Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Our prayer today is based on a "Recipe For Living," by Johann Wolfgang Goethe.

Heavenly Father, grant us

"Health enough to make work a pleasure;

Wealth enough to support our needs;

Strength enough to battle with difficulties

and overcome them;

Grace enough to confess our sins and

forsake them;

Patience enough to toil until some good

is accomplished;

Charity enough to see some good in

our neighbor;

Love enough to move us to be

useful and helpful to others;

Faith enough to make real the things of

God;

Hope enough to remove all anxious fears

concerning the future."

Amen!

Date Draft Report Issued:           Friday, May 19, 1995
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   Tuesday, May 23, 1995 -- 10:00 a.m.

Candidates for Seat 2 of the Family Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit are not free to seek or accept commitments until further notice because the application filing period for that seat has been reopened.
Several candidates' knowledge of the rules of practice and procedure in the court to which they aspire exceeded the Joint Committee's expectations. Those candidates are as follows:

The Honorable Wayne M. Creech

The Honorable Donald A. Fanning

Paul W. Garfinkel, Esquire

The Honorable John W. Kittredge

The Honorable Berry L. Mobley

The Honorable A. E. Morehead, III

The Honorable J. L. Murdock, Jr.

H. Bruce Williams, Esquire

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 thirty-eight candidates qualified for judicial office and one candidate not qualified for judicial office. The Joint Committee did not reach a finding as to one candidate's qualifications as four members of the Joint Committee voted to find the candidate qualified and four members voted to find the candidate not qualified. This report details the reasons for the Joint Committee's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine evaluative criteria.

The Joint Committee's last report, issued in March of 1995, indicated that the Joint Committee had found all candidates treated in that report to be "legally qualified." The Joint Committee defined the term "legally qualified" to mean that the candidates met the requirements for judicial office set forth in the South Carolina Constitution. The Joint Committee determined that each candidate treated in this report meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the judicial office. The Joint Committee did, however, also make an overall finding as to whether each candidate was qualified or not qualified for service on the bench. The Joint Committee returned to its long-standing practice of making an overall finding as to candidate qualifications (and not simply a finding of legal qualification) because numerous members of the General Assembly requested that the Joint Committee do so, and the Joint Committee believes that its report will be more helpful to members of the General Assembly if it includes an overall finding as to each candidate's qualifications.

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)   court schedule study;
(10)   study of appellate record;
(11)   court observation; and
(12)   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 Michael Couick or Nancy Goodman at 212-6610.

This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the circuit and family court. In addition, the Joint Committee has found the Honorable John Black, the Honorable Luke N. Brown, Jr., the Honorable Clyde K. Laney, Jr., the Honorable Robert R. Mallard, the Honorable William J. McLeod, and the Honorable Willie T. Smith, Jr., qualified for continued service as retired judges and has communicated its findings to the Supreme Court by way of a letter to the Chief Justice.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Beatty was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Beatty demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Beatty indicated on his application that he has never requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating.

Mr. Beatty reported that he has been sued over a disputed title opinion, but that the case was dismissed.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Beatty has taught Business Law at Limestone College.

Mr. Beatty described his legal experience as follows:
(a)   1979-1981:     Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Civil Practice, with emphasis on domestic, consumer, and public benefits.
(b)   1981-1988:     Sole practitioner -- General Practice
(c)   1988-1992:     Beatty, Vick & Tullis -- General Practice
(d)   1992-Present:   Beatty Law Firm -- General Practice

Mr. Beatty indicated on his application that he appears in federal court on an "infrequent" basis and appears in state court "once or twice a week on the average." He described his practice as 40% civil, 25% criminal, and 35% domestic. He indicated that 10% of his practice involves jury matters and the other 90% is non-jury.

Mr. Beatty provided the Joint Committee with 5 of the most significant litigated matters he has handled. He described those matters to consist of:
(a)   the defense of a retarded man who could not read, count, or handle his own affairs accused of leading a drug dealing ring;
(b)   the defense of a man accused of the armed robbery of a motel who was identified in a tainted line-up and later acquitted;
(c)   an action for payment of a credit life policy where the salesman intentionally completed the application forms incorrectly after learning of the insured's heart condition;
(d)   the defense of an informant charged as a co-defendant in a drug trafficking case; and
(e)   a workers' compensation action wherein the claimant's supervisors persuaded the claimant not to file the claim and later attempted to use the statute of limitations as a defense to the action for payment.

Mr. Beatty has never handled a civil or criminal appeal.

In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of matters Mr. Beatty has taken to trial over the past 2 years, Mr. Beatty provided the Joint Committee with the following list of matters:
(a)   Jeter v. Chapell: Auto accident involving a school bus. Representing claimant in this matter which is still pending.
(b)   Love v. Foster & Petrea: Real estate transaction dealing with fraud. Took the matter to trial.
(c)   Littlejohn v. Crestview Villa Apts.: Case dealt with failure of the landlord to repair leased premises. A child fell and was injured.
(d)   Littlejohn v. Community Cash: False arrest matter.
(e)   Shannon Rodgers by GAL v. Cherokee County School District: Tort Claims Act matter in which Mr. Beatty represented a school child who was injured playing football. Claim was for negligent repair of equipment. This matter is still pending.
(f)   Keith Johnson & Jolette Johnson v. Atlantic Insurance, et al: Real estate transaction matter in which the house burned after the contract was signed but before closing. Took to trial.
(g)   Jones v. Hooper Exterminating Co.: Auto accident case.
(h)   Glenn v. Cloonan: A civil matter.
(i)   Ebenezer Baptist Church v. Peak Construction Co.: Action to recover for construction defects. Mr. Beatty represented the church and took the matter to trial.
(j)   Davis V. Pettit Construction Co. and Masonry, Inc.: Mr. Beatty represented the masonry company in this action for wrongful discharge and recovery of outstanding wages. Took to trial.
(k)   State v. Ben Gibson: A criminal matter.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Beatty had engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Beatty's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Beatty is married with 3 children, ages 16, 6, and 2. Mr. Beatty 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.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Beatty 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. Mr. Beatty has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Beatty served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1974 to 1976 and in the Army Reserves from 1976 to 1981. Mr. Beatty served on the Spartanburg City Council from 1988 to 1990 and in the House of Representatives from 1991 to the present.

Mr. Beatty reported membership in the following civic organizations:
(a)   Spartanburg Progressive Men's Club (Parliamentarian);
(b)   Omega Psi Phi Fraternity (President of Chapter);
(c)   Spartanburg Development Council;
(d)   Spartanburg Chamber of Commerce;
(e)   NAACP;
(f)   Legislative Black Caucus (Chairman of House Caucus and Chairman-Elect of entire caucus);
(g)   Spartanburg Residential Development Corporation;
(h)   Southside Neighborhood Associations Partnership;
(i)   Piedmont Legal Services Board of Directors;
(j)   Branch Bank & Trust Advisory Board; and
(k)   Fluor Daniel/BMW Advisory Board.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Beatty 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Beatty meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Beatty qualified and said:

He is perceived as having the intellect and temperament for the position. While his trial experience has not been extensive, those interviewed believed that this factor would not prevent him from performing adequately as a circuit court judge. He has demonstrated his ability and willingness to learn.

Representative Beatty would not show partiality or favoritism to either litigants or attorneys.

His judicial temperament is expected to be excellent.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Paslay was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Paslay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Paslay was during law school:
(a)   the winner of the Samuel L. Prince Moot Court Competition;
(b)   a member of law review and editor of the law review book; and
(c)   a member of a 3-person national moot court team.

Mr. Paslay has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Mr. Paslay has given the following law-related lectures:
(a)   Merchants' Association seminar on fraud, checks, and shoplifting (1977);
(b)   Citizens' Law Forum (1979 and 1994); and
(c)   presentations to local magistrates on:
(1)   search and seizure laws (1982);
(2)   arrest warrants and arraignment process (1985);
(3)   criminal domestic violence (1990);
(4)   preparing arrest warrants and bail guidelines (1992);
(5)   video arraignment procedures (1992);
(6)   landlord-tenant law updates (1993);
(7)   civil appeals process (1994);
(8)   assessments calculations and procedures (1994); and
(9)   new crime bill (1995).

Mr. Paslay wrote "Contracts, Annual Survey of S.C. Law, 1969" in the South Carolina Law Review.

Mr. Paslay was sued in 1981 in the matter of James E. Loftin v. James Paslay and Roland Jones, Magistrates. The matter was brought by a defendant in a forgery case. Mr. Paslay had issued a search warrant for the defendant's residence for evidence of a forged check that he had presented to a local bank. The defendant had fled with the check when a teller recognized him as a person who had previously passed bad checks. The search warrant was later determined to have been properly issued, but executed improperly. Mr. Paslay was dismissed as a defendant prior to trial.
(3)   Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee has concerns that Mr. Paslay's experience in circuit court was not recent and apparently limited in nature. The Joint Committee believes that this concern is lessened because of Mr. Paslay's substantial magisterial court trial experience.

Mr. Paslay was admitted to the Bar in 1971. He was a partner in the firm of Paslay & Paslay from 1971 to 1984. His practice during this time was general and included domestic relations, workers' compensation, criminal trial defense, consumer law, probate practice, and plaintiff and defendant civil trial litigation.

Mr. Paslay was an associate judge on nights and weekends for the Spartanburg County Civil and Criminal Court from 1973 to 1979. He was appointed to be a full-time magistrate in 1979 and still serves in that capacity.

Mr. Paslay provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders which he described as follows:
(a)   State v. Lee Harder: Criminal case involving newly enacted dangerous dog laws. Conviction upheld on appeal to circuit court.
(b)   State v. Tyrus Cooper: This case involved issues of search and seizure, roadside interrogation, and admissibility of evidence. Upheld on appeal to circuit court.
(c)   Mary Magnum Eaton v. Bud Moss d/b/a Circle Body Shop: This case involved competing priorities of liens, ownership and possession rights to personal property, and the law of bailments.
(d)   Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg v. Sandra: This case involved issues of ejectment of tenants in public housing units and an interpretation of the rights and duties of landlord and tenant.
(e)   State v. Steve O'Sullivan: Criminal case involving sufficiency of arrest warrant and the issue of who may initiate criminal process. Upheld on appeal.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Paslay's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Paslay 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.

Mr. Paslay is married with 2 children, ages 21 and 19.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Paslay 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. Mr. Paslay has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Paslay served in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1968 to 1976.

Mr. Paslay was a part-time Spartanburg County judge from 1973 to 1979 and has been a full-time magistrate since 1979.

Mr. Paslay was an unsuccessful candidate for the Spartanburg City Council in 1972.

Mr. Paslay is a member of the Spartanburg Arts Council and a not-for-profit corporation founded to help spread computer literacy to members and their families, particularly the use of computers in graphics and music.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Paslay reported on his application materials that he has spent $111 on his campaign.

Mr. Paslay 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Paslay meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the offices he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Paslay qualified and said:

He has significant experience in the judicial system, having served as a Magistrate Court Judge for approximately 22 years. In that capacity he has had experience in the trial of both civil and criminal cases.

He is respected by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry.

His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Rollins was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Rollins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Rollins is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Rollins graduated from Samford University Law School in 1988 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.

Mr. Rollins has practiced law with his father, John M Rollins, Sr., since his graduation from law school. His practice has included criminal, civil, probate, domestic, real estate, and administrative law matters. He has served as the City of Greer Public Defender since 1988 and as a Greenville County Contract Public Defender since 1990.

Mr. Rollins described his practice over the past 5 years as 20% civil, 40% criminal, and 40% domestic.

Mr. Rollins provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a)   State v. Chandler: Defendant charged with murder and armed robbery in what a police witness described as the bloodiest murder in Greenville County. Verdict of not guilty on both counts.
(b)   State v. Saam: Defendant charged with murder. State presented 32 witnesses, some of whom were agents of the FBI as the crime was interstate. Guilty verdict.
(c)   Robinson v. State of South Carolina: Post-conviction relief action. Conviction for accessory after the fact of a felony was upheld after a 4-day trial.
(d)   Landrum v. Robinson: Case involved college support for an adult child of divorced parents. Case appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals where is was affirmed.
(e)   Encarnacion Junior Molleda: Complicated murder case involving DNA forensic evidence. State proved that a drop of blood on the defendant's shoe was similar to blood of the victim. Worked with the expert who appeared in the World Trade Center bombing trial.

Mr. Rollins has handled one appeal, the Landrum v. Robinson matter discussed above.

In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of circuit court matters Mr. Rollins took to trial over the last 2 years, Mr. Rollins provided the Joint Committee with the following list:
(a)   City of Greer v. Weinzettle: Leaving the scene of an accident. Jury trial. Prosecuted the case for the city.
(b)   State v. Chandler: Murder and armed robbery. Jury trial. State's witness stated that this was the bloodiest murder in Greenville County. Grisly scenes of the crime were presented to the jury on videotape.
(c)   State v. Hill: Autobreaking/grand larceny. Jury trial.
(d)   Dixon v. State: Post-conviction relief hearing. State v. White review granted.
(e)   State v. Scott: Accessory before and after grand larceny. Bench trial.
(f)   State v. Johnson: DUI 2nd. Jury trial.
(g)   State v. Simpson: Possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Jury trial.
(h)   Moorehead v. State: Post-conviction relief hearing. Defendant did not have an attorney at the plea.
(i)   State v. Blakely: Possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Jury trial.
(j)   State v. Rooney: Grandfather charged with molesting his granddaughter. Jury trial.
(k)   State v. Molleda: Complicated murder trial involving DNA evidence and the testimony of 2 DNA expert witnesses. Jury trial.
(l)   State v. Kinsey: Jury trial in absentia on trafficking cocaine charges.
(m)   Robinson v. State: Very complicated PCR hearing which lasted 4 days.

The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Rollins had engaged in an active trial practice, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Rollins' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Rollins 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.

Mr. Rollins is married and does not have any children. His wife is an attorney.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Rollins 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. Mr. Rollins has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Rollins has been a member of the South Carolina Army National Guard since 1981.

Mr. Rollins is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Rollins 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Rollins meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Rollins qualified and said:

He has engaged in a general law practice since his admission to the bar in 1988. His primary emphasis has been in criminal and domestic law, including being a contract lawyer with the county public defender's office. He has also handled civil matters ranging from estate matters to personal injury, although civil matters were resolved with trial.

Those interviewed gave Mr. Rollins high marks for his honesty, integrity, and work ethic. He is considered to possess the abilities needed to balance an appropriate judicial temperament with a control of the courtroom.

During the interview process the question arose whether his age (33) and lack of civil trial experience in court would adversely affect his qualifications. The committee felt his overall legal experience qualified him for the position sought.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Abbott was screened on May 8,1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Abbott demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Abbott indicated in his application that he owns a small number of shares of stock in a bank and would recuse himself from any action involving a member of the Board of Directors, a shareholder, or their immediate families. Mr. Abbott also indicated that he would recuse himself from a matter involving a member of the Board of Directors of the Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc., or the board member's immediate family as he currently serves as attorney to the Board of Directors.

Mr. Abbott reported in his application materials that he has been cited for "hunting over bait." Mr. Abbott's SLED report showed 4 Fish and Wildlife violations and a consequential loss of his hunting license. The violations are as follows:
(a)   On 9/20/86, Mr. Abbott was cited for shooting dove over bait and was apparently fined although his SLED report did not list the fine amount.
(b)   On 11/26/86, Mr. Abbott was cited for both shooting duck over bait and shooting after hours. He was fined $225 for the first citation and $125 for the second.
(c)   On 9/8/90, Mr. Abbott was charged with shooting dove over bait. He pled guilty and was fined $325.

Mr. Abbott reported on his application materials that the incidents occurred during invited hunts on property he did not own. He said that the offense occurs when the area is baited or has been baited within the last 10 days and requires no specific intent or knowledge, only that he be present. Mr. Abbott said that he paid a fine, no longer dove hunts, and duck hunts only on public property. Mr. Pearly Britt, a retired wildlife officer and personal friend of Mr. Abbott's, provided the Joint Committee with an affidavit in which he recommended Mr. Abbott for judicial office and reminded the Joint Committee that the wildlife violations for which Mr. Abbott was cited are strict liability statutes requiring no showing of intent or prior knowledge.

Mr. Abbott serves on the Fee Disputes Board for the 15th Circuit.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Abbott's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Abbott has taught 1 course at Coastal Carolina University and 6 courses at Horry-Georgetown Technical College. All the courses consisted of material designed to give a general overview of the law and emphasize business and contract issues.

Mr. Abbott practiced with his father upon his graduation from law school in 1972 and has been a sole practitioner since 1975. He also serves as the Board Attorney for the Horry Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Mr. Abbott described his practice over the last 5 years as 50% domestic, 48% civil, and 2% criminal. He said that he appears in state court "almost weekly." Mr. Abbott indicated that over the last 5 years 10% of his practice has involved jury matters and 25 to 35% has been non-jury.

Mr. Abbott has handled 3 domestic appeals. The 5 significant matters he listed for the Joint Committee consisted of:
(a)   an action for a resulting trust established in estate lands of the plaintiff's husband which were previously deeded to the defendant;
(b)   a DSS abuse matter;
(c)   an action for divorce in which custody, child support, alimony, and attorney fees were at issue;
(d)   an action, based on allegations of perjured testimony, to overturn an order of the court and for divorce and the grounds of adultery; and
(e)   an action for reimbursement of funds allegedly obtained by forgery of a check prior to the decedent's death.

Mr. Abbott provided the Joint Committee with a list of matters he has handled over the past 2 years that he believes are representative of the breadth and complexity of his family court practice. The list of matters included:
(a)   Stroud v. Stroud: Mr. Abbott represented the wife in an action for separate support and maintenance, a restraining order, equitable division of real and personal property, support, and attorney fees. The parties had been married for 31 years and had 4 adult children. The husband was the owner and operator of a large farming operation with substantial farm property. He was also heavily in debt with numerous liens and encumbrances of record. The wife had been a homemaker.
(b)   D.S.S. v. Collins: The natural parents of a minor child were divorced and the father given custody. The mother, following the divorce, moved to Ohio. Acting on allegations of abuse, the Horry County Department of Social Services filed an action against both parents and obtained custody of the minor child. Mr. Abbott filed an answer requesting custody on behalf of the mother. Following the trial, the court found the allegations of abuse to be founded, the father restrained and prohibited from any contact with the child, legal custody given to DSS with physical placement with the mother and upon a favorable Interstate Compact Report, for legal custody to be transferred to the mother. Legal and physical custody were granted to the mother by subsequent order. A collateral action was filed by the father seeking to have a child custody decree of Ohio registered in South Carolina. The out-of-state decree was registered, but the court specifically held that the out-of-state decree had been modified by the subsequent South Carolina decree.
(c)   Williams v. Williams: An action for divorce and/or separate support and maintenance, equitable division, use and possession of a former marital home, use and possession of vehicles, a restraining order, and attorney fees. The grounds for divorce were pled as physical cruelty, and although the court denied the request for divorce of those grounds, it found unwarranted physical contact by the husband and ordered the parties to live apart and separate.
(d)   Causey v. Causey: An action for divorce on the grounds of 1 year continuous separation without cohabitation, incorporation of certain provisions of a previous order of the court, child support, and equitable division of property. The original allegations concerned adultery by the wife with a family member and claims to equitable division of the real property. Mr. Abbott's client, the husband, had also been diagnosed with a progressive physical disability.
(e)   D.S.S. v. Rowell: This was a case Mr. Abbott handled pro bono for a woman whose child was taken from her home by DSS because of alleged sexual abuse. Attempts at custody and visitation agreements failed, but custody was eventually returned to the mother after the court dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(f)   Hyman v. Hyman: This was an action for divorce that involved complicated issues of child custody and support.
(g)   Kelly v. Kelly: This was an action for divorce that involved complicated issues of alimony and equitable division.
(h)   Talbot v. Talbot: This was an action for divorce on the grounds of 1 year continuous separation and for custody, child support, visitation rights, alimony, equitable division of property and debt, and attorney fees.
(i)   Knaggs v. Lilly: Mr. Abbott represented the paramour of a father who had obtained custody of his child in an earlier action for divorce. The father died and the child's mother sued the paramour for custody. The court first awarded the paramour custody, but later granted the mother custody conditioned on her obtaining training on how to deal with the child's medical problems. The mother never did so and DSS was eventually granted custody. Mr. Abbott's client was named as trustee for the child.
(j)   Smith v. Smith: An action for divorce that involved issues of custody, support, and equitable division.

Mr. Abbott served as a municipal judge for the City of Conway from 1977 to 1984. The Conway City Council appointed Mr. Abbott to serve in this position and his jurisdiction was limited to criminal offenses in which the maximum penalty could not exceed 30 days imprisonment or a fine of $200. Mr. Abbott indicated that he did not write orders during his service on the bench and that all matters were disposed of by a finding of guilty or not guilty.

Mr. Abbott has occasionally served as a Special Referee for the 15th Judicial Circuit, but has done so on an infrequent basis during the last 2 years.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Abbott's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Abbott 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.

Mr. Abbott is married with 2 grown children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Abbott 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. Mr. Abbott has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Abbott was a municipal judge from 1977 to 1984 and has occasionally acted as a Special Referee for the 15th Judicial Circuit. He also served on the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Conway from 1984 to 1986.

Mr. Abbott indicated that he is a member of:
(a)   Conway Main Street Program;
(b)   Conway Chamber of Commerce;
(c)   Ducks Unlimited;
(d)   South Carolina Waterfowl Association;
(e)   Riverside Club; and
(f)   Old Gunn Hunting Club.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Abbott reported in his application materials that he has spent $86.33 on his campaign.

Mr. Abbott 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Abbott meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Abbott qualified and said:

He has practiced law for twenty-three years, spending approximately half of his time in the Family Courts. He is perceived by his peers as knowledgeable and possessing the necessary intellect to make a good Family Court judge.

He has an excellent temperament and exhibits mature judgment. He would be an asset to the bench.

Mr. Abbott has unquestioned character and enjoys an excellent reputation in the community. His ethics, honesty, and integrity are above reproach.

He is perceived to be fair, unbiased, and impartial. He would not be influenced by the lawyers or litigants.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Alford was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Alford demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Alford's SLED report indicated that he had been sued in the matter of Culp v. Burrough which alleged "fraud in real estate will" and named Judge Alford among several other defendants. The matter was filed in federal District Court on June 23, 1983 and was dismissed on October 5, 1983. Judge Alford said that the matter related to an estate that was probated when he was still a small child and that the complaint did not make sense to him.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Alford has never been appealed in a reported appellate opinion.

Judge Alford reported that he has never been disciplined or cited for unprofessional conduct or a breach of ethics.

Judge Alford's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1991) was BV.

Judge Alford completed more than 50 hours of CLE in 1994 and a total of 128.67 hours since he became a family court judge in 1991.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Alford was associated with an experienced attorney in the general practice of law beginning with his graduation from law school in 1971 until 1977 when he opened his own law practice. I served as a probate judge from 1979 to 1992 and have since that time served on the family court bench. He described his practice of law as evenly divided between the areas of criminal, civil, domestic, probate, and property matters.

Judge Alford has served as a speaker for several continuing legal education classes. His lectures have centered primarily on the South Carolina Probate Code.

As a probate judge, Judge Alford served on the legislative study committee that drafted South Carolina's version of the Uniform Probate Code and on the first Technical Corrections Committee for the Code.

As President of the South Carolina Probate Judges' Association, Judge Alford requested that the Legislative-Governor's Committee on Mental Health and Mental Retardation appoint a task force to study the law concerning the involuntary commitment of persons with chronic addiction to alcohol and drugs. Judge Alford served on that task force which met for one year and drafted a proposed revision of those laws that were approved and passed by the General Assembly.

Judge Alford was appointed the Chief Administrative Family Court Judge for the 16th Circuit after only 6 months of service on the family court bench.

Judge Alford applied for and received a grant to study the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act and the Rights of the Mentally Retarded in Court at the National Judicial College in September, 1994. Judge Alford said that his education in this area of the law was timely because the Catawba Indian Tribe recently received federal recognition, and because the Act supersedes state law as to foster care and adoptions, it is important for family court judges to have a working knowledge of the act.

Judge Alford has actively served on the Bench-Bar Subcommittee for the South Carolina Families for Kids Committee which received a $100,000 planning grant from the Kellogg Foundation to study and recommend changes to the foster care and adoption law and procedures in South Carolina. The group met on Saturdays in Columbia and helped draft a grant application approved by the Kellogg Foundation for $3,000,000 over the next 3 years. Judge Alford said that the group is still meeting and hopes to come up with recommendations that will significantly improve emergency procedures, foster care, and adoption services to children who have been abused or neglected.

Judge Alford is currently serving on a committee with the Department of Juvenile Justice to prepare a grant application to the National Justice Assistance Administration for $500,000. The goal is to start a pilot program for day-reporting centers for non-violent offenders in an effort to work with juvenile delinquents at a local level on a daily basis to turn them around.

Judge Alford has been designated by Court Administration to represent the family court on a Court Improvement Program Grant Committee and will attend a regional conference in Washington D.C. in May, 1995. The United States Congress has allocated $35,000,000 to this project over a 4-year period. The grants are designed to handle foster care and adoption cases and implement a plan to improve case processing.

Judge Alford assisted with the training for a juvenile arbitration program started by the solicitor's office with a grant from the Governor's Office.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Alford's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Alford 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 Alford is married with 2 children, ages 21 and 13.

Judge Alford appointed an Advisory Committee which meets 3 or 4 times a year in an effort to streamline court operations and improve cooperation among agencies and the court. The Advisory Committee is made up of male and female members of the Bar, a court reporter, and representatives from the DSS, DJJ, Solicitor's office, Public Defender's office, Clerk's office, Department of Mental Health, police departments, and Piedmont Legal Services office.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Alford 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 Alford has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Alford has been a member of the bench since 1979. He has been extremely active in efforts to improve the laws and legal system and his efforts in that regard are detailed above.

Judge Alford is a very active member of the Bar, his church, and a number of civil organizations. He reported that he does not hold any office or serve on any committee involved in fundraising or where any question could be raised about the use of his position to improperly influence anyone. He indicated that he has curtailed his civic activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict.

Judge Alford was with the United States Air Force from 1960 to 1964 and was honorably discharged.

Judge Alford ran unsuccessfully for the York County Council in 1976 and for the circuit court in 1990.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Alford 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Alford meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Alford qualified and said:

He possesses good knowledge of the law and is highly regarded as a tireless worker by those who have worked with him in the Family Court and previously in his years as Probate Court Judge.

Judge Alford has excellent character, integrity, and reputation.

He is considered to be fair and impartial to litigants and attorneys.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Ms. Anderson was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Ms. Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Ms. Anderson reported that her husband is an attorney with the law firm of Thompson, Sinclair, and Anderson and indicated that she would not preside over matters involving his firm.

Ms. Anderson indicated that she has never been cited or disciplined for unprofessional conduct.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Ms. Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3)   Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee has concerns that Ms. Anderson's experience in circuit court was not recent and apparently limited in nature. The Joint Committee believes that this concern is lessened because of Ms. Anderson's substantial magisterial court trial experience.

Ms. Anderson has been a full-time magistrate since 1983. She worked as an Assistant Public Defender upon graduation from law school in 1978 and until becoming a magistrate in 1983. Ms. Anderson indicated in her application materials that she worked in both family and circuit court during her term as a public defender.

Ms. Anderson worked as a support clerk for the Horry County Family Court during the summer between college and law school.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Anderson's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Anderson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Ms. Anderson is married and has 3 children, ages 13, 11, and 7.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Anderson appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Anderson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Ms. Anderson has been active in her church and in the parent-teacher organizations affiliated with her children's schools.
(9)   Ethics:

Ms. Anderson testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Ms. Anderson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Anderson qualified and said:

She has served for more than ten years as a trial magistrate for Spartanburg County.

Those interviewed commented on her excellent judicial temperament and favorably on the manner in which she conducts her court room.

While some noted that Judge Anderson had not practiced family law since becoming magistrate, they noted that her intellect, diligence, and experience as a trial magistrate should enable her to serve as a family court judge. They also noted that she had experience in the family court both as a public defender and as an assistant solicitor.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Bonnoitt was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Bonnoitt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Bonnoitt sold an office building and lot to the County of Georgetown in March of 1991.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Bonnoitt has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Judge Bonnoitt's last known Martindale-Hubbell rating (1991) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Bonnoitt was admitted to the Bar in 1973.

Judge Bonnoitt was a solo practitioner from 1973 to 1987. He was a partner in the firm of Bonnoitt & Mitchum from 1987 to 1991. Judge Bonnoitt was the part-time county public defender from 1978 to 1985. He was an attorney for the County Planning Commission and Building Department from 1976 to 1991.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Bonnoitt's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt is married with 2 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Bonnoitt 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 Bonnoitt has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Bonnoitt has been a Family Court Judge since 1991.

Judge Bonnoitt is active in church and community activities.

Judge Bonnoitt served in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1969 and the U.S. Naval Reserves from 1969 to 1978.

Judge Bonnoitt served as Chairman of the Georgetown Board of Zoning Adjustments from 1983 to 1985. He served as Mayor of the City of Georgetown from 1986 to 1991. Judge Bonnoitt served as Vice-President of the Municipal Association of South Carolina from 1988 to 1991, and then as President in 1991.

Judge Bonnoitt ran unsuccessfully for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1979.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Bonnoitt 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Bonnoitt meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Bonnoitt qualified and said:

He possesses good intellect and legal ability. He is well-respected for his knowledge and application of the rules of procedure.

He is known to be fair and impartial.

Judge Bonnoitt has a reputation of being well prepared and expects all attorneys appearing before him to be well prepared.

His works habits, temperament, and integrity are good.

Judge Bonnoitt was also sued in 1984 for $15 million dollars by a man he had been appointed to represent on three counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor. The defendant pled guilty to one count and while serving a 10-year sentence he sued Judge Bonnoitt claiming he had conspired with the Solicitor and the trial judge and generally neglected to prepare his case for trial. The suit ended when Judge Bonnoitt was granted summary judgment.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Buchan was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Buchan has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Judge Buchan's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Buchan was admitted to the Bar in 1980. She was a teacher for 3 years between college and law school.

Judge Buchan worked for a brief period after law school graduation for Kennedy, Price, Kosko & Coffas. She worked with Timothy Quinn from 1980 to 1982 and was primarily involved in preliminary office work in his Columbia office and in managing his Marion office. She formed the law firm of Whittington & Buchan in 1982 and practiced with the firm until her election to the family court in 1992. Judge Buchan's practice was primarily domestic and commercial law.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Buchan's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

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

Judge Buchan is married with 2 adult stepchildren and an 8-year old child.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Buchan appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Buchan is active in church activities. She has also been involved as a panelist or speaker for school programs, domestic violence community meetings, forums on juvenile problems, and guardian ad litem seminars.

Judge Buchan has been a family court judge since 1992.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Buchan testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Buchan meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Buchan qualified and said:

She is considered to be an excellent Family Court judge. She is well-prepared and industrious. She is diligent and organized in her administrative duties.

Judge Buchan grasps issues quickly and makes rulings that are fair to litigants. Her analytical skills are sound.

Her temperament on the bench is considered to be outstanding. She displays much patience with litigants and attorneys who appear before her.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Ms. Butcher was screened on May 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Ms. Butcher demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Ms. Butcher has taught the following law-related courses and lectures:
(a)   "Local Controls in Practice" (CLE)
(b)   "Impact Fees" (CLE)
(c)   "Negotiation Skills" and "Developing a Better Working Relationship with Your Court Appointed Attorney" (Guardian Ad Litem Conference)
(d)   "Substantive Criminal Law" (USC College of Criminal Justice)
(e)   "Child Abuse and Neglect" (USC College of Criminal Justice)

Ms. Butcher is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3)   Professional Experience:

The Joint Committee as only able to identify with any certainty one typical family court trial matter handled by Ms. Butcher. The Joint Committee therefore expresses concern over her level of experience with family court trial matters.

Ms. Butcher described her practice as follows:
(a)   1982 to 1983     Private Practice with Furman, Speedy & Stegner (general and family law)
(b)   1983 to 1986     Richland County Public Defender (General Sessions and Family Court)
(c)   1986 to 1987     Solo practitioner with a general and family law practice. Assistant Solicitor, 11th Circuit, handling abuse and neglect and criminal matters. Adjunct Professor, College of Criminal Justice, teaching substantive criminal law and a graduate course on abuse and neglect.
(d)   1987 to 1992     Attorney for the Town of Hilton Head Island. Work involved municipal law, zoning, contracts, and employment law. Handled appointed cases in Family and General Sessions Court.
(e)   1991 to 1994     U.S. Attorney's Office -- Criminal and civil law, Drug Task Force, prosecution of child pornography.
(f)   1994 to Present   General Counsel, DSS. Child and adult abuse and neglect, contracts, employment law, administrative duties, oversee criminal and civil investigations.

Ms. Butcher described her experience over the last 5 years as 50% civil and 50% criminal with a couple of pro bono and appointed family court matters.

Ms. Butcher's described her 5 most significant litigated matters to include:
(a)   a Section 1983 action in federal court;
(b)   a civil wiretap case that was part of an action for divorce;
(c)   a criminal prosecution in federal court on a charge of child pornography;
(d)   the 3 day trial of a child custody matter in which one party had a history of child abuse and the other party had a criminal record;
(e)   a foreclosure matter on behalf of the IRS.

Ms. Butcher has not handled a domestic appeal, but has handled 2 civil appeals to the 4th Circuit.

In response to the Joint Committee's request for a list of those family court matters that she has handled over the last 6 years, Ms. Butcher provided the following list:
(a)   U.S. v. Hutto: A criminal prosecution in federal court on charges of sexual exploitation of children.
(b)   U.S. v. Jennings: A criminal prosecution in federal court on 2 gun charges. The prosecution involved matters regarding stipulations, evidence of drug dealing, and after-discovered evidence. Ms. Butcher also handled the appeal of this matter to the 4th Circuit.
(c)   Willard v. City of Myrtle Beach: A Section 1983 action in federal court. There were 2 trials involved in this matter because the first ended in a verdict for the defendant and Ms. Butcher was granted a new trial.
(d)   Janice McQueen v. U.S.: A bench trial on a foreclosure action. The matter took 3 days of trial.
(e)   Town of Hilton Head Island v. Charlie Howell: This was a jury trial in magistrate's court on a criminal offense for a violation of the town's municipal code.
(f)   Kudlak v. Town of Hilton Head Island: This was an appeal to circuit court of a zoning decision by the Town's Planning Commission. Plaintiff sought a variance of the Town's setback ordinance.
(g)   Beaufort County D.S.S. v. George Grant: This was a one day trial of a matter involving the sexual abuse of a teenage girl by her grandfather. Ms. Butcher represented the grandfather who was found guilty.
(h)   Beaufort County D.S.S. v. Barratine: This was a family court matter which involved the abandonment of a teenager by his parents who were living overseas.
(i)   S.C. D.S.S. v. Susan Vaughn, a minor 16 years of age, and Beverly Russell, her stepfather; Ex parte: The State-Record Co., Inc.: This was the high-profile action in family court to open the files of Susan Smith's 1988 abuse by her stepfather. Ms. Butcher represented DSS's position that the file should remain sealed because of the confidentiality rule and statutes.
(j)   Federal National Mortgage Association v. Dean Romigh: This was a foreclosure action in which Ms. Butcher represented the United States and contested the priority of claims for surplus funds.
(k)   Town of Hilton Head Island Real Estate Transfer Fee Ordinance: Ms. Butcher researched the law and wrote the ordinance, but did not handle the case in court. The ordinance was upheld.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Butcher's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Butcher was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Ms. Butcher is married with 2 grown children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Butcher appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Butcher has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Ms. Butcher has worked in the public sector for much of her career.
(9)   Ethics:

Ms. Butcher reported in her application materials that her campaign expenditures total $1,005.86

Ms. Butcher testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Ms. Butcher meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Butcher qualified and said:

She is regarded as competent, industrious, conscientious, and knowledgeable in the law.

During the thirteen years that she has been admitted to practice, she has gained experience in the office of the Public Defender, in the office of the solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in the office of the United States Attorney, and as counsel for the Department of Social Services.

Her experience in Family Court has been varied and extensive including abuse-and-neglect cases, juvenile-crime cases, paternity cases, nonsupport cases, termination-of-parental-rights cases, custody cases, and divorce cases.

Ms. Butcher is perceived as pleasant, fair-minded, hard-working, and efficient.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Byars was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Byars demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Byars is the President, Director, and one-third owner of Happy Jack Promotions, Inc., a company primarily engaged in selling citrus and apples to band booster clubs. Judge Byars chairs meetings of the Board of Directors, assists in setting company policies, but is not involved in the daily activity of the company.

Judge Byars and his wife own interest in seven rental houses. His wife, who is formerly a real estate agent, manages the property.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Byars has been appealed in three reported appellate decisions and was reaffirmed in all three matters.

Judge Byars was a member of the Law Review at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

Judge Byars has been a frequent speaker at CLE conferences.

Judge Byars' Martindale-Hubbell rating was BV in 1989.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Byars was admitted to the Bar in 1972.

Judge Byars was with the Savage Law Firm from 1972 to his election to the bench in 1989. His practice initially was mainly in the areas of real estate and criminal law. After a few years his practice grew into a general trial practice, contracts, and family law. In the last 10 years, his practice continued to evolve and became much more business oriented. He represented several statewide business associations as general counsel and also served as general counsel for the Multiple Employer Insurance Fund and two workers' compensation funds. He represented Kershaw County Council from 1975 to 1989, and was general counsel to the Kershaw Memorial Hospital for 14 years. He continued an active trial practice in Common Pleas, General Sessions, and Family Court until elected to the bench in 1989.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Byars' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Byars 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 Byars is married with 3 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Byars 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 Byars has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Byars was on active duty with the U.S. Army from 1967 to 1969 and his tour of duty included service in Vietnam. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Army Accommodation medal. He served in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1969 to 1973 when he was honorably discharged.

Judge Byars has been a Family Court Judge since 1989.

Judge Byars was a member of the Kershaw County School Board from 1980 to 1989.

Judge Byars is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Byars 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Byars meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Byars qualified and said:

He is well-respected by his peers and members of the Bar for his legal ability and analytical skills.

He is able to rule promptly and is well-prepared in matters that come before him. He has a good work ethic.

Judge Byars is actively involved in issues related to the Family Court and improvement of the family court system in South Carolina.

He is fair and impartial with excellent judicial temperament. He is courteous and considerate of litigants and attorneys who appear before him.

His character, integrity and reputation are outstanding.

Judge Byars has been sued on six occasions. He describes those matters as follows:

(a)   Ex parte Wendy Rabon v. Kershaw County School District and Board of Trustees: Listed as an individual defendant with all other school board members. The matter involved a minor child injured on a school ground. Settlement was reached in this case and this matter was brought for court approval of a minor settlement.

(b)   Federal National Mortgage Association v. John Counts, Shirley Counts, Family Credit Services, S.C. Tax Commission, Savage, Royal, Kinard, Sheheen, and Byars as Partners and Individually: The law firm had previously closed a real estate transaction for the defendant, John Counts. The check written by Mr. Counts was not honored by the bank. Mr. Counts made part payments on the check, but eventually the law firm brought suit against him and obtained a judgment against him for the balance due. When Mr. Counts did not maintain his mortgage payments, a foreclosure action was brought by the Federal National Mortgage Association. The law firm and each of the partners individually were named as a party defendant insomuch as they were judgment creditors of Mr. Counts. No judgment was sought nor given against the law firm or Judge Byars.

(c)   First Federal Savings and Loan v. Paul Brown, Betty Brown, William Byars, Trustee, et al.: This was a foreclosure action brought by First Federal in which Judge Byars was joined as a party defendant due to a second mortgage he held on the property as trustee. No judgment was sought nor rendered against Judge Byars.

(d)   James Miller v. Alice Boykin, Dale Thiel, William Byars, Jr., Camille Byars, and J. Clator Arrants: James B. Miller brought suit against his tenants in common, Alice Boykin and Dale Thiel, to partition certain acreage that they owned north of Camden. The Judge and Mrs. Byars owned a deeded but unlocated 50 ft. easement over and across the acreage for the purposes of ingress and egress and underground utilities. They were joined in this suit for the purposes of locating the easement. J. Clator Arrants, an adjacent land owner, was joined in the case for purposes of determining his rights of ingress and egress.
(e)   First Federal of South Carolina v. Clarence Lewis, Marianna Lewis, and William Byars: This was a foreclosure action brought against Clarence and Marianna Lewis. Judge Byars was joined in this action because of a second mortgage in the amount of $1,800.00 which he held on the property being foreclosed upon. No personal judgment was sought nor rendered against Judge Byars.

(f)   Paul Lewis v. Savage Law Firm and Bill Byars: Mr. Lewis entered into a property settlement and separation agreement without consulting an attorney. This agreement was dated April 26, 1988. On April 27, 1988, Kitty Lewis, through her attorney, brought suit to approve the agreement. Mr. Lewis decided to attempt to repudiate the agreement and retained Judge Byars to represent him. The matter was in litigation for a year and on April 26, 1989, a new agreement was signed and was approved on May 8, 1989 by Judge Robert Burnside. Under the new agreement, Mrs. Lewis gave up her right to alimony. On October 15, 1992, Mr. Lewis filed suit in Magistrate's Court alleging that items "were omitted from my divorce decree." The divorce decree incorporated the terms of the amended agreement signed by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis' suit was dismissed.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Chewning was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Chewning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Chewning reported that he is still receiving monies on files he left with his law firm, Setzler, Chewning & Scott.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Chewning has been appealed in 1 published appellate decision. The matter was a contract action appealed from a decision made by Judge Chewning serving as a special referee. Judge Chewning was reversed on a question of law.

Judge Chewning's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1994) was AV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Chewning was admitted to the Bar in 1972.

Judge Chewning described his legal experience as follows:
(a)   1970-1973     Worked as a law clerk for the firm of Kennedy & Price. Became well-trained in real estate work including abstracting titles, setting up subdivisions for developers, and closing loans. He also handled collections (set up a firm procedure and oversaw it with secretarial help), foreclosures, wills, estates, bodily injury matters, adoptions, and general defense work.
(b)   1973-1977     Opened his own law practice and began a general practice of law. His practice involved criminal cases, wills, estates, real estate, civil cases (primarily accident claims), defense of individuals who had been sued, family court (divorces, adoptions, and guardian ad litem work), bankruptcy, foreclosures, workers' compensation, and work in magistrate's and city traffic court.
(c)   1977-1994     Formed the law firm of Setzler, Chewning & Scott. Work involved real estate, wills, and domestic matters.
(d)   1978-1990     Served as a special referee (grew to 50% of his annual income) in matters primarily involving foreclosures and in other actions such as property line disputes and complex corporate and business disputes.
(e)   1976-1994     Served as judge for the City of Cayce handling regular traffic court, preliminary hearings, jury trials, execution of warrants and search warrants, bond hearings, and the appeals from this court.
(f)   1994-Present   Served as judge of the Family Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit.

Judge Chewning worked as an insurance adjuster and investigator for 5 years between college and law school.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Chewning's temperament would be excellent.

There was an article in the 9/7/89 edition of the State which described some of Judge Chewning's experiences as a city judge for the town of Cayce. The article gives several examples of what it describes as Judge Chewning's "willingness to be fair" and his tendency to show sympathy for the accused. It also indicated that he goes to great lengths to work with kids having their first day in court.

There was an article in the 6/30/94 edition of the State reporting on Judge Chewning's transition from city judge to the family court. The article quoted Judge Chewning as saying that "[he] always felt that [he] should treat people in court like [he] wants to be treated." The article also said that one of Judge Chewning's special interests, both inside and outside the courtroom, is children.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Chewning 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 Chewning is married with 2 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Chewning 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 Chewning has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Chewning served as special referee from 1978 to 1990 as a municipal judge from 1976 to 1994, and as a family court judge since 1994.

Judge Chewning has been active in professional and community activities.

Judge Chewning has done volunteer motivational public speaking to church and community groups on the issues of:
(a)   legal careers;
(b)   child abuse and neglect;
(c)   youthful offenses; and
(d)   laws relating to youthful offenders.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Chewning 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Chewning meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Chewning qualified and said:

An overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted respect him for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry in his work since being recently elected.

Judge Chewning's character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Creech was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Creech demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Creech has been appealed in two reported appellate decisions and was reaffirmed in both of those matters.

Judge Creech was in Order of the Wig and Robe at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

Judge Creech gave a 1990 CLE presentation on how to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of a child custody case.

Judge Creech's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1988) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Creech has served as the Chief Administrative Judge for the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

Judge Creech was admitted to the Bar in 1976.

Judge Creech practiced real estate and domestic relations law with H. N. West from 1976 to 1977. He practiced real estate, domestic relations, criminal, and general civil litigation with the law firm of Dennis, Dennis & Watson from 1977 to 1981. Judge Creech continued the practice of law with the law firm of Watson & Creech from 1981 to 1987. Judge Creech was a sole practitioner from 1987 until his election to the bench in 1988.

Judge Creech served as a Moncks Corner town attorney from 1980 to 1987.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Creech's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Creech 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 Creech is married with 4 children, ages 24, 13, 10, and 6.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Creech 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 Creech has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Creech has been a member of the bench since 1988.

Judge Creech is an active member of his church.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Creech 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Creech meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Creech qualified and said:

The people interviewed generally perceive him as intelligent, tough but fair, and a hard worker.

He is perceived to be unbiased.

Judge Creech is conscientious and takes his job seriously.

He is respected by lawyers and possesses an excellent judicial temperament.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Edwards was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Edwards demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Edwards has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Judge Edwards has been an instructor in juvenile and criminal law at Tri-County Technical College. He has also been an instructor at the S.C. Constable Training Program, a faculty advisor at the National College of District Attorneys, and a panel member at the Juvenile Justice Update conducted during the Solicitor's Conference in 1994.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Edwards was admitted to the S.C. Bar in 1976 and to the Montana Bar in 1977.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Edward's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Edwards 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 Edwards is married with three children, ages 16, 12, and 9.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Edwards 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 Edwards has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Edwards was on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1971 to 1973. He was a member of the Ready Reserve from 1973 to 1985 when he was honorably discharged.

Judge Edwards was elected to the Family Court bench in 1991.

Judge Edwards is active in church and civic activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Edwards 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Edwards meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Edwards qualified and said:

He has had significant experience in the judicial system as a private attorney, prosecutor, and as a Family Court judge.

He is respected by members of the Bar for his legal ability and analytical skills in both domestic and juvenile matters.

Judge Edwards has done an excellent job serving as Administrative Judge for the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit.

His patience and temperament are excellent. His character and integrity are beyond reproach.

There was an article in the October 6, 1993, edition of The Charlotte Observer which reported that Judge Edwards began requiring counseling as a necessary step before a divorce can be issued in Oconee and Anderson family courts.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Fanning was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Fanning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Fanning has been appealed in 46 reported appellate decisions. He was reversed, in whole or in part, in 18 of those matters.

Judge Fanning received national attention for his handling of the matter of Parris v. Parris which involved issues of custody. Judge Fanning noted that the mother, Ruth Parris, was a career woman and spent time with clients at night and on the weekends. Judge Fanning awarded custody of the minor child to the father and was criticized as having allegedly held bias against the mother because she was a career woman. See article in the Charlotte Observer on December 10, 1994 and December 24, 1992. This matter is still on appeal to the S.C. Supreme Court.

In August of 1977, Judge Fanning delivered a lecture to the southeastern conference on juvenile court judges at Black Mountain, N.C. Judge Fanning reviewed the constitutional law pertaining to juvenile court and presented the annual case update. He also has made two presentations to the Family Court judges of South Carolina annual meetings concerning matters of family law.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Fanning was admitted to the Michigan Bar in 1961, the New York Bar in 1961, and the S.C. Bar in 1964.

Judge Fanning describes his legal experience as follows:

(a)   1961-1964     U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate

(b)   1964-1968     Dowling, Dowling, Sanders & Dukes

(c)   1968-1970     Hendrix & Fanning

(d)   1970-1975     Donald A. Fanning, Attorney at Law (Charles Webb, III and John B. O'Neal, III, Associates)

(e)   1975-1977     Judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and Judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County.

(f)   1977-Present   Family Court Judge, 14th Judicial Circuit

Judge Fanning has served numerous terms as Special Circuit Court Judge by appointment of the Chief Justice.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Fanning's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Fanning 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 Fanning is married with 3 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Fanning 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 Fanning has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Fanning has been a Family Court Judge since 1977.

Judge Fanning served in the United States Air Force from 1961 to 1964.

Judge Fanning was an unsuccessful candidate for Circuit Court Judge in 1980 and 1991. Judge Fanning was also an unsuccessful candidate for the Beaufort County Council in 1968 and for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1970.

Judge Fanning is active in church and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Fanning 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Fanning meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Fanning qualified and said:

He has a long record of service as a judicial officer, first as a judge of the Civil and Criminal Court of Beaufort County and judge of the Family Court of Beaufort County. When the judicial System was unified, he became a Family Court judge and has served since 1977 to the present. He has also served as a Circuit Court judge by special appointment on numerous occasions.

Those familiar with his style consider him to be a fair-minded, impartial judge. However, some of those questioned regard him as being a little impatient and short-tempered.

Judge Fanning is perceived to be very attentive to the testimony. Without question, he is in charge of his courtroom.

He is perceived as someone who is very interested in achieving a just result.

Judge Fanning has been sued twice. The first action was in 1982 and was filed by Alva Eugene Kephart against the S.C. Department of Corrections, Warden George Martin, III, the Attorney General and Judge Fanning. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed in 1982.

Judge Fanning was also sued by Mary Peters in 1983 and 1987. The list of defendants in those matters included several circuit and Family Court judges, the former Deputy Clerk of the S.C. Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of S.C., the Clerk of Court for Beaufort County, the Sheriff of Beaufort County, the Auditor of Beaufort County, the Treasurer and the County Attorney, as well as several individuals. Ms. Peters' complaint was filed pro se and Judge Fanning reported that it was his understanding that she filed the complaint because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of some of the litigation she had been involved in South Carolina. She reportedly indicated that she wished the judicial system in county government would stop harassing her by enforcing their judgments, taxes, rules, and regulations. Mrs. Peters appeared before the Joint Committee for Judicial Screening in the past.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Foster was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Foster demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Foster is secretary/treasurer of Shoe Mart of Spartanburg, Inc. The company is in the wholesale shoe business, but Judge Foster is an investor and is not involved in the day-to-day operations. Judge Foster is also on the Board of Directors for Three Pines Cola., Inc., a golf course where he lives. He is secretary to the Board.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Foster has been appealed in 10 reported appellate decision. He was reversed, in whole or in part, in 5 of those matters.

Judge Foster taught college law at Spartanburg Methodist College. He also regularly teaches the legal secretary's course on family law.

Judge Foster's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1983) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Foster was admitted to the Bar in 1973.

Judge Foster opened a law practice in 1973 and was associated with Roy McBee Smith until August of 1977. He was associated with Rembert D. Parler in 1977 but maintained his own practice. The two formed a partnership in 1979 which they continued until 1983. Judge Foster was elected to the Family Court in 1983.

Judge Foster served as the City Recorder for the Town of Woodruff from 1974 to 1977.

Judge Foster served as the Assistant County Attorney for Spartanburg County from 1973 to 1977. He also served as City Attorney for the Town of Woodruff from 1977 to 1983.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Foster's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Foster 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 Foster is married with three adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Foster 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 Foster has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Foster has been a member of the bench since 1983.

Judge Foster served in this U.S. Army from 1959 to 1962.

Judge Foster was an unsuccessful candidate for Probate Court Judge. He was also an unsuccessful candidate for the Family Court in 1981 and for the Circuit Court in 1990.

Judge Foster is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Foster 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Foster meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Foster qualified and said:

His knowledge of the law and experience both as a lawyer and a judge provide an excellent basis for the performance of his duties.

Those interviewed reported favorably on his work ethic and promptness in rendering decisions in cases before him.

Judge Foster is considered to have a superb reputation for integrity and impartiality.

He is well-respected in the legal community.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Fraley was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Fraley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Fraley's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Fraley taught a business law course at Rutledge College.

Mr. Fraley has practiced with a number of different attorneys since his graduation from law school in 1977. He described his practice over the past 5 years as 95% domestic, less than 5% civil, and less than 5% criminal. He indicated that he appears in state court several times a week.

Mr. Fraley provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant litigated matters he described as follows:
(a)   Belve v. Belve: In 1981 it was not clear how to challenge an error of the lower court in an order when the defendant was not present and in default. This case resolved that issue and is cited frequently in post judgment motions and is frequently discussed at seminars.
(b)   State v. Clary: Mr. Fraley was co-counsel for the defendant in a jury trial in General Sessions court who was charged with 3 counts of reckless homicide and 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter.
(c)   Youngblood v. Youngblood: Mr. Fraley represented the husband in a contested adultery case in which there was little corroboration of adultery against a wife who was also seeking alimony.
(d)   State v. Boggs: Mr. Fraley was co-counsel representing a 17-year old girl charged with shooting and killing her father while he slept. The father allegedly physically and sexually abused her and her younger brother for several years.
(e)   Laird v. State: Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning a jury charge which contained the statement that the defendants were "prima facie guilty" if the jury found certain facts. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Mr. Fraley provided the Joint Committee with a list of 5 domestic appeals he handled.

Mr. Fraley has served as a special referee on one occasion.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Fraley's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Fraley 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.

Mr. Fraley is married with a 7 year old daughter.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Fraley 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. Mr. Fraley has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Fraley is an active member of his church and of the Spartanburg Civitan Club.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Fraley 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Fraley meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Fraley qualified and said:

More than half of his practice has been devoted to family law. In the last several years the vast majority of his practice has been in the family court.

Those interviewed commented favorably on his demeanor and temperament. They also perceive him as being fair in his dealings with other lawyers.

Mr. Fraley is seen by those interviewed as industrious. He is also known as an attorney who competently represents his client.

The consensus of those interviewed was that he has the intellect, experience, and temperament to fulfill the position of family court judge.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Garfinkel was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Garfinkel demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Garfinkel shares office space with 8 other attorneys and indicated on his application materials that he would recuse himself from matters in which the other attorneys were involved for a minimum of 2 years after his election.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Mr. Garfinkel to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

Mr. Garfinkel's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Garfinkel has taught a course in basic real estate law to prospective real estate agents.

Mr. Garfinkel has been a solo practitioner since his graduation from law school in 1970. Since 1989, he has practiced almost exclusively family law and he described his practice over the last 5 years as 95% domestic and 5% civil. He estimated that he appeared in state court at least once a week until the start of the 1995 legislative session.

Mr. Garfinkel provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant litigated matters and described them as follows:
(a)   In re Debra Banis: The sole issue in this case was whether or not the adoptive parents committed the alleged physical and sexual abuse on the child who was the subject of the litigation. Mr. Garfinkel represented the child before the state had its present guardian ad litem program. The child and her brother were removed by the court from their home and placed in foster care, but were placed back in their parents' home for a 3-day trial period over Christmas. The 2 children felt they could not tolerate more abuse and killed their parents during this 3 day trial period.
(b)   Haley v. Stratton: This case dealt with the issue of contested adoption by a stepparent. Mr. Garfinkel established that it was in a 5 year old child's best interest to be adopted by her step-father and have her natural father's rights terminated.
(c)   Bishop v. Bishop: This case involved an action for divorce, custody, support, and alimony. It was one of the first cases in the Charleston area to use certified public accountants to determine the father's actual worth and his income as a practicing physician.
(d)   Harris v. Estate of Gearhart: The problem presented in this case was how to determine paternity when the alleged father had been killed in an automobile accident and had been embalmed and buried several months prior. Mr. Garfinkel discovered that SLED had obtained a vial of the father's blood after his accident for the purpose of performing a blood alcohol test, and Mr. Garfinkel obtained the blood and had the paternity test conducted.
(e)   Outzs v. Outzs: This case involved the question of what constitutes a change of circumstances so as to warrant a change of custody. At the time of the original divorce decree the father lost custody due to his alcohol and drug abuse and inability to maintain steady employment. The father regained custody in this matter by establishing that he had resolved his alcohol and drug problems and built a successful business.

Mr. Garfinkel provided the Joint Committee with 1 domestic appeal he has handled. The matter was O'Shields v. O'Shields and was decided by the S.C. Supreme Court in 1972.

Mr. Garfinkel has been a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board since 1991 and served as State Chairman from 1992 to 1994.

Mr. Garfinkel is an issuing agent for title insurance under the name of AccenTitle Insurance Agency. He has been a title agent since 1978 and his company is a sole proprietorship.

Mr. Garfinkel reported that he has handled a significant number of arbitrations for the American Arbitration Association and was invited by the Association to be 1 of only 25 attorneys from the Carolinas and Virginia to attend its initial course on mediation techniques.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Garfinkel's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Garfinkel 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.

Mr. Garfinkel is married with 2 grown children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Garfinkel 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. Mr. Garfinkel has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Garfinkel has been a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Board since 1991 and served as State Chairman from 1992 to 1994.

Mr. Garfinkel ran unsuccessfully for the family court in 1993.

Mr. Garfinkel has been active in professional and civil activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Garfinkel reports in his application materials that he has spent $142 on his campaign.

Mr. Garfinkel 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Garfinkel meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Garfinkel qualified and said:

The people interviewed generally perceived him a having a broad range of experience in the Family Court.

He is intelligent and knowledgeable in the law, is industrious and has an excellent work ethic.

The majority of those interviewed felt that Mr. Garfinkel is polite, friendly, extremely sympathetic and caring.

He is well-respected by both his peers and members of the non-legal community because of his personal involvement in the community.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Henderson was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Henderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Henderson lectured at a CLE seminar on the subject of jury selection.

Mr. Henderson's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Henderson began the general practice of law with his father-in-law upon graduation from law school in 1978. When his father-in-law retired in 1982, Mr. Henderson continued a solo general practice until 1985 when he formed a partnership with William O. Spencer, Jr. An associate, Mary Thomas Johnson, joined the firm in 1993, and the three attorneys have continued a general practice of law. Mr. Henderson reported on his application materials that he has since 1985 concentrated in the areas of family law, criminal law, and personal injury matters.

Mr. Henderson estimated that he appears in federal court twice a year, in state court 15-20 times per month, before the Workers' Compensation Commission 2-3 times per month, before the Social Security Administration 2-3 times per month, and in magistrate's court 5-6 times per month.

Mr. Henderson estimated that his practice over the last five years has been 40% domestic, 20% criminal, and 20% civil.

Mr. Henderson provided the Joint Committee with five significant litigated matters. These matters included:
(a)   Chesterfield County Rural Water Company Inc. v. Town of Cheraw: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson obtained an order in federal court prohibiting the Town of Cheraw from entering the rural water company service areas. Additionally, Mr. Henderson represented a rural water company and lost against the towns of Pageland and Chesterfield and obtained out-of-court settlements which resulted in agreements establishing permanent service territories for the rural water companies in the towns.
(b)   Danny Lee Rainwater v. Donald Kay Wolfe Rainwater: This matter was significant in that it involved custody of the Rainwater's four children which was originally split by the Family Court, but through Mr. Henderson's efforts, the court eventually granted Mr. Rainwater custody of all four children. Mrs. Rainwater later kidnapped all four children and took them to Germany, but was arrested and the children were returned to Mr. Rainwater upon their return to the United States.
(c)   Mary C. Crowley v. Robert Taylor: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson obtained a jury verdict of $2,000 actual damage for Mrs. Crowley and $40,000 in punitive damages due to the fact that Mr. Taylor was operating an automobile in flagrant violation of the law and that he was driving under the influence of alcohol while being pursued at a high rate of speed by a police officer. The jury sought fit to punish Mr. Taylor and make an example of him.
(d)   James H. Dixon v. Nucor Steel Corporation: This matter was significant in that Mr. Henderson was successful in proving before the Workers' Compensation Commission that Mr. Dixon was permanently disabled from materials he breathed during his employment.
(e)   State v. John Parks: This matter was significant in that Mr. Parks, who was charged with criminal sexual conduct with his 8 year old stepdaughter, was acquitted after Mr. Henderson was able to convince the jury that the child's testimony was without feeling and emotion due to her having been coached by her mother who is separated from Mr. Parks.

Mr. Henderson provided the Joint Committee the 3 civil appeals he has handled. One of the 3 appeals was Dixon v. Nucor Steel Corporation as discussed above, one was a slip and fall case, and the 3rd was a domestic matter.

Mr. Henderson was the Recorder for the Town of Chesterfield from 1978 to 1982. In this capacity, he handled all traffic and criminal offenses in which the punishment did not exceed 30 days or a $200 fine.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Henderson's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Henderson 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.

Mr. Henderson is married and has three children, ages 16, 13, and 7.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Henderson 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. Mr. Henderson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Henderson served in the United States Army Reserves from 1971 to 1977 and was honorably discharged.

Mr. Henderson was the Recorder for the Town of Chesterfield from 1978 to 1982.

Mr. Henderson was Chairman of the Chesterfield County Election Commission from 1979 to 1984. He was also a member of the S.C. Commission on Higher Education from 1986 to 1993, and is presently a member of the Chesterfield County School District Board of Education.

Mr. Henderson is active in community and professional affairs.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Henderson 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Henderson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Henderson qualified and said:

He has been engaged in the general practice of law for approximately 17 years with emphasis in the areas of family, criminal, and personal injury law.

He has had extensive experience in domestic relations law and is viewed as a competent practitioner in family court.

Mr. Henderson is energetic, capable, industrious, and well-liked and respected by his peers as well as those in the non-legal community.

His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

He has an excellent demeanor and is expected to exhibit good judicial temperament. It is felt that he would be fair and impartial.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Inabinet was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Inabinet demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Inabinet is a director and officer of Main Street Auto Parts, Inc. He owns 49% of the stock with the balance owned by a partner. His partner runs the business and he does not participate in the daily operations.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Inabinet has been appealed in 11 reported appellate decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in 6 of those matters.

Judge Inabinet has attended over 100 hours of CLE in the past 5 years.

Judge Inabinet has spoken at a JCLE seminar on the termination of parental rights.

Judge Inabinet's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1983) was BV.

Judge Inabinet provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant orders or opinions.

Judge Inabinet serves as Administrative Judge for the Second Circuit and has done so since 1986. He also serves as the Family Court representative on the Commission on Continuing Legal Education from 1988 to 1991.

Judge Inabinet speaks on a regular basis at training programs for the Guardian ad Litem and juvenile arbitration programs. He has also spoken at meetings of the Legal Secretaries Association.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Inabinet was admitted to the Bar in 1970.

Judge Inabinet began practicing law in 1970 with Sam Ray. He became an associate with the firm of Brown, Jeffries & Boulware, in 1974. His practice of law included torts, property matters, domestic matters, small corporations, small businesses, banking, criminal, estate planning, and probating estates. He was elected a Family Court Judge in 1983.

Judge Inabinet served as a special referee from 1974 to 1983.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Inabinet's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Inabinet 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 Inabinet is married with two adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Inabinet 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 Inabinet has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Inabinet served in the United States Army from 1967 to 1976.

Judge Inabinet has been a Family Court Judge since 1983.

Judge Inabinet was elected to the Barnwell County Council in 1972 and served until 1983.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Inabinet 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Inabinet meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

There was an article in the November 13, 1992 edition of the Charlotte Observer which reported that fathers who don't make court-ordered child support payments will find themselves working or trying to find a job if they are jailed at the Aiken County Detention Center. The report was about a new program designed to put defendants in contempt to work. Judge Inabinet was quoted as saying, "Two good things about this: you've got child support coming in and they don't lose their jobs."

Judge Inabinet was sued along with other members of the Barnwell County Council in 1973 with respect to a defunct industrial revenue bond. His law firm was also sued at that time because the senior partner was the Barnwell County attorney at the time the bond was issued. The case was dismissed.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Ms. Jefferson was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Ms. Jefferson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Ms. Jefferson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Jefferson is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Ms. Jefferson has been an attorney for 5 1/2 years.

Ms. Jefferson was a business law instructor at Trident Technical College paralegal program during the 1993-94 school year.

Ms. Jefferson described her legal experience since graduation from law school in 1989 as follows:
(a)   1989-1990     Law clerk to the Honorable Richard E. Fields. Primary responsibilities included legal research, preparation of jury charges, preparation of orders, scheduling of motions, tasks required to prepare the judge for trials/hearings, and other daily tasks required by the judge to ensure smooth operation of the court.
(b)   1990-Present   Attorney with McFarland & Associates. Trial practice focusing on domestic relations, all types of civil litigation, probate law, real estate law, and criminal law.

Ms. Jefferson estimates that she has appeared in federal court 15 times during the last 5 years and has appeared in state court approximately 50-60 times during the last 5 years. She indicates that she has appeared as infrequently as once a week and as frequently as 4 times a week in Family Court since entering private practice in 1990. She also estimates that she has appeared in Probate Court 20 times during the last five years and has appeared in magistrate's or municipal court approximately 50 times during the last 5 years.

Ms. Jefferson estimated that her practice over the last 5 years has been 47% civil, 6% criminal, and 47% domestic.

Ms. Jefferson provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a)   Blake v. County of Charleston: This case involved complex federal civil rights litigation. The trial lasted for 2 weeks and involved many motions and other complex legal issues relating to evidence of the new federal rules. Ms. Jefferson reports that she tried this case with two other lawyers, both of whom had been practicing for more than 18 years. Ms. Jefferson indicated that her responsibilities included arguing motions, examining witnesses, preparing motions, and preparing jury charges.
(b)   Hymes v. Khoury: Ms. Jefferson describes this case as a simple auto accident case which she did not think would be successful, but said the case taught her the importance of the strategic application of the civil rules of procedure in case law. She said the case took one day to try, but the jury deliberated for two days and returned a verdict for her client.
(c)   In re: The Estate of Joseph J. White, Jr.: The central issues in this Probate Court case involved the paternity of a 2 year old child of the victim of an automobile fatality.
(d)   Ashby v. Ashby: Ms. Jefferson indicated that she represented the plaintiff/husband who sought custody of his three children in this case. The court applied the primary caretaker doctrine and awarded custody to the father. The case also involved issues of equitable distribution, adultery, child support, and attorney's fees.
(e)   Thompson v. Polite: This case involved a hotly-contested issue of visitation between the plaintiff/husband and his minor son. The defendant/wife was adamant in her refusal to allow visitation, but the plaintiff/husband was awarded reasonable visitation at the temporary hearing of this case. Prior to the final hearing, the clients submitted to mediation and through this process they were able to come to an amicable agreement regarding visitation and the rearing of their child. Ms. Jefferson said this case reinforced her belief and the value of alternative dispute resolution as a method of improving the efficient use of court time and resources.

Ms. Jefferson has never handled an appeal.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Jefferson's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Jefferson was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Jefferson appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Jefferson has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Ms. Jefferson has been active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Ms. Jefferson reported on her application material that her campaign expenditures have totaled $66.00.

Ms. Jefferson testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Ms. Jefferson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Jefferson qualified and said:

The majority of those interviewed felt that she is intelligent, a hard worker, and prepared in court.

It is believed that she will have a good judicial temperament. She is bright, courteous, and friendly.

Ms. Jefferson is perceived to have excellent character and integrity.

Many of those interviewed expressed concern that she is young (age 31) with brief experience (admitted to practice in November, 1989). However, it was not felt that those factors outweighed the other factors which would make her qualified to be a Family Court judge.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Johnson was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Johnson has been appealed in 20 reported appellate decisions. He was reversed, in whole or in part, in 7 of those matters.

Judge Johnson was sued by an inmate of the S.C. Department of Corrections in 1994. The case was dismissed shortly thereafter.

Judge Johnson regularly instructs classes for volunteer guardians ad litem in Greenville County. He has also spoken to state-wide guardian ad Litem conferences and has moderated judicial education programs as Vice President and President of the S.C. Conference of Family Court Judges.

Judge Johnson's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Johnson was admitted to the Bar in 1969.

Judge Johnson practiced with Rex Carter from 1969 until his election to the Family Court bench in 1982.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Johnson's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Johnson 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 Johnson is married with 2 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Johnson 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 Johnson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Johnson has been a member of the Family Court bench since 1982.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Johnson 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Johnson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Johnson qualified and said:

He is perceived to be a hard worker who is efficient and time conscious. He is thorough in his fact investigation in all cases prior to ruling.

His knowledge of the law, judicial temperament, and demeanor are unquestioned.

Judge Johnson is widely perceived as being courteous to lawyers and litigants.

His character and integrity are above reproach.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Kelly was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Kelly demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Kelly is on the Board of Directors of the Senior Centers of Spartanburg, Inc.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Kelly is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.

Mr. Kelly has never been sued, but has been named in pleadings as an attorney who may have an interest in real property being foreclosed upon by a lending institution. Mr. Kelly explained that this is because family court orders often include an award of attorney fees and a careful title search will result in the attorney being named in foreclosure proceedings.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Kelly taught a family law course for non-lawyers.

Mr. Kelly has practiced with Jim S. Brooks since his admission to practice in 1988. He described his practice as 40% domestic, 40% criminal defense, 10% real estate, and 10% other.

Mr. Kelly provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant litigated matters and described them as follows:
(a)   Boswell v. Seay: This case was significant because it involved child custody where a natural parent sued the grandparents to gain custody. An appeal is currently pending.
(b)   Johnson v. Johnson: This was a family court matter in which Mr. Kelly raised on objection to the modification of a previous final order of the court.
(c)   State v. Jessie Keith Brown: Mr. Kelly volunteered to assist the Public Defender in this death penalty case. The defendant was acquitted.
(d)   State v. Tammy Calvert: This was a felony DUI case in which the defendant was convicted after a jury trial. The case was significant because Mr. Kelly performed an out-of-court experiment regarding drugs and alcohol which was admitted into evidence.
(e)   State v. Jeff Wofford: This case was significant because the defendant was not sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act and the sentence of the court was overturned.

Mr. Kelly has handled 1 domestic appeal, the Boswell v. Seay matter discussed above.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Kelly's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Kelly 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.

Mr. Kelly is married with 3 children, ages 8, 6, and 5.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Kelly 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. Mr. Kelly has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Kelly ran unsuccessfully for the state Senate in 1991.

Mr. Kelly was on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1981 to 1984 and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves from 1981 to 1995.

Mr. Kelly is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Kelly 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Kelly meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Kelly qualified and said:

His practice is primarily in domestic relations law and criminal law.

He is very personable and a hard worker. He has a good disposition. He is well-liked among his colleagues at the Bar.

Mr. Kelly enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity, honesty, and fair dealing.

Even though there was some question about his experience, there was no doubt that he had sufficient experience in the Family Court to be competent in family law.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Ms. Kinon was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Ms. Kinon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Ms. Kinon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Kinon has given the following lectures:
(a)   S.C. Bar Domestic Practice -- "Hot Tips from the Experts" (1992, 1993, and 1994);
(b)   S.C. Bar "Cameras in the Courtroom" (1993);
(c)   Horry County Bar "Effective Motions Practice in Family Court" (1992);
(d)   "The New Family Court Rules" (1989); and
(e)   "Hearsay in Child Abuse Cases" (1987).

Ms. Kinon is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.

Ms. Kinon has received the following awards:
(a)   University of South Carolina School of Law Compleat Lawyer Award, 1994;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Service Award, 1992; and
(c)   South Carolina Business and Professional Women Young Careerist, 1987.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Ms. Kinon was admitted to the Bar in 1985.

Ms. Kinon described her legal experience as follows:
(a)   1985 to 1986     Rosen, Rosen & Scoville -- General practice with emphasis on real estate title work, domestic matters, and private contract work with the Georgetown County Public Defender's Office.
(b)   1986 to 1987     Family court practice and private contract work with the Georgetown County Public Defender's Office.
(c)   1987 to 1988     Hearn & Corbett -- 95% of practice in family court.
(d)   1988 to 1989     Van Osdell, Lester, Stewart, Hearn, McCutchen, Brittain & Martin -- 95% of practice in family court.
(e)   1989 to Present   Hearn, Brittain & Martin -- 95% of practice in family court.

Ms. Kinon estimated that over the past 5 years she has appeared in family court an average of once per week.

Ms. Kinon estimated that 95% of her practice over the past 5 years has been domestic with the remaining 5% equally divided between civil and criminal. Ms. Kinon stated that she is "[m]ostly concerned with researching matters in those areas for other attorneys in [her] firm."

Ms. Kinon provided the Joint Committee with 5 of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(a)   John Roe and Jane Roe v. Baby Girl Doe, et al.: Represented adoptive parents in a contested adoption action brought by the biological father.
(b)   Robert Woodland and Barbara Woodland v. Amy Griffin, et al.: Represented maternal grandparents in custody action against biological parents.
(c)   Alva B. Nielsen v. James P. Nielsen: Represented wife in the dissolution of a marriage of 35 years with issues involving alimony and equitable division of a policeman's pension.
(d)   Selena G. Smith v. Redding C. Smith: Represented father in contested custody case involving physical abuse by the mother.
(e)   D.S.S. v. James Douglas Johnson: Defended father in action brought by DSS for alleged sexual abuse.

Ms. Kinon has never handled a domestic appeal.

Ms. Kinon is a certified family court mediator.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Kinon's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Kinon's was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Ms. Kinon is married with twin 2 1/2 year old boys.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Kinon appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Kinon has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Ms. Kinon is active in professional and community activities. She is currently serving on the:
(a)   Board of Advisors for the South Carolina Council for Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution;
(b)   Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution for the South Carolina Supreme Court;
(c)   Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline;
(d)   Horry County Bar Family Court Executive Committee; and
(e)   Horry County Bar Family Court Advisory Committee.

Ms. Kinon has in recent years been a member of the South Carolina Bar:
(a)   Board of Governors (1990-1993);
(b)   Nominating Committee (1989-1990); and
(c)   House of Delegates (1988-1990).
(9)   Ethics:

Ms. Kinon reported on her application materials that she has spent $52.48 on her campaign.

Ms. Kinon testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Ms. Kinon meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Kinon qualified and said:

She has been a practicing attorney in South Carolina since her admission to practice in 1985. During this time she engaged in a general practice before engaging primarily in the practice of domestic law.

Ms. Kinon enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity, honesty, ability, and reliability. Her reputation for concern and diligence in the representation of her clients is notable.

Those people interviewed are of the opinion that she will be fair, courteous, diligent, and capable.

She has strong ties to the community and enjoys the confidence of Bar members.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Kittredge was screened on May 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Kittredge demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Kittredge has been appealed in 2 reported appellate decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in 1 of those matters.

Judge Kittredge has been a frequent speaker at CLE, JCLE, and family law programs.

Judge Kittredge graduated summa cum laude from U.S.C. with a degree in criminal justice. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

During law school Judge Kittredge was a member of the Order of the Coif and Wig and Robe.

Judge Kittredge serves as administrative judge and has formed an ad hoc committee of family law practitioners who meet with him monthly to facilitate communication between the bench and bar.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Kittredge was admitted to the Bar in 1982.

Judge Kittredge worked for the Greenville Police Department during his undergraduate years.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Kittredge's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge is married with 3 children, ages 11, 7, and 7.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Kittredge 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 Kittredge has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Kittredge has been a family court judge since 1991.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Kittredge 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Kittredge meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Kittredge qualified and said:

He enjoys an excellent reputation for judicial temperament, honesty and work ethic.

During his tenure as a Family Court judge, lawyers appearing before him have reported favorably on his impartiality and diligent handling of the court docket.

Judge Kittredge has a superb grasp of the legal issues and possesses a wealth of experience both on and off the bench that qualifies him to handle family court matters.

He is regarded by those interviewed as being courteous and industrious in the performance of his duties.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Lawrence was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Lawrence demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Lawrence and his 2 brothers (Lawrence, Lawrence & Lawrence, L.L.C.) own real property in Greenwood County upon which they are developing a subdivision, condominiums, and commercial property.

Mr. Lawrence owns two residential real estate development companies, Arbours West Partnership and Arbours West Investment Group, Inc., with 4 other individuals.

Mr. Lawrence owns 1/2 of the building in which his law office is located. The other 1/2 of the building is owned by his co-tenant who is a real estate agent.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Lawrence participated as a lecturer in the CLE programs entitled "Hot Tips from the Experts 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994."

Mr. Lawrence's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV.

Mr. Lawrence is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Lawrence was admitted to the Bar in 1969.

Mr. Lawrence described his legal experience as follows:
(a)   1968-1970     U.S. Army JAGC
(b)   1970-1971     Butler, Chapman, Parler & Morgan (business and trial defense work)
(c)   1971-1976     Butler, Means, Evins & Browne (business and trial defense work)
(d)   1976-1978     Sole practitioner with a general practice
(e)   1978-1989     Lawrence & Shaw (general practice with concentration on domestic law)
(f)   1989-1992     Brown & Hagins (general practice concentrating on domestic law)
(g)   1992-1993     Lawrence & Shaw
(h)   1993-1994     Sole practitioner with a general practice concentrating on domestic law
(i)   1994-Present   Lawrence & Cabler (general practice concentrating on domestic law)

Mr. Lawrence estimated that over the past 5 years he has appeared in federal court once per year and in state court daily. He has also appeared 2 or 3 times per year before the Workers' Compensation Commission and Unemployment Compensation Commission.

Mr. Lawrence estimated that his practice over the past 5 years has been 40% civil, 10% criminal, and 50% domestic.

Mr. Lawrence provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant legal matters which he described as follows:
(a)   Valtrol, Inc. v. General Connectors Corp.: Commercial litigation in federal district court. The matter required extensive discovery and 3 days of trial.
(b)   Valtrol, Inc. v. General Connectors Corp.: Appeal to the 4th Circuit.
(c)   Landrum v. Robinson: This matter which Mr. Lawrence handled at both the trial and appellate levels involved an action seeking to require a father to help pay for his son's college expenses. The talented son wanted to go to the best school he could get into and had obtained scholarships, grants, and loans and had gotten financial assistance from his mother and a job so that he could earn part of the money himself. The court required the father to assist his son.
(d)   McKeown v. McKeown: Custody trial which involved allegations of homosexuality, child abuse, and the removal of children from the state.
(e)   Stutz v. Funderburk: Mr. Lawrence argued this matter before the South Carolina Supreme Court and it was one of the last cases in South Carolina to apply the "tender years doctrine."

Mr. Lawrence provided the Joint Committee with a list of 5 civil appeals, 4 of which were domestic matters. Mr. Lawrence estimated that he has handled 7 or 8 appeals in state appellate court and 1 case to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Lawrence's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Lawrence 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.

Mr. Lawrence is married with 5 grown children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Lawrence 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. Mr. Lawrence has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Lawrence served in the U.S. Army form 1968 to 1970. His tour of duty included time spent in Vietnam.

Mr. Lawrence ran unsuccessfully for the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1978 and for the South Carolina Senate in 1982.

Mr. Lawrence is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Lawrence 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Lawrence meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Lawrence qualified and said:

He is an experienced family court practitioner.

He is considered a zealous advocate who is always well-prepared.

Mr. Lawrence has an excellent reputation for character, integrity, honesty, and diligence, all of which are perceived would serve him well as a judge.

His temperament is beyond reproach, and it is perceived he will be impartial and fair to all parties who appear before him.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Mack was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Mack demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Mack received his B.A from Syracuse in 1974 and his J.D. from Tulane in 1980. He also attended graduate school at S.U.N.Y. and Georgetown from 1974 to 1976 and was a high school teacher in Maryland from 1975 to 1977.

Mr. Mack is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Mack is an adjunct professor at Charleston Southern University where he teaches business law.

Mr. Mack described his legal experience as follows:
(a)   1981         Charleston County Public Defender's Office
(b)   1981-1983     Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office
(c)   1982-1992     Almeika, DeVane & Mack -- Practiced family law, criminal law, tort law.
(d)   1992-Present   Solo Practitioner -- Practicing family law, criminal law, tort law.

Mr. Mack estimated that over the past 5 years he has appeared in federal court with limited frequency including one 5 week criminal trial, but that he appears in state court weekly.

Mr. Mack estimated that over the past 5 years his practice has been 75% domestic, 15% criminal, and 10% civil.

Mr. Mack provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a)   United States v. Overton: (U.S. District Court) Mr. Mack represented defendant Gregory Overton in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy trial which lasted for 5 weeks. Mr. Mack also represented the defendant on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The matter is still on appeal.
(b)   Shirley Graham v. Stanley Williams: (Charleston County Family Court) This matter was a multi-day custody trial involving the interests of 3 minor children of the parties. Mr. Mack represented defendant Williams in this action for a change in custody. The trial court's order allowed Mr. Williams to retain custody of the 3 children, the order was affirmed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's request for a writ of certiorari.
(c)   William K. Rader v. Robert E. Sheeley: (Dorchester County Family Court) This matter was a custody case in which Mr. Mack represented plaintiff Rader as stepparent seeking custody of a child after the death of the child's biological mother to whom plaintiff was married. The defendant, who was the child's biological father, sought an order returning custody of the child to him. The case was tried for 1 and 1/2 days before a settlement providing for joint custody was reached.
(d)   William G. Geiger v. Sandra S. Geiger: (Charleston County Family Court) This is an ongoing matter involving a 1991 court approved property settlement and support agreement in which Mr. Mack represents the plaintiff. The agreement addresses the division of marital assets including real estate and the husband's small business. There is currently pending a rule to show cause for performance on the original property settlement and court interpretation of the terms of the agreement.
(e)   Charleston County D.S.S. v. Anne Edwards, et al.: (Charleston County Family Court) Mr. Mack represented the defendant in an action which originally alleged abuse and neglect of her maternal granddaughter. The matter was settled without a finding of abuse, but with an agreement to continue the child in psychiatric care and DSS custody. The case is currently pending for review concerning placement of the minor child.

Mr. Mack reported that he has handled 1 domestic appeal, the Graham v. Williams matter discussed above.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Mack's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Mack 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.

Mr. Mack is married with 3 children, ages 13, 10, and 2.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Mack 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. Mr. Mack has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Mack has been active in Spoleto Festival USA and in work for the Gibbes Museum of Art.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Mack 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Mack meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Mack qualified and said:

He is generally perceived by those interviewed as intelligent and personable. It is thought that he possesses good common sense.

The majority of those interviewed felt that he is conscientious, well-prepared, and would do a good job as a Family Court judge.

It is felt that Mr. Mack would exhibit good judicial temperament and be courteous to both lawyers and litigants. He is perceived to have excellent character and integrity.

He has had broad experience in Family Court and previously served as an assistant solicitor for the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge McClain was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge McClain demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge McClain has been appealed in 14 appellate reported decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in two of those matters.

Judge McClain was a member of the S.C. Law Review from 1971 to 1973.

Judge McClain was the Survey Editor in 1972, and was a delegate to the National Law Review Conference in 1973.

Judge McClain delivered a lecture on the 1994 Crime Bill to the S.C. Solicitor's Association in 1994.

Judge McClain has also given continuing legal education lectures to the Anderson City Police Department and has lectured at many secondary schools on various aspects of the law.

Judge McClain reported that he had been the subject of a grievance concerning his representation of a client in a civil suit, but the grievance was determined unfounded by the Grievance Committee and was dismissed.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge McClain was admitted to the Bar in 1973.

Judge McClain was engaged in the general practice of law with the law firm of Hall & McClain from 1973 to 1979. He served as City Recorder for the City of Anderson from 1974 to 1979, and was elected Family Court Judge in 1979.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge McClain's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge McClain 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 McClain is married with two children, both 9 years old.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge McClain 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 McClain has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge McClain has been a member of the bench since 1979.

Judge McClain was an unsuccessful candidate for the S.C. House of Representatives in 1972.

Judge McClain was a school teacher and coach at Pickens Junior High School from 1968 to 1970.

Judge McClain is active in church and community activities.

Judge McClain often speaks to local schools and social organizations to educate the public on legal issues. He volunteers to assist the school safety patrol and is active in his children's activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge McClain 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge McClain meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge McClain qualified and said:

He has served on the Family Court bench for sixteen years.

He is well versed in the law.

Judge McClain has an excellent judicial temperament and is courteous to all litigants. His integrity is beyond reproach.

He is considered to be industrious and diligent in the handling of Family Court matters before him.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Mobley was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Mobley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Mobley's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1982) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Mobley was admitted to the Bar in 1964.

Judge Mobley was engaged in the general practice of law from 1964 to 1982. He was elected Family Court Judge in 1982.

Judge Mobley has served as Chief Judge for administrative purposes in the following circuits:

(a)   6th Judicial Circuit;

(b)   5th Judicial Circuit;

(c)   9th Judicial Circuit;

(d)   11th Judicial Circuit; and

(e)   14th Judicial Circuit.

He has been assigned and held court in 24 of the 46 counties in this state.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Mobley's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Mobley 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 Mobley is married with two adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Mobley 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 Mobley has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Mobley has been a Family Court Judge since 1982.

Judge Mobley served in the United States Army from 1954 to 1956. He served in the S.C. State Guard from 1983 to 1990.

Judge Mobley was a member of the Lancaster County Council from 1972 to 1980. He was elected to the Board of Directors for the S.C. Association of Counties and was elected President in 1978. He was appointed by the Lancaster City Council as City Attorney in 1967, and held office until his election to County Council in 1972. He was again appointed City Attorney in 1980 and held that position until he became a Family Court Judge. Judge Mobley was appointed by Governor Richard W. Riley for a 4-year term to the Local Government Study Committee.

Judge Mobley was an unsuccessful candidate to the S.C. House of Representatives in 1968. He also ran unsuccessfully to be Solicitor of the 6th Judicial Circuit in 1970.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Mobley 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Mobley meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Mobley qualified and said:

He is respected for his administration of dockets throughout the state and is consistent in the application of the rules to all attorneys.

Judge Mobley is very knowledgeable about the law, and his years of service evidence his commitment to the Family Court. He has led continuing legal education sessions and assists in the training of new judges.

He is generally regarded as fair, unbiased, and impartial by those who appear before him.

There was an article in the February 11, 1988, edition of the State in which Judge Mobley was quoted as being an advocate of alternative sentencing. He indicated that "alternative sentencing does a better job for children than incarceration -- especially for those who can be rehabilitated." He also said "we're moving into a new cycle. The whole theme of sentencing now is to sit back and look back at the alternatives."

There was a February 11, 1988, article in the State which quoted Judge Mobley on the subject of truancy. Judge Mobley was quoted as saying "Early prevention is the key. Truancy is a matter of catching the student immediately, dealing with the matter, and placing the kid back in school. . . . I think schools have got to do a lot more with programs to avoid truancy, I think the court's involvement should be as a last resort."

There was a January 17, 1991, article in the State which reported that Judge Mobley was upset about a breakdown in tracking truants in Fairfield County and met privately with the county's 9 member school board in an unusual attempt to resolve difficulties. The incident which apparently sparked Judge Mobley's concern was a hearing with two Fairfield Central High School students who had missed more than 40 school days by early January. Judge Mobley was upset because he believed he was hearing about the attendance problems after it was too late to help students.

Judge Mobley has been sued 4 times. He describes those matters as follows:

(a)   In 1982, an action was filed in Federal Court, Hutchinson v. Mobley, Epps, and Dixon. It was an action by an inmate involving a sentence Judge Mobley imposed on him in a term of General Sessions Court. The action was dismissed.

(b)   In 1994, an action was filed in Federal Court, Gene Taylor, Sheriff of Anderson County, in a class action v. Mobley, et al. as the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards. The action involved the confidentiality of matters pending before the Commission. An answer has been filed and motions are pending.

(c)   Jones, et al. v. County of Lancaster was a case that involved a lawsuit against Lancaster County officials brought by survivors of a prisoner killed in a Lancaster County Jail fire. Judge Mobley was named as a member of County Council.

(d)   Catawba Indians v. S.C. was a case in which Judge Mobley was named because of his position as a County Council member for Lancaster County. The case has been concluded.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Morehead was screened on May 4, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Morehead demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Morehead is an officer and director of the Page Nelson Keessee Memorial Scholarship Fund, Inc., which he described as an eleemosynary cooperation receiving donations and award scholarship to participants in the Palmetto Boys State program. He indicated that he receives no compensation for his service.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Morehead has been appealed in 3 reported appellate decisions. He was affirmed in all 3 cases.

There was an article in the 11/22/93 edition of the State which described Judge Morehead's development of an 8-hour course entitled "Parents and Child Transitions." Florence and Horry counties require parents who divorce to attend this course in an effort to reduce the negative effects of divorce on children.

Judge Morehead was very active in college and law school activities. He was 17th in his law school class and was a member of the Order of Wig and Robe.

Judge Morehead has lectured at several CLE and other professional forums. The topics upon which he has lectured have included:
(a)   business law (served as instructor at Francis Marion College); and
(b)   family law issues such as financial declarations, bankruptcy, abuse and neglect actions, temporary hearings, and waiver hearings.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Morehead was admitted to the Bar in 1973. He then joined the law firm of Nelson, Mullins, Grier & Scarborough and remained there for 3 years focusing on defense litigations surrounding personal and property injuries, products liability, and workers' compensation. He formed the law firm of Swearingen & Morehead in 1976 and had a general practice doing both plaintiff and defense litigation in state, federal, and family court.

Judge Morehead was elected to the family court bench in 1985.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Morehead's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Morehead 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 Morehead is married with 2 grown children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Morehead 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 Morehead has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Morehead served in the United States Army from 1968 to 1970.

Judge Morehead served as a Commissioner of Elections for the City of Florence from 1983 to 1985.

Judge Morehead has served as a family court judge since 1985. He is active in professional and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Morehead 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Morehead meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Morehead qualified and said:

He possesses intellect as evidenced by his law school academic achievements and comments of the Bar. He has ably served as a Family Court judge for ten years.

He is well-liked and respected by attorneys who appear before him, as well as other members of the community in which he lives.

Judge Morehead is generally considered to be fair in his rulings and enforcement of the court rules and is not influenced by the identity of parties or their attorneys.

While there was some criticism of his judicial temperament, the majority of those interviewed reported good judicial temperament and marked improvement during his tenure on the bench.

His character and integrity are not questioned.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Murdock was screened on May 3, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Murdock demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Murdock owns 2 rental properties jointly with C. Gene Hardee. Judge Murdock indicated that he would recuse himself from any matter involving Mr. Hardee, a member of Mr. Hardee's family, or one of their tenants.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

There are no published appellate decisions in which Judge Murdock has been appealed.

Judge Murdock's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was BV.

A former client sought post-conviction relief against Judge Murdock in 1992. The relief sought was denied.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Murdock graduated from Presbyterian College in 1975. He was a teacher and coach at the Wardlaw Academy in Johnston, South Carolina from 1975 to 1976. He was a South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Agent from 1976 until his entrance into law school in 1980.

Judge Murdock began practicing with the firm of Shand & Stanton upon his admission to the Bar in 1983 and continued in this practice until his election to the family court bench in 1992. His practice consisted primarily of debt collection, real estate, and family court work with a small amount of personal injury and criminal practice. He estimated that he spent 50% of his time on domestic matters.

Judge Murdock served as the City Recorder for the Town of Hartsville from 1986 to 1992. He served as City Recorder for the Town of Timmonsville from 1989 to 1992. He also served as a special referee in a 1991 case involving a dispute about the ownership of some farm equipment.

Judge Murdock was elected to the family court bench in 1992. He provided the Joint Committee with 5 significant orders.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Murdock's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Murdock 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 Murdock is married with 2 children, ages 9 and 15.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Murdock 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 Murdock has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Murdock has served as a city recorder since 1986 and as a family court judge since 1992.

Judge Murdock is active in church, professional, and community affairs.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Murdock 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Murdock meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Murdock qualified and said:

He is described as both knowledgeable of the law and an excellent student of the law. His decisions are well reasoned, conscientious, and deliberate.

He brings to the bench an open mind and objective perspective. He is reported to be fair in his rulings and not influenced by the identity of parties or their attorneys.

Judge Murdock is described as cordial and accommodating to litigants and attorneys. He has an excellent judicial temperament.

His integrity and character were unquestioned.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Myers was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Myers demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Myers has been appealed in 4 reported appellate decisions and reversed in whole or part in one of those matters.

Judge Myers took the S.C. bar exam twice.

Judge Myers has been a frequent lecturer at CLE and other professional forums.

Judge Myers' last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1983) was BV.

Judge Myers occasionally appears before church groups, schools, and other community groups to speak on the judicial system and family court.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Myers was admitted to the Bar in 1964.

Judge Myers was associated with the law firm of Lee & Moise from 1963 through 1966. He became a partner in the firm in 1967 and the name was changed to Lee, Moise & Myers. He entered private practice in 1980. Judge Myers was appointed as Master-in-Equity for Sumter County in 1983 and served in that capacity until election to the family court in 1984.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Myers' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Myers 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 Myers is married with 3 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Myers 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 Myers has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Myers has been a family court judge since 1984.

Judge Myers served as the Master-in-Equity for Sumter County from 1983 to 1984.

Judge Myers served by appointment on the City of Sumter Planning Commission from 1964 to 1971. He also served as a member of the Sumter County Commission for Higher Education from 1982 to 1984.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Myers 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Myers meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Myers qualified and said:

He has served with distinction for eleven years.

He has demonstrated an excellent judicial temperament and treated litigants and attorneys who appear before him courteously.

Judge Myers is well-respected by his peers and attorneys for his promptness, diligence, and legal ability. He has been actively involved in Bar committee work related to family court issues. His knowledge and legal skills are perceived to be outstanding.

He is fair to litigants and displays no bias in favor of or against particular positions or litigants. His character, integrity, and reputation are outstanding.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Ms. Riddle was screened on May 10, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Ms. Riddle demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Ms. Riddle's husband is an assistant solicitor in the 11th Circuit.

Ms. Riddle indicated that she would recuse herself from matters involving parties to litigation or clients of her current law firm. She said she would also recuse herself from all matters where a lawyer from her firm was or had been involved.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Ms. Riddle to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Ms. Riddle's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Ms. Riddle described her legal experience as follows:
(a)   1988-Present   Partner in the law firm of Kirkland, Dodson, Rush, and Riddle. Primarily involved in the representation of parties in divorce actions (including issues of equitable division of property, alimony, child custody, child support, and visitation), custody litigation, adoption proceedings, and child abuse and neglect matters. Also representing children in child custody cases as their attorney/guardian ad litem. Other areas handled include the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury, workers' compensation, and criminal defense.
(b)   Summer 1993   Special Assistant Solicitor, 5th Judicial Circuit. Prosecuted child abuse and neglect cases for DSS on a part-time basis. Duties included the preparation and trial of abuse and neglect cases against parents and other individuals accused of physical, emotional, educational, and sexual abuse or neglect of children.
(c)   1988-1990     Volunteer Guardian Ad Litem Project of Richland County. Represented abused and neglected children and their guardians in family court to ensure that the best interests of the children were protected and that all actions taken by DSS and other child protective agencies conformed to the law.
(d)   1986-1988     Associate in the law firm of Kirkland, Aaron, and Alley. Primary emphasis was on divorce, child custody, child support, visitation, and related matters. Other areas handled included the preparation of wills, estate work, personal injury, and criminal defense.
(e)   1985-1986     Family Court Solicitor for the 5th Circuit. Assistant Solicitor assigned exclusively to family court, handling all matters relating to the prosecution of juvenile criminal defendants and the prosecution of individuals accused of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse or neglect of children. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases; decisions regarding the transfer of jurisdiction to General Sessions Court on serious, violent, or repeat offenders; trial of motions to transfer jurisdiction; trial of motions to detain juvenile defendants pending trial on serious, repeat, and violent offenses; and writing briefs and arguing appeals to the Court of General Sessions and the South Carolina Supreme Court.
(f)   1984-1985     Assistant Solicitor for the 5th Circuit. Prosecuted adult criminal defendants in General Sessions and magistrate's court. Responsibilities included the preparation and trial of cases, interviewing witnesses, drafting and arguing legal motions, formulating plea agreements, preparation of indictments, and advising local law enforcement agencies regarding legal issues, charging decisions, and collection of evidence.

Ms. Riddle said that over the past 5 years she has appeared in state court on a daily basis. She estimated that her practice over the past 5 years has been 90% domestic, 5% civil, and 5% criminal.

Ms. Riddle provided the Joint Committee with 5 of her most significant legal matters which she described as follows:
(a)   Shuler v. Shuler: This was a contested divorce case in which Ms. Riddle represented one of the parties. The most significant issues in this case were purely economic. The couple had amassed more that $75,000 in personal debt on 45 different credit cards and loan accounts. In addition, the marital residence was titled in the husband's father's name, though both husband and wife had contributed to the equity in it. The contested issues involved the setting of alimony, the distribution of the marital debt, the distribution of the equity in the home, and the interrelation between these economic factors.
(b)   Coker v. Coker: This was a contested child custody case involving 2 children, ages 8 and 5. Ms. Riddle was the children's guardian ad litem. One parent had engaged in several adulterous affairs without the children knowing. The other parent, upon learning of the affairs, told the children. The most significant issues involved was the determination of which of these actions was the most detrimental to the children and of the impact of these actions on each parent's fitness in the custody determination.
(c)   In re Dawkins: This was a DSS case involving allegations of physical and sexual abuse on a hearing-impaired teenage girl. The alleged perpetrator was the child's mother. Ms. Riddle represented the guardian ad litem and ultimately the child's best interests. The teenage girl was so attached to her mother as a result of her handicap that she wanted to live with her mother despite the abuse. This resulted in considerable reluctance on the child's part to assist the State in proving the abuse. The entire case had to be tried through the use of an interpreter.
(d)   Berger v. Miller: Ms. Riddle represented a mother attempting to show a material and substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a change in the previously ordered custody provisions. The factors involved included the child's poor performance in school, the father's exposure of the child to his adulterous affairs, verbal abuse by the father, and the allegedly questionable religious affiliations of the mother.
(e)   State v. Napoleon Goodson IV: This case involved the murder of a young man by a 16-year old juvenile. Ms. Riddle was the assistant solicitor assigned to the case. A motion was heard by the family court requesting that the case be waived to the Court of General Sessions and that the juvenile be tried as an adult. The motion was denied and an appeal was brought in circuit court. The juvenile filed a writ of supersedeas in the Supreme Court asserting that the State's appeal should be dismissed. The writ was denied. The appeal was then heard in the circuit court and the court asserted jurisdiction. The juvenile was then tried as an adult and was ultimately convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

Ms. Riddle has handled only 1 appeal, the State v. Napoleon Goodson IV matter discussed above.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Ms. Riddle's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Ms. Riddle was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Ms. Riddle is married with 3 sons, ages 7, 5, and 3.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Ms. Riddle appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Riddle has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Ms. Riddle ran unsuccessfully for the family court bench in 1994.
(9)   Ethics:

Ms. Riddle reported on her application that her campaign expenditures have totaled $91.04.

Ms. Riddle testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Ms. Riddle meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office she seeks.

The Bar found Ms. Riddle qualified and said:

She is a family court practitioner who has handled all aspects of work in that court. She has extensive knowledge in the subject matters addressed by Family Court.

She has an excellent reputation for truthfulness, character, and diligence.

Ms. Riddle is perceived to possess the demeanor and temperament necessary for the bench.

She would be fair and impartial to lawyers and litigants.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Not Qualified

See the reports of the majority and minority attached.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Saunders was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Saunders demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Saunders has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Judge Saunders' last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1994) was AV.

Judge Saunders did not provide the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders or opinions because he has only been on the bench since 1994.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Saunders was admitted to the Bar in 1968. He was a solo practitioner from that time up until his election to the Family Court bench in 1994. He also served as City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He represented the Commission of Public Works as counsel from 1993 to 1994. His practice over the years was general and included civil, criminal, domestic, and administrative law in state and federal courts.

Judge Saunders was employed as a police officer for approximately 3 1/2 years from 1962 to 1965 while attending Presbyterian College.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Saunders' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Saunders 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 Saunders is married and is the father of daughters.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Saunders 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 Saunders has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Saunders has been a family court judge since 1994.

Judge Saunders was the City Attorney for the City of Laurens from 1972 to 1992. He served as counsel to the Commission of Public Works in Laurens from 1993 to 1994.

Judge Saunders is active in his church and community activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Saunders 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Saunders meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Saunders qualified and said:

His competence and knowledge of the law in this area were unquestioned.

His style of holding court is more formal than most judges. Many perceive this as an asset as it shows respect for the litigants.

Judge Saunders has an excellent judicial temperament. He treats attorneys and litigants with courtesy.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Sawyer was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Sawyer demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Sawyer serves as an officer and director of Hallman-Scott, Inc., a non-profit corporation chartered by the State of South Carolina. The corporation provides financial assistance to deserving students who live in the Ridge Spring-Monetta school district.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Sawyer has never been appealed in a reported appellate decision.

Judge Sawyer lectured to the newly elected family court judges at their orientation seminar in 1994.

Judge Sawyer's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was AV.

Judge Sawyer was named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving his services as the attorney for the Town of Batesburg. The action was dismissed by a favorable summary judgment ruling.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Sawyer was admitted to the Bar in 1974.

Judge Sawyer was engaged in the general practice of law from 1974 to 1976. He became a partner in the general practice of law with Billy C. Coleman from 1976 to 1992.

Judge Sawyer served as a Saluda County magistrate from 1974 to 1979. During that time, he served as Chief Magistrate for Saluda County.

In 1975, Judge Sawyer was appointed by the Town Council to serve as Municipal Court Judge for the Town of Batesburg. He served in that capacity until 1982.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Sawyer's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Sawyer 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 Sawyer is married with 3 children, ages 15, 13, and 6.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Sawyer 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 Sawyer has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Sawyer has been a member of the bench since 1992.

Judge Sawyer was a member of the S.C. Air National Guard from 1970 to 1976.

Judge Sawyer was elected as Mayor of Ridge Spring in 1983 and was re-elected in 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1991.

Judge Sawyer is active in church and community activities.

Judge Sawyer has been the recipient of several awards including:

(1)   The Order of the Palmetto (1985); and

(2)   Commended by resolution of the House of Representatives for community service (1985).
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Sawyer 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Sawyer meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Sawyer qualified and said:

Lawyers that practiced before him were impressed with the efficiency and decorum of his court and feel that he has done an excellent job.

An overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted respect Judge Sawyer for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry in his work.

His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Smoak was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Smoak demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Smoak is an officer and a 25% owner in the Palmetto Boarding Home, Inc., a residential care facility.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Mr. Smoak is not rated in Martindale-Hubbell.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Smoak taught the following paralegal courses for the Technical College of the Low Country:

(a)   Estates;

(b)   Family Law;

(c)   Legal Bibliography;

(d)   Litigation; and

(e)   Torts.

Mr. Smoak described his legal experience as follows:

(a)   1983         Law clerk for the Honorable William T. Howell

(b)   1984-Present   General practice with majority of work in Family Court

1984-1993 and

1995-Present   Prosecutor for child abuse and neglect cases for the Department of Social Services

1984-Present   Public Defender for the City of Walterboro

1993-Present   Conflict attorney for Colleton County Public Defender (including juveniles)

Mr. Smoak estimated that over the last five years, he has appeared in federal court approximately 5 times and in state court approximately 250 times.

Mr. Smoak estimated that over the past five years, his practice has been 15% civil, 25% criminal, and 60% domestic.

Mr. Smoak provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his significant litigated matters. Those matters included:

(a)   D.S.S. v. Johnson: This case was significant because it dealt with expert opinion testimony and burden of proof in neglect cases.

(b)   Hiott v. Nolind: This case was significant because it hinged on efforts of a disabled natural mother to get custody or unsupervised visitation of her small child.

(c)   Hughes v. Hughes: This case was significant because the father was granted custody of the minor children based on the best interests the minor children.

(d)   D.S.S. v. New Bethany School for Boys: This case was significant because it received national attention and press on allegations of abuse at the school.

(e)   Estate of Myers: This case was significant because the wife had to prove common-law marriage to inherit from her deceased husband.

Mr. Smoak has handled one domestic appeal. It was the D.S.S. v. Johnson matter discussed above.

Mr. Smoak estimated that he serves as a special referee and arbitration judge approximately three times per year.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Smoak's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Smoak 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.

Mr. Smoak is married with two children, ages 8 and 18 months.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Smoak 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. Mr. Smoak has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Smoak ran unsuccessfully for the Family Court in 1994.

Mr. Smoak has been active in professional and civic activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Smoak reported on his application materials that his campaign expenditures have totaled $57.40.

Mr. Smoak 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Smoak meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Smoak qualified and said:

He has practiced law predominately in domestic relations law for the past twelve years. He is considered by his peers to be an able and competent attorney in the Family Court.

He is an industrious person and a hard worker.

Mr. Smoak enjoys a good reputation in the local community as an honest and straight-forward person.

He is thought to have a good temperament. Members of the Bar feel that he would be an asset to the Family Court bench.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Turbeville was screened on May 5, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Turbeville demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Judge Turbeville reported that he disqualifies himself from matters he or a member of his law firm worked on while Judge Turbeville was a practicing lawyer. He said that in new matters handled by the firm about which he knows nothing, he discloses his prior relationship with the firm on the record and unless the parties agree that his prior relationship with the firm is immaterial, he disqualifies himself.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

There are no published appellate decisions in which Judge Turbeville has been appealed.

Judge Turbeville's last Martindale-Hubbell rating (1992) was BV.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Turbeville graduated from Wofford College with a B.A. in 1966. He received his Master's Degree in Divinity from Emory University in 1969 and his law degree from U.S.C. in 1977. Judge Turbeville worked as a Methodist minister during law school.

Judge Turbeville practiced with the firm of Land, Turbeville, Parker & Reaves from 1977 to 1992. His practice included domestic relations, personal injury, workers' compensation, real estate, and probate matters.

Judge Turbeville was elected to the family court bench in 1992. He provided the Joint Committee with 5 of his most significant orders.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Turbeville's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Turbeville 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 Turbeville is divorced with 2 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Turbeville 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 Turbeville has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Turbeville was elected to the family court bench in 1992.

Judge Turbeville is active in church and Bar activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Turbeville 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Turbeville meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Turbeville qualified and said:

He is considered to be intelligent with an excellent command of the law.

Judge Turbeville is fair to both sides and willing to rule on difficult issues.

The majority of those interviewed felt he was courteous, had good judicial decorum in the courtroom and was a person of very high integrity. He is sincerely interested in the juveniles who appear in his court.

He has good docket control and is well-respected by his peers.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Judge Watson was screened on May 8, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Judge Watson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Watson has been appealed in 14 reported opinions and has been reversed in 5 of those matters.

There is a letter to the editor in the September 20, 1989, edition of the State in which a psychologist who had worked for the Orangeburg Area Mental Health Center for 7 1/2 years praised Judge Watson for "consistently demanding accountability from individual DSS case workers, as well as their supervisors."
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Watson was admitted to the S.C. Bar in 1967.

Judge Watson described his legal experience as follows:

(a)   1967-1970     Mayfield & Watson

(b)   1970-1974     Fogle & Watson

(c)   1974-1975     Private practice
(d)   1973-1975     Part-time Family Court Judge
(e)   1975-1977     Full time Family Court Judge
(f)   1977-Present   Family Court Judge, 1st Circuit
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Watson's temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Watson 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 Watson is married with three adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Watson 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 Watson has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Watson has been a member of the family court bench since 1977.

Judge Watson served in the United States Air Force from 1958-1962.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Watson 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Watson meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Judge Watson qualified and said:

He has an admirable record of more than twenty years as a Family Court judge.

He is courteous and respectful to lawyers, litigants, and witnesses.

Judge Watson works hard, is punctual and is prompt in making decisions.

He is considered to be fair-minded and patient. He has excellent judicial temperament.

Joint Committee's Finding:     Qualified

Mr. Williams was screened on May 9, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

Mr. Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.

Mr. Williams is employed by Americall Corporation as an agent to sell long-distance service. He indicated that he is associated with other lawyers through Americall and that he would resolve any potential conflict of interest with these attorneys by resigning from Americall.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The Joint Committee found Mr. Williams to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.

Mr. Williams' Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.

Mr. Williams was named as a defendant creditor in a foreclosure action because of a family court order awarding him attorney's fees to be paid by defendant/debtor.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Mr. Williams describes his practice since graduation from law school in 1982 as a general practice of law with a primary emphasis on family law and personal injury law. Mr. Williams has been a part-time municipal judge for the City of Irmo since 1991.

Mr. Williams estimated that he appears in federal court infrequently and in state court weekly. He said that his state court appearances are primarily in Family Court.

Mr. Williams estimated that his practice over the last five years has been 35% civil, 5% criminal, and 60% domestic.

Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with a list of five of his most significant matters. He described those matter as follows:

(a)   Melvin v. Melvin: Long-term marriage involving issues of contested divorce and equitable distribution including military retirement.

(b)   Inman v. Inman: A custody case involving a mother who moved out of state. The mother retained custody, but she had to return to South Carolina.

(c)   Oswald v. Oswald: A contested domestic action involving child support, visitation, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. This case was significant in that it involved domestic issues and private domestic actions.

(d)   Jackson v. Jackson: A domestic case tried for mother, seeking custody and visitation, who had in prior years given up custody and visitation with her children. Custody was obtained for the mother.
(e)   Bullard v. Ehrhardt: This case established the duty of a store owner to invitees for the criminal actions of third parties in negligence actions.

Mr. Williams provided the Joint Committee with a list of four civil appeals he has handled. Three of the appeals listed appear to have been domestic matters and one was the Bullard v. Ehrhardt matter discussed above.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Williams' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Mr. Williams 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.

Mr. Williams is married with children, ages 7 and 3.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Mr. Williams 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. Mr. Williams has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Mr. Williams ran unsuccessfully for the Family Court in 1994.

Mr. Williams is active in professional and civic activities.
(9)   Ethics:

Mr. Williams was employed as a lobbyist in 1990 by the S.C. Society of Opthamologists and the S.C. Funeral Director's Association.

Mr. Williams reported on his application materials that his campaign expenditures have totaled $82.56.

Mr. Williams 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Mr. Williams meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

The Bar found Mr. Williams qualified and said:

His practice is primarily in family law, and he is perceived to be competent in the area.

He presently serves as a city judge and has an excellent reputation for that service.

Judge Williams is considered courteous, truthful, conscientious, and diligent. It is believed he would have excellent temperament on the Family Court bench.

He is perceived to be fair and impartial on the bench.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman

/s/Rep. F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman

/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby

/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore

/s/Senator John R. Russell

/s/Rep. Paula H. Thomas

/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty

/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith

Joint Committee's Finding:   Four members voted to find Judge Charles qualified and four members voted to find Judge Charles not qualified.

Judge Charles was screened on May 11, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

See the attached reports of the majority and minority.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

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

Judge Charles has been appealed in 5 reported appellate decisions and was reversed, in whole or in part, in 2 of those matters.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Charles was admitted to the Bar in 1949.

Judge Charles practiced with the firm of Charles & Charles from 1949 to 1971. He was engaged in the general practice of law, particularly civil, criminal, tort, and real estate law. Judge Charles was the city attorney for the City of Greenwood from 1961 to 1983. From 1971 to 1975, Judge Charles was a sole practitioner engaged in the practice of civil, criminal, real estate, and family law. Judge Charles practiced with the firm of Charles, Charles & Scurry from 1975 to 1983. He was elected to the Family Court bench in 1983.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The Joint Committee believes that Judge Charles' temperament would be excellent.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Charles 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 Charles is married with 3 adult children.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Charles 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 Charles has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Charles has been a member of the Family Court since 1984.

Judge Charles was a member of the United States Marine Corps from 1943 to 1946.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Charles 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Charles meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the office he seeks.

Judge Charles has been sued twice. The first matter was in 1984, Brown v. Charles, and was an action for reimbursement of expenses paid by the City of Greenwood on his behalf as city attorney. Judge Charles incurred the expenses in meetings of the S.C. Municipal Association and other related city activities. The suit was dismissed with prejudice. Judge Charles indicated that the plaintiff had a history of filing law suits against public officials, and the court admonished him on the record for bringing this and other frivolous actions.

The second action was 1990, Potts v. C. Price, Clerk of Family Court and the Chief Judge of Family Court, and was an action which in which the plaintiff contended that she was denied due process in that the defendant failed to file her summons and complaint for a divorce. Judge Charles had made a determination that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction, that the plaintiff had not been a resident of S.C. for the required period. He had instructed the Clerk to write the plaintiff and inform her of the jurisdictional problem and return her filing fee. This matter was dismissed on motion for summary judgment.

The Bar found Judge Charles qualified and said:

He has considerable experience in the judicial system having served as Family Court judge for approximately twelve years.

He is respected by an overwhelming majority of the members of the Bar contacted for his legal skills, impartiality, judicial temperament, and promptness and industry in his work.

Lawyers practicing before Judge Charles felt he ran an efficient court and was described by many as a no-nonsense judge.

His character, integrity, and reputation are considered excellent.

The Joint Committee was contacted by a witness who wished to testify in opposition to Judge Charles' re-election. A Joint Committee staff person contacted Judge Charles as per the Joint Committee's rules to inform him of the witness' desire to testify against him. Judge Charles then contacted the witness' attorney whom he knew would discourage her from testifying. In his testimony before the Joint Committee, Judge Charles admitted contacting the witness' attorney and did not appear to believe that his conduct was improper.

We believe that Judge Charles' conduct was inexcusable. Judge Charles attempted to protect himself by intimidating a witness. Such behavior is repugnant, particularly when the conduct is by a member of the judiciary. Judge Charles admitted on the record that he contacted the witness' attorney and said "It's my decision when my neck's on the line." We believe that this matter is of such a serious nature that we cannot in good conscience find Judge Charles qualified for further service on the bench.

The judicial screening process depends on witnesses being able to appear before the Joint Committee without fear of reprisal or intimidation or being subject to chilling influences. Interference with witnesses strikes at the heart of this process, and judges should be held to the highest standards in this regard.

VOTING AGAINST CANDIDATE:
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith

Judge Charles has had a long record of service on the bench and has served with distinction. Judge Charles may have acted improperly in contacting the witness' attorney, but he was honest and forthright about having made the contact and this was one isolated incident which should not disqualify him from further service on the bench.

VOTING IN SUPPORT OF CANDIDATE:
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Rep. Paula H. Thomas
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty

Joint Committee's Finding:     Not Qualified

Judge Rogers was screened on May 11, 12, and 16, 1995, after a thorough investigation. The majority's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1)   Integrity and Impartiality:

The input the Joint Committee received from the public and from members of the Bar was very divided. Some individuals reported that Judge Rogers' integrity and impartiality are excellent, but the Joint Committee received evidence that Judge Rogers is at times arrogant and attempts to intimidate people by using the power and prestige of her office.

The majority is particularly concerned by evidence of a situation in which Judge Rogers attempted to use her judicial office to intimidate her former secretary. The majority believes that Judge Rogers threatened to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of her former secretary after the secretary took another job. The majority is aware of inconsistencies in the testimony on this issue, particularly with respect to when telephone calls were made, how many telephone calls were made, and whether the secretary had given Judge Rogers notice of her intent to resign, but the majority believes that these inconsistencies were not material and actually help to corroborate the secretary and her employer because they tend to indicate that the witnesses had not rehearsed their testimony. The secretary and her employer were subpoenaed late at night to immediately appear before the Joint Committee, had not previously contacted the Joint Committee, and reluctantly testified. Their testimony was corroborated by a family court judge and several other witnesses who appeared only after being subpoenaed. For these and other reasons, the majority believes that Judge Rogers threatened to issue a bench warrant for the secretary's arrest and was not truthful about this issue in her testimony under oath before the Joint Committee. The majority believes that they cannot, in view of the evidence, find a judge who abused her power and did not tell the truth under oath to the General Assembly's screening committee qualified for further service on the bench.

The majority was also very troubled by testimony that Judge Rogers issued an invalid subpoena to Southern Bell and then attempted to intimidate a Southern Bell employee into complying with the subpoena. Southern Bell's custodian of records testified that she was served with a subpoena duces tecum which Judge Rogers had signed and which attempted to compel her to produce the records of incoming local telephone calls to Judge Rogers' residence. The custodian of records contacted Judge Rogers about the subpoena because she believed it to be invalid. The custodian of records testified that Judge Rogers' tone was harsh and that Judge Rogers used her judicial office in an attempt to intimidate the custodian of records into complying with an invalid subpoena. Judge Rogers admitted issuing the subpoena, but said she did so at the suggestion of a Southern Bell employee whom she could not name. Judge Rogers denied attempting to intimidate the custodian of records. The majority is troubled by this incident because it believes that Judge Rogers abused her judicial power by issuing the subpoena and, most importantly, by attempting to intimidate the custodian of records.
(2)   Legal Knowledge and Ability:

The majority believes that Judge Rogers is intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Judge Rogers' record on appeal since her election in 1991 has been good as she has been appealed in two reported appellate decisions and was affirmed in both of those matters. She was, however, reversed in several unreported appellate decisions. These matters concern the majority as they dealt with situations in which the appellate court believed that Judge Rogers improperly incarcerated juveniles. In June of 1992 the Supreme Court granted a habeas corpus petition in the matter of In re Christopher B. in part because Judge Rogers had ordered a 17-year old confined to DYS custody for a status offense. In this matter the status offense was truancy and the minor had been charged with only one such offense. In March of 1993, Judge Rogers' order in In re Stacey R. incarcerating a 15-year old female for incorrigibility was vacated by a per curiam order of the Supreme Court. The court stated that it must "again remind family court judges that mere status offenders are not to be placed in detention facilities." In April of 1994 in In re Beatrice N., the Supreme Court issued another per curiam order reversing Judge Rogers' detention of a 15 year old female for a status offense, this time for the offenses of incorrigibility and truancy. The majority understand that judges make mistakes of law and are reversed from time-to-time, but the majority is troubled that Judge Rogers has been repeatedly reversed on the very important issue of when juveniles are to be incarcerated.
(3)   Professional Experience:

Judge Rogers was admitted to the Bar in 1983. She described her legal experience as follows:
(a)   1982-1985     Fifth Circuit Assistant Solicitor. Tried cases in both Family and General Sessions Court.
(b)   1985-1991     Assistant Chief counsel, S.C. Highway Department. Judge Rogers did some criminal work, but the main focus of her practice was in civil litigation, workers' compensation, and appellate practice.
(c)   1991-Present   Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit

Judge Rogers had little family court experience prior to her election to the bench in 1991. She testified that she attempted to compensate for that lack of experience by studying the law and attending CLE forums.
(4)   Judicial Temperament:

The majority believes that Judge Rogers is capable of exhibiting good judicial temperament and often does so. The majority also believes, however, that Judge Rogers tends to lose her temper and sometimes treats individuals who appear before her very poorly. The majority believes that judges should be stern and that it is often appropriate for a family court judge to be firm with litigants and lawyers in the courtroom. However, the majority believes that Judge Rogers' demeanor can be imperious instead of merely stern.
(5)   Diligence and Industry:

Judge Rogers testified that she was late and had to take frequent breaks during the period in which she was pregnant and nursing her child. Others, including courtroom personnel, litigants, lawyers, family court judges, and witnesses who testified on Judge Rogers' behalf, testified that she was frequently very late in the morning and returning from lunch and from breaks. The majority is not persuaded by the excuses Judge Rogers offered for her tardiness. The majority also believes, on the basis of testimony from a retired family court judge and other evidence, that the problem was not confined strictly to that time period during which Judge Rogers was pregnant and nursing. The majority views such problems of punctuality as very serious because they demonstrate a lack of respect for litigants, lawyers, and other courtroom participants.

The majority is also very concerned about evidence that Judge Rogers does not pay attention to affidavits and other documents she is to consider. The majority was moved by the testimony of one father who appeared before Judge Rogers in a custody matter. The father and his attorney testified that they submitted affidavits for Judge Rogers to consider, but the lengthy affidavits were clocked-in at 8:59 a.m. and the hearing began at 9:00 a.m. Judge Rogers testified that she had read the affidavits, but was concerned that the father did not understand that she had done so. Judge Rogers testified that she learned from this incident and would be more careful to ensure that litigants understood she had read their materials. The majority appreciates Judge Rogers' testimony on this issue, but is not convinced that Judge Rogers could have read the affidavits under the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, there was also testimony about another matter in which Judge Rogers asked a couple if they could be reconciled when they had been divorced for many years. The majority believes that Judge Rogers' failure to read materials presented for her consideration is further evidence of her lack of respect for litigants and lawyers and a very serious failure in her performance on the bench.

In the early period of Judge Rogers' service on the bench, she was slow in the production of orders and in one situation did not report all the matters she had under advisement to Court Administration as judges are required to do. The majority is troubled by Judge Rogers' problems in this regard, but believes that she has improved in this area.
(6)   Mental and Physical Capabilities:

Judge Rogers appears to be mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Financial Responsibility:

The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of a troubled financial status.
(8)   Public Service:

Judge Rogers has been a Family Court Judge since 1991.

Judge Rogers was very active in undergraduate and law school activities.

Judge Rogers is very active in professional and community activities. She has been the recipient of several awards including:

(a)   ABA "Outstanding Young Jurist" (1994);
(b)   U.S.C. 1994 Distinguished Black Alumni;

(c)   Woman of Achievement, S.C. Commission on Women (1992); and

(d)   University of South Carolina's 1992 Distinguished Young Alumni.
(9)   Ethics:

Judge Rogers reported on her application materials that she has spent $1,395.22 on her campaign.

Judge Rogers testified that she 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.
(10)   Miscellaneous:

Judge Rogers meets the constitutional and statutory requirements for the offices she seeks.

While the Bar found Judge Rogers qualified, it noted a number of concerns. The Bar's report is as follows:

Most of those interviewed feel that she is of good character and integrity.

Opinions as to the extent of her knowledge of the law were mixed. Initially, Judge Rogers had very little experience in Family Court. Of grave concern were a series of incarcerations of status offenders. It is generally conceded that she has improved in her knowledge of the law.

Concerns were expressed by some of those interviewed as to her judicial temperament. Some lawyers felt that she was fair and courteous; others felt that she was discourteous to both lawyers and litigants.

The greatest number of concerns were expressed about her consistent failure to be on the bench when court was scheduled to start (usually being very late) and her frequent absences from the bench during times when matters were scheduled. This behavior is perceived as disrespectful of litigants, witnesses, and lawyers (particularly because explanations were not offered) and is disruptive to efficient disposition of matters and movement of the docket. It was described by some as a failure to manage her courtroom.

Numerous concerns were expressed as to her tardiness in deciding cases and producing orders. In one instance the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered her to file an order in a case; Judge Rogers complied immediately.

There was testimony that Judge Rogers has been the victim of a conspiracy to defeat her bid for re-election, but these allegations lacked specificity and substance and the majority found no evidence of such a conspiracy. There were certainly conversations among members of the Bar and public about Judge Rogers' qualifications for judicial office. Such conversations do not constitute a conspiracy, however, because they do not involve plans for illegal or improper activity.

The majority feels that Judge Rogers is not the first judge to be tardy, late with matters under advisement, or to have lost her temper and acted imprudently. However, in its collective memory, the majority has no recollection of any candidate who when confronted with a substantial body of evidence in contradiction, including testimony from a number of disinterested witnesses, either always shifted the blame or failed to account for her own behavior. This presents problems to a committee called upon to administer oaths and prepare accurate accounts of qualifications, and the majority believes that such behavior is repugnant to public service in general and service on the bench or as a role model in particular. Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence herein, the admissions, and the veracity of Judge Rogers under oath, the majority has no option other than to find her not qualified and to reopen the Joint Committee's process for the acceptance of applications.

MAJORITY REPORT:
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Rep. F. Greg Delleney, Jr., Vice-Chairman
/s/Rep. Paula H. Thomas
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith

We, the undersigned minority of the Judicial Screening Committee, would find that Judge Abigail R. Rogers is qualified for continued service on the Family Court bench for the Fifth Judicial Circuit. While we are concerned by testimony that she has not always been punctual in her service on the bench, we are not prepared to find her unqualified on this issue as lack of punctuality plagues many of the members of the bench as a whole. In view of the majority's insistence on Judge Rogers' adherence to punctuality, we would expect the Committee, as a whole, to insist upon punctuality of all judges who will be screened in the future, and by copy of our opinion, serve notice upon members of the bench that punctuality is expected of all judges. We are also aware of testimony given to the Committee that at times Judge Rogers appeared to make decisions without benefit or resort to pleadings or affidavits filed with her court. In our opinion, we would find that this seeming lack of attention is more a matter of appearance than reality, and would encourage all judges to ensure that litigants understand that the court has given their cases careful attention, whether such attention is given in the courtroom or in chambers. The majority of the Committee appear to be most troubled by inconsistencies in Judge Rogers' testimony and testimony of those who alleged that she threatened arrest and/or service of a bench warrant if her former secretary did not return to her employ. We would find that many of the witnesses who testified before the Committee have diminished recollections of events which occurred nearly two years ago. We also would find that many of these witnesses appeared to have interconnecting interests which leads us to believe that their testimony was geared more toward unseating Judge Rogers than assisting the Committee in determining a true account of what occurred two years ago.

Each of us has wrangled with the substantial amount of testimony presented to the Committee on the number of issues presented regarding Judge Rogers' qualifications. In our opinion, Judge Rogers' tremendous talents and proven success in dealing with our state's substantial juvenile delinquency and justice problems deserve recognition. In view of this and of the lack of any clear evidence of misconduct on her part, we would, therefore, find her qualified.

MINORITY REPORT:
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Rep. Ralph W. Canty

(On motion of Senator McCONNELL, ordered printed in the Journal)

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

April 27, 1995
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am transmitting herewith an appointment for confirmation. This appointment is made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and is, therefore, submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully,
David M. Beasley

Initial Appointment, John de la Howe School Board of Trustees, with term to commence April 1, 1993, and to expire April 1, 1998:

At-Large:

Ms. Diane J. Brock, 213 Polaris Street, Anderson, S.C. 29621 VICE Hugh Z. Graham

Received as information.

May 19, 1995
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

I am transmitting herewith appointments for confirmation. These appointments are made with the "advice and consent of the Senate," and are, therefore, submitted for your consideration.

Respectfully,
David M. Beasley

Initial Appointment, Richland County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1995, and to expire April 30, 1999:

The Honorable Clifford E. Eisenhower, 318 Blue Horse Circle, Elgin, S.C. 29045 VICE Charles R. Delk (resigned)

Reappointment, Horry County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1995, and to expire April 30, 1999:

The Honorable Gerald T. Whitley, Jr., 3522 Golf Avenue, Little River, S.C. 29566

Received as information.

The following were received and referred to the appropriate committees for consideration:

Document No. 1863
Promulgated by Department of Social Services
Supervised Independent Living
Received by Lt. Governor May 5, 1995
Referred to Senate General Committee
120 day review expiration date April 10, 1996

Document No. 1865
Promulgated by Health and Human Services Finance Commission
Categorically Needy Eligible Groups
Received by Lt. Governor May 15, 1995
Referred to Senate General Committee
120 day review expiration date April 20, 1996

The following were received:

Document No. 1818
Promulgated by LLR - Board of Accountancy
Experience While Obtaining Required Education; Reinstatement of License After Revocation; Form of Organization and Name
Received by Lt. Governor March 24, 1995
Referred to Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
120 day review expiration date February 28, 1996
Withdrawn and resubmitted May 11, 1995

Document No. 1830
Promulgated by Department of Health and Environmental Control
State Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Received by Lt. Governor March 15, 1995
Referred to Senate Committee on Medical Affairs
120 day review expiration date February 19, 1996
Withdrawn and resubmitted May 15, 1995

On motion of Senator GIESE, at 12:15 P.M., Senator RYBERG was granted a leave of absence for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, May 23, 24 and 25, 1995.

Columbia, S.C., May 23, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it refuses to concur in the amendments proposed by the Senate to:
H. 3096 -- Reps. Thomas, Marchbanks, Simrill, Cromer, Walker, Vaughn, Wilder, Tripp, Elliott, Wells, Stille, Kelley, Richardson, Gamble, Stuart, Phillips, D. Smith, Law, Allison, Harrison, Keyserling, Tucker, Meacham, Shissias, Robinson, Baxley and Spearman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-1-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "VIOLENT CRIMES", SO AS TO INCLUDE THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE BY CHILD ABUSE.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Senate insisted upon its amendments to H. 3096 and asked for a Committee of Conference.

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT appointed Senators HOLLAND, MOORE and COURSON of the Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the:

Initial Appointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence June 30, 1993, and to expire June 30, 1998:

At-Large:

Mr. Richard Vance Davis, 117 Hialeah Road, Greenville, S.C. 29607 VICE John S. Simmons (resigned)

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the:

Initial Appointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence July 1, 1994, and to expire July 1, 1999:

At-Large:

Mr. H. Bowen Woodruff, Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Post Office Box 993, Charleston, S.C. 29402
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the:

Initial Appointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence June 30, 1995, and to expire June 30, 2000:

At-Large:

Mr. Frank B. Washington, 2225 Lorick Avenue, Columbia, S.C. 29203 VICE Adriene B. Wright

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the:

Initial Appointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence June 1, 1991, and to expire May 31, 1995:

4th Congressional District:

Mr. Raymond B. Smith, 466 Pimlico Road, Greenville, S.C. 29607 VICE William A. Coates (resigned)

Reappointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence May 31, 1995, and to expire May 31, 2000:

4th Congressional District:

Mr. Raymond B. Smith, 466 Pimlico Road, Greenville, S.C. 29607

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., May 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the:

Reappointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence June 1, 1991, and to expire May 31, 1995:

2nd Congressional District:

Mr. Edward E. Duryea, 3 Riverside Lane, Beaufort, S.C. 29902

Reappointment, State Ethics Commission, with term to commence May 31, 1995, and to expire May 31, 2000:

2nd Congressional District:

Mr. Edward E. Duryea, 3 Riverside Lane, Beaufort, S.C. 29902

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

Columbia, S.C., April 18, 1995

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has confirmed the initial appointment:

Initial Appointment, State Board of Pharmacy, with term to commence April 4, 1995, and to expire coterminous with the Governor:

Pharmacist - At-Large:

Hubert F. Mobley, R.Ph., Mobley Drugs, Inc., 403 West Meeting Street, Lancaster, S.C. 29720

Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

S. 533 -- Finance Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO ALLOW A GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY BY ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT FROM MUNICIPAL AD VALOREM TAX FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY RECEIVING THE FIVE-YEAR EXEMPTION FROM COUNTY AD VALOREM TAXES AS NEW CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, CORPORATE OFFICE FACILITIES, DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, AND ADDITIONS TO SUCH FACILITIES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS EXEMPTION FIRST IS ALLOWED WHEN THE STATE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE EXEMPTION.

Senator SETZLER asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Legislative Council.

There was no objection.

A message was sent to the Legislative Council accordingly.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the reconsideration of concurrence of the Bill.

Senator SETZLER proposed the following amendment (S-EDUC\533.001), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION . A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12-43-220(d)(3) of the 1976 Code, the deadline for filing for agricultural use value for property owned as of December 1, 1993, is extended to January 15, 1996.

B. This section takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator SETZLER spoke on the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments.

S. 800 -- Senator Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-260, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO CHARTERS FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE CREATION OF NEW CLASSES OF STOCK; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-410, RELATING TO MEMBERS, STOCKHOLDERS, AND BONDHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE AUTHORIZED INVESTORS AND INVESTMENT LIMITS; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-450, RELATING TO VOTING BY STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH HAVING NEW CLASSES OF STOCK; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LOANS TO THE CORPORATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE PROVISIONS FOR LOAN LIMITS AND INVESTMENT LIMITS; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-630, RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CORPORATIONS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTION; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 33-37-470 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF NEW CLASSES OF STOCK AND ARTICLE 9 TO CHAPTER 37, TITLE 33 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT.

Senator WILLIAMS asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Judiciary.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

The Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar with notice of general amendments.

S. 827 -- Senator Waldrep: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO NAME THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 76 AND INTERSTATE 85 IN ANDERSON COUNTY AS "CHARLANTA".

Senator WALDREP asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Resolution from the Committee on Transportation.

There was no objection.

On motion of Senator WALDREP, with unanimous consent, the Resolution was ordered placed on the local Calendar.

H. 3413 -- Reps. Townsend, Stille, Rogers, Riser, Cooper, McAbee, Williams, Wells, Trotter, Davenport and Carnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HUNTING SEASON FOR SMALL GAME, SO AS TO REVISE THE RABBIT SEASON.

Senator HOLLAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Legislative Council.

There was no objection.

A message was sent to the Legislative Council accordingly.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being reconsideration of third reading of the Bill.

The Fish, Game & Forestry Committee proposed the following amendment (PFM\7465BDW.95), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 50-11-120(A)(1)(a), page 1, beginning on line 27, Section 50-11-120(A)(2)(a), page 2, beginning on line 3, Section 50-11-120(A)(3)(a), page 2, beginning on line 21, Section 50-11-120(A)(4)(a), page 2, beginning on line 39, Section 50-11-120(A)(5)(a), page 3, beginning on line 14, Section 50-11-120(A)(6)(a), page 3, beginning on line 32, Section 50-11-120(A)(7)(a), page 4, beginning on line 9, Section 50-11-120(A)(8)(a), page 4, beginning on line 30, Section 50-11-120(A)(9)(a), page 5, beginning on line 5, Section 50-11-120(A)(10)(a), page 5, beginning on line 31, and Section 50-11-120(A)(11)(a), page 6, beginning on line 9, and inserting:

/(a)   rabbit: September first March second through the day before Thanksgiving Day without weapons and with dogs only, day and night; Thanksgiving Day through March first with weapons and dogs, day only;/

Amend title to conform.

Senator HOLLAND explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments.

H. 3604 -- Reps. Wilkins, McMahand, Herdklotz, Haskins, Littlejohn, Wells, Rice, Jaskwhich, D. Smith, Tripp, Walker, Davenport, Fair, Allison, Lanford and Cato: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 55-11-220 SO AS TO CREATE AN AIRPORT ENVIRONS AREA WITHIN THE GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT AND PROVIDE THAT AN AIRPORT ENVIRONS AUTHORITY IS CREATED AND CONFERRED CERTAIN POWERS TO ENSURE COMPATIBLE LAND USE OF PROPERTY IN THE ENVIRONS AREA, PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE AUTHORITY, AND PROVIDE THAT IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE AUTHORITY AND OTHER REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE SAME AREA, THE PROVISIONS CONFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT CONTROL.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Transportation.

There was no objection.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar.

H. 3731 -- Reps. Cooper, Kinon, Askins, Quinn, Herdklotz, Neilson, Scott, Cobb-Hunter, Hines, Keyserling, Inabinett, Bailey, Mason, Easterday, Rogers, Wilder, Moody-Lawrence, White, Cato, Shissias, J. Harris, Stuart, Hutson, Wright, Koon, Allison, Trotter, Gamble, McCraw, Lloyd, Byrd, Littlejohn, Wells, Howard, J. Brown, Haskins, Limehouse, Phillips, Elliott, Seithel, Whatley and S. Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-11-83, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PAYROLL DEDUCTION FOR DUES OF THE STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO ALSO AUTHORIZE A PAYROLL DEDUCTION FOR THE DUES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TROOPERS' ASSOCIATION.

Senator LAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Finance.

There was no objection.

On motion of Senator LAND, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar.

H. 4188 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-455, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES, SO AS TO RAISE THE THRESHOLD MONETARY LEVELS WITH RESPECT TO "CHARGEABLE" ACCIDENTS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE THRESHOLD AMOUNTS, AS CHANGED BY THIS ACT, APPLY ONLY TO ACCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER JUNE 30, 1995, AND ALSO APPLY TO ANY MERIT RATING PLAN PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 38-73-760; AND TO PROVIDE FOR A REVIEW OF THESE THRESHOLD AMOUNTS EVERY THREE YEARS.

Senator ALEXANDER asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

There was no objection.

On motion of Senator ALEXANDER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar.

The following were introduced:

S. 860 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-5-910, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS, SO AS TO REVISE THE OFFENSES WHOSE RECORDS MAY BE EXPUNGED AND TO ALLOW THE EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSES HEARD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 861 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-7-240, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION OF ROADS BY RAILROAD CARS AND OTHER OBSTACLES AND TO PENALTIES, AND SECTION 58-17-4080, RELATING TO PENALTY AND DAMAGES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY BY RAILROAD CAR, LOCOMOTIVE, OR OTHER OBJECT, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR THIS ACTIVITY.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

H. 4226 -- Reps. Stuart, Cobb-Hunter, Sharpe, Felder and Govan: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE MEMBERS OF THE ORANGEBURG COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO BE REIMBURSED MILEAGE FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE COMMITTEE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALLOWABLE RATE.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

Senator WILSON from the General Committee submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

H. 3364 -- Reps. Tucker, P. Harris, McAbee and Carnell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 21 IN TITLE 25, RELATING TO MILITARY, CIVIL DEFENSE, AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS, SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE VETERANS' TRUST FUND OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND PROVIDE FOR ITS POWERS, DUTIES, AND GOVERNANCE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-2417 SO AS TO PROVIDE A DESIGNATION ON STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX FORMS ENABLING A TAXPAYER TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE VETERANS' TRUST FUND OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, was granted leave to address the body regarding the work of the Committee of Conference on H. 3362 (The General Appropriation Bill).

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

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

H. 3840 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 34-3-380, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REPORTS OF CONDITION OF INSTITUTIONS IN THIS STATE LENDING MONEY AND RECEIVING DEPOSITS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE SUBMITTING OF THESE REPORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 34-3-420, RELATING TO STATEMENTS OF CONDITION WHICH MUST BE SENT TO THE BOARD OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DATE THESE REPORTS MUST BE SUBMITTED AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THESE REPORTS ARE REQUIRED AND SUBMITTED; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 34-3-390, 34-3-400, AND 34-3-410 RELATING TO STATEMENTS OF CONDITION REQUIRED OF CERTAIN BANKS OR INSTITUTIONS ENGAGED IN THE BANKING BUSINESS.

H. 4146 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 12 SO AS TO CONFORM SOUTH CAROLINA'S METHOD OF IMPOSING AN EXCISE TAX ON MOTOR FUEL TO FEDERAL LAW; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 39-41-20, 39-41-30, 39-41-40, 39-41-50, 39-41-60, 39-41-100, 39-41-110, 39-41-120, 39-41-130, AND 39-41-140 RELATING TO PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, SECTIONS 12-27-210, 12-27-220, 12-27-230, 12-27-240, 12-27-250, 12-27-260, 12-27-270, 12-27-280, 12-27-300, 12-27-310, 12-27-320, 12-27-330, 12-27-340, 12-27-350, 12-27-360, 12-27-510, 12-27-520, 12-27-530, 12-27-540, 12-27-550, 12-27-560, 12-27-570, 12-27-580, 12-27-590, 12-27-600, 12-27-610, 12-27-710, 12-27-720, 12-27-730, 12-27-740, 12-27-750, 12-27-760, 12-27-770, 12-27-780, 12-27-790, 12-27-800, 12-27-810, 12-27-820, 12-27-830, 12-27-1010, 12-27-1110, 12-27-1120, 12-27-1210, 12-27-1220, 12-27-1230, 12-27-1240, 12-27-1250, 12-27-1260, 12-27-1265, AND 12-27-1510 RELATING TO GASOLINE TAXES, SECTIONS 12-29-10, 12-29-20, 12-29-30, 12-29-40, 12-29-110, 12-29-120, 12-29-130, 12-29-140, 12-29-150, 12-29-310, 12-29-320, 12-29-340, 12-29-350, 12-29-360, 12-29-370, 12-29-380, 12-29-390, 12-29-400, 12-29-410, 12-29-420, 12-29-430, 12-29-440, 12-29-610, 12-29-620, and 12-29-630 RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS OTHER THAN GASOLINE, AND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 27, TITLE 12, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GASOLINE TAXES.

The following House Bill was read the third time and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 3608 -- Reps. Govan, Beatty, Moody-Lawrence and White: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-19-485 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES AS "WRECKAGE" OR "SALVAGE" IN A MANNER WHICH SUFFICES TO INFORM THE TRANSFEREE OF SUCH A VEHICLE OF THE VEHICLE'S TRUE CONDITION.

H. 3901 -- Reps. Harrell, Fleming, Cobb-Hunter, Seithel, A. Young, Limbaugh, Wilkins, Wofford, Hallman, H. Brown, Cain, Cotty, Martin, D. Smith, Fulmer, L. Whipper, Shissias, Quinn, McCraw, Knotts, Stuart, Harrison, Sheheen, Huff, Klauber, Beatty, Limehouse, Whatley, Harwell, Hodges, J. Young, Govan, Herdklotz, Jennings, Richardson, Hutson, Delleney and McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REDEMPTION OF REAL PROPERTY SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE INTEREST RATE FROM EIGHT TO TWELVE PERCENT IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD FOR ALL REAL PROPERTY NOT ASSESSED AS OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator LAND moved to adjourn debate on the Bill.

Debate was adjourned on the Bill.

S. 757 -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 41-16-75 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A SPECIAL INSPECTOR FROM PERFORMING ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS ON AN ELEVATOR ON WHICH HE OR HIS EMPLOYER HAS A CURRENT SERVICE OR WARRANTY CONTRACT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator LEVENTIS proposed the following amendment (PT\2025DW.95), which was tabled:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTIONS to read:

/ SECTION   ____.   Section 41-16-20(15) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(15)   "Special inspector" means an inspector licensed by the commissioner and not employed by the department. (Vacant)"

SECTION   ____.   Section 41-16-40 1. h. of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 102 of 1993, is further amended to read:

"h.   Qualifications for obtaining a special inspector's license, revocation of a special inspector's license, disqualification of special inspectors, and ethics of special inspectors. (Vacant)"

SECTION   ____.   Sections 4-16-70 4. and 5. of the 1976 Code are amended to read:

"4.   The inspections required by items 1 to 3 of this section must be made only by inspectors or special inspectors. An inspection by a special inspector may be accepted by the commissioner in lieu of a required inspection by an inspector.

5.   A report of every inspection must be filed with the commissioner by the inspector or special inspector, on a form approved by and containing all information required by the commissioner, after the inspection has been completed and within the time provided by regulation, but not to exceed thirty days. The report shall include all information required by the commissioner to determine whether the owner of the facility has complied with applicable regulations. For the inspection required by item 1, the report shall indicate whether the facility has been installed in accordance with the detailed plans and specifications approved by the commissioner and meets the requirements of the applicable regulations."

SECTION   ____.   Section 41-16-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 41-16-160.   No political subdivision may make or maintain any ordinance, bylaw, or resolution providing for the licensing of special inspectors. Any ordinance, bylaw, or resolution relating to the inspection, construction, installation, alteration, maintenance, or operation of facilities within the limits of the political subdivision, which conflicts with this chapter or with regulations promulgated by the commissioner, is void. The commissioner, in his discretion, may accept inspections by local authorities in lieu of inspections required by Section 41-16-70, but only upon a showing by the local authority that applicable laws and regulations will be consistently and literally enforced and that inspections will be performed by special inspectors." /

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator LEVENTIS argued in favor of the adoption of the amendment and Senator LEATHERMAN argued contra.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved to lay the amendment on the table.

The amendment was laid on the table.

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

H. 4146 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 28 TO TITLE 12 SO AS TO CONFORM SOUTH CAROLINA'S METHOD OF IMPOSING AN EXCISE TAX ON MOTOR FUEL TO FEDERAL LAW; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 39-41-20, 39-41-30, 39-41-40, 39-41-50, 39-41-60, 39-41-100, 39-41-110, 39-41-120, 39-41-130, AND 39-41-140 RELATING TO PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, SECTIONS 12-27-210, 12-27-220, 12-27-230, 12-27-240, 12-27-250, 12-27-260, 12-27-270, 12-27-280, 12-27-300, 12-27-310, 12-27-320, 12-27-330, 12-27-340, 12-27-350, 12-27-360, 12-27-510, 12-27-520, 12-27-530, 12-27-540, 12-27-550, 12-27-560, 12-27-570, 12-27-580, 12-27-590, 12-27-600, 12-27-610, 12-27-710, 12-27-720, 12-27-730, 12-27-740, 12-27-750, 12-27-760, 12-27-770, 12-27-780, 12-27-790, 12-27-800, 12-27-810, 12-27-820, 12-27-830, 12-27-1010, 12-27-1110, 12-27-1120, 12-27-1210, 12-27-1220, 12-27-1230, 12-27-1240, 12-27-1250, 12-27-1260, 12-27-1265, AND 12-27-1510 RELATING TO GASOLINE TAXES, SECTIONS 12-29-10, 12-29-20, 12-29-30, 12-29-40, 12-29-110, 12-29-120, 12-29-130, 12-29-140, 12-29-150, 12-29-310, 12-29-320, 12-29-340, 12-29-350, 12-29-360, 12-29-370, 12-29-380, 12-29-390, 12-29-400, 12-29-410, 12-29-420, 12-29-430, 12-29-440, 12-29-610, 12-29-620, and 12-29-630 RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS OTHER THAN GASOLINE, AND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 27, TITLE 12, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR GASOLINE TAXES.

Having voted on the prevailing side, Senator LAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the Senate gave third reading to the Bill and ordered the Bill enrolled for Ratification.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator J. VERNE SMITH proposed the following amendment (PFM\7523BDW.95), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 12-28-2720, page 58, beginning on line 12, and inserting:

/Section 12-28-2720.   The proceeds from ten and thirty-four hundredths cents a gallon of the tax on gasoline only as levied and provided for in this chapter must be distributed as follows: nine and thirty-four hundredths cents on each gallon must be turned over to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of that department, and one cent a gallon must be deposited to the credit of the general fund of the State./

Amend further, Section 12-28-2730(A), page 58, by striking the sentence beginning on line 20 and inserting:

/One percent of the proceeds from thirteen cents of the gasoline tax only imposed pursuant to this chapter must be transmitted to the Department of Natural Resources to be placed to the credit of a special water recreational resources fund of the State Treasury, and all balances in the fund must be carried forward annually so that no part of it reverts to the general fund of the State./

Amend further, Section 12-28-2740(A), page 59, by striking the sentence beginning on line 9 and inserting:

/The proceeds from two and sixty-six one-hundredths cents a gallon of the tax on gasoline only as levied and provided for in this chapter must be deposited with the State Treasurer and expended for purposes set forth in this section./

Amend further, Article 27, Chapter 28, Title 12, page 61, after line 27, by inserting:

/Section 12-28-2750.   Subject to the provisions of Section 12-28-2910, the remainder of the proceeds from the gasoline and fuel taxes levied and provided for in this chapter must be remitted to the State Highway Fund./

Amend further, Section 12-28-2910, page 61, by striking the sentence beginning on line 33, and inserting:

/The first eighteen million dollars generated from three cents of the tax levied in this chapter must be segregated in a separate account for economic development./

Amend further, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:

/SECTION ___.   Section 12-31-410 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 12-31-410.   A road tax for the privilege of using the streets and highways in this State is hereby imposed upon every motor carrier. The tax shall be is equivalent to thirteen sixteen cents per a gallon, calculated on the amount of gasoline or other motor fuel used by such the motor carrier in its operations within this State. Except as credit for certain taxes as provided for in this chapter, taxes imposed on motor carriers by this chapter are in addition to any taxes imposed upon such the carriers by any other provision of law."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator LAND proposed the following amendment (BBM\10329BDW.95), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Section 4, page 66, beginning on line 5, and inserting:

/SECTION   4.   Except where inappropriate, a reference in a law, a regulation, or another document to Chapters 27 and 29, Title 12 of the 1976 Code or sections in the chapters is considered a reference to the appropriate provisions of Chapter 28, Title 12 of the 1976 Code.

SECTION   5.   This section takes effect July 1, 1995, except Article 23, Chapter 28, Title 12 of the 1976 Code which takes effect September 1, 1995, and applies to sales of motor fuel after April 30, 1996./

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time and ordered returned to the House of Representatives with amendments.

The following Bills and Joint Resolution having been read the second time with notice of general amendments were ordered placed on the third reading Calendar:

H. 3867 -- Reps. Limehouse, Hutson, Rhoad, Riser and Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-235, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING STRIPED BASS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE LENGTH OF THE STRIPED BASS PROHIBITION AND THE RESTRICTED AREA IN THE SANTEE RIVER AND PROVIDE FOR A RESTRICTION IN THE TAILRACE CANAL AND THE COOPER AND WANDO RIVERS.

H. 4010 -- Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: USED OIL, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1831, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

H. 3955 -- Rep. G. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-9-505 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN FISHING ON LAKE ASHWOOD IN LEE COUNTY.

H. 3269 -- Reps. Richardson, P. Harris, Waldrop, Neilson, J. Brown, Inabinett, Kelley, Rhoad and Shissias: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-69-77 SO AS TO ALLOW A LICENSED CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY THAT OPERATES A HOME HEALTH AGENCY AND A NURSING HOME TO SHARE CERTAIN SERVICES BETWEEN THE HOME HEALTH AGENCY AND THE NURSING HOME; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-69-75, RELATING TO REQUIRING A HOME HEALTH AGENCY TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NEED BEFORE BEING LICENSED, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES WHICH PROVIDE HOME HEALTH SERVICES TO ITS RESIDENTS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Medical Affairs.

The Medical Affairs Committee proposed the following amendment (PFM\7505AC.95), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 44-69-75(B), page 2, by deleting lines 13-15 and inserting:

/(2)   the home health agency participates in the Medicare program; however, if at any time the home health agency fails to comply with the Medicare conditions of participation, the home health agency shall surrender its license to the department./

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar with notice of general amendments.

The following Bill having been read the second time was ordered placed on the third reading Calendar:

H. 3824 -- Reps. Baxley, Keyserling, Martin, Thomas, Harrison, Shissias, Stuart, Moody-Lawrence, T. Brown, Wright, Riser, Harvin and McTeer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-4510, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES FOR THE NONGAME WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS FUND, SO AS TO REVISE THE ANNUAL FEE FOR THE PLATES.

H. 3135 -- Reps. Hodges, Tucker, Knotts, Inabinett, Baxley and Whatley: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-28-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPALITY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

The Judiciary Committee proposed the following amendment (JUD3135.001), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 2, line 29, by striking SECTION 3 in its entirety and inserting therein the following:

/SECTION   3.   Chapter 5, Title 24 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

Section 24-5-300.   For the purposes of this article:

(1)   'Reserve detention officer' means a person assigned part-time jailer or detention officer duties without being regularly assigned to full-time jailer or detention officer duties and who serves in that capacity without compensation.

(2)   'Director' means the detention director, jail administrator, or other manager employed for the operation of a county, municipal, or multi-jurisdictional local detention facility.

(3)   'Responsible authority' means the sheriff, county administrator, mayor, city manager, or other appropriate official who has legal responsibility for the management of a local detention facility within a particular jurisdiction.

Section 24-5-310.   The director, in his discretion, may appoint the number of reserve detention officers approved by the responsible authority, but not exceeding the number of regular full-time jailers or detention officers funded and employed at the facility, if participation in the reserve detention officer program has been approved by the governing body having jurisdiction over the detention facility. The number of full-time jailers or detention officers must not be decreased because of the institution or expansion of a reserve force. Each period of time a reserve serves must be determined and specified by the director in writing. The powers and duties of a reserve are subject to the provisions of this article and must be prescribed by the director and approved by the responsible authority.

A reserve is subject to removal by the director at any time. A criminal history inquiry and other appropriate background inquiry must be conducted on an applicant before his selection as a reserve.

Before assuming his duties, a reserve must:

(1)   take the oath of office required by law;

(2)   be bonded in an amount determined by the governing body of the county, municipality, or other political entity and which must be not less than one thousand five hundred dollars; and

(3)   successfully complete the course of training required by this article.

Section 24-5-320.   No reserve shall assume a jailer or detention officer function until he has completed successfully a jail pre-service training program approved by the Department of Public Safety pursuant to Article 9, Chapter 6 of Title 23, and passed a comprehensive test prepared by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy and administered by the director of the local detention facility. Within one year of appointment, a reserve must successfully complete a jail operations training program promulgated by the Department of Public Safety pursuant to Article 9, Chapter 6 of Title 23 in order to be eligible for continuation as a reserve. A reserve who serves more than one year must complete the same annual in-service training requirements as regular full-time jailers or detention officers. All training which is provided locally or regionally is subject to review by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Advisory Council and approval of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

Section 24-5-330.   Before final acceptance as a reserve, a candidate, at his own expense or through the offices of the doctor of his political entity, shall submit to the director a summary of the results of a current physical examination for the satisfaction of the director concerning physical competence and capability. Other minimum selection standards recognized by law as applicable to full-time jailers or detention officers also shall apply to reserves.

Section 24-5-340.   Additional requirements beyond those set out in this article may be imposed by the local political entity through the responsible authority.

Upon request by the director and assurance by the director that minimum requirements have been met, identification cards registering a reserve's status may be issued by the Department of Public Safety.

Section 24-5-350.   A reserve shall serve and function as a jailer or detention officer only on specific orders and directions of the director. To maintain status, a reserve shall perform a minimum logged service time of ten hours a month or thirty hours a quarter.

No reserve detention officer shall perform any jailer or detention officer duties except under the direct supervision of a full-time jailer or detention officer. A reserve shall not assume full-time duties of jailers or detention officers without complying with the requirements for full-time jailers and detention officers.

A department utilizing reserves shall have at least one full-time officer as a coordinator-supervisor who must be responsible directly to the director.

Section 24-5-360.   A reserve who has been in active status for at least two years and desires to become a full-time jailer or detention officer, upon application of his director to the Department of Public Safety and upon completion of other existing requirements, may be accepted at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy for additional hours of training required by the Department of Public Safety pursuant to Article 9, Chapter 6 of Title 23.

Section 24-5-370.   A currently certified full-time jailer or detention officer who leaves his position under honorable conditions within twelve months, at the request of his director and with the concurrence of the Department of Public Safety, may be issued a registration card identifying him as a member of the reserve if the use of reserve detention officers has been approved by the responsible authority. The officer is not required to undergo the preliminary training for reserves but is required to have a current physical exam and to continue the same annual in-service training requirements as regular full-time jailers or detention officers.

Section 24-5-380.   The uniforms and equipment issued by the political entity shall remain the property of the entity but, in the discretion of the director, may be entrusted to the care and control of the reserve. A reserve shall wear a uniform which will identify him as a jailer or detention officer. Handguns, if issued, must be of a caliber approved by the responsible authority.

Section 24-5-390.   Workers' Compensation benefits may be provided for reserves by the governing body in the same manner benefits are provided for full-time jailers or detention officers.

For purposes of compensation or benefits arising from duty-related injury or death, reserves must be considered employees of the political entities for which they were appointed and must be included with regular duty jailers or detention officers in the assigned responsibility for prevention, suppression, and control of crime."

SECTION   4.   Sections 24-5-10 through 24-5-170 are designated as Article 1, entitled "General Provisions".

SECTION   5.   This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./.

Amend title to conform.

Senator CORK explained the amendment.

Senator PEELER proposed the following amendment (JUD3135.005), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION   _____.   Item 1 of Section 16-23-20 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Section 274, Act No. 181 of 1993 is further amended to read:

"(1) Regular, salaried law enforcement officers and reserve police officers of a municipality, or county of the State, uncompensated Governor's constables, law enforcement officers of the federal government or other states when they are carrying out official duties while in this State, and deputy enforcement officers of the Natural Resources Enforcement Division of the Department of Natural Resources within their territorial jurisdictions, and reserve police officers while serving and functioning as law enforcement officers as authorized by Section 23-28-10 et seq."/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator PEELER explained the amendment.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar.

H. 3978 -- Reps. Tucker, McAbee, Stoddard, Haskins and Robinson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 57-1-330, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COMMISSIONERS SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE ELECTED AND QUALIFY.

Senator O'DELL asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

There was no objection.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senator O'DELL proposed the following amendment (GJK\22020SD.95), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, in Section 57-1-330(A) of the 1976 Code, as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting immediately after /qualify/ on line 29, page 1 /, provided that a commissioner may only serve in a hold-over capacity for a period not to exceed six months/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend totals and title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar.

H. 3416 -- Reps. L. Whipper, Harrell, S. Whipper, Witherspoon, Shissias, Lloyd, Breeland, Dantzler, Hutson and Keyserling: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-197 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY EACH MEDICAL SCHOOL RECEIVING AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE STATE.

On motion of Senator PASSAILAIGUE, the Bill was carried over.

H. 4158 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-4-710 AND 12-4-720, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS AND THE METHOD OF APPLYING FOR THE EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REVISE OR EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS AND ADD ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF EXEMPTIONS FOR WHICH NO APPLICATION IS REQUIRED; TO PROVIDE THAT LISTING A PROPERTY AS EXEMPT ON A PROPERTY TAX RETURN IS CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION; TO REQUIRE PROPERTY TAXPAYERS FILING PROPERTY TAX RETURNS TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION ON THE RETURN FOR EACH YEAR THE PROPERTY IS EXEMPT; AND TO PROVIDE WHEN ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS MUST BE FILED BY TAXPAYERS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX RETURNS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-220, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO CONFORM IT TO THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THIS ACT AND TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION FOR TWO PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLES OF PERSONS REQUIRED TO USE WHEELCHAIRS TO INSTANCES WHEN THE OWNER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE ALLOWED SUCH PERSONS.

On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3685 -- Reps. Walker, Baxley, Fleming, Neilson, Hines, Allison, Townsend, Beatty, Chamblee, Littlejohn, Wells, Davenport, Trotter, Lanford, Marchbanks and D. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-30-15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TESTING ARRANGEMENTS ON THE EXIT EXAMINATION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT STUDENTS WITH DYSCALCULIA, AND WITH OTHER DOCUMENTED LEARNING DISABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS AS STIPULATED BY REGULATION OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, MAY USE A CALCULATOR ON THE MATH PORTIONS OF THE EXIT EXAMINATION.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3878 -- Rep. Witherspoon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1760, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SALE OF WHITE PERCH, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY FRESH FISH ON ICE WITH AN INVOICE NOT OVER TWO WEEKS OLD MAY BE SOLD, THE PROHIBITION ON THE SALE OF FROZEN FISH, AND THE DATES THE FISH MAY BE SOLD.

On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3984 -- Reps. Cotty, Sheheen, Baxley, Boan and Wilkes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 12 TO CHAPTER 25, TITLE 50, SO AS TO PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS FOR MOTORBOATS ON LAKE WATEREE.

On motion of Senator GIESE, the Bill was carried over.

S. 857 -- Fish, Game and Forestry Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, RELATING TO HUNT UNITS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1869, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

On motion of Senator MOORE, the Resolution was carried over.

H. 4008 -- Reps. Govan, Cave, Cobb-Hunter, Stuart, Rhoad and Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 346 OF 1975, RELATING TO THE TRICOUNTY COMMISSION ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, SO AS TO REVISE THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION; TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHAIRMANSHIP MUST ROTATE; TO ADD ADDITIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES; TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF THE COMMISSION AUDIT REPORT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL MEMBERS CURRENTLY SERVING ON THE COMMISSION CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR CURRENT TERMS.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Bill was carried over.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

H. 3651 -- Rep. H. Brown: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-330 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE STATE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND AND REQUIRE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE FUND; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-37-251 SO AS TO ALLOW A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES OTHER THAN THOSE LEVIED FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS EQUAL TO TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ESCALATING, DEPENDING ON REVENUES IN THE STATE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FUND TO A COMPLETE EXEMPTION FROM ALL TAXES EXCEPT THOSE LEVIED FOR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-217 SO AS TO REQUIRE TRIENNIAL REASSESSMENT; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 4-9-142, 5-21-70, 6-1-75, AND 59-73-35 SO AS TO IMPOSE SPENDING LIMITS ON COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS AND IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE LIMITATION ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-350 SO AS TO PROVIDE A STANDARDIZED TAX BILL; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 6-1-60 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETING.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved on behalf of the Chairmen's Committee to make the Bill a Special Order.

Senator WILSON raised a Point of Order under Rule 34B that the motion was out of order inasmuch as the Rule only allows for a motion after a Bill has been on the Calendar for a minimum of six statewide legislative days.

Senators McCONNELL and LEATHERMAN spoke on the Point of Order.

The PRESIDENT sustained the Point of Order.

On motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate agreed to go into Executive Session prior to adjournment, and upon lifting the veil of secrecy and publishing any confirmations, the Senate would stand adjourned.

On motion of Senator LEVENTIS, the Senate agreed to dispense with the balance of the Motion Period.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.

H. 4138 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-145 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUING AUTHORITY TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT WHEN A FISCAL YEAR BEGINS WITHOUT A GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR THE YEAR IN EFFECT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

On motion of Senator PASSAILAIGUE, the Bill was carried over.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE SPECIAL ORDERS.

S. 456 -- Senators McConnell and Land: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-115 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A FAMILY COURT-APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM IS IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS RELATING TO THE COURT APPOINTMENT; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 20-7-127 RELATING TO LIMITED IMMUNITY OF VOLUNTEER GUARDIANS AD LITEM IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

On motion of Senator MOORE, the Bill was carried over.

On motion of Senator MOORE, the seal of secrecy was removed, so far as the same relates to appointments made by the Governor and the following names were reported to the Senate in open session:

Having been reported favorably from Executive Session, on motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent, the following appointments were confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointments, Governing Board of the Department of Natural Resources, with terms to commence July 1, 1994, and to expire July 1, 1998:

2nd Congressional District:

Mr. Joe A. Edens, Post Office Box 528, Columbia, S.C. 29202 VICE J.M. Pendarvis (resigned)

1st Congressional District:

Ms. Mary Pope Hutson Waring, 1/2 Atlantic Street, Charleston, S.C. 29401 VICE George L. Vickery (resigned)

Initial Appointment, Governing Board of the Department of Natural Resources, with term to commence July 1, 1992, and to expire July 1, 1996:

4th Congressional District:

George G. Graham, D.D.S., 225 East Wood Street, Spartanburg, S.C. 29303 VICE Knox L. Haynsworth, Jr. (resigned)

Initial Appointment, Governing Board of the Department of Natural Resources, with term to commence July 1, 1990, and to expire July 1, 1996:

6th Congressional District:

Mr. Phillip D. Lowe, 3215 Lakeshore Drive, Florence, S.C. 29501 VICE Howard H. Poston, Jr. (resigned)

Initial Appointment, Board of Health and Environmental Control, with term to commence June 30, 1993, and to expire June 30, 1997:

2nd Congressional District:

Mr. Brian K. Smith, 412 Oak Brook Drive, Columbia, S.C. 29223 VICE John Hay Burriss

Senator CORK desired to be recorded as voting against the confirmation of Mr. Brian K. Smith.

Initial Appointment, Commission on Women, with term to commence October 18, 1991, and to expire October 18, 1995:

At-Large:

Ms. Kathryn M. Kling, 1358 Forest Hill Drive, Aiken, S.C. 29801 VICE Sarah S. Rogers

Senator CORK desired to be recorded as voting against the confirmation of Ms. Kathryn M. Kling.

Reappointment, Commission on Women, with term to commence October 18, 1995, and to expire October 18, 1999:

At-Large:

Ms. Kathryn M. Kling, 1358 Forest Hill Drive, Aiken, S.C. 29801

Senator CORK desired to be recorded as voting against the confirmation of Ms. Kathryn M. Kling.

Initial Appointment, Commission on Women, with term to commence October 18, 1995, and to expire October 18, 1999:

At-Large:

Mrs. Elizabeth G. Cox, 1217 Hobart Drive, Florence, S.C. 29501 VICE Betty G. Dominick

Senator CORK desired to be recorded as voting against the confirmation of Mrs. Elizabeth G. Cox.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of appointments to the Board of Health and Environmental Control.

Initial Appointment, Board of Health and Environmental Control, with term to commence June 30, 1991, and to expire June 30, 1995:

1st Congressional District:

Ms. Cynthia C. Mosteller, 6 Fairway Village Lane, Isle of Palms, S.C. 29451 VICE Burnet R. Maybank, III (resigned)

Reappointment, Board of Health and Environmental Control, with term to commence June 30, 1995, and to expire June 30, 1999:

1st Congressional District:

Ms. Cynthia C. Mosteller, 6 Fairway Village Lane, Isle of Palms, S.C. 29451

Senator WILLIAMS moved that the initial appointment and reappointment of Ms. Mosteller be confirmed.

Senator CORK argued contra to the confirmation of Ms. Mosteller.

Senator JACKSON spoke on the confirmation.

Senator ROSE argued in favor of the confirmation.

The question then was confirmation of Ms. Mosteller.

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Alexander                 Bryan                     Courson
Courtney                  Giese                     Hayes
Lander                    Martin                    McConnell
McGill                    Mescher                   Moore
Passailaigue              Peeler                    Rankin
Richter                   Rose                      Russell
Ryberg*                   Setzler                   Stilwell
Thomas                    Waldrep                   Williams
Wilson                    

Cork                      Elliott                   Ford
Glover                    Jackson                   Land
Leventis                  Matthews                  Patterson
Reese                     Saleeby                   Washington

*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.

Ms. Mosteller was confirmed for the initial appointment and reappointment to the Board of Health and Environmental Control.

Having received a favorable report from the Richland County Delegation, on motion of Senator GIESE, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Initial Appointment, Richland County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1995, and to expire April 30, 1999:

The Honorable Clifford E. Eisenhower, 318 Blue Horse Circle, Elgin, S.C. 29045 VICE Charles R. Delk (resigned)

Having received a favorable report from the Horry County Delegation, by prior motion of Senator ELLIOTT, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:

Reappointment, Horry County Magistrate, with term to commence April 30, 1995, and to expire April 30, 1999:

Honorable Gerald T. Whitley, Jr., 3522 Golf Avenue, Little River, S.C. 29566

At 2:07 P.M., on motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:09 P.M.