman, Jr. (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
M. Russell Holliday, Jr. (Galivants Ferry)
Lander University - Seven seats (six congressional districts and one at-large)
1st District, Seat 2
Nancy J. Cash (Charleston)
2nd District, Seat 4
George R. Starnes (Columbia)
3rd District, Seat 6
Jean T. McFerrin (Aiken)
4th District, Seat 8
C. Tyrone Gilmore (Spartanburg)
5th District, Seat 10
S. Anne Walker (Columbia)
6th District, Seat 12
Walter D. Smith (Florence)
At-large, Seat 14
Ann B. Bowen (Greenwood)
Glenas Deloris Green (Greenwood)
Medical University of South Carolina - Six seats (Congressional districts (three from medical and three non-medical professions)
Medical
4th District
Dr. Charles B. Thomas, Jr. (Simpsonville)
5th District
Dr. Cotesworth P. Fishburne, Jr. (Rock Hill)
6th District
Dr. E. Conyers O'Bryan (Florence)
Non-medical
1st District
Melvyn Berlinsky (Charleston)
2nd District
H. Donald McElveen (Columbia)
3rd District
Jack F. McIntosh (Anderson)
Fred Moore (Honea Path)
South Carolina State University - Two seats (at-large)
At-large, Seat 11
John Williams, Jr. (Orangeburg)
At-large, Seat 12
Walter L. Salters (Orangeburg)
Johnnie M. Smith (Greenville)
University of South Carolina - Eight seats (Judicial circuits)
2nd Circuit
Patrick D. Cunning (Aiken)
Miles Loadholt (Barnwell)
4th Circuit
J. DuPre Miller (Bennettsville)
6th Circuit
James Bradley (Lancaster)
8th Circuit
Herbert C. Adams (Laurens)
10th Circuit
Brian A. Comer (Anderson)
Robert N. McLellan (Seneca)
14th Circuit
Helen C. Harvey (Beaufort)
15th Circuit
M. Wayne Staton (Conway)
16th Circuit
Samuel R. Foster, II (Rock Hill)
Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School - Four seats (at-large)
Dr. Marvin Efron (Cayce)
Wilhelmina McBride (Columbia)
Mary F. "Frankie" Newman (West Columbia)
Suzanne Turner Reynolds (Gaffney)
Olive Wilson (Williamston)
Winthrop University - Two seats (at-large)
Jane C. Shuler (Orangeburg)
Walter H. Smith (Columbia)
David A. White (Rock Hill)
Respectfully submitted,
Rep. Eugene Stoddard, Chm. Senator "Joe" G. Wilson, V.Chm.
Rep. Curtis B. Inabinett Senator James E. Bryan, Jr.
Rep. Lanny F. Littlejohn Senator Warren K. Giese
Rep. Jennings G. McAbee Senator Maggie W. Glover
On motion of Rep. STODDARD, the report was ordered printed in the Journal.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., March 21, 1996
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 598:
S. 598 -- Senator Bryan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY GROUNDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES 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.
and has ordered the Bill Enrolled for Ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., March 21, 1996
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the Governor's appointment of:
Initial Appointment, Horry County Master-in-Equity, with term to commence July 31, 1991, and to expire July 31, 1997:
Honorable James Stanton Cross, Jr., 1040 Chelsey Circle, Conway, S.C. 29526 VICE John L. Breeden, Jr. (resigned)
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
Rep. H. BROWN, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted a favorable report, with amendments, on:
S. 846 -- Senator Giese: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 72 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SOUTH CAROLINA OLYMPIC LICENSE PLATES.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1185 -- Senators Russell and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO AMEND THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF NEW DRUGS, BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS, AND MEDICAL DEVICES.
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1287 -- Senators Cork and Washington: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE MR. LARRY HINES OF PORT ROYAL, SOUTH CAROLINA, UPON RECEIVING THE 1995 SOUTH CAROLINA HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AWARD.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was introduced:
H. 4814 -- Rep. Sharpe: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY IN SOUTH CAROLINA FOR ITS SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE'S ECONOMY AND TO COMMEND CERTAIN COMPANIES FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP ROLE IN PLASTICS RECYCLING IN THE UNITED STATES.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following Bills were introduced, read the first time, and referred to appropriate committees:
H. 4815 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 48-39-290, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE BASELINE OR BETWEEN THE BASELINE AND SETBACK LINE, SO AS TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ALLOWING NEW EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES OR DEVICES SEAWARD OF THE SETBACK LINE.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
H. 4818 -- Reps. Harrison, Sheheen, Whatley, Tucker, Spearman, Rice, Herdklotz, Seithel, Young-Brickell, Stuart, Wilkins, Knotts, Klauber, Wofford, Fleming, Chamblee, D. Smith, Sandifer, Cain, Riser, Meacham, Cato, Robinson, H. Brown and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-600, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAKING A CHILD INTO CUSTODY FOR VIOLATING THE LAW, SO AS TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR DETENTION IN A SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC TIME FRAMES FOR REVIEW OF A JUVENILE IN A DETENTION FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-780, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS, FINGERPRINTS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A JUVENILE MAY BE FINGERPRINTED AND TO EXPAND THE USE OF FINGERPRINTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND TRANSFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COURT MAY WAIVE THE TEMPORARY COMMITMENT OF A CHILD TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR EVALUATION.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 4819 -- Reps. Rhoad, Witherspoon, Riser, Hutson, Limehouse and Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1187, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BAIT WHICH MAY BE USED WITH TROTLINES, SET HOOKS, AND JUGS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TYPE OF BAIT WHICH MAY BE USED WITH CERTAIN SET HOOKS ON THE EDISTO RIVER.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
S. 21 -- Senator Mescher: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 29, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 SO AS TO ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR REGISTRATION OF TATTOO ARTISTS AND TATTOO PARLORS BY PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS, REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES, MINIMAL STANDARDS, TATTOOING AND STERILIZING PROCEDURES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL INSPECTIONS, REGISTRATION DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR SUSPENSION, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-700, RELATING TO TATTOOING, SO AS TO CHANGE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE PROHIBITING ALL TATTOOING TO ALLOW TATTOOING OF THOSE EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OVER.
Referred to Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
S. 68 -- Senators McConnell, Rose and O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-56-340 SO AS TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR A TECHNICAL EXPERT PROVIDING ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO A COUNTY OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION DURING THE COURSE OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs.
S. 1140 -- Senators Moore, Ryberg, Setzler, Lander, Jackson, Matthews and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-16-105 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A MEMBER OF A JOINT AGENCY TO CONTRACT WITH THE JOINT AGENCY FOR COLLECTION, TRANSFER, AND/OR DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 6-16-120, RELATING TO GOVERNING BODIES APPROVING JOINT AGENCY PROJECTS FINANCED BY BONDS, SO AS TO REVISE WHICH GOVERNING BODIES MUST APPROVE THE PROJECT.
On motion of Rep. SHARPE, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 1273 -- Senators Rose, McConnell and Mescher: A BILL TO DEVOLVE THE AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENTS AND BUDGETARY APPROVALS FOR CERTAIN OFFICES, BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS FROM THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION REPRESENTING DORCHESTER COUNTY TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF DORCHESTER COUNTY.
On motion of Rep. YOUNG-BRICKELL, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
S. 1274 -- Senators Hayes, Gregory, Peeler and Short: A BILL TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM FILING PERIOD FOR CANDIDATES FOR TRUSTEES TO THE SCHOOL BOARDS IN YORK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.
On motion of Rep. SIMRILL, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
The following was introduced:
H. 4816 -- Reps. Cave and Rhoad: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING MR. RICHARD LINTON HUGGINS, SR., OF BARNWELL COUNTY FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE FIELD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AS SUPERINTENDENT OF BARNWELL COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 19 AND TO WISH HIM AND HIS FAMILY WELL IN ALL THEIR FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4817 -- Reps. Stuart, Knotts, Wright, Spearman, Riser and Gamble: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING SWANSEA HIGH SCHOOL OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ON THE SCHOOL'S VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM BEING NAMED THE BEST IN THE SOUTHEAST BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Allison Anderson Bailey Baxley Breeland Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cain Canty Carnell Cato Cave Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Delleney Easterday Elliott Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Govan Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Harris, P. Harrison Haskins Herdklotz Hines, J. Hines, M. Hodges Howard Hutson Inabinett Keegan Kelley Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Lee Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Marchbanks Mason McAbee McCraw McElveen McKay McMahand McTeer Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Neilson Phillips Rhoad Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Rogers Sandifer Scott Seithel Sharpe Sheheen Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stille Stoddard Stuart Townsend Tripp Trotter Tucker Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Whipper, L. Wilder Wilkes Wilkins Williams Witherspoon Wofford Worley Wright Young-Brickell
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday, March 26.
Michael F. Jaskwhich Jackson S. Whipper Paula H. Thomas Juanita M. White Douglas Jennings, Jr. June S. Shissias William D. Boan C. Alex Harvin III G. Ralph Davenport, Jr. L. Morgan Martin
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
The SPEAKER granted Rep. J. YOUNG a leave of absence for the week due to Air Force reserve duty.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. ASKINS a leave of absence for the day.
Announcement was made that Dr. March Seabrook of West Columbia is the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
Rep. KOON on behalf of the Lexington Delegation, presented to the House the Lexington High School Wildcats Boys Basketball Team, winners of the 1996 Class AAAA Championship, their coaches and other school officials.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 4761 -- Reps. Gamble, Koon, Knotts, Riser, Spearman and Wright: A BILL TO PROHIBIT, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, A SERVICE CHARGE, TAX, OR BUSINESS LICENSE FEE IMPOSED IN ANY AREA OF LEXINGTON COUNTY THAT HAS BEEN ANNEXED BY A MUNICIPALITY AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
Rep. J. BROWN moved to commit the Bill to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
Rep. GAMBLE moved to table the motion to commit and demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Cotty Fulmer Gamble Hallman Haskins Jaskwhich Keegan Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Limehouse Littlejohn Mason McCraw Meacham Phillips Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Sharpe Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Stoddard Stuart Tripp Walker Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wofford Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Carnell Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Harrison Hines, J. Hines, M. Howard Inabinett Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Lee Lloyd McElveen Neal Rogers Scott Stille Tucker Whipper, S. Wilder Williams
So, the motion to commit was tabled.
Rep. WRIGHT moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.
Rep. KNOTTS demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Bailey Cain Dantzler Gamble Hallman Haskins Hodges Keegan Kelley Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limehouse Littlejohn Mason McKay Meacham Phillips Rice Richardson Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R. Spearman Stoddard Stuart Trotter Walker Whatley Witherspoon Wright Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson Breeland Brown, G. Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Delleney Elliott Govan Harrison Hines, M. Howard Inabinett Jaskwhich Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Lee Lloyd McElveen McTeer Neal Neilson Rhoad Rogers Scott Sheheen Stille Tucker Williams
So, immediate cloture was ordered.
Rep. ROGERS moved to continue the Bill and demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Canty Carnell Cave Cobb-Hunter Cotty Cromer Harrison Inabinett Lee Lloyd McTeer Neal Rogers Scott Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Fulmer Gamble Hallman Haskins Herdklotz Jaskwhich Keegan Kelley Kinon Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Limehouse Littlejohn Loftis Marchbanks Mason McKay Meacham Phillips Rice Riser Robinson Sandifer Seithel Simrill Smith, R. Spearman Stoddard Tripp Trotter Wells Whatley Wilkins Witherspoon Wright
So, the House refused to continue the Bill.
Further proceedings were interrupted by expiration of time on the local uncontested Calendar, the pending question being consideration of the Bill, immediate cloture having been ordered.
The following Bill was taken up.
H. 4396 -- Reps. Harvin, Herdklotz, Riser, Moody-Lawrence and Clyburn: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-135 SO AS TO REQUIRE INSURANCE POLICIES AND HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS TO PAY FOR HOSPITALIZATION FOR AT LEAST FORTY-EIGHT HOURS FOR A MOTHER AND HER CHILD AFTER A VAGINAL DELIVERY AND NINETY-SIX HOURS AFTER A CAESARIAN SECTION.
The Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\8079AC.96), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-71-135. All individual and group health insurance and health maintenance organization policies providing coverage for the hospitalization of a mother and her newborn child or children, if medically necessary, at the discretion of the attending physician, shall provide for the mother and her newborn child or children to remain in the hospital for a period not to exceed the second postpartum day after the vaginal delivery, not including the day of delivery, and the third postoperative day following a Caesarian Section, not including the day of surgery. Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit the attending physician from requesting additional time or releasing the mother or her newborn child or children before the expiration time provided in this section."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. NEILSON explained the amendment.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke against the amendment.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment.
Rep. SHEHEEN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Bailey Baxley Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, T. Cain Cato Chamblee Cooper Cotty Easterday Elliott Felder Fleming Fulmer Gamble Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Haskins Herdklotz Hines, J. Hodges Hutson Jaskwhich Keegan Kelley Klauber Koon Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn Marchbanks Mason McElveen McKay Moody-Lawrence Neilson Rhoad Rice Richardson Sandifer Shissias Smith, R. Spearman Stuart Tripp Trotter Vaughn Waldrop Walker Wells Whatley Wilkes Wilkins Wofford Worley Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Breeland Brown, J. Byrd Carnell Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cromer Davenport Delleney Govan Harris, P. Hines, M. Howard Inabinett Kennedy Keyserling Kinon Kirsh Knotts Lanford Lee Lloyd Loftis McMahand Meacham Neal Riser Robinson Rogers Scott Seithel Sheheen Simrill Stille Stoddard Whipper, L. Whipper, S. Wilder Williams Witherspoon Wright
So, the amendment was adopted.
Rep. CATO proposed the following Amendment No. 2 (Doc Name P:\amend\JIC\5714AC.96), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 2 in its entirety and inserting:
/SECTION 2. This act takes effect October 1, 1996./
Amend title to conform.
Rep. CATO explained the amendment.
The amendment was then adopted.
Rep. SHEHEEN proposed the following Amendment No. 3 (Doc Name H-MEMBER\B21\SHEHEEN\AMEND\1).
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 38-71-135. All individual and group health insurance and health maintenance organization policies providing coverage for the hospitalization of a mother and her newborn child or children, if medically necessary, at the discretion of the attending physician, shall provide for the mother and her newborn child or children to remain in the hospital for a period not to exceed the second postpartum day after the vaginal delivery, not including the day of delivery, and the third postoperative day following a Caesarian Section not including the day of surgery. Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit the attending physician from authorizing additional time or releasing the mother or her newborn child or children before the expiration of the time provided in this section."
Rep. SHEHEEN explained the amendment.
Reps. NEILSON and RICHARDSON spoke against the amendment.
Reps. L. WHIPPER, S. WHIPPER, SCOTT, CANTY, KENNEDY, CATO, HOWARD, YOUNG-BRICKELL, NEILSON, BREELAND, CLYBURN, SEITHEL, R. SMITH, M. HINES and LIMBAUGH objected to the Bill.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., March 26, 1996
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 12:55 P.M. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
On motion of Rep. HARRISON the invitation was accepted.
Rep. HASKINS moved that the House stand at ease until the Ratification of Acts, and upon completion, the House stand adjourned, which was agreed to.
At 12:55 P.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were duly ratified.
(R262) S. 296 -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-11-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF INCOME TAX PROVISIONS ON BANKS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THESE PROVISIONS ALSO APPLY FOR PURPOSES OF THE ALLOCATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, TO AMEND SECTION 27-18-180, RELATING TO REPORTS OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AND NOTICE TO THE APPARENT OWNER, SO AS TO RAISE THE DOLLAR VALUE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WHICH REQUIRES IT TO BE REPORTED AS UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, AND TO DELETE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A SPECIFIC REPORTING DATE FOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES, TO AMEND SECTION 27-18-190, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTICE OF ABANDONED PROPERTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIRED PUBLICATION DATES FOR CERTAIN OF THESE NOTICES, AND THE REQUIRED CONTENTS OF PUBLISHED AND MAILED NOTICES, TO AMEND SECTION 27-18-200, RELATING TO PAYMENT ON DELIVERY OF ABANDONED PROPERTY TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, SO AS TO REVISE SUCH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND THE DATES OF REPORTING, TO AMEND SECTION 34-19-50, RELATING TO ACCESS TO THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX OF A DECEDENT AND THE REMOVAL OF ITS CONTENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON REMOVAL OF CONTENTS, AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 12-16-1520 AND 12-16-1530, RELATING TO NOTICE AND EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN ASSETS OF A DECEDENT PRIOR TO TRANSFER.
(R263) S. 596 -- Senator Greg Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-18-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF HYBRID STRIPED BASS, SO AS TO FURTHER DEFINE THE PROCESS FOR PERMIT RENEWAL.
(R264) S. 597 -- Senator Greg Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-18-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HYBRID STRIPED BASS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF PROCESSOR.
(R265) S. 599 -- Senator Thomas: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 43-33-330, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM FOR THE HANDICAPPED, INC., SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO CHANGE ITS CORPORATE NAME IN THE SAME MANNER AS ANY OTHER NONPROFIT CORPORATION AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SYSTEM ARE CONSIDERED THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF A SUCCESSOR CORPORATION.
(R266) S. 625 -- Judiciary Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-860, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO POLL WATCHERS, SO AS TO MAKE THE SECTION APPLICABLE TO NONPARTISAN CANDIDATES, AUTHORIZE A WATCHER AT A VOTING PLACE FOR A CANDIDATE WHERE HIS NAME IS ON THE BALLOT, PROVIDE FOR WRITTEN CERTIFICATION OF THE WATCHER, PROVIDE FOR THE SIZE AND COLOR OF IDENTIFICATION BADGES THAT A WATCHER MAY WEAR, AND THE LOCATION WHERE WATCHERS MAY OBSERVE THE ELECTION PROCESS.
(R267) 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.
(R268) S. 996 -- Senator J. Verne Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 31-6-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF VACANT LAND.
(R269) S. 1044 -- Senator McConnell: AN ACT TO DESIGNATE SECTIONS 38-9-10 THROUGH 38-9-220, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INSURANCE AND CAPITAL, SURPLUS, RESERVES, AND OTHER FINANCIAL MATTERS AS ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER 9, TITLE 38 AND ENTITLE THAT ARTICLE "GENERAL PROVISIONS"; TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, TITLE 38 BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 SO AS TO ENACT PROVISIONS REQUIRING INSURERS TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE TO MAINTAIN RISK BASED CAPITAL; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.
(R270) S. 1094 -- Senator Bryan: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-360, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN LAURENS COUNTY, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE AN OFFICIAL REFERENCE FOR THE MAP DEFINING THE COUNTY'S PRECINCT LINES.
(R271) S. 1154 -- Senators Washington, Passailaigue, Ford, Greg Smith, Richter and McConnell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING PRECINCTS IN CHARLESTON COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THESE PRECINCTS AND THE DATE OF THE OFFICIAL MAP ON WHICH THE LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED.
(R272) S. 1203 -- Senators Washington, Matthews, Alexander, Boan, Bryan, Cork, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Giese, Glover, Gregory, Hayes, Holland, Jackson, Land, Lander, Leatherman, Leventis, Martin, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Patterson, Peeler, Rankin, Reese, Richter, Rose, Russell, Ryberg, Saleeby, Setzler, Short, Greg Smith, J. Verne Smith, Thomas, Waldrep and Wilson: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A MONUMENT FOR RECOGNITION OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN TO BE ERECTED ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WALTERBORO AIRFIELD, AND TO CREATE A COMMISSION TO SELECT THE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF THE MONUMENT.
(R273) S. 1204 -- Senators Hayes and Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-530, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN YORK COUNTY, SO AS TO DELETE THE FORT MILL NO. 2 PRECINCT AND REVISE THE MAP DOCUMENT NUMBER ON THE OFFICIAL MAP ON WHICH THE LINES OF THE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED.
(R274) S. 1220 -- Senator Matthews: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-440, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE POLLING PLACE FOR EACH PRECINCT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS AND A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTING ORANGEBURG COUNTY.
(R275) H. 3271 -- Reps. Richardson, Vaughn, McKay, Harvin, Limbaugh, Lloyd, Bailey, Cain, Sandifer, Walker, Baxley, Chamblee, Wofford, A. Young, Shissias, Stuart, Dantzler, Thomas, Keyserling, Jennings, Wells, Tucker, Harrison and Spearman: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-9-340, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF INTIMIDATING COURT OFFICIALS, JURORS, OR WITNESSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
(R276) H. 3339 -- Rep. Koon: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-1538 SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF AN EMERGENCY SCENE, TO DEFINE WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO CONTROL AN EMERGENCY SCENE, AND TO DEFINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MOTOR VEHICLES PASSING THROUGH AND PEDESTRIANS OBSERVING AN EMERGENCY SCENE.
(R277) H. 3535 -- Reps. Delleney, Martin, Baxley, Knotts, Littlejohn, A. Young, Harrison, Wright, Sheheen, J. Harris and Thomas: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-430, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRANSFER OF JUVENILE JURISDICTION, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE FAMILY COURT TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION OF A CHILD FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IF THE CHILD HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE THAT, IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, WOULD PROVIDE FOR A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR TEN YEARS OR MORE AND THE CHILD HAS TWO PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS FOR OFFENSES CARRYING THE SAME SENTENCE, AND TO DEFINE A SECOND ADJUDICATION OR CONVICTION.
(R278) H. 3589 -- Rep. McTeer: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO STUDY WHETHER MOTOR VEHICLES THAT ARE LEGALLY ELEVATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 56-5-4445 ARE A SAFETY HAZARD AND TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND PUBLIC WORKS AND SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES.
(R279) H. 3898 -- Rep. Sharpe: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-23-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTIFICATES OF TITLE FOR WATERCRAFT AND OUTBOARD MOTORS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES BE SWORN TO BEFORE NOTARY PUBLICS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PERSONS.
(R280) H. 4054 -- Rep. McElveen: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 42-1-315 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES TO AND INCLUDES ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE TECH PREP OR OTHER STRUCTURED SCHOOL TO WORK PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 42-7-65, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND THE DESIGNATION OF THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE FOR STUDENTS OF HIGH SCHOOLS, STATE TECHNICAL SCHOOLS, AND STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WHILE ENGAGED IN CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.
(R281) H. 4332 -- Reps. Sharpe, Sandifer and Jennings: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-17-423 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE USE OF APPROVED BYCATCH REDUCTION DEVICES IN SHRIMP TRAWLS.
(R282) H. 4334 -- Reps. Sharpe, Sandifer, Inabinett and Riser: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-13-800 SO AS TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES FOR THE TAKING OF EELS.
(R283) H. 4351 -- Reps. Walker, Byrd, D. Smith, Allison, Baxley, J. Brown, Cain, Chamblee, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Cromer, Davenport, Gamble, Harrell, J. Harris, Harvin, Haskins, Herdklotz, Huff, Jaskwhich, Kelley, Kinon, Lanford, Littlejohn, McMahand, Meacham, Phillips, Robinson, R. Smith, Stille, Townsend, Vaughn, Wells, Wilder, Wilkes, Wilkins, Wright, J. Young, Inabinett, Keyserling, Hutson, Bailey, Witherspoon, Riser, Law, Simrill, Seithel, Cave, Richardson and Clyburn: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE GIFT OF LIFE ORGAN AND TISSUE PROCUREMENT ACT OF 1996 BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-5065 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATION ON STATE INCOME TAX FORMS ENABLING A TAXPAYER TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE GIFT OF LIFE TRUST FUND; BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO TITLE 44, CHAPTER 43 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE GIFT OF LIFE TRUST FUND, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DUTIES, AND FOR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-143 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION TO OFFER PERSONS OBTAINING OR RENEWING A DRIVER'S LICENSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTE ONE DOLLAR TO THE GIFT OF LIFE TRUST FUND AND THESE FUNDS MUST BE CREDITED TO AN ACCOUNT IN THE STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE FOR USE BY THE TRUST FUND.
(R284) H. 4365 -- Reps. Lanford, Walker, Keyserling, Jennings, Cain, Bailey, Law, Simrill, Herdklotz and Seithel: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-61-65 SO AS TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR "THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA" SO AS TO DEFINE EMT FIRST RESPONDER AGENCY; TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-30, RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND THE CREATION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THE EMS PROGRAM THE LICENSING OF EMT FIRST RESPONDER AGENCIES, THE DESIGNATION OF TRAUMA CENTERS, AND THE CATEGORIZATION OF HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS AND TO EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL; TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-40, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL LICENSES AND PERMITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE A LICENSE AND PERMIT FOR PROVIDING EMT FIRST RESPONSE OR AMBULANCE SERVICE RATHER THAN FOR TRANSPORTING PATIENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-90, RELATING TO AMBULANCE SERVICE RECORDS SO AS TO REQUIRE RECORDKEEPING OF PATIENT CARE RATHER THAN OF AMBULANCE RUNS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-140, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESCUE UNITS SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN PERFORMING THEIR FUNCTIONS THESE UNITS MAY NOT CONFLICT WITH LICENSED AGENCIES RATHER THAN WITH AMBULANCE SERVICES.
(R285) H. 4398 -- Reps. Harrison, Cromer, Jennings, Hutson, Bailey and Allison: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 40, CHAPTER 41, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 SO AS TO DEFINE "RETAILER", TO REQUIRE A RETAILER TO KEEP A RECORD OF THE SOURCE OF NEW MERCHANDISE THAT THE RETAILER OFFERS FOR SALE, TO SPECIFY THE TYPE OF RECORD OR DOCUMENTATION THAT IS REQUIRED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE MERCHANDISE MAY BE CONFISCATED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PROVIDE EXEMPTIONS, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.
(R286) H. 4402 -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS TO RECEIVE FUNDS FROM PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SOURCES FOR RESEARCH, FORUMS, TRAINING, AND INSTITUTES AND TO ALLOW THESE FUNDS TO BE RETAINED BY THE COMMISSION AND CARRIED FORWARD INTO FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 AND EXPENDED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES.
(R287) H. 4500 -- Reps. Cave and Rhoad: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY OF OCTOBER 13, 1995, MISSED BY STUDENTS OF BARNWELL SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 IN BARNWELL COUNTY FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO A FATAL SHOOTING INCIDENT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
(R288) H. 4524 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO RETAIL FOOD STORE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1900, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R289) H. 4581 -- Reps. J. Harris, Baxley and Jennings: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 205 OF 1993, RELATING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN VACANCIES ON THE BOARD SHALL BE FILLED.
(R290) H. 4625 -- Reps. Phillips and McCraw: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN STUDENTS FOR THE 1995-96 SCHOOL YEAR ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 59-39-160 OF THE 1976 CODE AND MAY PARTICIPATE IN INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, AND TO AMEND ACT 587 OF 1992, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHEROKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, SO AS TO REVISE THE DATES OF THE FILING PERIOD WHEN CANDIDATES MAY FILE WRITTEN DECLARATIONS OF CANDIDACY.
(R291) H. 4626 -- Reps. Fleming and Wilder: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAYS OF JANUARY 9 AND 12, 1996, MISSED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNION COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO SNOW AND ICE CONDITIONS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
(R292) H. 4647 -- Reps. Vaughn, Rice, Easterday, Littlejohn, Allison, Anderson, Herdklotz, Loftis, Haskins, Cato, McMahand, Wilkins, Tripp, Wells, Jaskwhich and Lanford: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 55-11-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AN AIRPORT ENVIRONS AREA AND SUB-AREA WITHIN THE GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE ENVIRONS AREA, DELAY THE DATE FOR COMPLETION OF THE TASKS REQUIRED BY THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLANNING COMMISSION, REDUCE THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION FROM ELEVEN TO NINE MEMBERS DELETING REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE TOWN OF LYMAN AND THE CITY OF MAULDIN, PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO DWELLINGS OR OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH ARE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED AND WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY REPAIRED OR REBUILT, AND PROVIDE THAT CURRENTLY SERVING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL MARCH 31, 1996.
(R293) H. 4703 -- Rep. Harvin: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-190, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN CLARENDON COUNTY, SO AS TO DESIGNATE A MAP DOCUMENT NUMBER ON THE MAP DOCUMENT ON WHICH THE LINES OF THE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED.
(R294) H. 4721 -- Reps. Davenport and Littlejohn: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1189 OF 1958, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOILING SPRINGS FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE GOVERNING BOARD FROM THREE TO FIVE.
(R295) H. 4747 -- Rep. D. Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 318 OF 1965, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CHEROKEE SPRINGS FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF FIRE CONTROL OF THE DISTRICT TO BE ELECTED IN A NONPARTISAN ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED AT THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE STAGGERING OF TERMS, AND THE MANNER OF ELECTION, AND DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING A TWENTY PERCENT PETITION OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT TO INITIATE AN ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
At 1:10 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. ANDERSON adjourned in memory of Annie E. Harris of Greenville, to meet at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:38 P.M.