Journal of the Senate
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995
Page Finder Index
| 
Printed Page 960, Mar. 14
| Printed Page 980, Mar. 15
|
Printed Page 970 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
JOINT ASSEMBLY
Address by the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr.,
Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court
At 12:35 P.M., the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.
The PRESIDENT of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced that
it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both Houses:
H. 3700 -- Reps. Harrison and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE ERNEST A. FINNEY,
JR., TO
ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY AT
12:30
P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995.
The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme
Court, and members of his party, were escorted to the rostrum by Senators DRUMMOND,
STILWELL and WASHINGTON and Reps. Harrison, Canty, J. Young and Delleney.
The PRESIDENT introduced the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the
South Carolina Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Finney addressed the Joint Assembly, as follows:
"Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I hope that the reception will be as warm
after I conclude my remarks on the state of the Judiciary as it is now... Mr.
President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly of South Carolina, Justices
of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of Appeals, other officials, honored
guests, ladies and gentlemen... I stand before you today, notas a former legislator -
though I draw upon the experience gained from my service in this chamber. The last
time that I had the privilege of speaking here was probably 18 years ago and we were
debating the tax measure and talking about beer and whether Coors beer was an
imported beer or not because it went over the border and came back. So, I understand
fully your problems and I understand the problems with which you are constantly
confronted. Neither do I voice the alarm of a concerned citizen - though I am
gravely apprehensive about the plight of my fellow South Carolinians. But I address
this Assembly as the Constitutional head of and on behalf of the Judiciary, a
separate and co-equal, integral branch of the government which you and I have sworn
to preserve, protect and defend. Despite criticism, factual distortions, and
Printed Page 971 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
waning support for your judiciary, your justice system has remained
viable. As you are aware, your courts are overextended, understaffed, and
overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the caseload. You may or may not be aware of the
fact that the judicial branch of South Carolina government is severely underfunded.
But despite the longstanding existence of these conditions, judges, attorneys, law
clerks, court reporters, court officials, administrators, and a legion of support
personnel continue to discharge their duties in the highest and best tradition of
american jurisprudence. Because of their belief that our system of justice is the
best defense against anarchy and is worthy of their allegiance, year after year
dedicated legislators devote endless hours in this chamber and tireless efforts
across the hall to provide the funding, legislation, and overall backing that is the
underpinning of the system's strength. I take this opportunity to express our
appreciation for your loyalty. Because of your diligence, the task we face at this
juncture is one of shoring-up the justice system instead of salvaging the remnants of
a government devastated due to benign neglect. Like everywhere in society, the
changing tides of time have swept in upon the judicial system the resource-eroding
forces of crime, violence, and litigation mania that affects, either directly or
indirectly, all segments of the population. Your judicial system has effected fiscal
austerity and extended itself to combat the explosive growth of its workload. We
have realigned resources for maximum efficiency. Wherever feasible, we have
implemented cutbacks, freezes, and shifted court terms to reduce expenditures.
Judges have been restricted in their rotation to conserve travel funds. We are
currently integrating automated technology into the branch's operations to increase
productivity without hiring additional personnel. Likewise, we are attempting to
increase our efficiency. I have been your Chief Justice since December 17, 1994, and
in December, the Supreme Court conducted a survey of judges, solicitors and public
defenders. Their responses were insightful, enlightening and will be helpful in
formulating goals for the improvement of our court system. In January, we initiated
an in-house study of job descriptions and employee performance as part of a
structure, efficiency and compensation review. Hopefully, this will have the
immediate effect of improving employee morale and retaining experienced employees.
Presently under consideration is a plan to broaden the scope of the commission
created for review of judicial compensation. Under the proposed plan, the judicial
compensation commission would be revamped as a judicial study commission composed of
a broad cross section of citizens. These commissioners would be authorized to
conduct a comprehensive study of the judicial branch and make recommendations
Printed Page 972 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
pursuant to their findings. However, these steps are in the
preliminary stages and they cannot quell the cumulative effect of years of financial
deficiencies. Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the diverse components
of the judicial system - and particularly the court structure -are driven by outside
forces that will not readily adapt to revenue fluctuations and calls for downsizing.
Despite our best efforts, the problems continue to mushroom. A recent study by the
South Carolina Bar Task Force on Justice for All found that for each day that court
was in operation in 1994, on average, 560 criminal cases were filed. An average of
263 civil cases were filed daily. Four thousand eight hundred and twenty-five was the
average daily filing in our Summary Court. Considering the fact that a guilty plea
can take from 30 minutes to several hours, and a trial from 3/4 of a day to several
weeks, and we are not in California, it would be virtually impossible to dispose of
such a volume of cases. Just to keep up with new filings, the major trial courts
would have had to dispose of a case every 23 seconds. Adding to the existing backlog
in General Sessions, during 1994 alone, 102,705 new cases were filed. This figure
reflects in 1994 a decline in general sessions filings that is attributable to the
Sentencing Guidelines Commission's classification bill. Still at year's end 63,757
cases were pending in General Sessions Court - for disposition by 40 circuit judges.
Fifty-one percent of these pending criminal cases were more than six months old. The
consequence: justice delayed for accused and justice denied to victims. The sad
state of too many of South Carolina's families is reflected in the case load of our
Family Courts, which received 100,000 new cases in 1994. On December 31st,
approximately 46 Family Court judges were facing 35,208 cases with which to begin the
new year. Equally disturbing is the fact that in this court, which adjudicates such
sensitive and emotionally charged issues as child custody, divorce, division of
marital property, and juvenile offenders, a record number of these cases had been
pending for more than six months. Probate, Magistrate and Municipal Courts complete
the schematic: every court at all levels of the system experienced greater activity
and larger backlogs during 1994 - a trend expected to become more pronounced as new
legislation is implemented. For instance, the 1994 Crime Bill is expected to
generate an additional 2,500 post conviction relief applications within the next
year. The ensuing groundswell of appeals from the trial courts combine with appeals
from administrative decisions to form a bottleneck at the appellate level. On
December 31, 1994, there were 190 cases ending (475 disposed of) in the six-judge
Court of Appeals, which has provided significant relief in speeding up the appellate
process by hearing appeals that would have been
Printed Page 973 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has continued to
hear the appellate cases not transferred to the Court of Appeals. In addition, we
perform the administrative duties of the judicial branch, hear motions (4,346 in
1994; 138 pending as of December 31, 1994), attorney discipline matters (received 75;
disposed of 73; 2 pending at year's end), judicial grievances (received 9; disposed
of 7; 2 pending at end of 1994), petitions for certiorari in post conviction relief
(acted on 308; 206 pending at year's end), and original jurisdiction cases, certified
questions of law from federal courts (received 6; heard 2; 4 pending at end of 1994),
certiorari from Court of Appeals (acted on 140; 71 pending as of December 31, 1994),
as well as petitions for mandamus and certiorari. There was a backlog of 1,185 cases
pending on the Supreme Court docket at the end of 1994. The onus of this dilemma
rests upon judges and other court personnel who are charged with the responsibility
of managing the system. But there is also a substantial negative impact upon the
lives of litigants and citizens whose cases are held hostage by a court system in
crisis. A two-year study of the task force on justice and detailed research by other
experts on crime, violence, and the courts support the empirical data advanced by
those who work within the court system on a daily basis. Today, there is a consensus
that the success of the current initiative requires a three-prong approach.
First: funding in amounts and in a manner adequate to meet the current level of
operations; Second: appropriating additional revenue specifically to rectify the
effects of past budgetary constraints upon the courts; Third: fostering a better
understanding of the vital role that the justice system performs in addressing
problems in society. With regard to the first prong of maintenance level funding,
threshold funding should be balanced and ought to be allocated on a recurring basis
for fixed expenditures. Overcrowded dockets, outdated facilities, obsolete
equipment, and insufficient personnel require balanced funding to simultaneously
upgrade all segments of the system. With regard to recurring appropriations:
salaries, lease obligations and other fixed expenses should be allocated on a
recurring basis. Addressing the adequacy of allocations, the system has actually
regressed in some aspects due to lack of funds. One such area is scheduling adequate
court time. After being forced to restrict judicial assignments to reduce travel
expenses, we now find a direct correlation between the availability of travel funds,
the age of cases, and the size of case backlogs. Clearly, adequate travel funds for
judges, court reporters, and law clerks is essential for the state's 46 counties and
is the only means by which to place judges in counties where the caseloads are
heaviest. Second: appropriating revenue to rectify the effects of past budgetary
Printed Page 974 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
constraints upon the judicial system. The court system has long
functioned in excess of maximum operating capacity. Once sufficient funds are
budgeted to maintain constitutionally mandated court functions, it is vital that the
effects of prolonged years of underfunding be rectified. One startling example of
underfunding is that for fiscal year 1984-85, the judicial share of the state budget
was .82%. Today - ten years later - our share has declined to .74% for fiscal year
1994-95. Net decreases in appropriations from fiscal years 1986-87 through 1993-94,
inclusive, have continued to the point where the allocation for judicial travel for
the current year is 25% less than in fiscal year 1986-87. So with full funding for
current operations only, the judicial branch will still be burdened throughout by the
effects of past underfunding. I am fully aware of fiscal constraints on other vital
areas of state government, but I am equally aware of the degree to which the plethora
of social ills that emanate from malfunctions within the court system pervades
society. I am, therefore, compelled to request that this 111th General Assembly
provide for the citizens of South Carolina nine (9) judges and corresponding funding
for support personnel and facilities as follows: an additional panel of three (3)
judges for the Court of Appeals; three (3) additional Circuit Court judges; and three
(3) more Family Court judges. These judges would enable us to work on the backlogs
systemwide and help manage the current caseload. Third, and equally important:
promote a better understanding of the fundamental role of the justice system in
addressing the problems of society. In theory and in practice, the justice system is
interwoven with the entire fabric of life. From infancy, Family Courts are called
upon for orders of protection and asked to decide with whom and under what conditions
a child may live. During adolescence, courts are required to pick up where parents
leave off in providing guidance, correction and detention for troubled teens.
Probate Courts safeguard the rights of minors and adults unable to direct their own
lives or business affairs. The Civil Court is the one forum in which citizens may
civilly and lawfully settle controversies and seek redress for wrongs committed
against them. The criminal courts strive to protect society while punishing
offenders. This becomes virtually impossible when the numbers overwhelm our ability
to dispose of cases within a reasonable period of time. Swift and sure punishment
should be the rule, not the exception. On the criminal side, society looks to the
Judiciary to dispense justice in the form of punishment and restoration; retribution
and restitution; incarceration and rehabilitation - and that is our constitutional
function. But in order to effectively discharge that duty, the Judiciary must be
knowledgeable and adequately equipped. I believe that our common goal is to see that
the
Printed Page 975 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
impediments to an effective justice system are removed. Such a goal
requires cooperation among - and leadership from - the legislative, executive and
judicial branches. The present state of your Judiciary is but a culmination of past
events; and absent courageous, insightful, bipartisan leadership, the present will
represent a microcosm of the future state of our Judiciary. It is imperative that
these bodies receive data that is sufficiently current, accurate, and comprehensive
to allow each of you to make informed decisions on the amounts and classifications of
appropriations needed to pull your judicial system out of its present quagmire. I,
and the other members of the Supreme Court, stand ready to supplement our submitted
budget with whatever data, explanations, or other material you deem necessary for
further clarification of our budget request. Additionally, I have had placed on your
desks this morning a schedule of dates and times that I am available to meet with
legislators in groups or individually to answer questions or address any concerns
about our judicial system. We feel that your knowledge and personal experiences in
the areas of crime, violence, and the court system, together with the need that we
are prepared to demonstrate, will show fully the necessity of budgetary
appropriations adequate to enable the judicial system to function effectively. We, as
state officials, can ill afford to withhold the resources that are necessary to earn
for our court system the trust and confidence of the South Carolinians whom we are
sworn to serve. I call upon you, the legislative branch, to join hands with us, the
judicial branch, in a concerted effort to give to the figure of the lady justice new
meaning and substance in the eyes of our fellow South Carolinians. Again, thank you
for allowing me to be here with you today."
The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared
it duly and regularly adjourned; whereupon, the Senate returned to its Chamber, and
was called to order by its PRESIDENT.
Printed Page 976 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
MOTION ADOPTED
On motion of Senators JACKSON, WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER, BRYAN, CORK, COURSON,
COURTNEY,
DRUMMOND, ELLIOTT, FORD, GIESE, GLOVER, GREGORY, HAYES, HOLLAND, LAND,
LANDER,
LEATHERMAN, LEVENTIS, MARTIN, MATTHEWS, McCONNELL, McGILL, MESCHER, MOORE,
O'DELL,
PASSAILAIGUE, PEELER, RANKIN, REESE, RICHTER, ROSE, RUSSELL, RYBERG, SALEEBY,
SETZLER, SHORT, GREG SMITH, J. VERNE SMITH, STILWELL, THOMAS, WALDREP,
WASHINGTON and
WILSON, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the
memory of Mr. James H. Patterson, of Sumter, S.C., beloved father of Senator
PATTERSON.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:05 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow
at 11:00 A.M.
* * *
Printed Page 977 . . . . . Wednesday, March 15,
1995
Wednesday, March 15, 1995
(Statewide Session)
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., 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:
Beloved, hear the words of the First Psalm (v. 3):
"He shall be like a tree
planted by the rivers of water,
that bringeth forth his fruit in his season."
Let us pray.
Our Father, we join with a quarter million Methodists mourning the passing of
another good man, Bishop Joseph Bethea, and with the family of Senator Kay Patterson
in the passing of his father, Your servant, James H. Patterson.
We give thanks to You for their lives and labors.
They loved their God and they loved their fellowman. They served their God by
faithfully serving the children of God. The record of their stewardship is known
afar.
Good Lord, as we live out our days, may we be able to say with St. Paul and Bishop
Joseph Bethea and James Patterson:
"I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course.
I have kept the faith...
Henceforth there is laid up for me
a crown of life, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, will give to me
at that day."
Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such
like papers.
Point of Quorum
Senator GIESE made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained
that a quorum was not present.
Printed Page 978 . . . . . Wednesday, March 15,
1995
Call of the Senate
Senator GIESE moved that a call of the Senate be made. The following Senators
answered the call:
Alexander Bryan Cork
Courson Courtney Drummond
Elliott Ford Giese
Gregory Hayes Jackson
Land Lander Leatherman
Leventis Martin Matthews
McConnell McGill Mescher
Moore Passailaigue Patterson
Peeler Rankin Richter
Rose Saleeby Setzler
Short Smith, G. Smith, J.V.
Stilwell Thomas Waldrep
Washington Williams Wilson
A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.
Presence Recorded
Senators REESE, RYBERG, RUSSELL, O'DELL and GLOVER recorded their presence
subsequent to the Call of the Senate.
Doctor of the Day
Senator STILWELL introduced Dr. Woodrow W. Long, Jr. of Greenville, S.C., Doctor
of the Day.
Leave of Absence
On motion of Senator MOORE, at 11:00 A.M., Senator HOLLAND was granted a leave of
absence for today.
SENATE ASSEMBLY
Privilege of the Floor
At 11:15 A.M., under the terms of a Senate Resolution, the Senate proceeded to the
Senate Assembly:
S. 589 -- Invitations Committee: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO FIX 11:15 ON WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 15, 1995, AS THE TIME FOR MR. JOHN MARK MCQUOWN TO SING BEFORE THE
SENATE.
Printed Page 979 . . . . . Wednesday, March 15,
1995
In celebration of the Department of Disabilities "Families
First" Day, Senator DRUMMOND introduced Mr. John Mark McQuown of Greenwood
County to the Senate. He was escorted to the podium by the Sergeant-at-Arms where he
entertained the Senate with a song entitled, "Friends."
Message from the House
Columbia, S.C., March 15, 1995
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto
by the Governor on R. 2, S. 278 by a vote of 5 to 0:
(R2) S. 278 -- Senators Mescher and Rose: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 1093 OF 1966,
RELATING TO THE GOOSE CREEK PARK AND PLAYGROUND COMMISSION, SO AS TO
CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE COMMISSION TO THE GOOSE CREEK RECREATION COMMISSION.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
Message from the House
Columbia, S.C., March 15, 1995
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto
by the Governor on R. 3, S. 334 by a vote of 2 to 0:
(R3) S. 334 -- Senators McGill, Glover and Leatherman: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 1,
CHAPTER 31, TITLE 33, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO
NONPROFIT
CORPORATIONS LOCATED IN FLORENCE COUNTY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FORMER
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF A DISSOLVED NONPROFIT CORPORATION OR ELEEMOSYNARY
ORGANIZATION TO
DISTRIBUTE THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND TO PROVIDE THAT
EFFECTIVE
TWO YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, IF SUCH DISTRIBUTION IS NOT
ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN FIVE
Printed Page 980 . . . . . Wednesday, March 15,
1995
YEARS OF DISSOLUTION, THE REMAINING ASSETS ESCHEAT TO THE STATE.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
| Printed Page 960, Mar. 14
| Printed Page 980, Mar. 15
|
Page Finder Index
This web page was last updated on
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:12 P.M.