Journal of the House of Representatives
of the Second Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 9, 1996

Page Finder Index
| Printed Page 826, Feb. 20 | Printed Page 840, Feb. 21 |
Printed Page 830 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
The SPEAKER granted Rep. BOAN a temporary leave of absence due to illness in the family.

SPECIAL PRESENTATION

Rep. KLAUBER, on behalf of the Greenwood Delegation presented to the House the Lander University Men's Tennis Team, winners of the 1995 NCAA Division II Championship, their coach and other school officials.

SENT TO THE SENATE

The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate.

H. 4609 -- Reps. Koon, Knotts, Gamble, Riser and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 218 OF 1993, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN LEXINGTON COUNTY IN NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DATES WHEN NOTICES OF CANDIDACY MAY BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, AND TO AMEND ACT 176 OF 1995, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FILING PERIOD FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO FILE WRITTEN NOTICES OF CANDIDACY SHALL BE AS PROVIDED IN ACT 218 OF 1993.

H. 4611 -- Reps. Hodges and Boan: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY OF AUGUST 28, 1995, MISSED BY STUDENTS OF INDIAN LAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND INDIAN LAND HIGH SCHOOL OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 WHEN THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO FLOODING 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.

ORDERED TO THIRD READING

The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:

H. 4625 -- Reps. Phillips and McCraw: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 587 OF 1992, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF

Printed Page 831 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
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.

H. 4626 -- Reps. Fleming and Wilder: A JOINT RESOLUTION 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.

H. 4471--DEBATE ADJOURNED

Rep. CATO moved to adjourn debate upon the following Joint Resolution until Wednesday, February 21, which was adopted.

H. 4471 -- Reps. Cato, Vaughn, Easterday, Tripp and Rice: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE 1996 GENERAL ELECTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY FAVOR SUBDIVIDING THE DISTRICT INTO THREE OR MORE SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND REQUIRING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GREENVILLE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED BY THE DELEGATION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT IN 1998 FOR THEIR APPROVAL IF THE RESULTS OF THE 1996 REFERENDUM ARE IN FAVOR OF SUBDIVIDING THE DISTRICT.

H. 4354--AMENDED AND ORDERED TO THIRD READING

The following Bill was taken up.

H. 4354 -- Reps. Robinson, Walker, Allison, D. Smith, Simrill and Kirsh: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-28-70, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS' DUTIES, SO AS TO NOT REQUIRE A RESERVE POLICE OFFICER TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FULL-TIME CERTIFIED SOUTH CAROLINA POLICE OFFICER,

Printed Page 832 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
AND TO REQUIRE A RESERVE POLICE OFFICER TO BE IN PROXIMATE CONTACT WITH THE FULL-TIME OFFICER TO WHOM HE IS ASSIGNED.

The Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (Doc Name P:\amend\DKA\3517CM.96), which was adopted.

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION 1. Section 23-28-70 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 85 of 1995, is further amended to read:

"Section 23-28-70. (A) Reserves shall serve and function as law enforcement officers only on specific orders and directions of the chief or sheriff. To maintain status, reserves shall maintain a minimum logged service time of twenty hours per each month or sixty hours per each quarter.

(B) While performing in any capacity as a reserve, a reserve police officer at all times must be accompanied by a full-time certified South Carolina police officer. Each reserve must be in proximate contact, by radio or another device, with the full-time officer to whom he is assigned.

(C) A person appointed as an auxiliary or reserve police officer after January 1, 1996, shall perform his duties while accompanied by a full-time, certified South Carolina police officer or deputy sheriff for a minimum of two hundred forty hours and with the approval of the chief or sheriff before he may work as provided in this section. Reserve or auxiliary officers serving before January 1, 1996, and who have at least two hundred forty hours of logged service time are exempt from this provision.

(D) Reserves shall in no case not assume full-time duties of law enforcement officers without complying with all requirements for full-time officers.

(E) Each department utilizing reserves shall have one full-time officer as coordinator-supervisor who must be responsible directly to the chief or sheriff."

SECTION 2. Section 23-28-20(A) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 85 of 1995, is further amended to read:

"(A) The chief with the approval of the governing body or its chief operating officer or sheriff may appoint such the number of reserve police officers as may be needed but not exceeding the number of regular full-time officers of his department. The number of full-time officers may not be decreased because of the institution or expansion of a reserve force.

Printed Page 833 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
Each period of time reserves serve must be determined and specified by the chief or sheriff in writing. The powers and duties of reserves must be prescribed by the chief or sheriff and they are subject to removal by him at any time."

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Rep. ASKINS explained the amendment.

The amendment was then adopted.

The Bill, as amended, was read the second time and ordered to third reading.

HOUSE TO MEET AT 11:00 A.M. TOMORROW

Rep. H. BROWN moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn to meet at 11:00 A.M. tomorrow, which was agreed to.

HOUSE STANDS AT EASE

The House stood at ease subject to the call of Chair.

THE HOUSE RESUMES

At 12:29 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

JOINT ASSEMBLY

At 12:30 P.M. the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.

The President of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses.

ADDRESS BY CHIEF JUSTICE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR.

The Reading Clerk of the House read the following Concurrent Resolution:

H. 4595 -- Reps. Wilkins and Harrison: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR., TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1996.

Printed Page 834 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
Chief Justice Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and distinguished party were escorted to the rostrum by Senators Leventis, Courtney, Washington and Holland and Representatives TUCKER, KLAUBER, GOVAN and THOMAS.

The President of the Senate introduced Chief Justice Finney.

Chief Justice Finney addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:

"Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly, other officials, members of the Judiciary, and honored guests... 20 years ago, your speaker was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and when I assumed the responsibility of a Circuit Judge, I thought it was probably the most awesome responsibility that I would ever assume. I tell you today, that I am having second thoughts about that because to describe in detail so that you would understand and be supportive of our mission, the budget and the concerns of the Judiciary of this State in a reasonable period of time before lunch, it is even more awesome a task. Last March I met with you and at that time, I outlined before you and my fellow South Carolinians the state of the judicial branch of South Carolina government and shared my vision for its future. I also described the roles which I envisioned were necessary for the executive branch, the legislature, the citizens of this State, and judicial system personnel to play in making our system more responsive to its mission of effectively and efficiently administering justice. Personally, on behalf of the Supreme Court, and the entire judicial branch, I want to thank you for your support, and particularly for approving the major portions of last year's budgetary request. I appreciate very much the cooperative and professional manner in which I have been received by members of these Bodies and by officials of the executive branch as we attempted to keep open the lines of communication throughout the year. In my first State of the Judiciary message, I told you that our courts were overextended, understaffed, and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cases. Despite the fact that our judges, and other judicial branch personnel have continued to perform admirably under difficult circumstances, I am unable to report today that a miracle has occurred during the past year. So this branch has already bottomed out financially by the time of the most recent rounds of state imposed fiscal austerity. Your judicial branch went into a state of crisis prematurely over a period of decades. By the fiscal year 1995-96, we were operating with too few judges and insufficient travel funds to make full use of the judges we have. More court has been scheduled, but staffing the courts with court reporters meant transcripts were delayed because of the shortage of court reporters

Printed Page 835 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
necessitated by constant in court assignment of every available reporter. The number of other staff and support personnel remain reasonably constant during that period of time. By the time of last year's State of the Judiciary message, we found ourselves with Circuit and Family Court dockets literally out of control. Added to the previous deluge of cases, recent legislation to combat crime was causing dockets to spiral out of control. During 1995, our Circuit and Family Court judges disposed of 251,000 cases. As of December 31, 1995, there were 136,484 cases pending in the Circuit and Family Courts, an increase of over 5,552. Obviously, those figures indicate that the cases are not moving through the system at an acceptable rate. Staffing is still less than adequate. Personnel morale is suffering. Technology is lagging. And, public consternation indicates either our inability to effectively articulate the gravity of our problems or their intolerance of our pace in crafting solutions. However, I can report to you that we are beginning to see the first fruits of our collective efforts to enhance this state's judicial system. I sense a heightened awareness on the part of citizens, and what appears to be an increased receptiveness to suggestions regarding the time factors and costs involved in fashioning remedies. I am especially grateful for the insight and vision you have demonstrated by the passage last week of a supplemental appropriation for the judicial branch. These funds will enable us to maintain operations for the remainder of this fiscal year and proceed with partial implementation of programs that were authorized in our fiscal year 1995-96 appropriations, but which had to be deferred. A substantial portion of our budget consists of personnel costs and other so-called `pass-through' funds over which we have no control or discretion. Therefore, the gubernatorial veto of approximately 1.4 million dollars from that budget forced us to defer filling the nine new judgeships, delay implementation of the alternative dispute resolution pilot project, and to curtail other vital programs. The supplemental appropriations bill will enable us to proceed with the following programs, alternate dispute resolutions. March 15, 1996, has been selected as the start-up date for South Carolina's two-year experiment with court-ordered ADR. The Circuit and Family courts of Richland and Florence counties have been chosen as representative sites and they will hopefully furnish us reliable data indicating the availability and the feasibility of ADR in our court system. The nine new judges which were elected last week will enable us to add three new judges each to the Family Court, the Circuit Court, and to the Court of Appeals. Our Family Court judges are traumatized by the escalation of divorce controversies, interminable custody disputes, staggering juvenile criminal matters, and soaring numbers of cases which
Printed Page 836 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
involve clients of the Department of Social Services. The addition of three judges will at least stem the rising tide of Family Court cases and, hopefully, provide the opportunity for troubled individuals and problematic families to come before the court without excessive delay and get a just and fair resolution of their problem. The new Circuit Court judges will be rotated to counties with the heavier dockets. Among the immediate benefits will be the earlier disposition of cases involving repeat offenders and defendants accused of committing subsequent crimes while out on bond from an earlier arrest. We feel that these Circuit judges will make the difference between state civil dockets that are stagnated with aging cases and civil dockets that are at least manageable. The three Appeals Court judges will allow the formation of a third panel. Last year, the Court of Appeals issued 498 opinions, and 252 cases were pending as the end of 1995. The additional judges will permit that court to increase its case disposition rate by at least one-third. Expanding the Court of Appeals will also facilitate another phase of our plan for a more efficient and effective appellate process. The Chief Justice serves as the chief administrative officer of the judicial branch, and ministerial functions consume an inordinate amount of time and energy. The Chief Justice also sits as one of the five-member Supreme Court which shares with the Court of Appeals the remaining portion of the state's civil and criminal appellate case load. The Supreme Court disposed of 557 cases and 4,608 motions in 1995. The Supreme Court also hears appeals from post-conviction relief proceedings, grievance and disciplinary appeals, and the five classes of appeals mandated by the constitution and statutes. The current plan provides for the Supreme Court to become a Court of Certiorari, thereby enabling that court to more effectively fulfill its constitutionally delegated functions of establishing legal parameters and setting the course of law in a more thoughtful, thorough and deliberate manner. The new proposal provides for post-conviction relief appeals to remain in the Supreme Court for the immediate future. Likewise, the Supreme Court would retain jurisdiction of grievance and disciplinary matters and the five classes of statutorily and constitutionally mandated cases. Reorganization of the Appellate Courts will require procedural changes and some shifting of personnel from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals, as well as some additional space. A contract has been let for renovations of the Calhoun building with a projected completion date of May 1, 1996. In addition, we are taking innovative methods to improve the flow on the civil and criminal side of our court. One of the examples on the civil side is the adr study mentioned earlier and is designed to produce reliable indicators of whether or not court-ordered arbitration and mediation would
Printed Page 837 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
be fully implemented as a means of case management. Another example on the civil side has been settlement week. Several counties are utilizing settlement weeks to manage their case dockets. During these designated weeks, a mediator is available to assist parties in resolving disputes before and after lawsuits have been filed. On the criminal side, the South Carolina Bar Committee studying ways to relieve overcrowded dockets has forwarded its report and proposals on criminal docketing in South Carolina. The Supreme Court has also received recommendations on criminal docketing from the Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee. We are considering these proposals for use on a trial basis in the Circuit Court. Another idea floating around has been differentiated case management as another means of relieving docket congestion at the Circuit Court level, differentiated case management is being tested in the sixteenth judicial circuit with the endorsement of the solicitor and the approval of the Circuit judges. DCM provides a mechanism for identifying and processing each case based upon the amount of time and judicial system resources required for a particular case, as opposed to having cases automatically `wait in line' for disposition. We have heard and read much about attorneys and grievance discipline. In March we expect to release a report on our study of the grievance and disciplinary procedures for lawyers and judges. The two major areas of immediate modification will be expediting the process with a view to permitting earlier disclosure, and closer cooperation between the Supreme Court agencies which handle grievances and the prosecutorial arm of the State Attorney General's office. An internal review of judicial branch job descriptions and compensation indicated the need for further study. We commissioned a study by the State Office of Human Resources, and that agency issued its preliminary report in late January of this year. We were pleased to note that compensation for approximately 90% of the non-judiciary employees of this branch is within the range of the state average for similar positions. But, as we suspected, roughly 10% of our personnel were significantly out of line with their state counterparts, some as much as 28% below the state average. We are now in the process of rectifying this situation. In the few moments that I will take in the remainder of your time, I am going to review our budgetary request. I fully understand that a review in this perspective is not in detail and I will once again renew my request and offer to you that at any time, you or any of you, a small group or a large group, would like to discuss the budgetary request of your Judicial department, please feel free to contact us and we will make the time available. We will make ourselves available on every Wednesday from now until the legislative session ends to have in depth discussion
Printed Page 838 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
concerning our judicial budget request. The Judicial department's major budgetary request for fiscal year 1996-97 incorporates the immediate cost of the programs I have mentioned, each of which will require either additional personnel, expanded facilities or greater utilization of information technology. The requested funds are vital to efforts of the Judicial branch to meet constitutional mandates, to respond to the demands of our beleaguered fellow citizens, and to implement legislation enacted by the General Assembly and approved by the Governor. For example, since initial funding for the nine new judges was provided by supplemental appropriations, it is necessary to request funding again this year. For that reason, we are seeking recurring appropriations for the judges and their staffs. Additionally, one and a quarter million dollars ($1,259,217) are needed on a recurring basis to operate our Circuit and Family courts, which would restore this back to where it was in 1988-89; and approximately one million dollars ($1,156,496) to continue the planned phase-in of information technology. Approximately $200,000 has been requested to raise the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline and the Judicial Standards Commission to more acceptable levels of effectiveness. I assure you legislators of South Carolina that your Family Courts are besieged by too many cases and too few judicial resources. We are seeking 16 law clerks to provide research assistance for Family Court judges and to aid Family Court clientele by reducing the delay in disposing of cases. Just under $300,000 has been requested for eight additional Circuit and Family court reporters and three staff persons to relieve understaffing in the office of finance and personnel. Like the biblical warning that the love of money is the root of evil - in the judicial branch, the lack of money is at the root of the evils which beset us. Justice delayed is justice denied. Adequate funding will result in a more timely disposition of cases and, hopefully, lead to an abatement of court backlogs and the hardship imposed upon litigants, victims, witnesses and accused individuals who are unable to have their causes adjudicated within a reasonable period of time. The two crucial areas are sufficiency of funds and recurring appropriations. These are the cornerstones of our budgetary request for fiscal year 1996-97. If approved, we expect to move forward with these programs which incorporate the court's constitutional mandates, embody our vision, and correspond to the necessity which you and the people of South Carolina have articulated for a judicial system that is fair, effective and efficient. I challenge you to share the vision, to aspire to the spirit of nobility in us all as we strive - together - to set sterling examples of faithful stewardship and dedicated public service in the highest and best tradition of the American
Printed Page 839 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
system of justice and responsive, responsible state government. Once again, we are indebted to you for the affirmative role you have taken in supporting the judicial branch during the past year and I solicit your continued cooperation with our efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the South Carolina judicial system and thank you for allowing me to share these moments with you. Thank you very much."

Upon the conclusion of his address, Chief Justice Finney and his escort party retired from the Chamber.

JOINT ASSEMBLY RECEDES

The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the President announced that under the terms of the Concurrent Resolution the Joint Assembly would recede from business.

The Senate accordingly retired to its Chamber.

THE HOUSE RESUMES

At 12:58 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.

Rep. H. BROWN moved that the House do now adjourn, which was adopted.

ADJOURNMENT

At 12:59 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. INABINETT adjourned in memory of Susie M. Kennedy, mother of Rep. KENNEDY of Greeleyville, to meet at 11:00 A.M. tomorrow.

* * *

| Printed Page 826, Feb. 20 | Printed Page 840, Feb. 21 |
Page Finder Index