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:
Beloved, hear a word from the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 7:6 (NRSV):
"Jesus said to them,
'My time has not yet come,
But your time is always here'."
Let us pray.
Our Father, we pray for a multitude of humans who are suffering these days: the families of the 109 people who fell out of the sky in an airplane that is still buried in the mud of Florida's swamp, the blood bath of Liberia and other places on earth!
O Thou the God of Sinai and of Galilee, the cynics of our day have sought to rob us of the shining glow of the world above, where You are!
The skeptics have dimmed our view of Thee of the world beyond this place of tears and grief.
Amid the tumults and uncertainties of our time help us to make our hearts quiet sanctuaries for Your Spirit.
May we be able to keep alive our faith in You, so that we may not be surprised, or unprepared for the miracle of Your GRACE in the affairs of nations, when suddenly we come to better times.
In the Name of the Lord of Life we pray. Amen.
Senator SETZLER moved that a call of the Senate be made. The following Senators answered the call:
Alexander Boan Bryan Cork Courson Courtney Drummond Elliott Fair Ford Giese Gregory Hayes Holland Hutto Jackson Land Lander Leatherman Leventis Martin Matthews McConnell Mescher Moore O'Dell Passailaigue Patterson Peeler Richter Rose Russell Ryberg Saleeby Setzler Smith, G. Smith, J.V. Thomas Waldrep Washington Wilson
A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.
Senators RANKIN, REESE, SHORT, McGILL and GLOVER recorded their presence subsequent to the Call of the Senate.
TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: May 13, 1996
In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.
Respectfully submitted,
Representative F.G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Senator Thomas L. Moore
Senator John R. Russell
Representative Ralph W. Canty
Representative William Douglas Smith
Representative L. Hunter Limbaugh
Date Draft Report Issued: Friday, May 10, 1996
Date and Time Final Report Issued: Tuesday, May 14, 1996 -- 12:00 Noon
Judicial Candidates are not free to seek or accept commitment until May 14, 1996 at 12:00 noon.
The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. The Joint Committee has carefully investigated the candidates currently set for screening and found, by unanimous vote, 11 candidates qualified for judicial office and, by a split vote, 1 candidate qualified for judicial office. This report details the reasons for the Joint Committee's findings and each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Joint Committee's nine evaluative criteria.
The Joint Committee recently has implemented some changes to its screening format. The Joint Committee has asked candidates offering for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Circuit Court their views on constitutional interpretation and sentencing philosophy. These questions were asked in an effort to provide the members of the General Assembly more information about candidates and their thought processes. These questions should not suggest that the Joint Committee believes that there are right or wrong answers to those questions. The Joint Committee has also engaged in a more probing inquiry into the depth of a candidate's experience in areas of practice that are germane to the office they are seeking. The Joint Committee has attempted to ask each candidate offering for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for his or her experience in the areas of criminal, civil, and domestic law since those are the cases that would generally be heard by members of those courts. Candidates for the Circuit Court were asked to provide evidence of their experience in civil and criminal law. Finally, candidates for the Family Court were asked to detail their level of practice in five areas of domestic law. Those areas are divorce and equitable division, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice. The Joint Committee feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the court for which they offer. In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Joint Committee has placed candidates in one of three categories: failed to meet expectations, met expectations, or exceeded expectations. The Joint Committee feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.
The Joint Committee conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which it questions each candidate on a wide variety of issues. The Joint Committee's investigation focuses on nine evaluative criteria. These evaluative criteria are: integrity and impartiality; legal knowledge and ability; professional experience; judicial temperament; diligence and industry; mental and physical capabilities; financial responsibilities; public service; and ethics. The Joint Committee's investigation includes the following:
(1) survey of the bench and bar;
(2) SLED and FBI investigation;
(3) credit investigation;
(4) grievance investigation;
(5) study of application materials;
(6) verification of ethics compliance;
(7) search of newspaper articles;
(8) conflict of interest investigation;
(9) study of appellate record; and
(10) investigation of complaints.
While the law provides that the Joint Committee is to make findings as to qualifications, the Joint Committee views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which, if elected, they will serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Joint Committee inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public it represents as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts.
The Joint Committee expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.
This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Joint Committee takes its responsibilities very seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Beth Atwater at 734-4851.
This report conveys the Joint Committee's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Circuit Court and Family Court.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Armstrong was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Mr. Armstrong demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Armstrong has served as a panel member for Leadership Beaufort and Senior Leadership Beaufort. He has also given a presentation to the S.C. Association of Legal Investigators on how to be a more effective witness. In addition, he has been a guest on several T.V. shows in the Hilton Head area regarding criminal law.
Mr. Armstrong published an article titled "Up from the Lowcountry, Who is this New Kid on the Block?", Robert S. Armstrong, Fall Issue, 1993, South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Armstrong to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Armstrong reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Armstrong graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Mr. Armstrong has served as a law clerk to Judge William Howell, as a Public Defender (1983-1985), as an Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Circuit (1985-1990), and as Deputy Solicitor (1990-June 1995). Since July 1995, Mr. Armstrong has been a sole practitioner in private practice.
Mr. Armstrong reported that he had attended CLE's regularly during the last five years. He stated that until last year his focus was on evidence, criminal, and constitutional law. Last year, he began concentrating on civil law.
Mr. Armstrong described his practice from 1990 to 1995 as 10% civil, 72% criminal and 18% domestic. He also estimated that during that five years about 50% of his practice involved matters that went to a jury. Since July of 1995, Mr. Armstrong described his practice as 50% civil, 25% criminal, and 25% domestic. In addition, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has concentrated on civil law CLE's in the last year. In response to the Committee's request for supplemental information, Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with a more detailed breakdown of his civil experience. Since he entered private practice in July 1995, Mr. Armstrong reported that he has handled cases involving real estate, personal injury, medical malpractice, collection, and probate matters. This information can be found in Mr. Armstrong's public hearing transcript.
Mr. Armstrong provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Death penalty case. State v. Elkins, 436 S.E.2d 178 (S.C. 1993).
(b) A reckless homicide case where he was appointed as a special prosecutor in Dorchester County. State v. James McConnell, 449 S.E.2d 778 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).
(c) A multiple defendant case involving safecracking, burglary, and possession of cocaine. State v. Ernest Williams, et al., (citation omitted).
(d) Murder and rape case involving testimony of daughter and circumstantial evidence. State v. Emiah Anderson, (citation omitted).
(e) Rape case involving police officer's new wife. State v. Solomon Anderson, (Citation Omitted).
Mr. Armstrong provided the Committee with one domestic appeal and no civil appeals. The domestic appeal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Jasper County Department of Social Services v. William Bostic and Jackie Bostic, Op. No. 92-MO-181 (filed July 6, 1992).
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Armstrong's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Armstrong 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. Armstrong has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Armstrong is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Armstrong 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.
Mr. Armstrong testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Armstrong testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Armstrong meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
Mr. Armstrong was found qualified by the South Carolina Bar. The Bar reported that "although [Mr. Armstrong] lacks significant civil trial experience, he has extensive trial experience in General Sessions court. He served as a public defender for two years and assistant solicitor for ten years." The Bar also found that Mr. Armstrong "is considered to be intelligent and has a keen sense of fairness and equity." The Bar also reported that "it is believed that he would demonstrate good judicial temperament."
Mr. Armstrong was asked about his general philosophy regarding the power of the General Assembly regarding legislating. The candidate's answer to this question is printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included this response solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Barber was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Mr. Barber demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Barber stated that he was an instructor at the U.S.C. College of Applied Sciences. He taught a Business Law course to undergraduate students which primarily covered contracts.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Barber to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Barber's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Barber graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1969 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his graduation from law school, Mr. Barber has worked for the U.S. Department of Justice, Internal Security Division from February 1970 to October 1972, the Law Office of Henry H. Edens from October 1972 to August 1977, and Todd & Barber, PC from August 1977 to present.
Mr. Barber described his practice over the past five years as 79% civil, 1% criminal, and 20% domestic. While the Committee initially expressed some concern over Mr. Barber's criminal experience, Mr. Barber was able to document an extensive practice of criminal law, marked by a degree of complexity. This information is provided in the transcript from Mr. Barber's public hearing.
Mr. Barber provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Shirley and Jack Curry d/b/a C & T Properties v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 89-CP-10-0676. The case involved an attempt for plaintiffs to recover damages for a taking resulting from the loss of all value and use of their property following implementation of the Beachfront Management Act. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial level and ultimately on appeal to the Supreme Court.
(b) Irwin Lynn Hamby v. Linda Snelson Hamby, 216 S.E.2d 536 (1975). The case involved termination of parental rights of the birth father and the adoption of the child by the mother's husband.
(c) James E. Nash and John D. Medlin, Individually and as Shareholders on Behalf of Andy's Delicatessen, Inc. v. Adnan Shlon, Docket No. 88-CP-40-1390. The case was a shareholder's derivative action where valuation of the business was a key issue. Following the trial, Mr. Barber's client was able to acquire the minority interest and become the sole owner.
(d) Parkway Advertising Corporation v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Future Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., The County of York, South Carolina. The case involved attempt by two companies to erect billboards on adjoining property in York County. The litigation was a very complicated matter involving state statutes, regulations, and county ordinances. The Court authorized Mr. Barber's client to construct the structure.
(e) State of South Carolina v. Ruby Hiott, et al. A capital murder case wherein Mr. Barber was able to negotiate a plea on behalf of his client.
Mr. Barber provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he has personally handled:
(a) Otis C. Carter v. South Carolina Department of Public Transportation, ___ S.C. ___, 306 S.E.2d 614 (1993). Case involved whether under S.C. law a business had to be recognizable from the main travelled way to qualify as an unzoned commercial or industrial area for purposes of the Highway Advertising Control Act.
(b) William P. Charping v. J.P. Scurry & Company, Inc., et al., ___ S.C. ___, 372 S.E.2d 120 (Ct. App. 1988). Case involved whether a restriction on a parcel of land was personal and therefore not binding on a subsequent owner.
(c) Betty Fogle Whetstone and Joseph Keels v. Michael K. Whetstone, Op. No. 92-UP-181 (filed December 29, 1992). Case involved the imposition of jail time for criminal and civil contempt relating to a family court action. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.
(d) Rebecca M. Estes v. Roper Temporary Services, Inc., ___ S.C. ___, 403 S.E.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1991). Case involved issues of estoppel and retroactivity of legislation.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Barber's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Barber 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. Barber is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Barber 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. Barber has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Barber is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Barber 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.
Mr. Barber testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Barber testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Barber meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Barber qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Barber "is considered to be an intelligent, diligent, hardworking lawyer. He is generally respected by members of the legal community. Although some questioned his temperament, he was perceived by most as someone who could maintain a sense of decorum when others around him were losing theirs. Thus, it was opined that he would likely display good judicial demeanor. His character and integrity were not questioned by those surveyed."
Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Mr. Barber's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Mr. Barber was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. Barber's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Bartlett was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Bartlett demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Bartlett is on the general faculty at the National Judicial College where he has lectured on evidence, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and domestic violence. He has also lectured for the S.C. Court Administration (evidence), S.C. Criminal Justice Academy (magistrate certification), South Carolina Bar (D.U.I. seminars), South Carolina Justice Institute (evidence), and Greenville Technical College (criminal law, criminal procedure, juvenile justice). He has also been invited to lecture at various seminars on Domestic Violence, including seminars sponsored by the Greenville Hospital System and Sistercare.
The Joint Committee found Judge Bartlett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Bartlett graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1977 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After Judge Bartlett was admitted to the Bar, he served from 1977 to 1978, as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Greenville. He served as Assistant Circuit Solicitor from 1978 to 1980. Since 1980, Judge Bartlett has been the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court for the City of Greenville.
As a current judge, Judge Bartlett omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years. Judge Bartlett reports that municipal courts are not courts of record and rarely have written orders; however, he has listed and enclosed two orders issued by him which he says have "substance and that are not of a routine nature":
(1) City of Greenville v. Dan Winston Brooks. A return to the court of General Sessions upon appeal. The case was upheld by the Circuit Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court under rule 23.
(2) City of Greenville v. William Ezia Adams. An order which declared a city picketing ordinance to be unconstitutional.
Although there was some concern on the Committee that Judge Bartlett does not have significant family court experience, he has an excellent reputation as a municipal judge, and the Committee believes he will be able to adapt and perform satisfactorily as a family court judge.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Bartlett's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Bartlett 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 Bartlett has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Bartlett has been active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Bartlett testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Bartlett testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Bartlett meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Bartlett qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Bartlett "has served continuously as a full-time municipal judge for the City of Greenville since 1980. Prior to that time, he worked for one year as an assistant city attorney and for 2 years as an assistant circuit solicitor. Judge Bartlett is regarded as having excellent judicial temperament. He is highly respected for his administrative skills in the municipal court system and for his diligence, hard work, and timeliness. His reputation for integrity and fairness is well recognized among those interviewed. Some interviewed noted his lack of family court experience but believed he would be able to adapt to the Family Court based upon his strong judicial background."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Brown was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Mr. Brown demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. Brown stated that he had taught business law (about 15 years ago) and family law at the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College. He has also lectured on terminating parental rights to a D.S.S. group.
The Joint Committee found Mr. Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions exceeded expectations.
Mr. Brown has not requested a Martindale-Hubbell rating and does not know if he has one.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Brown graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1976 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
Since his admission to the Bar, Mr. Brown worked at Legal Services in 1976 and has been in private practice since 1979.
Mr. Brown described his practice over the last five years as 5% civil, 5% criminal, and 90% domestic.
Mr. Brown provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 307 S.C. 230, 414 S.E.2d 177. Holding that a family court order can designate the beneficiary of life insurance proceeds notwithstanding the fact that a different recipient is named as beneficiary in the policy.
(b) Ledford v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 92-CP-23-486. Plaintiff asserted that he should not be required to give the Highway Department his social security number because it violated his religious beliefs.
(c) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543. Case which lead to statutory exception to the hearsay rule allowing the admission of the statement of a child 3 or younger in abuse cases.
(d) George Thomas v. Steven Ritchie Holam-Hansen. Establishing an indigent child's right to receive a trial transcript.
(e) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521. Allowing property division in an annulment proceeding.
(f) Department of Social Services v. Father and the Mother, 294 S.C. 518, 366 S.E.2d 40 (Ct. App. 1988). Establishing the fact that skin is an organ which was damaged by bruising and that such an act may be abuse.
Mr. Brown has handled the following domestic appeals:
(a) Williamson v. North American Life and Casualty Company, 414 S.E.2d 177, 307 S.C. 230.
(b) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543.
(c) White v. White, 283 S.C. 348, 323 S.E.2d 521.
(d) Fridy v. Fridy, appeal currently pending in the Court of Appeals.
(e) Frye v. Frye, Court of Appeals Op. No. 2217 (Filed August 15, 1994).
(f) Department of Social Services v. Whitworth, Op. No. 93-UP-130 (filed April 28, 1993).
At the Joint Committee's request, Mr. Brown supplied a number of additional cases which he felt were representative of his domestic practice. Mr. Brown's response was incorporated into the transcript of his public hearing and can be referenced there.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. Brown had engaged in an active trial practice in the Family Courts, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Brown's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Brown 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. Brown has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Brown was an E-5 in the United States Marines Corps Reserves. He was honorably discharged.
Mr. Brown is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Brown 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.
Mr. Brown testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Brown testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. Brown meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. Brown qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. Brown "has had extensive and broad experience in Family Court. He possesses a strong working knowledge of the law of Family Court. The majority of those interviewed felt that he is a good worker and well prepared in court and that he would have a good judicial temperament. Mr. Brown is perceived as having a good character, integrity, and reputation. Those interviewed believed that he would be a fair and impartial member of the judiciary."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. DuTremble was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Mr. DuTremble demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Mr. DuTremble was a legal instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy in 1983.
The Joint Committee found Mr. DuTremble to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Because Mr. DuTremble met the expectations of the Committee regarding the practice and procedure questions asked in his prior screening, he was given, and he accepted, the option of incorporating his performance on those questions into the present screening.
Mr. DuTremble's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. DuTremble graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1978 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
From 1978 to 1979, Mr. DuTremble served as a law clerk to Circuit Court Judge Julius H. Baggett. From 1979 to 1980, Mr. DuTremble served as Assistant Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Lexington. He was Assistant Prosecutor in Lexington from 1980 to 1983. From 1982 to 1983, Mr. DuTremble served as a legal instructor with the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Charleston from 1983 until 1987 and 1989 to 1991. Mr. DuTremble was a sole practitioner from 1987 to 1989, and from 1991 to the present. His practice has mainly involved criminal law, with some civil litigation, and he currently specializes in white collar criminal defense.
Mr. DuTremble described his practice over the past five years as 10% civil and 90% criminal.
Mr. DuTremble provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
(a) U.S. v. Polowichak, 783 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1985), largest seizure of marijuana in S.C. history.
(b) U.S. v. Henry Hamilton, 850 F.2d 1038 (4th Cir. 1988), largest heroin ring in Charleston.
(c) U.S. v. Luther Taylor, 993 F.2d 382 (4th Cir. 1993), first conviction at trial in Operation Lost Trust.
(d) U.S. v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1985), conviction of corrupt Sheriff of Jasper County.
(e) U.S. v. Southwire Corp., (1993) (not reported), defense of the largest environmental crime case brought in the District of South Carolina.
The Joint Committee determined that Mr. DuTremble had engaged in an active trial practice in the trial courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. DuTremble's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. DuTremble 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. DuTremble is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. DuTremble 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. DuTremble has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. DuTremble is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. DuTremble 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.
Mr. DuTremble testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. DuTremble testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Mr. DuTremble meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Mr. DuTremble qualified. The Bar reported that Mr. DuTremble "has extensive experience as assistant United States Attorney, an Assistant Solicitor, and Assistant Public Defender, as well as a civil and criminal advocate in private practice. He is intelligent, knowledgeable in the law, and a hard worker. He is considered to be an excellent and effective trial lawyer. He has a good demeanor and sense of humor. It is believed that he would have a good judicial temperament."
Mr. DuTremble was asked about his general philosophy regarding interpretation of the Constitution, power of the General Assembly regarding legislating, and a judge's ability to publicly comment on recently decided cases. Mr. DuTremble's answers to these questions are printed in the transcript of his public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there is a correct answer to any question.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Eckstrom was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Eckstrom demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Judge Eckstrom was an instructor of Constitutional Law at the City College of Chicago in 1984; an instructor of Business Law at the City College of Chicago in 1985; an adjunct instructor of Criminal Law and Procedure at Midlands Technical College in 1994 and 1995; an instructor of Government Ethics and Standards of Conduct for the U.S. Navy from 1992-1994; an Instructor of Rules of Procedure for Court Administration (training for new probate judges) in 1992; and an Instructor of Judicial Ethics at a JCLE for the S.C. Probate Judge's Association Conference in 1993.
The Joint Committee found Judge Eckstrom to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Eckstrom graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1982 and was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 1982 and the South Carolina Bar in 1983.
Since his graduation from law school, Judge Eckstrom has worked as a judge advocate for the Department of the Navy from 1982 to 1986; as sole legal counsel for the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department from 1986 to 1990; as an associate for Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard, LLP in 1990; and as Judge of the Probate Court for Lexington County from 1991 to present.
Judge Eckstrom provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
a) United States v. Melendez; criminal jury trial in military court; drug case involving opposing scientific experts, and scientific evidence including urinalysis testing by radio-immunoassay and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Won acquittal after defending case on basis of faulty test procedures, inconsistent test results, and character trait evidence admitted under Military Rule of Evidence 404.
b) United States v. Stodahour; criminal jury trial in military court; ATM fraud and larceny case; used optically enhanced still photos in the courtroom, taken from financial institution's video monitor. Won acquittal after defending the case on basis of mistaken identification.
c) Ken Murray, d/b/a Old Saw Mill Company v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Jury found for plaintiff on his claim and for defendant on counterclaim. While case was on appeal, Judge Eckstrom petitioned S.C. Supreme Court under former S.C. Supreme Court Rule 24 to seek relief from judgment in the trial court, based on after-discovered evidence due to mistake or fraud on the part of plaintiff. Supreme Court granted the motion, and judgment against defendant agency was reduced by trial court, resulting in withdrawal of appeal.
d) Norris v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Defendant suit in U.S. District Court brought under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. Plaintiff sought compensatory wages, overtime wages and liquidated damages from state agency employer. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant before the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr. The central issue was the effective date minimum wage and overtime provisions of FLSA applied to public employers as a result of Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 105 S.Ct. 1005 (1985).
e) United States v. Kauffman; Defended former service member in trial by general court martial. Defendant was apprehended by law enforcement officials after nearly twenty year desertion. Waived trial by jury. Citing exceptional and thorough case in extenuation and mitigation in sentencing phase, trial judge imposed no confinement even though three year sentence was authorized.
Judge Eckstrom provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he personally handled:
a) Ken Murray, d/b/a Old Saw Mill Company v. South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department; Successful post-trial motion before S.C. Supreme Court, under former S.C. Supreme Court rule 24, during pendency of appeal.
b) While admitted under the student practice rule, prepared returns and motions to dismiss, and successfully represented State of South Carolina in four (4) civil Post Conviction Relief proceedings in Court of Common Pleas, 1982.
Judge Eckstrom provided the Committee with the following significant orders or opinions:
a) Sandra Marie Garrick v. Billy Guy Bailey, Jr. and Ronald S. Bailey, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Billy Guy Bailey, Sr.; Case No. 90-ES-32-00823. This case involved several claims against the estate. Plaintiff, an alleged common law spouse of the deceased, sought reimbursement for sexual services on a quantum meruit theory of recovery. That claim was denied on the basis that such contracts would be void as a matter of public policy.
b) Charles J. Rogers, Jr. v. Jennifer R. Chumley; Case No. 91-GC-32-00052 and 00053. These protective proceedings demonstrated the broad equitable powers of the probate court to correct a wrong. A durable power of attorney, previously recorded in accordance with statute, was declared void ab initio, and a prior real estate transfer using the purported power of attorney was set aside and title was returned to the estate of the protected person.
c) Judy C. Allen. Personal Representative of the Estate of James D. Heckman v. H. Lee Heckman; Case No. 91-GC-32-00090; Affirmed on appeal, C.A. No. 95-CP-32-1727. This case decided ownership of funds in a joint tenancy survivorship account after one joint tenant, the sole depositor, was determined to be incapacitated. Recognizing the existence of a fiduciary duty, the order held that the joint owner with capacity no longer possessed full discretionary rights to the account when his joint tenant became incapacitated. The case was affirmed on appeal.
d) In the Matter of Trevor O'Draeda Jones, a minor; Case No. 88-GC-32-00049. Order and Sentence for Criminal Contempt of Court against J. Michael Fullwood, Esq. This case demonstrates the contempt powers of the probate court. The attorney for a court appointed conservator was convicted and sentenced in the probate court on four counts of criminal contempt of court for his intentional and wrongful filing of four false and misleading accounting with the probate court. The defendant was sentenced to the maximum period of confinement for criminal contempt, to run concurrently with a related federal court sentence.
e) Thompson Funeral Home v. Estate of Lucia Edna Nettles Douglas; this case involved the applicability of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to the sale of goods and services by a funeral home. In this claim against the estate, the UCC's implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, S.C. Code Section 36-2-315, was applied to the sale of a casket which would not fit the mausoleum crypt.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Eckstrom's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Eckstrom 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 Eckstrom is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Eckstrom 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 Eckstrom has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Eckstrom is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Eckstrom testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Eckstrom testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Eckstrom testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Judge Eckstrom meets the constitutional requirements for the office he seeks.
The Bar found Judge Eckstrom qualified. The Bar reported that Judge Eckstrom "has an excellent reputation for running his court in a courteous, professional and impartial manner. He has excellent judicial temperament and is generally perceived as always trying to 'do the right thing' in ruling on sensitive issues which come before him. His office is operated efficiently. While some concern was expressed about the extent of his Circuit Court trial experience, those interviewed did not feel that this would prevent him from performing satisfactorily as a Circuit Court Judge. His character, integrity and reputation are above reproach."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Mendelsohn was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Mendelsohn demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Mendelsohn to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Mendelsohn's Martindale-Hubbell rating is AV, their highest rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Mendelsohn graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1964 and was admitted to the Bar later in the same year.
After graduating law school, Judge Mendelsohn was an associate with the Steinberg firm in Charleston from 1965 to 1966, and has been a sole practitioner from 1967 to present. His practice includes litigation in all areas: Family Court, real estate, criminal, and probate.
Judge Mendelsohn has served as municipal judge for the City of Charleston from 1976 to present, and recently began serving as municipal judge for the Isle of Palms in addition to his service for the City of Charleston.
Judge Mendelsohn described his practice over the past five years as 55% civil, 10% criminal, and 35% domestic.
Judge Mendelsohn provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
a) USA v. Russell - Drug trial before jury. No appeal. Case had interesting legal questions. In addition, client would not cooperate.
b) USA v. Bauer - Drug conspiracy trial. Client did not appear for trial. Judge Mendelsohn was required to protect client's interests, which were represented by an empty chair. This was a difficult task.
c) USA v. Disharoon - Murder on military reservation. Not a usual case for Federal Court. At sentencing, twelve year old son admitted guilt. Judge gave new trial. Convicted again at second trial.
d) Heyning v. Small - Auto accident, with no property damage. Got verdict (small) for client. Two day trial was strongly resisted by defendant (insurance carrier).
e) Von Allmen v. DSS and Cox and Williamson - Termination of parental rights and adoption. Very emotional. Legal issues concerning parental remediation. DSS obligation to put parents back with child.
Judge Mendelsohn provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he has personally handled:
a) Fielding v. S.C. Election Commission, 305 S.C. 313, 314, 408 S.E.2d 232.
b) Forsythe v. Forsythe, 290 S.C. 253, 254, 349 S.E.2d 405.
c) Porcher v. Porcher, 289 S.C. 200, 345 S.E.2d 737.
d) Arnold v. Arnold, 285 S.C. 296, 297, 328 S.E.2d 924.
e) Olson v. Olson, 278 S.C. 258, 294 S.E.2d 425.
Judge Mendelsohn reported that the opinions in the Municipal Court are generally rendered without a written order.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Mendelsohn's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Mendelsohn 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 Mendelsohn is married and has one child.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Mendelsohn 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 Mendelsohn has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Mendelsohn is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Mendelsohn testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Pieper was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Pieper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Pieper graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Bar in May 1985. He also received a Masters of Law (LL.M.) in Taxation from New York University School of Law in August 1986.
After graduating from law school, Judge Pieper was a law clerk for United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr from March 1985 to August 1985; the Senior law clerk for U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. from the fall of 1986 to the fall of 1988; he was associated with another lawyer under the name of Pieper and Stokes from August 1988 to December 1990; career law clerk to U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. from the summer of 1990 to the summer of 1993, and assisted Judge Blatt once a week from the summer of 1993 to the summer of 1995; part-time Berkeley County magistrate from April 1989 to October 1991; and Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge from June 1993 to present.
As a current judge, Judge Pieper omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years.
Judge Pieper provided the Committee with the following significant orders or opinions:
a) Wadford v. Pipkin, Civil Action Nos. 92-CP-08-695 and 92-CP-08-696 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Judge Pieper found this case interesting because it involved two persons that apparently veered of the main roadway and ended up on the premises if the defendant, who held the two at gunpoint and threatened to kill the plaintiffs. The case was tried on issues of false arrest, trespassing, malicious prosecution, and outrage. Judge Pieper would particularly note that the case involved a scope of a "citizen's arrest", an area of the law in which there was not much appellate guidance at the time.
b) State of South Carolina v. Paul Winn, 93-CP-08-1770 (unreported) (Circuit Court). This case was an appeal from a lower court that Judge Pieper heard as Special Circuit Judge. This opinion contains a good discussion of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Based on the facts of the case and the applicable law, he concluded that the magistrate correctly denied a motion to dismiss based on an alleged 31-month delay.
c) Dennis v. Murphy, 93-CP-08-382 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Breach of oral agreement case. The order has a good discussion of the law of constructive trusts.
d) McGinnis v. Berkeley County School District, 94-CP-08-746 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Student alleged sexual encounter with his teacher and sued the school district based on gross negligence in supervision of its employee and of its students. The order involves a detailed discussion of the S.C Tort Clams Act and various statutory provisions impacting on the case.
e) Smith v. Island Dirt, Inc., 93-CP-08-908 (unreported) (Circuit Court). Appeal from Workers' Compensation Commission. Involved a novel issue of law in regard to the point at which interest accrued on the award of compensation, with particular concerns on the procedural problems in the case.
The Committee expressed some concern as to the brevity of Judge Pieper's experience as a trial lawyer.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Pieper's temperament would be satisfactory.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Pieper 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 Pieper is single.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Pieper 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 Pieper has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Pieper is a member of the South Carolina Bar Association and is an honorary member of the Berkeley County Bar Association.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Pieper testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pieper testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Pieper testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
[1] Rep. Hunter Limbaugh did not vote.Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified/(Majority)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did reveal some evidence that raised questions.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal. Ms. Reddix-Smalls did not fully answer the Committee's Personal Data Questionnaire on a timely basis.
The Joint Committee is also concerned about an incident in which an associate of Ms. Reddix-Smalls' attended the public hearing of another candidate despite admonitions given to each candidate about such activity. Ms. Reddix-Smalls denied any prior knowledge about her associate's plan to attend the public hearing. The Committee feels that Ms. Reddix-Smalls and other candidates should take responsibility for informing the people with whom they discuss their screening of the Committee's rules prohibiting a candidate or anyone associated with a candidate from attending the public hearings prior to that candidate's screening.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she taught Constitutional Law and Administrative Law at South Carolina State University from 1991 to 1993, and has taught Criminal Justice/Police Procedures at Midlands Technical College for one year.
The Joint Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls has never applied for a Martindale-Hubbell rating.
(3) Professional Experience:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1976. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in 1977 and the South Carolina Bar in 1978.
After her graduation from law school, Ms. Reddix-Smalls was in private practice with Mordecai Johnson from 1978 to 1979 and she served as Executive Director of Carolina Regional Legal Services from 1978 to 1987. Ms. Reddix-Smalls was an associate with John Roy Harper from 1988 to 1989 and Edwards and Associates from 1989 to 1991. Presently, she is a partner at Reddix-Smalls and Carter, which was formed in 1991.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls described her practice over the past five years as 60 to 75% civil, 10 to 15% criminal, and 30% to 35% domestic.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
(1) County-wide annexation, secession attempt case combined with voting rights issues. Franklin v. Campbell (U.S. Federal District Court) #95-1370.
(2) School Secession and Desegregation case in Williamsburg County. (U.S. District Court)
(3) Case involving appeal of sale of heirs property, requesting partition in kind or by allotment. Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170, S.C. Supreme Court, verdict pending.
(4) Capital offense murder case. State v. Belin, (Citation Omitted)
(5) Death penalty case involving minor defendant. State v. Brunson, (Citation Omitted)
(6) Case involving DJJ incarceration of special needs student. Appeal pending. State v. Ellison, (Citation Omitted)
(7) Fraud case, involving mortgage of elderly woman's property by her son. Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (Citation Omitted)
(8) Truth in Lending, Fraud, Financing and Mortgage Disclosure case. Thomas v. Delta Mobile Homes, (Citation Omitted)
(9) Banking disparities in lending and financing case. Settled for plaintiff prior to trial. McFadden v. Bank of Clarendon, 2-92-0737
(10) Federal mortgage disclosure requirements case. McQueen v. FHA, 4:92-1064-21 (U.S. District Court)
(11) Breach of warranty, breach of contract, and attorney's fees case. Trial August 1995; motion for reconsideration pending. Carter v. Rogers, 93-CP-40-4716.
(12) Bad faith claim involving insurance company which refused to pay proceeds when plaintiff's spouse killed in barroom brawl. Williams v. Fidelity Life and Guaranty, 93-CP-33-44, (U.S. District Court)
(13) Taxpayers' suit challenging validity and correctness of a local property millage levy. Tisdale v. Williamsburg County School District, (Citation Omitted)
(14) Standing and jurisdiction case involving plaintiff demands for an accounting by a non-profit organization. Montgomery v. State Conference of Branches, et al., (Citation Omitted)
(15) Divorce and disability benefits case involving Agent Orange and Agent White victim spouse. Thomas v. Jailette, (Citation Omitted)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided the committee with seven cases involving appeals which she has personally handled:
(a) Cox v. Frierson, 90-CP-21-1170 (S.C. Supreme Court-Circuit Court)
(b) Davis v. Davis, 92-DR-40-2456 (Supreme Court-Family Court). Divorce and child support case.
(c) Mapp v. Mapp, 92-DR-40-6187, S. C. Supreme Court. Separate maintenance, alimony, and equitable distribution case.
(d) Shepherd v. First American Mortgage Co., (citation omitted), S.C. Supreme Court. Mortgage rescission case.
(e) Tisdale v. Williamsburg County, 90-CP-45-09. Challenge of tax levy by taxpayers group.
(f) Franklin v. Campbell, remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to the District Court for appeal to the 4th Circuit.
(g) Pee Dee Fed. Savings Bank v. Crawford, (citation omitted), Supreme Court.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls provided, at the Joint Committee's request, a supplemental list of 17 matters representative of her civil practice. Ms. Reddix-Smalls also detailed her civil motion and criminal practice. This information was incorporated into the record and is located in the transcript of Ms. Reddix-Smalls public hearing.
The Joint Committee determined that Ms. Reddix-Smalls has engaged in an active trial practice in the civil and criminal courts of South Carolina, marked by a degree of breadth and sophistication.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
In a previous screening, Ms. Reddix-Smalls stated that she was cited for contempt of court by a probate judge in Florence County in 1986. Ms. Reddix-Smalls further stated that she would now have handled the matter differently.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
The Committee found Ms. Reddix-Smalls' diligence and industry satisfactory for her service on the Circuit Court bench.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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. Reddix-Smalls has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls 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.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Ms. Reddix-Smalls meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Ms. Reddix-Smalls unqualified. The Bar reported that Ms. Reddix-Smalls is "perceived to be a bright lawyer with a wealth of legal experiences who zealously pursues the interests of her clients. Although well regarded by some members for the enthusiasm with which she pursues certain issues, others opined that she was unnecessarily confrontational and difficult to deal with. Her temperament was questioned by most. Some expressed the opinion that she interjected the issue of race into legal matters in which race was not an issue. Several years ago this candidate was the subject of a contempt order."
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was asked about her general philosophy regarding the sentencing of various categories of criminal defendants including repeat violent offenders, juveniles waived to Circuit Court, and "white collar" criminals. Ms. Reddix-Smalls's actual response to each of these questions is included in the transcript of her public hearing. The Committee has included these responses solely for the benefit of members of the General Assembly. The Committee does not represent that there are correct answers to these questions.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Mr. Runyon was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
Mr. Runyon demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Mr. Runyon to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Runyon's Martindale-Hubbell rating is BV.
(3) Professional Experience:
Mr. Runyon graduated from Tulane University School of Law in 1967 and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar later in the same year.
After graduating from law school, Mr. Runyon worked as a clerk and then associate with the firm of Lee & Padgett during the summer of 1967; he was staff attorney and later Chief Lawyer at the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program from 1967 to 1972; he worked at Padgett, Altman & Fuller from 1972 to 1973; he was a sole practitioner and/or in various space-sharing arrangements from 1973 to 1984; he was a partner in the firm Runyon, Kinard and Strauch from 1984 to 1987; and has been a sole practitioner or in a space sharing arrangement from 1987 to present. In addition, Mr. Runyon served as part-time Assistant City Attorney for the City of Charleston from 1972 to 1974, and he was the first Public Defender of Charleston County from 1974 to 1975.
Mr. Runyon described his practice over the past five years as 30% civil, 60% criminal, and 10% domestic.
Mr. Runyon provided the Joint Committee with five of his most significant litigated matters which he described as follows:
a) Patsy Charles v. D.S.S., 1968 - U.S. District Court case in which a three judge federal panel declared the S.C. Welfare Residency Statute unconstitutional.
b) French v. City of Charleston - U.S. District Court case in Charleston which enjoined the City from requiring a district candidate to have five percent of the entire electorate sign before he/she could be placed on the ballot.
c) Johnson v. Tamsberg (C.A.) 430 F.2d 1125 - Established that administrative due process is not necessary for public housing tenants where jury trials are available to tenants.
d) State v. Grampus, 343 S.E.2d 26 and State v. Carter, 353 S.E.2d 875 - Both of these cases recognized "tests" for double jeopardy over and above the standard "Block Berger" tests.
e) Home Health v. Medical, (U. 53) F.Supp. 476 and 706 F.2d 497 (4th Circuit decision) - Case of first impression. Held that only patients, not providers, had standing to sue over choice of providers under a provision of the Social Security Act.
Mr. Runyon provided the Committee with the following civil appeals which he has personally handled:
a) Clark v. Clark (reported). This was a case originating in the Berkeley County Probate Court and was a "laughing heir" case.
b) Custom Recording Company v. Dunn - This was an appeal from a denial of a three-judge federal panel. Relief was granted without argument and by order.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Mr. Runyon's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Mr. Runyon 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. Runyon is married and has two children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Mr. Runyon 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. Runyon has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Mr. Runyon is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Mr. Runyon 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.
Mr. Runyon testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Mr. Runyon testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Representative Thomas was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Representative Thomas demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
Representative Thomas was the speaker on "Restructured State Government and the State of Administrative Law" in August 1993, and the speaker on "The S.C. Woman Advocate: From Ceiling to Sunroof", for the S.C. Bar CLE Division and S.C. Women Lawyers Association in April 1996.
The Joint Committee found Representative Thomas to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Representative Thomas graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1986 and was admitted to the Bar later that same year.
After graduating from law school, Rep. Thomas worked at the law offices of Kenneth W. Thornton from January 1987 to September 1987; she was a partner in Rubillo & Thomas from September 1987 to August 1988; a solo practitioner from August 1988 to January 1993; a partner with Thomas & Gundling from January 1993 to January 1994; a partner in Lawrimore, Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher from January 1994 to May 1994; a partner in Thomas, Gundling & Kelaher from May 1994 to January 1995; and a sole practitioner from January 1995 to present.
Representative Thomas described her practice as 45% civil, 15% criminal, and 40% domestic.
Representative Thomas provided the Joint Committee with five of her most significant litigated matters which she described as follows:
a) Harry F. Cameron v. Georgetown Steel - Workers' Compensation claim regarding novel question dealing with the "coming and going rule". Case No. WCC 9357660
b) Paula Wilson, et al. v. Patricia Brown, a/k/a Patricia Brown Nance - Issue of whether a deceased individual was competent at the time of marriage and the children's standing to sue. Case No. 95-DR-22-156
c) State of South Carolina v. Marshall Beam - First case in the 15th Circuit in which an individual was charged under the Criminal Negligence statute in South Carolina. Case No. 93-GS-26-2153.
d) State v. Robert Prince - Addressed numerous search and seizure issues.
e) Swails v. Revco - Establishing damages for administering wrong medication. Case No. 95-CP-22-260.
Representative Thomas provided the Committee with the following civil appeal for which she has been retained as co-counsel:
a) Myra Jean Merritt v. Carl A. Merritt, Jr., Docket 3 95-610.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Representative Thomas' temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Representative Thomas 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.
Representative Thomas is married and has three children.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Representative Thomas 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. Representative Thomas has managed her financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Representative Thomas is active in professional and community activities.
(9) Ethics:
Representative Thomas 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.
Representative Thomas testified that she was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Representative Thomas testified that she was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
Representative Thomas meets the constitutional requirements for the office she seeks.
The Bar found Representative Thomas qualified. The Bar reported that she is "perceived by those interviewed as intelligent and personable and possesses good common sense. It is felt that Rep. Thomas is conscientious, is well prepared and will have good judicial temperament. She is perceived to have excellent character and integrity. Some of those interviewed expressed concern as to the extent of experience in civil and criminal court because the majority of her practice has been in the family court system. However, throughout her practice she has frequently been in both civil and criminal court representing litigants."
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified
Judge Turner was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Joint Committee's findings as they relate to the nine evaluative criteria are as follows:
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct.
Judge Turner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
(2) Legal Knowledge and Ability:
The Joint Committee found Judge Turner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Joint Committee's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
(3) Professional Experience:
Judge Turner graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law in 1990 and was admitted to the Bar in January 1991.
After graduating from law school , Judge Turner worked at Stuckey and Kobrovsky in 1990; he was a sole practitioner from 1991 to 1995, and has been a magistrate from 1992 to present.
As a current judge, Judge Turner omitted questions related to practice, litigation, and appeals during the last five years.
Judge Turner stated that Magistrate Orders are often in different form, but described five significant rulings:
a) Ruled for plaintiff in a negligence action involving a defendant who ran into a fence with her automobile. Although the defendant was willing to fix the fence, she took issue with Judge Turner awarding damages to the plaintiff for two cows who wandered into the road and were killed. Judge Turner ruled that these damages were foreseeable.
b) Ruled for defense in an action by a minister who broke his tooth allegedly while eating at a restaurant. The defendant successfully argued that the plaintiff had not proven that the proximate cause of the injury was from this activity.
c) Ruled for defendant parent when another parent sought damages for a child who had wet her bed. Judge Turner found that the plaintiff had neither alleged nor proven that the bed wetting had been malicious or willful to satisfy the statute.
d) Ruled in favor of a jewelry store who sought to collect a debt from a man who purchased a ring. The man then sued his former fiancee and her friend who purchased the ring subsequently in a pawn shop. Judge Turner dismissed the two women as defendants.
e) Ruled in favor of a man who required his female companion to sign a promissory note each time he gave her money. Judge Turner found that her continuous willingness to sign these notes changed the transaction from a gift to a loan.
The Committee expressed some concern as to the brevity of Judge Turner's experience as a member of the Bar and as a trial lawyer.
(4) Judicial Temperament:
The Joint Committee believes that Judge Turner's temperament would be excellent.
(5) Diligence and Industry:
Judge Turner 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 Turner is engaged to be married.
(6) Mental and Physical Capabilities:
Judge Turner 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 Turner has managed his financial affairs responsibly.
(8) Public Service:
Judge Turner is a member of the South Carolina Bar.
(9) Ethics:
Judge Turner testified that he has not:
(a) sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b) sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator pending the outcome of screening; or
(c) asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Turner testified that he was aware of the Joint Committee's rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
Judge Turner testified that he was aware of the requirement of reporting campaign expenditures in excess of $100 to the House and Senate Ethics Committees.
(10) Miscellaneous:
The South Carolina Bar will issue its report on candidates offering for the Ninth Circuit before the election.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rep. F. G. Delleney, Jr., Chairman
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator Thomas L. Moore
/s/Senator John R. Russell
/s/Senator Edward E. Saleeby
Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/Rep. L. Hunter Limbaugh
/s/Rep. W. Douglas Smith
[2] Rep. Hunter Limbaugh did not vote.
Joint Committee's Finding: Qualified/(Majority)
Unqualified (Minority: Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Senator John R. Russell)
Ms. Reddix-Smalls was screened on May 7, 1996, after a thorough investigation. The Minority Report addresses concerns regarding Integrity and Impartiality.
(1) Integrity and Impartiality:
The Joint Committee's investigation did reveal some evidence that raised questions.
Ms. Reddix-Smalls demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communication, acceptance of gifts and ordinary social hospitality, and recusal.
Previously, at an earlier round of hearings, the Joint Committee was concerned about an incident in which an associate of Ms. Reddix-Smalls' attended the public hearing of another candidate despite admonitions given to each candidate about such activity. Ms. Reddix-Smalls denied any prior knowledge about her associate's plan to attend the public hearing. The Committee felt that Ms. Reddix-Smalls and other candidates should take responsibility for informing the people with whom they discuss their screening of the Committee's rules prohibiting a candidate or anyone associated with a candidate from attending the public hearings prior to that candidate's screening. This occurred less than six months previous, and we believe that there has not been a sufficient passage of time to not hold her responsible for this relative to qualifications for a judgeship.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell, Vice-Chairman
/s/Senator John R. Russell
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Journal.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
May 6, 1996
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
Reappointment, Horry County Board of Voter Registration, with term to commence March 15, 1996, and to expire March 15, 1998:
Mr. J. Michael Frazier, 731 Bucksport Road, Conway, S.C. 29527
Received as information.
May 7, 1996
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
Reappointments, Spartanburg County Voter Registration Board, with terms to commence March 15, 1996, and to expire March 15, 1998:
Mrs. Dodie W. Graham, 120 Somerset Lane, Spartanburg, S.C. 29302
Mr. George F. Abernathy, 908 Iron Ore Road, Spartanburg, S.C. 29303
Received as information.
The following was received:
Document No. 1876
Promulgated by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
Sex Offender Registry
Received by Lt. Governor October 10, 1995
Referred to Senate Committee on Judiciary
Withdrawn May 9, 1996
The following was received:
Document No. 1912
Promulgated by Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
Continued Professional Development for License Renewal
Received by Lt. Governor March 19, 1996
Referred to Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry
120 day review expiration date July 17, 1996
Revised Expiration Date July 18, 1996
Senator SETZLER introduced Dr. Fred McElveen of West Columbia, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
At 12:58 P.M., Senator BRYAN requested a leave of absence from 1:00 - 2:00 P.M.
At 12:27 P.M., Senator J. VERNE SMITH asked unanimous consent to make a motion to invite the House of Representatives to attend the Senate Chamber for the purpose of ratifying Acts at 1:00 P.M.
There was no objection and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
S. 944 -- Senators Greg Smith and Rose: A BILL TO DEVOLVE THE AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENTS AND BUDGETARY APPROVALS FOR CERTAIN OFFICES, BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS FROM THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION REPRESENTING GEORGETOWN COUNTY TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY.
The House returned the Bill with amendments.
Senator GREG SMITH proposed the following amendment (944R005.GS), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/SECTION 1. (A)(1) Except for those instances exempted in (B), in all cases where appointments to offices, boards, and commissions are made by or upon the recommendation of the House Delegation, the Senate Delegation, or the Joint Legislative Delegation of Georgetown County, or by any other member or combination of members of the General Assembly by reason of their representing all or a portion of Georgetown County, all said appointments must be made by or upon the recommendation of a majority of the members of the governing body of Georgetown County if, and to the extent that, the governing body of Georgetown County by ordinance or resolution agrees to accept the responsibility and the authority for making those appointments and notifies the Code Commissioner and the Secretary of State of its acceptance. All appointments and recommendations must be made without regard to race, religion, color, sex, or national origin.
(2) The application of subsection (A) includes, but is not limited to:
Name Authority
(1) Forestry Board Section 48-33-50
(2) Veterans Affairs Section 25-11-40
(3) County Department of
Social Services Section 43-3-10
(4) Transportation
Committee Section 12-27-400
(5) Department of
Disabilities and
Special Needs Section 44-20-375
(6) Foster Care
Review Board Section 20-7-2385
(7) Mental Health
Center Board Section 44-15-60
(8) Horry-Georgetown
Commission for
Technical Education Section 59-53-810
Section 59-53-840
(9) Economic Opportunity
Commission Section 4-31-330
(10) Georgetown Pilotage
Commission Section 54-15-10
(11) Murrell's Inlet-Garden City
Fire District Act 876 of 1966
(12) Waccamaw Regional
Planning Council Section 6-7-110
(13) Board of Elections
& Registration Act 591 of 1995
(B) The appointment of magistrates as provided in Section 22-1-10 and the appointment of members of the Georgetown Water and Sewer District as provided for in Act 733 of 1957 are unaffected by the provisions of this act.
SECTION 2. Authority for levy of taxes or approval of budgets or millage levels for all offices, boards, and commissions referenced in Section 1 above is vested in the governing body of Georgetown County.
SECTION 3. The devolution of powers provided for in this act shall occur only if, and to the extent that, the county governing body by ordinance or resolution agrees to accept the action and notifies the Code Commissioner of its acceptance. The Code Commissioner shall keep a list of such notifications and shall include the information in the statutory notes in each cumulative supplement and revised volume of the Code of Laws of South Carolina. The Code Commissioner is empowered and directed to modify all code sections which are inconsistent with this act and to indicate in the notes following a code section any action accepted by a county governing body by ordinance or resolution.
SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./.
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator GREG SMITH explained the amendment.
There being no further amendments, the Bill was amended and ordered returned to the House with amendments.
S. 1315 -- Senators Drummond, Matthews, Waldrep, Washington, Setzler, Cork, Moore, Ryberg, O'Dell and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, SO AS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE IN REGARD TO THE BOUNDARY IN THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER REGION.
On motion of Senator WASHINGTON, with unanimous consent, the Report of the Committee of Conference was taken up for immediate consideration.
Senator WASHINGTON spoke on the report.
On motion of Senator WASHINGTON, the Report of the Committee of Conference to S. 1315 was adopted as follows:
The COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 1315 -- Senators Drummond, Matthews, Waldrep, Washington, Setzler, Cork, Moore, Ryberg, O'Dell and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, SO AS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE IN REGARD TO THE BOUNDARY IN THE LOWER SAVANNAH RIVER REGION.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
/SECTION 1. Section 1-1-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 1-1-10. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this State extends to all places within its bounds, which are hereby declared to be as follows:
The northern line beginning at a point at the low-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern shore of Bird Island, runs in a northwest direction through monuments established at latitude 33.° 51_ 07.8792" N., longitude 78° 32_ 32.6210" W., at latitude 33° 51_ 36.4626" N., longitude 78° 33_ 06.1937" W., and at latitude 33° 51_ 50.7214" N., longitude 78° 33_ 22.9448" W., (coordinates based on North American Datum 1927), following existing monuments to a stake in a meadow; thence, in a direction due west, a distance of sixty-two miles, to a point where it intersects the Charleston Road (at sixty-one miles) near the Waxhaw Creek; thence N. 2° 12 1 /2_ E. eight miles to a gum tree on the southeastern corner of the Catawba Indian Reservation as laid out in 1764; thence following the eastern and northern boundary lines of said Catawba Indian Reservation to where such northern boundary line crosses the thread of the Catawba River; thence up the thread of said river to the confluence of the north and south forks thereof; thence west to a stone on Tyron Mountain marked "S. C. and N. C., September 15th, 1815"; thence from said stone set up and marked "S. C. and N. C., September 15, 1815" west four miles and ninety poles to a stone marked "S. C. and N. C."; thence S. 25° W. 118 poles to a chestnut tree on the top of a ridge dividing the waters of the north fork of the Pacolet River from the waters of the north fork of the Saluda River; thence along the various courses of said ridge (agreeably to the plat and survey of the commissioners and surveyors accompanying their report, dated November 2, 1815) to the ridge that divides the Saluda waters from those of Green River; thence along the various courses of said ridge, agreeably to said plat and survey, to a stone set up where said river joins the ridge which divides the eastern and western waters which is marked "S. C. and N. C., September 28th, A.D. 1815"; thence along the various courses of said ridge, agreeably to said plat and survey, to a stone set up on that part of it which is intersected by the Cherokee boundary line, run in the year 1797, and which stone is marked "S. C. and N. C., 1813"; and from the said last-mentioned stone on the top of said ridge, at the point of intersection aforesaid, a direct line S. 68 1/4° W. 20 miles and 11 poles to the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude at the rock in the east bank of the Chattooga River marked "Latitude thirty-five degrees, A.D. 1813" which line, from the termination of the line of 1772 to the Chattooga River, is in all a distance of twenty-four miles and one hundred and eighty-nine poles.
The lateral seaward boundary between North Carolina and South Carolina from the low-water mark of the Atlantic Ocean shall be and is hereby designated as a continuation of the North Carolina-South Carolina boundary line as described by monuments located at latitude 33° 51_ 50.7214" N., longitude 78° 33_ 22.9448" W., at latitude 33° 51_ 36.4626" N., longitude 78° 33_ 06.1937" W., and at latitude 33° 51_ 07.8792" N., longitude 78° 32_ 32.6210" W., (coordinates based on North American Datum 1927), in a straight line projection of said line to the seaward limits of the states' territorial jurisdiction, such line to be extended on the same bearing insofar as a need for further delimitation may arise.
From the state of Georgia, this State is divided by the Savannah River, from its entrance into the ocean at the point where the northern edge of the navigable channel of the Savannah River intersects the seaward limit of the state's territorial jurisdiction; thence generally along the northern edge of the navigable channel up the Savannah River; thence along the northern edge of the sediment basin to the Tidegate; thence to the confluence of the Toogaloo Tugaloo and Seneca Rivers; thence up the Toogaloo Tugaloo River to the confluence of the Tallulah and the Chattooga Rivers; thence up the Chattooga River to the 35th parallel of north latitude, which is the boundary of North Carolina, the line being midway between the banks of said respective rivers when the water is at ordinary stage, except in the lower reaches of the Savannah River, as hereinafter described. And when the rivers are broken by islands of natural formation which, under the Treaty of Beaufort, are reserved to the state of Georgia, the line is midway between the island banks and the South Carolina banks when the water is at ordinary stage, except in the lower reaches of the Savannah River, as hereinafter described.
On the east the State is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, from the mouth of the Savannah River to the northern boundary, near the mouth of Little River, including all islands.
The boundary between Georgia and South Carolina along the lower reaches of the Savannah River, and the lateral seaward boundary, is more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point where the thread of the northernmost branch of the Savannah River equidistant between its banks intersects latitude 32° 07_ 00" N., (North American Datum 1983-86), located in the Savannah River, and proceeding in a southeasterly direction down the thread of the Savannah River equidistant between the banks of the Savannah River on Hutchinson Island and on the mainland of South Carolina including the small downstream island southeast of the aforesaid point, at ordinary stage, until reaching the vicinity of Pennyworth Island;
Proceeding thence easterly down the thread of the northernmost channel of the Savannah River known as the Back River as it flows north of Pennyworth Island, making the transition to the said northernmost channel using the equidistant method between Pennyworth Island, the Georgia bank on Hutchinson Island, and the South Carolina mainland bank, thence to the thread of the said northernmost channel equidistant from the South Carolina mainland bank and Pennyworth Island at ordinary stage, around Pennyworth Island;
Proceeding thence southeasterly to the thread of the northern channel of the Savannah River equidistant from the Georgia bank on Hutchinson Island and the South Carolina mainland bank, making the transition utilizing the equidistant method between Pennyworth Island, the Georgia bank on Hutchinson Island, and the South Carolina mainland bank;
Proceeding thence southeasterly down the thread of the Savannah River equidistant from the Hutchinson Island and South Carolina mainland banks of the river at ordinary stage, through the tide gates, until reaching the northwestern (farthest upstream) boundary of the 'Back River Sediment Basin', as defined in the 'Annual Survey-1992, Savannah Harbor, Georgia, U. S. Coastal Highway, No. 17 to the Sea', U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District as amended by the Examination Survey-1992 charts for the Savannah Harbor Deepening Project, Drawings No. DSH 112/107, (hereinafter the 'Channel Chart');
Proceeding thence along the said northwestern boundary to its intersection with the northern boundary of the Back River Sediment Basin; thence southeasterly until said northern boundary intersects the northern boundary of the main navigational channel as depicted on the Channel Chart at the point designated as SR-34 (latitude 32° 05_ 01.440" N., longitude 081° 02_ 17.252" W., North American Datum (NAD) 1983-86);
Proceeding thence toward the mouth of the Savannah River along the northern boundary of the main navigational channel at the new channel limit as depicted on the Channel Chart, via Oglethorpe Range through point SR-33 (latitude 32° 05_ 17.168" N., longitude 081° 01_ 34.665" W., NAD 1983-86), Fort Jackson Range through point SR-32 (latitude 32° 05_ 30.133" N., longitude 081° 01_ 17.750" W., NAD 1983-86), the Bight Channel through points SR-31 (latitude 32° 05_ 55.631" N., longitude 081° 01_ 02.480" W., NAD 1983-86), SR-30 (latitude 32° 06_ 06.272" N., longitude 081° 00_ 44.802" W., NAD 1983-86), SR-29 (latitude 32° 06_ 09.053" N., longitude 081° 00_ 31.887" W., NAD 1983-86), SR-28 (latitude 32° 06_ 08.521" N., longitude 081° 00_ 15.498" W., NAD 1983-86), and SR-27 (latitude 32° 06_ 01.565" N., longitude 080° 59_ 58.406" W., NAD (1983-86), Upper Flats Range through points SR-26 (latitude 32° 05_ 41.698" N., longitude 080° 59_ 31.968" W., NAD 1983-86) and SR-25 (latitude 32° 05_ 02.819" N., longitude 080° 59_ 12.644" W., NAD 1983-86), Lower Flats Range through points SR-24 (latitude 32° 04_ 46.375" N., longitude 080° 59_ 00.631" W., NAD 1983-86), SR-23 (latitude 32° 04_ 40.209" N., longitude 080° 58_ 49.947" W., NAD 1983-86), SR-22 (latitude 32° 04_ 28.679" N., longitude 080° 58_ 18.895" W., NAD 1983-86), and SR-21 (latitude 32° 04_ 22.274" N., longitude 080° 57_ 34.449" W., NAD 1983-86), Long Island Crossing Range through points SR-20 (latitude 32° 04_ 13.042" N., longitude 080° 57_ 14.511" W., NAD 1983-86), and SR-19 (latitude 32° 02_ 30.984" N., longitude 080° 55_ 30.308" W., NAD 1983-86) and New Channel Range following the northern boundary of the Rehandling Basin and the northern boundary of the Oyster Bed Island Turning Basin back to the northern edge of the main navigational channel, thence through points SR-17 (latitude 32° 02_ 07.661" N., longitude 080° 53_ 39.379" W., NAD 1983-86) and SR-16 (latitude 32° 02_ 07.533" N., longitude 080° 53_ 31.663" W., NAD 1983-86), to a point at latitude 32° 02_ 08" N., longitude 080° 53_ 25" W., NAD 1983-86 (now marked by Navigational Buoy "24") near the eastern end of Oyster Bed Island;
Proceeding thence from a point at latitude 32° 02_ 08" N., longitude 080° 53_ 25" W., NAD 1983-86 (now marked by Navigational Buoy R "24") on a true azimuth of 0° 0_ 0" (true north) to the mean low low-water line of Oyster Bed Island; thence easterly along the said mean low low-water line of Oyster Bed Island to the point at which the said mean low low-water line of Oyster Bed Island intersects the Oyster Bed Island Training Wall;
Proceeding thence easterly along the mean low low-water line of the southern edge of the Oyster Bed Island Training Wall to its eastern end; thence continuing the same straight line to its intersection with the Jones Island Range line;
Proceeding thence southeasterly along the Jones Island Range line until reaching the northern boundary of the main navigational channel as depicted on the Channel Chart;
Proceeding thence southeasterly along the northern boundary of the main navigational channel as depicted on the Channel Chart, via Jones Island Range and Bloody Point Range, to a point at latitude 31° 59_ 48.0" N., longitude 080° 47_ 01.5" W., NAD 1983-86 (now marked by Navigational Buoy "6"); and finally,
Proceeding from a point at latitude 31° 59_ 48.0" N., longitude 080° 47_ 01.5" W., NAD 1983-86 (now marked by Navigational Buoy "6") extending southeasterly to the federal-state boundary on a true azimuth of 104 degrees (bearing of S76°E), which describes the line being at right angles to the baseline from the southernmost point of Hilton Head Island and the northernmost point of Tybee Island, drawn by the Baseline Committee in 1970.
Should the need for further delimitation arise, the boundary shall further extend southeasterly on above-described true azimuth of 104 degrees (bearing of S76°E).
Provided, further, that nothing in this section shall in any way be considered to govern or affect in any way the division between the states of the remaining assimilative capacity that is, the capacity to receive wastewater and other discharges without violating water quality standards, of the portion of the Savannah River described in this section."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
/s/McKinley Washington /s/James H. Hodges /s/Holly A. Cork /s/James S. Klauber /s/W. Greg Ryberg /s/W. Jeffrey Young On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
Columbia, S.C., May 14, 1996
Mr. President and Senators:
The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that the report of the Committee of Free Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification:
H. 3300 -- Reps. Limehouse, Fleming, Allison, G. Brown, J. Brown, Cain, Chamblee, Cotty, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Fair, Felder, Fulmer, Hallman, Harrell, Harrison, Haskins, Herdklotz, Hodges, Huff, Hutson, Kinon, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Limbaugh, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Marchbanks, Martin, Mason, McCraw, McElveen, McKay, McTeer, Phillips, Rice, Robinson, Sandifer, Sharpe, Shissias, D. Smith, Stoddard, Tripp, Trotter, Vaughn, Wells, Whatley, Wilder, Wright, A. Young, Cobb-Hunter, Baxley, Kelley, Keyserling, Govan, Inabinett, H. Brown, Witherspoon, Simrill, Keegan, Townsend, Kennedy, Jaskwhich, Stuart, L. Whipper, Stille, Byrd, Meacham, Law, Riser, Dantzler, Richardson, J. Young, Seithel and Bailey: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 23-3-400, 23-3-420, AND 23-3-440, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WHEN A SEX OFFENDER RESIDES OR INTENDS TO RESIDE IN A COMMUNITY, AND REQUIRE THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENDER INTENDS TO RESIDE OR IS RESIDING TO RELEASE THIS INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 23-3-490 RELATING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.
Very respectfully,
Speaker of the House
Received as information.
H. 3987 -- Reps. Townsend and Cooper: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-670, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FEES FOR FARM TRUCK LICENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES APPLY TO THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT AND TO REVISE THE FEES.
Senator LAND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Transportation.
There was no objection.
On motion of Senator LAND, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar.
The following were introduced:
S. 1412 -- Senator Cork: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO DEFINE 'MOTOR VEHICLE'; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-130, RELATING TO CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM REGISTRATION, SO AS TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF BOAT TRAILERS UNDER TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-700, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION FEE FOR CERTAIN TRAILERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE REGISTRATION FEE FOR BOAT AND LANDSCAPING TRAILER BE REMITTED TO THE COUNTY WHERE REGISTERED AND TO MANDATE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THESE FUNDS MAY BE EXPENDED.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
S. 1413 -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND BROOKLAND-CAYCE HIGH SCHOOL UPON BEING NAMED ONE OF THE BEST HIGH SCHOOLS IN AMERICA BY REDBOOK MAGAZINE IN ITS FIFTH ANNUAL AMERICA'S BEST SCHOOLS PROJECT.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.
S. 1414 -- Senators J. Verne Smith and Thomas: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS DEEP CONCERN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDING RECENT MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORIST THREATS AND DEMANDS AND TO CONDEMN THESE TYPES OF TERRORIST ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE THE PEACEFUL EXISTENCE OF PEOPLES OF ALL RACES, FAITHS, AND NATIONALITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Senator J. VERNE SMITH spoke on the Resolution.
The question then was the adoption of the Concurrent Resolution.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Alexander Boan Bryan Cork Courson Courtney Drummond Elliott Fair Ford Giese Glover Gregory Hayes Holland Hutto Jackson Land Lander Leatherman Leventis Martin Matthews McConnell McGill Mescher Moore O'Dell Passailaigue Patterson Peeler Rankin Reese Richter Rose Russell Ryberg Saleeby Setzler Short Smith, G. Smith, J.V. Thomas Waldrep Washington Wilson
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.
H. 5009 -- Rep. Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS DEEP CONCERN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDING RECENT MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORIST THREATS AND DEMANDS AND TO CONDEMN THESE TYPES OF TERRORIST ACTIONS WHICH UNDERMINE THE PEACEFUL EXISTENCE OF PEOPLES OF ALL RACES, FAITHS, AND NATIONALITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 5010 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING ABRAHAM (ABE) THOMY, OUTSTANDING AND WIDELY-RECOGNIZED PHOTOGRAPHER OF PROMINENT SOUTH CAROLINIANS AND OTHERS, FOR HIS MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS OF PORTRAITURE AND SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE PALMETTO STATE.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 5011 -- Reps. Scott, Allison, Anderson, Askins, Bailey, Baxley, Boan, Breeland, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T. Brown, Byrd, Cain, Canty, Carnell, Cato, Cave, Chamblee, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cooper, Cotty, Cromer, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Easterday, Elliott, Felder, Fleming, Fulmer, Gamble, Govan, Hallman, Harrell, J. Harris, P. Harris, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Herdklotz, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hodges, Howard, Hutson, Inabinett, Jaskwhich, Jennings, Keegan, Kelley, Kennedy, Keyserling, Kinon, Kirsh, Klauber, Knotts, Koon, Lanford, Law, Lee, Limbaugh, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Marchbanks, Martin, Mason, McAbee, McCraw, McElveen, McKay, McMahand, McTeer, Meacham, Moody-Lawrence, Neal, Neilson, Phillips, Quinn, Rhoad, Rice, Richardson, Riser, Robinson, Rogers, Sandifer, Seithel, Sharpe, Sheheen, Shissias, Simrill, D. Smith, R. Smith, Spearman, Stille, Stoddard, Stuart, Townsend, Tripp, Trotter, Tucker, Vaughn, Waldrop, Walker, Wells, Whatley, L. Whipper, S. Whipper, White, Wilder, Wilkes, Wilkins, Williams, Witherspoon, Wofford, Worley, Wright, J. Young and Young-Brickell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE SPRINGWOOD LAKE AREA UNITED NEIGHBORS IN RICHLAND COUNTY FOR WINNING THE 1996 NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE YEAR AWARD AND TO EXTEND BEST WISHES TO THIS GROUP FOR MUCH CONTINUED SUCCESS IN THE FUTURE.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 5013 -- Reps. Stuart, Riser, Wright, Koon, Knotts, Spearman and Gamble: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING PELION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S KNOWLEDGE MASTER TEAM OF LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR PLACING FIRST IN THE STATE IN THE SPRING OPEN COMPETITION.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
S. 1413 -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND BROOKLAND-CAYCE HIGH SCHOOL UPON BEING NAMED ONE OF THE BEST HIGH SCHOOLS IN AMERICA BY REDBOOK MAGAZINE IN ITS FIFTH ANNUAL AMERICA'S BEST SCHOOLS PROJECT.
Returned with concurrence.
Received as information.
S. 1293 -- Senators Thomas, Giese, Courson, Fair, Hayes, Jackson, Passailaigue, Russell and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SHALL PROVIDE CRIME VICTIMS WITH A COPY OF THE CRIME INCIDENT REPORT RELATING TO THEIR CASE AND CERTAIN OTHER INFORMATION; TO ADD SECTION 16-3-1537 SO AS TO REQUIRE A CRIMINAL SENTENCING JUDGE TO APPLY AMOUNTS FORFEITED TO THE COURT BY A PERSON PURSUANT TO SECTION 17-15-90 TOWARD THE PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION THE COURT ORDERS THE PERSON TO PAY; TO ADD SECTION 17-1-18 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES TO ALLOW AN APPEAL OF CERTAIN COURT ORDERS IF A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OR IF A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS NOT ORDERED; TO ADD SECTION 24-21-490 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES SHALL COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE RESTITUTION, THE PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING RESTITUTION, THE MAINTENANCE OF A MINIMUM NUMBER OF RESTITUTION BEDS AND PUBLISHING OF AN ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING THE STATE'S EFFORTS TO COLLECT RESTITUTION AND OTHER FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "RESTITUTION"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1530, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION A JUDGE MUST ORDER AN OFFENDER TO PAY.
The House returned the Bill with amendments.
On motion of Senator THOMAS, the Senate nonconcurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly.
Pursuant to an invitation the Honorable Speaker and House of Representatives appeared in the Senate Chamber on May 14, 1996, at 1:00 P.M. and the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were ratified:
(R359) S. 501 -- Senator Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 6-1-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR WHICH A PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT GIVING A TWO-WEEK NOTICE IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AND REQUIRE AT LEAST TWO READINGS WHICH ARE A WEEK APART BEFORE A MORATORIUM MAY BE IMPOSED.
(R360) S. 642 -- Senator Thomas: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-9-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, SELF-INSURERS, AND DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SO AS TO EXTEND FROM FIVE TO TEN DAYS THE NOTICE REQUIRED BEFORE A HEARING TO CANCEL SELF-INSURER STATUS FOR A PERSON OR COMPANY WITH MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE REGISTERED VEHICLES AND TO REQUIRE THAT A COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S LATEST FINANCIAL STATEMENT PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA INDICATING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A POSITIVE NET WORTH MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
(R361) S. 699 -- Senator Richter: AN ACT 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; TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DELINQUENT TAX SALES, SO AS TO REQUIRE NOTICE TO THE DELINQUENT TAXPAYER OF ANY EXCESS DUE THE TAXPAYER FOR THE SUCCESSFUL BID AND TO PRESCRIBE THE METHOD OF THE NOTICE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-120, RELATING TO NOTICE REQUIRED OF THE END OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD, SO AS TO CONFORM THE REFERENCE TO THE INTEREST RATE TO THE AMENDMENT CONTAINED IN THIS ACT.
(R362) S. 774 -- Senator Land: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 56-31-50, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COLLECTION AND USE OF SURCHARGES IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVATE PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES RENTED FOR THIRTY-ONE DAYS OR LESS, AND TO CERTAIN REPORTS, VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES, REGULATIONS, AND FORMS PERTAINING TO THE COLLECTION OF THE SURCHARGES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SURCHARGES ARE A SALES TAX THAT BELONGS TO THE STATE WHICH MUST BE PLACED IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT, THE SURCHARGES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CREDITOR LIENS, AND ARE NOT GROSS RECEIPTS OR REVENUE, AND A PERSON OR ENTITY MAY NOT IMPOSE A FEE, PENALTY, OR EXPENSE ON INDIVIDUALS COMPLYING WITH THIS PROVISION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN RENTAL COMPANIES ARE NOT LIABLE FOR CERTAIN SURCHARGES.
(R363) S. 972 -- Senator Bryan: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF MEETINGS BY THE LAURENS, McCORMICK, GREENWOOD, AND ABBEVILLE COUNTIES' TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES.
(R364) S. 1033 -- Senator Jackson: AN ACT TO AMEND SUBARTICLE 7, ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DISPOSITIONAL POWERS OF THE FAMILY COURT, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1331, SO AS TO ENACT THE "YOUTH MENTOR ACT", TO REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ESTABLISH A YOUTH MENTOR PROGRAM FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS, CONSISTING OF A CHURCH MENTOR PROGRAM AND A COMMUNITY MENTOR PROGRAM, AND TO PROVIDE THAT PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PRETRIAL DIVERSION OPTION BY A SOLICITOR OR AS AN OPTIONAL, ALTERNATIVE DISPOSITION OF A CASE BY A FAMILY COURT JUDGE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-1330, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DISPOSITION OF CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURT, SO AS TO ADD AS A DISPOSITIONAL POWER OF THE COURT THE POWER TO ORDER A CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN A COMMUNITY MENTOR PROGRAM AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 20-7-1331.
(R365) S. 1043 -- Senators Short, Rose, Peeler, Richter, Greg Smith, Thomas, Mescher, Moore, J. Verne Smith, Courtney, Elliott, Holland, Reese, Leventis, McGill, Cork, Passailaigue, Rankin, Matthews, Waldrop, Washington, Lander, Jackson, O'Dell and Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-135 SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION POLICIES TO PROVIDE PAYMENT FOR HOSPITALIZATION OF A MOTHER AND HER CHILD, IF AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THE SECOND POSTPARTUM DAY, NOT INCLUDING THE DAY OF DELIVERY, AFTER A VAGINAL DELIVERY, OR THE THIRD POST-OPERATIVE DAY, NOT INCLUDING THE DAY OF SURGERY, AFTER A CAESARIAN SECTION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS.
(R366) S. 1054 -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Drummond, Hayes, Elliott and Glover: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 6-23-60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE FILING OF A PETITION PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION OF A PROJECT BY A JOINT AGENCY, SO AS TO FURTHER ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO APPROVE CERTAIN TYPES OF PROJECTS WHICH CONSIST OF CERTAIN KINDS OF ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS AND PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL IS NOT NECESSARY FOR PROJECTS FOR OTHER TRANSMISSION OR GENERATING FACILITIES OR FOR FACILITIES FOR DISTRIBUTION OR TRANSFORMATION OF ELECTRIC POWER AND ENERGY, AND PROVIDE THAT A JOINT AGENCY MAY NOT ACQUIRE OR PURCHASE PROJECTS OR CAPACITY IF, AFTER PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION, THE JOINT POWER AGENCY WOULD OWN, CONTRACT FOR, OR CONTROL GENERATING RESOURCES EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES HISTORICAL TERRITORIAL PEAK, DELETE AS A DETERMINING FACTOR AS TO WHETHER IT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE JOINT AGENCY REFERENCES TO AN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIER SERVING THE COUNTIES OR COUNTY WITHIN WHICH ANY MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES ARE LOCATED; TO AMEND SECTION 6-23-90, RELATING TO THE RIGHTS AND POWERS OF A JOINT AGENCY, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES FOR JOINT AGENCIES TO ACQUIRE NOT LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF RATED CAPACITY FROM AN ELECTRIC SUPPLIER, DELETE A REFERENCE TO SECTION 6-23-120, AND AUTHORIZE ANY PORTION OF A PROJECT TO BE ACQUIRED, PROVIDE FOR JOINT AGENCIES TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER CONTRACTS WITH ANY ELECTRIC SUPPLIER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, AUTHORIZING JOINT AGENCIES TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS MAKING THEM OBLIGATED TO MAKE PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY A CONTRACT WHERE THE FACILITIES FROM WHICH SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ARE COMPLETED, OPERABLE, AND OPERATING, AND THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REDUCTIONS AND ARE NOT CONDITIONED UPON THE PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF ANY PARTY; TO AMEND SECTION 6-23-170, RELATING TO INVESTMENTS OF A JOINT AGENCY OF MONIES PENDING DISBURSEMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF JOINT AGENCIES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE TRUSTEES AND SUBJECT TO THE PRUDENT INVESTOR STANDARD; TO AMEND SECTION 6-23-20, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN THE "JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC POWER AND ENERGY ACT", SO AS TO REDEFINE "ELECTRIC SUPPLIER" AND "PROJECT"; BY ADDING SECTION 6-23-235 SO AS TO MAKE A PORTION OF SECTION 6-21-400 NOT APPLICABLE TO A JOINT AGENCY ISSUING BONDS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 21 OF TITLE 6 (REVENUE BOND ACT FOR UTILITIES); BY ADDING SECTION 6-23-335 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN CHAPTER 23 OF TITLE 6 MAY BE INTERPRETED TO AUTHORIZE A JOINT AGENCY TO PROVIDE, DISTRIBUTE, MARKET, OR SELL ELECTRIC ENERGY OR SERVICE TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS; BY ADDING SECTION 6-23-340 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO AMEND, SUPPLEMENT, MODIFY, OR OTHERWISE ALTER OR AFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY A JOINT AGENCY PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 6-23-120, RELATING TO THE SALE OF EXCESS POWER OR OUTPUT OF A PROJECT NOT THEN REQUIRED BY ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE JOINT AGENCY.
(R367) S. 1122 -- Senator Giese: A JOINT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR APPLYING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION FOR PROPERTY TAX YEAR 1995 THROUGH JULY 1, 1996.
(R368) S. 1195 -- Education Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN MEMBERS THEREOF SHALL BE APPOINTED; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 59-103-15 SO AS TO DEFINE THE MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND OF EACH TYPE OF PUBLIC INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-20, RELATING TO STUDIES OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A COORDINATED, EFFICIENT, AND RESPONSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THIS STATE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS REGARD; BY ADDING SECTION 59-103-30 SO AS TO ESTABLISH CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN PRIORITY ORDER FOR ACADEMIC QUALITY IN THE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING IN THIS STATE AND THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BY WHICH THESE SUCCESS FACTORS CAN BE MEASURED; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-35, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE BUDGETS OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING AND THE APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF THE PROGRAMS OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM'S AND EACH INSTITUTION'S ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST IS DETERMINED, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED BEFORE JULY 30, 1996, AND TO REVISE THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITIES WITH REGARD TO AN INSTITUTION'S PROGRAMS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-45, RELATING TO THE DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR AND MEASUREMENT MECHANISMS OF THESE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, DIRECT THE COMMISSION TO BASE THE HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING FORMULA ON AN INSTITUTION'S ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE STANDARDS, PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO REDUCE, EXPAND, OR CONSOLIDATE ANY INSTITUTION INCLUDING THOSE WHICH DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF ACHIEVEMENT, AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999, TO CLOSE SUCH INSTITUTIONS WHICH DO NOT MEET THESE STANDARDS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE CLOSURE, REDUCTION, EXPANSION, OR CONSOLIDATION OF AN INSTITUTION SHALL BE AS PROMULGATED IN REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE EACH INSTITUTIONAL MISSION STATEMENT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL DEFINE MINIMUM ACADEMIC EXPECTATIONS FOR PROSPECTIVE POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS AND COMMUNICATE THESE EXPECTATIONS TO THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE ACCESS AND EQUITY OPPORTUNITIES AT EACH INSTITUTION FOR ALL CITIZENS OF THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-60, RELATING TO RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE COMMISSION, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; BY ADDING SECTION 59-103-65 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH AN INSTITUTION SHALL BE CLOSED IF AN INSTITUTION BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999, IS CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 59-103-110, RELATING TO APPROVAL OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH A PUBLIC INSTITUTION'S CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF CERTAIN NEW FACILITIES OR REAL PROPERTY IS APPROVED, AND TO DELETE CERTAIN LANGUAGE RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECTION; TO AMEND CHAPTER 104 OF TITLE 59, RELATING TO INITIATIVES FOR RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE, SO AS TO REVISE SUCH PROVISIONS TO INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE REFERENCES TO THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR ACADEMIC SUCCESS ABOVE-REFERENCED AND REFERENCES TO OTHER DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED ABOVE ON THE COMMISSION, AND TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTION PROVIDE HALF THE COST OF A PALMETTO FELLOWS SCHOLARSHIP; TO AMEND SECTION 59-101-350, RELATING TO THE ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE STATE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT AND WHAT INSTITUTIONS MUST SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF PREPARING THE REPORT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 95, PART II OF ACT 145 OF 1995, RELATING TO SINGLE-GENDER PROGRAMS OF HIGHER LEARNING, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE ANY CHANGE TO A COURT-APPROVED SINGLE-GENDER EDUCATION PROGRAM WHICH WOULD HINDER THE PROGRAM'S ABILITY TO PRODUCE A SUBSTANTIVELY COMPARABLE OUTCOME, AND TO REVISE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
(R369) S. 1226 -- Senators Giese, Passailaigue and Glover: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 44, CHAPTER 36, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO ENACT THE "ALZHEIMER'S SPECIAL CARE DISCLOSURE ACT" SO AS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN FACILITIES OFFERING SPECIAL CARE UNITS OR PROGRAMS FOR ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS TO DISCLOSE TO THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEEKING A PLACEMENT IN THE UNIT OR PROGRAM THE FORM OF CARE OR TREATMENT PROVIDED THAT DISTINGUISHES IT AS BEING ESPECIALLY SUITABLE FOR THESE PATIENTS AND TO INCLUDE THE INFORMATION THAT MUST BE PROVIDED.
(R370) S. 1266 -- Senator Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-310, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OPEN SEASON FOR ANTLERED DEER, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FROM PROVIDING A BREAK IN THE SEASON ON PRIVATE LANDS IN GAME ZONE 4 AND PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENT FROM CLOSING ANY PART OF THE DEER SEASON IN WHICH FIREARMS ARE ALLOWED ON PRIVATE LANDS IN GAME ZONE 4.
(R371) S. 1278 -- Senator Holland: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-7-920, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION ON PROSECUTION COORDINATION, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SHALL SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION IN HIS PLACE.
(R372) S. 1305 -- Senators McConnell and Rose: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-1095 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRIVATE INSURER LICENSED TO UNDERWRITE "ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE" MAY FILE AND USE CERTAIN RATES FOR THE COVERAGES DETAILED IN SECTION 38-75-310(1) AND THE PROCESS FOR FILING AND HAVING THE RATES APPROVED; BY ADDING SECTION 38-75-386 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LIABILITY OR A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY NOT ARISE AGAINST CERTAIN PERSONS FOR CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE TO OR INFORMATION PROVIDED TO AN INSURER TO FACILITATE THE UNDERWRITING OF CERTAIN ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE OR TO FACILITATE COMPETITION FOR THE UNDERWRITING OF CERTAIN ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS CONCERNING WIND AND HAIL INSURANCE, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "SEACOAST AREA"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-910, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FIRE AND ALLIED LINES AND INLAND MARINE INSURANCE RATES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PRIVATE INSURER LICENSED TO UNDERWRITE ESSENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE MAY FILE AND USE CERTAIN RATES WITHIN A COASTAL AREA OF THE STATE.
(R373) S. 1345 -- Senator McConnell: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 54-7-100, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE HUNLEY COMMISSION IS EXEMPT FROM THE STRICTURES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE FOR PURPOSES OF THE HUNLEY PROJECT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE HUNLEY COMMISSION IS PROHIBITED FROM RELINQUISHING SOUTH CAROLINA'S CLAIM OF TITLE TO THE HUNLEY UNLESS PERPETUAL SITING OF THE SUBMARINE IN SOUTH CAROLINA IS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN AN AGREEMENT.
(R374) S. 1361 -- Banking and Insurance Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, RELATING TO UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TERRITORIAL PLAN, AUTOMOBILE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1929, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R375) S. 1395 -- Senator Courtney: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 5-5-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE FORMS AND SELECTION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A MUNICIPALITY WHICH FAILED TO ADOPT ONE OF THE SPECIFIED FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN FIFTEEN MONTHS OF DECEMBER 31, 1977, IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FORFEITED ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION UNTIL IT CERTIFIES THE ADOPTION OF ONE OF THE FORMS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION MUST BE REINSTATED UPON THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ADOPTION.
(R376) H. 3140 -- Reps. McTeer and Lloyd: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-1640, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VOTING MACHINE REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE BOARD OF VOTING MACHINE COMMISSIONERS BE PROVIDED WITH EITHER AN ILLUSTRATION OR A MECHANICAL MODEL WHICH ILLUSTRATES THE MANNER OF VOTING ON THE MACHINE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-1810, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE MUST BE PROVIDED ON ELECTION DAY A MECHANICALLY OPERATED MODEL OF A VOTING MACHINE FOR INSTRUCTION OF VOTERS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE AN ILLUSTRATION OR MECHANICALLY OPERATED MODEL BE PROVIDED FOR INSTRUCTION OF VOTERS.
(R377) H. 3268 -- Reps. Richardson, Vaughn, Harvin, Bailey, Cotty, Limbaugh, Chamblee, Wofford, A. Young, Shissias, Stuart, Lloyd, Sandifer, Thomas, Witherspoon, Wells, Keyserling, Walker and Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE MURDER OF A WITNESS OR POTENTIAL WITNESS COMMITTED AT ANY TIME DURING THE CRIMINAL PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEDING OR DETERRING PROSECUTION OF ANY CRIME AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN CONSIDERATION OF IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY.
(R378) H. 3858 -- Reps. Bailey, Rice, Baxley, Limbaugh, Simrill, Clyburn, Mason, Jennings, H. Brown, Moody-Lawrence, Wofford, A. Young, Shissias, Hutson, Dantzler, Williams, Stille, Boan, Law, Rhoad, Davenport, Kirsh, Littlejohn, J. Harris, Wright, Harrell and Riser: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-1333 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FAMILY COURT TO SUSPEND OR RESTRICT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF A CHILD ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT OR FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT OR IN VIOLATION OF A TERM OR CONDITION OF PAROLE.
(R379) H. 3864 -- Rep. Quinn: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 15-41-35, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO REVISE A REFERENCE TO CITED PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT.
(R380) H. 3909 -- Reps. Wright, Askins, Bailey, Gamble, Harvin, Herdklotz, Kirsh, Knotts, McCraw, Riser, Robinson, Simrill, Spearman and Wilder: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 42-1-660 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NO ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, LAND SURVEYOR, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR THEIR EMPLOYEES OR A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR FIRM OFFERING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, ENGINEERING SERVICES, LAND SURVEYOR SERVICES, OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WHO IS RETAINED TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS LIABLE IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 42-1-560 FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM THE EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SAFETY STANDARDS ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS RECOVERABLE UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED HEREIN DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NEGLIGENT PREPARATION OF DESIGN PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS.
(R381) H. 4136 -- Judiciary Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 44-29-250 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO COLLECTS AND SUBMITS AN ANONYMOUS SAMPLE OF THE PERSON'S OWN BODY FLUID OR TISSUE FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) TESTING IS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT A POSITIVE TEST RESULT AND THAT THE RESULTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE THAT A POSITIVE RESULT MUST BE REPORTED BY THE LABORATORY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL WITHOUT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE REPORT; AND BY ADDING SECTION 44-29-240 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON ON WHOM AN INVASIVE PROCEDURE IS TO BE PERFORMED IS ENCOURAGED TO KNOW OR TO HAVE HIS BLOOD TESTED TO DETERMINE HIS HIV STATUS AND TO DISCLOSE THIS STATUS TO THE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS RENDERING CARE.
(R382) H. 4159 -- Ways and Means Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 12, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 24 ENACTING THE BINGO TAX ACT OF 1996 SO AS TO REGULATE THE GAME OF BINGO AND PROVIDE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1140, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE INCOME TAX, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF BINGO PRIZES AND WINNINGS; TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CURRENT BINGO LICENSES EXPIRE AFTER SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, TO SAVE PROCEEDINGS UNDERWAY ON OCTOBER 1, 1997, AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR DISPOSITION UNDER FORMER LAW; TO REPEAL ARTICLE 23, CHAPTER 21, TITLE 12, RELATING TO BINGO REGULATION; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BINGO TAX ACT OF 1996 TAKES EFFECT OCTOBER 1, 1997.
(R383) H. 4341 -- Reps. Wilkins, Sandifer, Walker, Allison, Haskins, Jennings, Cain, Harrison, Witherspoon, Vaughn, Simrill, Herdklotz, Kirsh, Delleney, Cotty, Limbaugh, Richardson, Meacham, Easterday and McElveen: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-112, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENTS FOR COUNSEL APPOINTED FOR A CHILD IN A DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MAY ORDER THE CHILD'S PARENTS TO REIMBURSE THE INDIGENT DEFENSE FUND OR PAY THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY.
(R384) H. 4407 -- Rep. D. Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-47-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND, SO AS TO ADD A MEMBER TO THE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE AT LARGE TO REPRESENT THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
(R385) H. 4430 -- Reps. Wright, Mason, Simrill, Askins, Felder, Cain, Sandifer, H. Brown, Inabinett, Stuart, M. Hines, Rice, Spearman, T. Brown, Richardson, Herdklotz, Wofford, Dantzler, Klauber, Koon, Law, Stoddard, Witherspoon, Quinn, Lloyd, Gamble, Easterday, Riser, Limbaugh and Waldrop: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 63, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SCHOOL CRIME REPORT ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHALL FORWARD ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING SCHOOL-RELATED CRIME TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH SHALL BE USED BY HIM IN THE SUPERVISION OF THE PROSECUTION OF SCHOOL CRIME; TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S "SCHOOL SAFETY PHONE LINE" WHEN CERTAIN CRIMES OCCUR; AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL MONITOR ALL REPORTED SCHOOL CRIMES AND MAY REPRESENT THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEN SUCH CASES ARE APPEALED TO AN APPELLATE COURT.
(R386) H. 4462 -- Reps. Riser, G. Brown, Koon and Witherspoon: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 46-13-45 SO AS TO CREATE TWO CLASSES OF PESTICIDE REGISTRATION FEES, TO PROVIDE FOR AMOUNT OF THE FEE FOR A BASIC FEE, AND PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIAL FEE AND HOW THE MONIES DERIVED FROM THE SPECIAL FEE MUST BE USED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 46-13-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATION OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS, SO AS TO DELETE THE ANNUAL FEES FOR RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED USE OF A PESTICIDE PRODUCT.
(R387) H. 4490 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-775 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE SOUTH CAROLINA REINSURANCE FACILITY ANNUALLY TO DEVELOP AND FILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE LOSS COMPONENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 37-2-202 AND 37-3-202, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES A CREDITOR AND CONSUMER LENDER, RESPECTIVELY, MAY CHARGE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT WHEN SINGLE INTEREST COLLISION COVERAGE IS WRITTEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN THAT THE COVERAGE IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITOR AND OF OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PURPOSES OF THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CHAPTER, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THE PURPOSES APPLY TO THE BODILY INJURY LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, SO AS TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF "FACILITY PHYSICAL DAMAGE RATE"; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO WRITE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO BODILY INJURY LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY COVERAGES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-280, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COLLISION AND COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGES, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, TO ALLOW RATHER THAN REQUIRE INSURERS TO MAKE AVAILABLE COLLISION COVERAGE AND COMPREHENSIVE OR FIRE, THEFT, AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE, TO AUTHORIZE CEDING PHYSICAL DAMAGE INSURANCE COVERAGE TO THE FACILITY, TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON CERTAIN GROUNDS IN DETERMINING RATES OR WHETHER TO WRITE OR RENEW COVERAGE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-920, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF INSURERS AND AGENTS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE REFERS TO BODILY INJURY LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY.
(R388) H. 4502 -- Reps. Simrill, Herdklotz, Cain, Sandifer, Haskins, Meacham, Hallman, Trotter, Cato and R. Smith: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-1-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MARRIAGES BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX ARE VOID AB INITIO AND AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THIS STATE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-1-10, RELATING TO WHOM MAY CONTRACT MATRIMONY, SO AS TO PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES.
(R389) H. 4660 -- Reps. Rhoad, Anderson, Breeland, Fleming, Loftis, Seithel, Knotts, Stoddard, Sandifer, Wright, Quinn, Bailey, Cato, Sharpe, J. Hines, Spearman, Herdklotz, Townsend, McCraw, J. Brown, Neilson, Harrison, Baxley, Harvin, McMahand, H. Brown, Byrd, Davenport, Lloyd, M. Hines, Kinon, Limehouse, Waldrop, L. Whipper, Cobb-Hunter, Phillips, Felder and Cain: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 38-7-180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT INSURE ONLY CHURCHES, SO AS TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND TO CLARIFY A REFERENCE.
(R390) H. 4676 -- Rep. Kirsh: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-3320, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REGULATION OF BINGO GAMES AND DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION"; TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-21-3340, 12-21-3350, AND 12-21-3470, RELATING TO THE LICENSE AND PROMOTER'S LICENSE REQUIRED FOR BINGO OPERATIONS, AND PERSONS PROHIBITED TO CONDUCT OR ASSIST IN BINGO OPERATIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR APPLICANTS FOR SUCH LICENSES TO REFLECT CONVICTIONS WITHIN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS OF A FELONY, GAMBLING OFFENSE, CRIMINAL FRAUD, OR A CRIME FOR WHICH A SENTENCE OF TWO OR MORE YEARS MAY BE IMPOSED AND ALSO TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROHIBITION ON PERSONS CONDUCTING OR ASSISTING IN BINGO OPERATIONS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN OFFENSES APPLIES WHEN THE CONVICTION HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST TWENTY YEARS.
(R391) H. 4701 -- Rep. Worley: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 34-3-65 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO VISIT PUBLIC EVENTS AND COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPENING DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS SO LONG AS THE SPONSORING ORGANIZATION AGREES AND TO AMEND SECTION 34-3-320 RELATING TO EXAMINATIONS OF BANKS SO AS TO REQUIRE AN EXAMINATION EVERY TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS RATHER THAN EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
(R392) H. 4743 -- Reps. Cotty, Sheheen, Riser and Witherspoon: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 48-11-100, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF A WATERSHED CONSERVATION DISTRICT, SO AS TO CHANGE THE METHOD BY WHICH A CANDIDATE FOR WATERSHED DIRECTOR BECOMES QUALIFIED.
(R393) H. 4750 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, RELATING TO MEDICAL INSTITUTION VENDOR PAYMENTS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1881, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R394) H. 4751 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, RELATING TO MEDICAID, FAIR HEARINGS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1875, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R395) H. 4801 -- Rep. Meacham: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1356, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE FILE A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS AT THE TIME THE CANDIDATE FILES A DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY OR A PETITION FOR NOMINATION AND OTHER FILING REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO EXEMPT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION IF HE HAS A CURRENT STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS ON FILE WITH HIS SUPERVISORY OFFICE REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 8-13-1110 OR 8-13-1140.
(R396) H. 4830 -- Rep. Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 33, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CORPORATIONS, BY ADDING CHAPTER 44 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT OF 1996 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER, CONDITIONS, AND PROCEDURES UNDER WHICH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES SHALL BE OPERATED AND GOVERNED BEGINNING GENERALLY ON JANUARY 1, 2001, IN CONFORMITY WITH RECENT CHANGES IN FEDERAL REGULATORY DECISIONS REGARDING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-240, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION DISCLOSING TAXPAYER RECORDS AND REPORTS, SO AS TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AND TO REPEAL CHAPTER 43 OF TITLE 33 RELATING TO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2001.
(R397) H. 4847 -- Reps. Wilkins and Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-410, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTAIN COURTS' AUTHORITY TO GRANT A PROBATIONARY SENTENCE OR IMPOSE A FINE AND A PROBATIONARY SENTENCE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PROBATION IS A FORM OF CLEMENCY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-430, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION A COURT MAY IMPOSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON SERVICES SHALL DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPOSING CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION ON PROBATIONERS.
(R398) H. 4853 -- Rep. Wilkes: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 191 OF 1991, RELATING TO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD MUST BE ELECTED IN A NONPARTISAN ELECTION HELD AT THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, TO DELETE OBSOLETE PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE TERMS OF BOARD MEMBERS REPRESENTING DISTRICTS 2, 4, AND 6 ARE EXTENDED UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE ELECTED AND QUALIFY.
(R399) H. 4896 -- Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee: AN ACT TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, PILOTAGE COMMISSION, PORT OF PORT ROYAL, RELATING TO APPRENTICESHIP SELECTION PROCESS: PILOT AND APPRENTICE AGE LIMITS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1909, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
(R400) H. 4957 -- Reps. Harrell, Wilkins, Townsend, Kelly, Hutson, Limehouse, Cobb-Hunter, Wilder, Jennings, Howard, Stoddard, Lloyd, Knotts, Shissias, Herdklotz, Mason, H. Brown, Loftis, Govan, Neal, Law, Littlejohn, McElveen, Meacham, Cain, Kennedy, Hallman, J. Harris, Carnell, Dantzler, Cotty, Easterday, Walker, Young-Brickell, Klauber, Allison, R. Smith, Sheheen, Wells, Spearman, Stille, Sandifer, Sharpe, P. Harris, Riser, Tucker, Keegan, Stuart, Byrd, Chamblee, Neilson, Baxley, McCraw, Richardson, Koon, Gamble, J. Hines, Wofford, Wright, Vaughn, Keyserling, Jaskwhich, McMahand, Kinon, Askins, Rice, Waldrop, Seithel, M. Hines, Limbaugh, Harrison, Cato, Davenport, Hodges, Lanford, Thomas, Lee, J. Young, Fleming and Witherspoon: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING, BY ADDING ARTICLE 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF "PUBLIC EDUCATION: A GREAT INVESTMENT" LICENSE PLATES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE FEES COLLECTED.
(R401) H. 4962 -- Rep. Kinon: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES IN DILLON COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1996, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1997.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.
The following Bills and Joint Resolution 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. 4681 -- Rep. Koon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND THE PROVISION THAT SUCH CORPORATIONS AND ITS SECURITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CORPORATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CORPORATION LICENSE TAX OR FEE IMPOSED BY CHAPTER 20 OF TITLE 12; TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-250, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND THEIR POWERS, SO AS TO PERMIT THE BORROWING OF MONEY FROM "SUCH OTHER LENDING SOURCES WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION"; AND TO AMEND SECTION 33-37-460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LOANS TO SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS BY MEMBERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT SUCH LOANS MUST BEAR INTEREST AT A CERTAIN RATE.
Senator MATTHEWS asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.
There was no objection.
H. 4850 -- Reps. Loftis and Anderson: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAY OF JANUARY 12, 1996, MISSED BY THE STUDENTS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF GREENVILLE COUNTY WHEN THE DISTRICT'S SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO SNOW AND ICE CONDITIONS IS EXEMPTED FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.
H. 4542 -- Reps. Klauber, Herdklotz, Simrill, McCraw, Richardson, Shissias, J. Young and Jaskwhich: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-56-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SETOFF DEBT COLLECTION ACT, SO AS TO INCLUDE MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, AND REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "CLAIMANT AGENCY".
H. 4979 -- Reps. Carnell, McAbee, Boan, Hallman and Keegan: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO REVISE EXISTING BOND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND MARINE RESOURCES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
H. 4443 -- Reps. Wright, Richardson, Cooper, Townsend, Allison, Littlejohn, Kelley and Jaskwhich: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 40 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHARTER SCHOOL ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A CHARTER SCHOOL SHALL BE FORMED, FUNDED, REGULATED, AND GOVERNED, AND TO ESTABLISH A CHARTER SCHOOLS REVIEW COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ACT.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Education.
The Education Committee proposed the following amendment (S-EDUC\4443.1), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the title and inserting:
/Whereas, the General Assembly desires to provide an opportunity for the organization and operation of flexible, innovative, and substantially deregulated public schools as part of its effort to reform and improve the state's educational system; and
Whereas, it is believed that charter schools are a way to provide flexible, innovative, and substantially deregulated public schools with full accountability for student achievement; and
Whereas, the General Assembly will not allow greater flexibility and deregulation to result in segregation of students by race, gender, ethnic background, income, disability, or religious belief, whether in public charter schools or in public noncharter schools; and
Whereas, the General Assembly desires to foster cooperation among parents, teachers, local school districts, and charter schools. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. The General Assembly hereby makes the following findings and declarations:
(1) it desires to provide all children with schools that reflect high expectations and to create conditions in all schools where these expectations can be met;
(2) the strengthening of the performance of elementary and secondary public school pupils can be achieved by education decisions made by those who know the students best and who are responsible for implementing the decisions;
(3) parents and educators have a right and a responsibility to participate in the education institutions which serve them; and
(4) different pupils learn differently and public school programs should be designed to fit the needs of individual pupils, and there are educators, citizens, and parents in South Carolina who are willing and able to offer innovative programs, educational techniques, and environments.
SECTION 2. Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 59-40-10. This chapter is known and may be cited as the 'South Carolina Charter Schools Act of 1996'.
Section 59-40-20. This chapter is enacted to:
(1) improve student learning;
(2) increase learning opportunities for students;
(3) encourage the use of a variety of productive teaching methods;
(4) establish new forms of accountability for schools;
(5) create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site; and
(6) assist South Carolina in reaching academic excellence.
Section 59-40-30. In authorizing charter schools, it is the intent of the General Assembly to create a legitimate avenue for parents, teachers, and community members to take responsible risks and create new, innovative, and more flexible ways of educating all children within the public school system. The General Assembly seeks to create an atmosphere in South Carolina's public school systems where research and development in producing different learning opportunities is actively pursued, and where classroom teachers are given the flexibility to innovate and the responsibility to be accountable. As such, the provisions of this chapter should be interpreted liberally to support the findings and goals of this chapter and to advance a renewed commitment by the State of South Carolina to the mission, goals, and diversity of public education.
Section 59-40-40. As used in this chapter:
(1) A 'charter school' means a public, nonsectarian, nonreligious, nonhome-based, nonprofit corporation forming a school which operates within a public school district, but is accountable to the local school board of trustees of that district, which grants its charter.
(2) A charter school:
(a) is considered a public school and part of the school district in which it is located for the purposes of state law and the state constitution;
(b) is subject to all federal and state laws and constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, gender, national origin, religion, ancestry, or need for special education services;
(c) must be administered and governed by a governing body in a manner agreed to by the charter school applicant and the sponsor, the governing body to be selected in the manner provided in Section 59-40-50(B)(8);
(d) shall not charge tuition or other charges of any kind except as may be allowed by the sponsor.
(3) 'Applicant' means the person who desires to form a charter school and files the necessary application therefor with the local school board of trustees. The applicant also must be the person who applies to the Secretary of State to organize the charter school as a nonprofit corporation.
(4) 'Sponsor' means the local school board of trustees established as provided by law, from which the charter school applicant requested its charter, and which granted approval for the charter school's existence.
(5) 'Certified teacher' means a person certified by the State of South Carolina to teach in a public elementary or secondary school.
(6) 'Noncertified teacher' means an individual considered appropriately qualified for the subject matter taught, and who has been approved by the charter committee of the school.
(7) 'Charter committee' means the governing body of a charter school and also shall be the board of directors of the corporation which must be organized.
Section 59-40-50. (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a charter school is exempt from all provisions of law and regulations applicable to a public school, a school board, or a district, although a charter school may elect to comply with one or more of these provisions of law or regulations.
(B) A charter school shall:
(1) adhere to the same health, safety, civil rights, and disability rights requirements as are applied to public schools operating in the same school district;
(2) meet, but may exceed, the same minimum student attendance requirements as are applied to public schools operating in the same district;
(3) adhere to the same financial audits, audit procedures, and audit requirements as are applied to public schools operating in the same school district;
(4) be considered a school district for purposes of tort liability under South Carolina law, except that the tort immunity shall not include acts of intentional or wilful racial discrimination by the governing body or employees of the charter school. Employees of charter schools shall be relieved of personal liability for any tort or contract related to their school to the same extent that employees of traditional public schools in their school district are relieved;
(5) in its discretion hire noncertified teachers in a ratio of up to twenty-five percent of its entire teacher staff. Part-time noncertified teachers shall be considered pro rata in calculating this percentage based on the hours which they are expected to teach;
(6) admit all children eligible to attend public school in a school district who are eligible to apply for admission to a charter school operating in that school district, subject to space limitations. If the number of applications exceeds the capacity of a program, class, grade level, or building, students shall be accepted by lot, and there is no appeal to the sponsor;
(7) not limit or deny admission or show preference in admission decisions to any individual or group of individuals; provided, however, that a charter school may give enrollment priority to a sibling of a pupil already enrolled and children of a charter school employee;
(8) elect its governing body annually. All employees of the charter school and all parents or guardians of students enrolled in the charter school shall be eligible to participate in the election. Parents or guardians of a student shall have one vote for each student enrolled in the charter school. At all times, the governing body of the charter school shall include one or more teachers;
(9) be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, including the charter school and its governing body.
(C)(1) If a charter school denies admission to a student, the student may appeal the denial to the school board of trustees. The decision shall be binding on the student and the charter school.
(2) If a charter school suspends or expels a student, the school district shall have the authority but not the obligation to refuse admission to the student.
(3) The sponsor shall have no obligation to provide extracurricular activities or access to facilities of the school district for students enrolled in the charter school.
Section 59-40-60. (A) An approved charter application constitutes an agreement, and the terms shall be the terms of a contract between the charter school and the sponsor.
(B) The contract between the charter school and the sponsor shall reflect all agreements regarding the release of the charter school from local school district policies.
(C) A material revision of the terms of the contract between the charter school and the approving board may be made only with the approval of both parties.
(D) Except as provided in subsection (F), an applicant who wishes to form a charter school shall:
(1) organize the charter school as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of this State;
(2) elect a charter committee for the charter school which includes one or more teachers;
(3) submit a written charter school application to the local school board of trustees for the school district in which the charter school will be located.
(E) A charter committee shall be responsible for and have the power to:
(1) submit an application to operate as a charter school, sign a charter school contract, and ensure compliance with all of the requirements for charter schools provided by law;
(2) employ and contract with teachers and nonteaching employees, contract for other services, and develop pay scales, performance criteria, and discharge policies for its employees. All teachers whether certified or noncertified must undergo the background checks and other investigations required for certified teachers as provided by law before they may teach in the charter school; and
(3) decide all other matters related to the operation of the charter school, including budgeting, curriculum, and operating procedures.
(F) The charter school application shall be a proposed contract and shall include:
(1) the mission statement of the charter school, which must be consistent with the principles of the General Assembly's purposes as set forth in Section 59-40-20;
(2) the goals, objectives, and pupil achievement standards to be achieved by the charter school, and a description of the charter schools admission policies and procedures;
(3) evidence that an adequate number of parents, teachers, pupils, or any combination thereof support the formation of a charter school;
(4) a description of the charter school's educational program, pupil achievement standards, and curriculum, which must meet or exceed any content standards adopted by the school district in which the charter school is located and must be designed to enable each pupil to achieve these standards;
(5) a description of the charter school's plan for evaluating pupil achievement and progress toward accomplishment of the school's achievement standards in addition to state assessments, the timeline for meeting these standards, and the procedures for taking corrective action in the event that pupil achievement falls below the standards;
(6) evidence that the plan for the charter school is economically sound, a proposed budget for the term of the charter, a description of the manner in which an annual audit of the financial and administrative operations of the charter school, including any services provided by the school district, is to be conducted;
(7) a description of the governance and operation of the charter school, including the nature and extent of parental, professional educator, and community involvement in the governance and operation of the charter school;
(8) a description of how the charter school plans to meet the transportation needs of its pupils;
(9) a description of the building, facilities, and equipment and how they shall be obtained;
(10) an explanation of the relationship that shall exist between the proposed charter school and its employees, including descriptions of evaluation procedures and evidence that the terms and conditions of employment have been addressed with affected employees;
(11) a description of a reasonable grievance and termination procedure as required by this chapter, including notice and a hearing before the governing body of the charter school. The application shall state whether or not the provisions of Article 5, Chapter 25 of Title 59 will apply to the employment and dismissal of teachers at the charter school;
(12) a description of student rights and responsibilities, including behavior and discipline standards, and a reasonable hearing procedure, including notice and a hearing before the board of directors of the charter school prior to expulsion;
(13) an assumption of liability by the charter school for the activities of the charter school and an agreement that the charter school will indemnify and hold harmless the school district, its servants, agents, and employees, from any and all liability, damage, expense, causes of action, suits, claims, or judgments arising from injury to persons or property or otherwise which arises out of the act, failure to act or negligence of the charter school, its agents and employees, in connection with or arising out of the activity of the charter school; and
(14) a description of the types and amounts of insurance coverage to be obtained by the charter school.
Section 59-40-70. (A) The local school board may establish a schedule for receiving applications from charter schools and shall make a copy of any schedule available to all interested parties upon request. If the local school board finds the charter school application is incomplete or fails to meet the spirit and intent of this chapter, it immediately shall request the necessary information from the charter applicant.
(B) After giving reasonable public notice, the local school board shall hold community meetings in the affected areas or the entire school district to obtain information to assist it in their decision to grant a charter school application. The local school board shall rule on the application for a charter school in a public hearing, upon reasonable public notice, within ninety days after receiving the application. If there is no ruling within ninety days, the application is considered approved.
(C) A local school board of trustees shall only deny an application if the application does not meet the requirements specified in Section 59-40-50 or 59-40-60, fails to meet the spirit and intent of this chapter, or adversely affects other students in the district. It shall provide, within ten days, a written explanation of the reasons for denial, citing specific provisions of Section 59-40-50 or 59-40-60 that the application violates. This written explanation immediately shall be sent to the charter committee and filed with the State Board of Education.
(D) If the local school board of trustees denies a charter school application, the charter applicant may amend its application to conform with the reasons for denial and reapply to the local board, which has thirty days to approve or deny the application, or may appeal the denial to the State Board of Education pursuant to Section 59-40-90.
(E) If the local school board approves the application, it becomes the charter school's sponsor and shall sign the approved application which shall constitute a contract with the charter committee of the charter school. A copy of the charter shall be filed with the State Board of Education.
Section 59-40-80. A local school board may conditionally authorize a charter school before the applicant has secured its space, equipment, facilities, and personnel if the applicant indicates such authority is necessary for it to meet the requirements of this chapter. Conditional authorization does not give rise to any equitable or other claims based on reliance, notwithstanding any promise, parol, written, or otherwise, contained in the authorization or acceptance of it, whether preceding or following the conditional authorization.
Section 59-40-90 (A) The State Board of Education, upon receipt of a notice of appeal or upon its own motion, shall review a decision of any local school board of trustees concerning charter schools in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(B) A charter applicant who wishes to appeal an adverse decision shall provide the State Board of Education and the local school board of trustees with a notice of appeal within ten days of the local board's decision.
(C) If the notice of appeal or the motion to review by the State Board of Education relates to a local board's decision to deny, refuse to renew, or revoke a charter, the appeal and review process shall be:
(1) within thirty days after receipt of the notice of appeal or the making of a motion to review by the State Board of Education and after reasonable public notice, the State Board of Education, at a public hearing which may be held in the district where the proposed charter school is located, shall review the decision of the local school board of trustees and make its findings known. The state board may affirm, reverse, or remand the application for action by the local board in accordance with an order of the state board. If the state board remands the application, it shall do so with written instructions for reconsideration. These instructions shall include specific recommendations concerning the matters requiring reconsideration;
(2) within thirty days following the remand of a decision to the local board of trustees and with reasonable public notice, the local school board of trustees, at a public hearing, shall reconsider its decision and make a final decision. No further administrative appeal may be taken from this decision. However, any final decision of the local school board of trustees after remand from the state board or a final decision of the state board may be appealed by any party to the circuit court for the county in which the proposed charter school is or was to have located.
Section 59-40-100. (A) An existing public school may be converted into a charter school if two-thirds of the faculty and instructional staff employed at the school and two-thirds of all parents or legal guardians of students enrolled in the school agree to the filing of an application with the local school board of trustees for the conversion and formation of that school into a charter school. The application shall be submitted by the principal of that school or his designee who shall be deemed the applicant. The application shall include all information required of other applications under this chapter. The local school board of trustees shall approve or disapprove this application in the same manner it approves or disapproves other applications.
(B) A converted charter school shall offer at least the same grades, or nongraded education appropriate for the same ages and education levels of pupils, as offered by the school immediately before conversion, and also may provide additional grades and further educational offerings.
(C) Teachers and other employees of a converted school who desire to teach or work at the converted school may do so but shall remain employees of the local school district with the same compensation and benefits including any future increases therein. The converted charter school quarterly shall reimburse the local school district for the compensation and employer contribution benefits paid to or on behalf of these teachers and employees. The provisions of Article 5, Chapter 25 of Title 59 will apply to the employment and dismissal of teachers at a converted school.
Section 59-40-110. (A) A charter may be approved or renewed for a period not to exceed three school years.
(B) A charter renewal application shall be submitted to the school's sponsor, and it shall contain:
(1) a report on the progress of the charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, pupil achievement standards, and other terms of the initially approved charter application; and
(2) a financial statement that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories for the charter school that is understandable to the general public and that will allow comparison of these costs to other schools or other comparable organizations, in a format required by the State Board of Education.
(C) A charter may be revoked or not renewed by the sponsor if it determines that the charter school:
(1) committed a material violation of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter application;
(2) failed to meet or make reasonable progress toward pupil achievement standards identified in the charter application;
(3) failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or
(4) violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.
(D) At least sixty days before not renewing or terminating a charter school, the sponsor shall notify the charter school's governing body of the proposed action in writing. The notification shall state the grounds for the proposed action in reasonable detail. Termination must follow the procedure set forth herein.
(E) The charter school's governing body may request in writing a hearing before the sponsor within fourteen days of receiving notice of nonrenewal or termination of the charter. Failure by the school's governing body to make a written request for a hearing within fourteen days shall be treated as acquiescence to the proposed action. Upon receiving a timely written request for a hearing, the sponsor shall give reasonable notice to the school's governing body of the hearing date. The sponsor shall conduct a hearing before taking final action. The sponsor shall take final action to renew or not renew a charter by the last day of classes in the last school year for which the charter school is authorized.
(F) A decision to revoke or not to renew a charter school may be appealed to the state board pursuant to the provisions of Section 59-40-90.
Section 59-40-120. Upon dissolution of a charter school, its assets may not inure to the benefit of any private person. Any assets obtained through restricted agreements with a donor through awards, grants, or gifts shall be returned to that entity. All other assets become property of the sponsor.
Section 59-40-130. (A) If an employee of a local school district makes a written request for a leave to be employed at a charter school, the school district shall grant the leave for up to five years as requested by the employee, and may extend the leave for up to five years at the employee's request. The school district may require that the request for leave or extension of leave be made by the date under state law for the return of teachers' contracts. Employees may return to employment with the local school district at its option with the same teaching or administrative contract status as when they left, but without assurance as to the school or supplemental position to which they may be assigned.
(B) During a leave, the employee may continue to accrue benefits and credits in the South Carolina Retirement System by paying the employee contributions based upon the annual salary of the employee, and the charter school shall pay the employer contribution. The South Carolina Retirement System may impose reasonable requirements to administer this section.
(C) The provisions of this section do not apply to teachers and other employees of a converted school whose employment relation shall be governed by Section 59-40-100(C).
Section 59-40-140. (A) A sponsor shall distribute state, county, and school district funds to a charter school as determined by the following formula: The previous year's audited total general fund expenditures including capital outlay and maintenance, but not including expenditures from bonded indebtedness or debt repayment shall be divided by the previous year's weighted students, then increased by the Education Finance Act inflation factor, pursuant to Section 59-20-40, for the years following the audited expenditures, then multiplied by the weighted students enrolled in the charter school, which will be subject to adjustment for student attendance and state budget allocations based on the same criteria as the local school district. All state and local funding shall be distributed by the local school district to the charter school monthly beginning July first following approval of the charter school application.
(B) During the year of the charter school's operation, as received, and to the extent allowed by federal law, a sponsor shall distribute to the charter school federal funds which are allocated to the local school district on the basis of the number of special characteristics of the students attending the charter school.
(C) Notwithstanding subsection (B), the proportionate share of state and federal resources generated by students with disabilities or staff serving them shall be directed to charter schools. The proportionate share of funds generated under other federal or state categorical aid programs shall be directed to charter schools serving students eligible for the aid.
(D) All services centrally or otherwise provided by the school district, if any, including, but not limited to, food services, custodial services, maintenance, curriculum, media services, libraries, and warehousing are subject to negotiation between a charter school and the school district.
(E) All awards, grants, or gifts collected by a charter school shall be retained by the charter school.
(F) The governing body of a charter school is authorized to accept gifts, donations, or grants of any kind made to the charter school and to expend or use the gifts, donations, or grants in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the donor. No gifts or donation shall be a requirement for admission. However, no gift, donation, or grant may be accepted by the governing board if subject to any condition contrary to law or contrary to the terms of the contract between the charter school and the governing body.
(G) A charter school shall report to its sponsor and the Department of Education any change to information provided under its application. In addition, a charter school shall report at least annually to its sponsor and the department all information required by the sponsor or the department and including, at a minimum, the number of students enrolled in the charter school, the success of students in achieving the specific educational goals for which the charter school was established, and the identity and certification status of the teaching staff.
(H) The sponsor shall provide technical assistance to persons and groups preparing or revising charter applications at no expense.
(I) Charter schools may acquire by gift, devise, purchase, lease, sublease, installment purchase agreement, land contract, option, or by any other means, and hold and own in its own name buildings or other property for school purposes, and interests in it which are necessary or convenient to fulfill its purposes.
(J) Charter schools are exempt from all state and local taxation, except the sales tax, on their earnings and property. Instruments of conveyance to or from a charter school are exempt from all types of taxation of local or state taxes and transfer fees.
Section 59-40-150. (A) The Department of Education shall disseminate information to the public, directly and through sponsors, on how to form and operate a charter school and how to utilize the offerings of a charter school.
(B) At least annually, the department shall provide upon request a directory of all charter schools authorized under this chapter with information concerning the educational goals of each charter school, the success of each charter school in meeting its educational goals, and procedures to apply for admission to each charter school.
(C) The department shall bear the cost of complying with this section.
Section 59-40-160. (A) The State Board of Education shall compile evaluations of charter schools received from local school boards of trustees. They shall review information regarding the regulations and policies from which charter schools were released to determine if the releases assisted or impeded the charter schools in meeting their stated goals and objectives.
(B) The State Board of Education shall review the implementation and effectiveness of this chapter, review comprehensive reports issued by local school boards concerning successes or failures of charter schools, report to the Governor and General Assembly interim results by July 1, 1998, and issue a final report and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly during the fifth year after the effective date of this chapter.
(C) In preparing the report required by this section, the State Board of Education shall compare the academic performance of charter school pupils with the performance of ethnically and economically comparable groups of pupils in other public schools who are enrolled in academically comparable courses.
Section 59-40-170. The Department of Education, in conjunction with the Budget and Control Board, shall publish annually a list of vacant and unused buildings and vacant and unused portions of buildings that are owned by this State or by school districts in this State and that may be suitable for the operation of a charter school. The department shall make the list available to applicants for charter schools and to existing charter schools. The list shall include the address of each building, a short description of the building, and the name of the owner of the building. Nothing in this section requires the owner of a building on the list to sell or lease the building or a portion of the building to a charter school or to any other school or to any other prospective buyer or tenant.
Section 59-40-180. The State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.
Section 59-40-190. (A) The governing body of a charter school may sue and be sued. The governing body may not levy taxes or issue bonds.
(B) A sponsor is not liable for any of the debts of the charter school.
(C) A sponsor, members of the board of a sponsor, and employees of a sponsor acting in their official capacity are immune from civil or criminal liability with respect to all activities related to a charter school they sponsor. The governing body of a charter school shall obtain at least the amount of and types of insurance required for this purpose."
SECTION 3. This act takes effect July 1, 1996./
Amend title to conform.
Senator BRYAN explained the amendment.
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.
H. 4803 -- Reps. Harrison and Wilkins: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17, ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OR RETIREMENT OF JUDGES, SO AS TO PERMIT THE SUPREME COURT TO REMOVE ANY JUDGE WITHIN THE UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM FROM OFFICE FOR MISCONDUCT, BREACH OF ANY ETHICAL OBLIGATION, HABITUAL INTEMPERANCE, OR PERSISTENT FAILURE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE, AND ALSO TO PERMIT THE SUPREME COURT TO REMOVE OR RETIRE ANY JUDGE FROM OFFICE UPON A FINDING OF MENTAL OR PHYSICAL INCAPACITY RATHER THAN DISABILITY WHICH SERIOUSLY INTERFERES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES WHICH IS OR IS LIKELY TO BECOME PERMANENT.
Senator BRYAN asked unanimous consent to take the Resolution up for immediate consideration.
There was no objection.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Resolution. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.
The Judiciary Committee proposed the following amendment (JUD4803.001), which was adopted:
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, page 1, line 35, in Section 17, Article V, as contained in SECTION 1, by striking /habitual intemperance,/
Amend the joint resolution further, as and if amended, page 2, line 2, in Section 17, Article V, as contained in SECTION 1, by inserting after the word /Constitution/ the following:
/nor is the General Assembly, in a judicial impeachment proceeding, bound by the Supreme Court's findings of fact or conclusions of law made in a removal proceeding under this section/.
Amend title to conform.
There being no further amendments, the Resolution was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar with notice of general amendments.
H. 4796 -- Reps. Fulmer, Koon, Harvin, Carnell, Robinson, Stuart, Seithel, Shissias, Limehouse, Hallman, Harrell and Cotty: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-37-2810, 12-37-2820, 12-37-2830, 12-37-2840, 12-37-2850, 12-37-2860, 12-37-2870, AND 12-37-2880 SO AS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ANNUALLY SHALL ASSESS, EQUALIZE, AND APPORTION THE VALUATION OF ALL MOTOR CARRIER VEHICLES, THAT THE VALUE OF MOTOR CARRIER VEHICLES SUBJECT TO PROPERTY TAX MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THAT THIS PROPERTY TAX MUST BE PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT ANNUALLY, THE METHOD THAT THE TAXES MUST BE DISBURSED, THAT IN LIEU OF THE PROPERTY TAX AND REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, A ONE-TIME FEE MAY BE PAID UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS FEE, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAXES FOR CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senator LAND proposed the following amendment (JIC\6035HTC.96), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking Sections 12-37-2860 and 12-37-2870, as contained in SECTION 1, page 3, and inserting:
/Section 12-37-2860. In lieu of the property taxes and registration requirements after the initial registration on semitrailers and trailers, a one-time fee of eighty-seven dollars is due on all semitrailers and trailers currently registered and subsequently on each semitrailer and trailer before being placed in service. Twelve dollars of the one-time fee must be distributed to the Department of Public Safety. The remaining seventy-five dollars of the fee must be distributed based on the distribution formula contained in Section 12-37-2870.
Section 12-37-2870. The distribution for each county must be determined on the ratio of total federal and state highway miles within each county during the preceding calendar year to the total federal and state highway miles within all counties of this State during the same preceding calendar year. The county must distribute the revenue from the payment-in-lieu of taxes received pursuant to this section to every governmental entity levying a property tax in the manner set forth below. For each governmental entity levying a property tax, the entire assessed value of the taxable property within its boundaries and the county area must be multiplied by the millage rate imposed by the governmental entity. That figure constitutes the numerator for that governmental entity. The total of the numerators for all property tax levying entities within the county area constitutes the denominator. The numerator for each governmental entity must be divided by the denominator. The resulting percentage must be multiplied by the payment-in-lieu of tax revenue received pursuant to this section and that amount distributed to the general fund of the appropriate governmental entity./
Amend further, SECTION 2, page 3, line 39, by striking /1997/ and inserting /1998/.
Amend further, SECTION 3, page 3, line 43, by striking /1997/ and inserting /1998/.
Amend further, SECTION 4, page 4, line 2, by striking /1996/ and inserting /1997/.
Amend title to conform.
Senator LAND explained the amendment.
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.
H. 4818 -- Reps. Harrison, Sheheen, Whatley, Tucker, Spearman, Rice, Herdklotz, Seithel, Young-Brickell, Stuart, Wilkins, Knotts, Klauber, Wofford, Fleming, Chamblee, D. Smith, Sandifer, Cain, Riser, Meacham, Cato, Robinson, H. Brown and Wright: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-600, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAKING A CHILD INTO CUSTODY FOR VIOLATING THE LAW, SO AS TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR DETENTION IN A SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC TIME FRAMES FOR REVIEW OF A JUVENILE IN A DETENTION FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-780, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF JUVENILE RECORDS, FINGERPRINTS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A JUVENILE MAY BE FINGERPRINTED AND TO EXPAND THE USE OF FINGERPRINTS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND TRANSFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COURT MAY WAIVE THE TEMPORARY COMMITMENT OF A CHILD TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR EVALUATION.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senator THOMAS proposed the following amendment (JUD4818.001), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
/SECTION 1. Section 20-7-600(F) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 1995, is further amended to read:
"(F) When the officer who took the child into custody determines that placement of a juvenile outside the home is necessary, the authorized representative of the Department of Juvenile Justice shall make a diligent effort to place the child in an approved home, program, or facility, other than a secure juvenile detention facility, when these alternatives are appropriate and available. A child is eligible for detention in a secure juvenile detention facility only if the child:
(1) is charged with a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60;
(2) is charged with a crime which, if committed by an adult, would be a felony other than a violent crime, and the child:
(a) is already detained or on probation or conditional release in connection with another delinquency proceeding;
(b) has a demonstrable recent record of wilful failures to appear at court proceedings;
(c) has a demonstrable recent record of violent conduct resulting in physical injury to others; or
(d) has a demonstrable recent record of adjudications for other felonies; and:
(i) there is reason to believe the child is a flight risk or poses a threat of serious harm to others; or
(ii) the instant offense involved the use of a firearm;
(3) is a fugitive from another jurisdiction;
(4) requests protection in writing under circumstances that present an immediate threat of serious physical injury;
(5) had in his possession a deadly weapon;
(6) has a demonstrable recent record of wilful failure to comply with prior placement orders including, but not limited to, a house arrest order.;
(7) has no suitable alternative placement and it is determined that detention is in the child's best interest or is necessary to protect the child or public, or both.
A child who meets the criteria provided in this subsection is eligible for detention. Detention is not mandatory for a child meeting the criteria if that child can be supervised adequately at home or in a less secure setting or program. If the officer does not consent to the release of the child, the parents or other responsible adult may apply to any judge of the family court within the circuit for an ex parte order of release of the child. The officer's written report must be furnished to the family court judge. The family court judge who may establish conditions for such release."
SECTION 2. Section 20-7-600(H) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 1995, is further amended to read:
"(H) If the officer who took the child into custody has not released the child to the custody of his the child's parents or other responsible adult, the court shall must hold a detention hearing within forty-eight hours from the time the child was taken into custody, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. At this hearing, the authorized representative of the department shall submit to the court a report stating the facts surrounding the case and a recommendation as to the child's continued detention pending the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. The court shall appoint counsel for the child if none is retained. No child may proceed without counsel in this hearing, unless the child waives the right to counsel, and then only after consulting at least once with an attorney. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court shall determine whether probable cause exists to justify the detention of the child as well as determining and the appropriateness of, and need for, the child's continued detention. If continued detention of a juvenile is considered appropriate by the court and if a juvenile detention facility exists in that county which meets state and federal requirements for the secure detention of juveniles, or if that facility exists in another county with which the committing county has a contract for the secure detention of its juveniles, and if commitment of a juvenile by the court to that facility does not cause it the facility to exceed its design and operational capacity, the family court shall order the detention of the juvenile in that facility. Periodic reviews of the detention order must be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice in a family court. However, a A juvenile must not be detained in secure confinement in excess of ninety days except in exceptional circumstances as determined by the court. A detained juvenile is entitled to further and periodic review:
(1) within ten days following the juvenile's initial detention hearing;
(2) within thirty days following the ten-day hearing; and
(3) at any other time for good cause shown upon motion of the child, the State, or the department.
If the child does not qualify for detention or otherwise require continued detention under the terms of subsection (F), the child must be released to a parent, guardian, or other responsible person."
SECTION 3. The last paragraph of Section 20-7-780(C) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 7 of 1995, is further amended to read:
"The Department of Juvenile Justice may fingerprint and photograph a juvenile upon the filing of a petition, release from detention, release on house arrest, or commitment to a juvenile correctional institution. Fingerprints and photographs taken by the department of Juvenile Justice remain confidential and must not be transmitted to the State Law Enforcement Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or another agency or person, except for the purpose of aiding the department in apprehending an escapee from the department, assisting the Missing Persons Information Center in the location or and identification of a missing or runaway child, in locating and identifying a child who fails to appear in court as summoned or who is the subject of a house arrest order, or except as otherwise provided in this section."
SECTION 4. Section 20-7-2170(D) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 83 of 1995, is further amended to read:
"(D) The court, before committing a child as a delinquent or as a part of a sentence including commitments for contempt, first temporarily shall commit temporarily the child to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a period not to exceed more than forty-five days for evaluation, and the department shall make a recommendation to the court before final commitment disposition. The committing judge court may waive in writing temporary commitment for evaluation if the child in cases where:
(1) the child concerned either, within the past year, has been evaluated by a center and the evaluation is available to the court; or
(2) has been, within the past year, temporarily or finally discharged or conditionally released or paroled for parole from a correctional institution of the department of Juvenile Justice, and the child's previous evaluation or other equivalent information is available to the court.; or
(3) receives a determinate commitment sentence not to exceed ninety days.
All commitments to the custody of the department of Juvenile Justice for delinquency as opposed to the conviction of a specific crime may be made only for the reasons and in the manner prescribed in Sections 20-7-400, 20-7-410, 20-7-430, 20-7-460, 20-7-600, 20-7-620, 20-7-740, 20-7-750, 20-7-760, 20-7-770, 20-7-780, 20-7-1330, 20-7-1340, and 20-7-1520, with evaluations made and proceedings conducted only by the judges authorized to order commitments in this section. When a child is committed to the custody of the department under the proceedings, commitment must be for an indeterminate sentence, not extending beyond the twenty-first birthday of the child unless sooner released by the department, or for a determinate commitment sentence not to exceed ninety days."
SECTION 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./.
Amend title to conform.
Senator THOMAS explained the amendment.
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.
H. 3905 -- Reps. Wright, Quinn and Riser: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-63-45 SO AS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR REIMBURSING A SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR COSTS TO THE DISTRICT OF EDUCATING A CHILD NOT A RESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HE ATTENDS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Education.
The Education Committee proposed the following amendment (S-EDUC\3905.1), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, on page 1, line 26 by striking:
/the cost of educating the child, as determined annually by the district,/ and inserting:
/the prior year's local revenue per child raised by the millage levied for school district operations and debt service/.
Amend title to conform.
Senator LANDER explained the amendment.
Senators LANDER, COURSON, SETZLER and WILSON proposed the following Amendment No. 1 (S-EDUC\3905.3), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, on page 1, line 37 by adding a new subsection to read:
/(D) Any nonresident student enrolled in the schools of a district no later than September 9, 1996, shall not be required to meet the conditions of subsection (A) of this section as long as the student is continuously enrolled in the district and as long as the student meets the qualifications provided by law for attending the schools of the district./.
Amend title to conform.
There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time and ordered placed on the third reading Calendar.
On motion of Senator COURSON, H. 3905 was ordered to receive a third reading on Wednesday, May 15, 1996.
H. 4782 -- Rep. Easterday: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 37-5-203, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, DEBTORS' REMEDIES, AND CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPOSE CIVIL LIABILITY OR PENALTIES ON AN ARRANGER OF CREDIT WHEN DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTING A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRUTH IN LENDING ACT IS ACTUALLY COMMITTED BY ANOTHER PERSON AND THE ARRANGER OF THE CREDIT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIOLATION WHEN IT OCCURRED, AND TO REQUIRE THE CREDITOR TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE FINAL CLOSING DOCUMENTS TO THE ARRANGER OF CREDIT; TO AMEND SECTION 40-58-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ON THE REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS, SO AS TO DEFINE "REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS", "SATELLITE OFFICE", AND "TABLE-FUNDED TRANSACTION", AND TO MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF "EXEMPT PERSON OR ORGANIZATION"; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 40-58-35 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER MAY CONTRACT FOR AND RECEIVE A LOAN BROKER'S FEE AS SET FORTH IN THE BROKER'S FEE AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT, AND PERMIT THE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE A NONREFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-58-65, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS, RECORDS, CONFIDENTIALITY, THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF A MORTGAGE BROKER IN THE STATE, AND OFFICIAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, SO AS TO PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT A REGISTERED MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER WITH AN OFFICIAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA ALSO MAY MAINTAIN ONE OR MORE SATELLITE OFFICES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-58-110, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF MORTGAGE LOAN BROKERS, FIRST TIME REGISTRANTS' PROCESSING FEES, AND ANNUAL RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A BROKER SHALL PAY AN INITIAL FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS WHEN REGISTERING EACH SATELLITE LOCATION AND THAT THERE SHALL BE NO RENEWAL FEE CHARGED A SATELLITE OFFICE, REQUIRE THE BROKER TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF TEN DAYS BEFORE THE OPENING OF A NEW, OFFICIAL BRANCH OR SATELLITE LOCATION, AND PROVIDE THAT NO FEE IS REQUIRED WHEN THE REGISTRANT GIVES NOTICE OF A CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR AN OFFICIAL BRANCH OR SATELLITE LOCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 37-10-102, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, MISCELLANEOUS LOAN PROVISIONS, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER CHARGES ON MORTGAGE LOANS FOR PERSONAL, FAMILY, OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND PROVIDE INSTEAD THAT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN SOUTH CAROLINA MUST BE INVOLVED IN THE CLOSING OF THE LOAN FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE TITLE INSURANCE MUST BE ISSUED THROUGH A TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY LICENSED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE LENDER; AND TO AMEND SECTION 37-3-201, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, LOANS, MAXIMUM CHARGES, AND THE LOAN FINANCE CHARGE FOR CONSUMER LOANS OTHER THAN SUPERVISED LOANS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A MORTGAGE LOAN BROKER AS DEFINED IN SECTION 40-58-20.
Senator GIESE asked unanimous consent to make a motion to proceed to a consideration of the Bill.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senator SALEEBY explained the Bill.
Senator LEATHERMAN objected to further consideration of the Bill.
H. 3785 -- Reps. Sharpe, Knotts, Hutson, Limehouse, Littlejohn, A. Young, Whatley, Fleming, Bailey, Fair, Easterday, Allison, Meacham, Walker, Moody-Lawrence, R. Smith, Neal, Tripp, Neilson, Stille, Davenport, Witherspoon, Hines, Vaughn, Rice, Cato, Haskins, Sandifer, Shissias, Mason, Riser, J. Brown, Wright, Wofford, Richardson, J. Harris, Dantzler and Harrison: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 40, CHAPTER 30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MASSEURS AND MASSEUSES, TO ENACT THE MASSAGE PRACTICE ACT SO AS TO CREATE THE BOARD OF MASSAGE AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE AND RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE THERAPISTS; TO DEFINE ACTS OF MISCONDUCT AND TO PROVIDE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURES FOR MISCONDUCT, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES.
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\9151AC.96), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 40-30-20, page 1, by deleting line 42, and inserting:
/massage/bodywork therapists must have a knowledge of anatomy, kinesiology, and/.
Amend further, Section 40-30-30, page 2, by deleting item (8), and inserting:
/(8) 'Massage/bodywork therapy' means the application of a system of structured touch of the superficial tissues of the human body with the hand, foot, arm, or elbow whether or not the structured touch is aided by hydrotherapy, thermal therapy, a massage device, human hands, or the application to the human body of an herbal preparation./
Amend further, Section 40-30-30, page 3, by deleting item (10), and inserting:
/(10) 'Massage device' means a mechanical device which mimics or enhances the actions possible by the hands by means of vibration./
Amend further, page 3, by deleting Section 40-30-40, and inserting:
/Section 40-30-40. It is unlawful for any masseur or masseuse to treat a person of the opposite sex, except upon the signed order of a licensed physician, osteopath, or chiropractor, which order must be dated and shall specifically state the number of treatments, not to exceed ten. The date and hour of each treatment given and the name of the operator must be entered on the order by the establishment where the treatments are given and is subject to inspection by the division at any reasonable time. The requirements of this section do not apply to treatments given in the residence of a patient, the office of a licensed physician, osteopath, chiropractor, or in a regularly established and licensed hospital or sanitarium. (A) There is created the Advisory Panel for Massage/Bodywork under the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. The advisory panel consists of five members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the advisory panel must be licensed massage/bodywork therapists and must have been engaged in the practice of massage/bodywork for not fewer than three consecutive years before appointment to the advisory panel and must be appointed by the Governor. Each advisory panel member must be a high school graduate or shall have received a graduate equivalency diploma. Each advisory panel member must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for not fewer than five years.
(B) Nominations for appointment to the advisory panel may be submitted to the Governor from any individual, group, or association.
(C) Members serve a term of four years and until their successors are appointed and qualify. No member may serve more than two full or partial terms. A vacancy on the advisory panel must be filled in the manner of the original appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term.
(D) The Governor may remove a member of the advisory panel in accordance with Section 1-3-240./
Amend further, Section 40-30-65, page 5, by deleting subsection (A), and inserting:
/(A) There is created a Disciplinary Panel for Massage/Bodywork under the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. The disciplinary panel consists of five members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Three of the members of the disciplinary panel must be licensed massage/bodywork therapists and must have been engaged in the practice of massage/bodywork for not fewer than three consecutive years before appointment and must practice in this State. Two members of the disciplinary panel must be members of the general public who are not licensed massage/bodywork therapists and must not have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in the profession of massage/bodywork therapy. Each disciplinary panel member must be a high school graduate or shall have received a graduate equivalency diploma. Each disciplinary panel member must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for not fewer than five years./
Amend further, Section 40-30-100, page 7, by deleting lines 23-25, and inserting:
/the practice of physical therapy or chiropractic./
Amend further, Section 40-30-110, page 7, line 40, after /standards/ by inserting:
/recommended by the advisory panel/.
Amend further, Section 40-30-200, page 10, by deleting lines 14 and 15 and inserting:
/complaint is filed with the director charging the licensee with the violation of a provision of this chapter or a regulation, the director shall/.
Amend further, Section 40-30-240(2), page 12, by deleting lines 41-43, and inserting:
/(2) obtain records specifically relating to the mental or physical condition of an applicant or licensee who is the subject of an investigation authorized by item (1) and these records are admissible in a hearing before the/.
Amend further, Section 40-30-250(A), page 13, by deleting lines 23-39, and inserting:
/(1) issue a nondisciplinary letter of caution;
(2) issue a public reprimand;
(3) impose a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars;
(4) place the licensee on probation, restrict the license, or suspend the license for a definite or indefinite time and prescribe conditions to be met during probation, restriction, or suspension, respectively, including, but not limited to, satisfactory completion of additional education of a supervisory period or of continuing education programs as may be specified;
(5) permanently revoke the license./
Amend further, by deleting Section 40-30-320, page 16, and inserting:
/Section 40-30-320. Nothing in this chapter may be construed to prevent the teaching of massage/bodywork in this State at an approved massage/bodywork school./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator BRYAN explained the amendment.
On motion of Senator BRYAN, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4012 -- Reps. Townsend, Trotter and Stille: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 71 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE FOR FOREST PRODUCT HAULERS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-120, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM REGISTERING AND LICENSING VEHICLES, SO AS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN KNUCKLEBOOM LOADERS FROM REGISTRATION AND LICENSING; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4090, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LENGTH OF LOAD ON CERTAIN POLE TRAILERS AND CARRIERS, SO AS TO DELETE RESTRICTIONS TO THE HOURS CERTAIN VEHICLES CAN TRAVEL ON THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-4630, RELATING TO THE ATTACHMENT OF A LAMP OR FLAG ON LOADS EXTENDING CERTAIN LENGTHS BEYOND THE BED OR BODY OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, SO AS TO REVISE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE FLAG THAT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE LOAD; AND TO AMEND SECTION 58-23-50, RELATING TO CERTAIN FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT THE TRANSPORTATION OF LOGS FROM COMMISSION REGULATION.
On motion of Senator GIESE, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4795 -- Rep. Gamble: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 37-10-102, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER CHARGES ON MORTGAGE LOANS FOR PERSONAL, FAMILY, OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ATTORNEY'S PREFERENCE AND THE INSURANCE AGENT'S PREFERENCE OF THE BORROWER REQUIRED TO BE ASCERTAINED BY THE CREDITOR IN CONNECTION WITH THESE LOANS ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CREDITOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 37-10-105, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37-10-102 ABOVE RELATING TO THE ASCERTAINING OF THE ATTORNEY'S PREFERENCE AND THE INSURANCE AGENT'S PREFERENCE OF A BORROWER SHALL BE PUNISHED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 37-5-202 BELOW; AND TO AMEND SECTION 37-5-202, RELATING TO VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION CODE AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN REGARD THERETO INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES, SO AS TO INCLUDE THEREIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 37-10-102 IN REGARD TO ATTORNEY AND INSURANCE AGENT PREFERENCES.
On motion of Senator THOMAS, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4825 -- Rep. Boan: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TAX ON GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LICENSE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION IS IN LIEU OF ALL SALES, USE, OR OTHER EXCISE TAX WHICH MAY OTHERWISE BE IMPOSED BY ANY MUNICIPALITY, COUNTY, OR OTHER LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-720, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND PERFECTION OF THE EXEMPTION FOR IMPORTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE EXEMPTION FOR EXPORTS, RATHER THAN IMPORTS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-740, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND PERFECTION OF THE EXEMPTION FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE-OWNED BUSES AND VEHICLES USED IN AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, SO AS TO CHANGE A STATUTORY REFERENCE REGARDING A VENDOR'S MAKING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT PROVIDED FOR BY THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-795, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND INTEREST ON REFUND CLAIMS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF FILING, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PROVIDE THAT INTEREST ON A CLAIM FOR A REFUND MUST BE PAID AT THE RATE AND IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 12-54-25; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-905, RELATING TO THE TIME FOR PAYMENT OF THE MOTOR FUEL TAX ON GALLONS OF MOTOR FUEL IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER STATE, SO AS TO CHANGE CERTAIN STATUTORY REFERENCES WITHIN THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-915, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, THE TAX COLLECTED AND REMITTED BY THE SUPPLIER, DUE DATE, AND LATE TAXES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A SUPPLIER SHALL "GIVE NOTIFICATION OF", RATHER THAN "REMIT", LATE TAXES REMITTED TO THE SUPPLIER BY AN ELIGIBLE PURCHASER; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-925, RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF MOTOR FUEL TAX FROM A PURCHASER AND THE ELECTION TO DEFER THE TAX PAYMENT, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT FAILURE OF A SUPPLIER OR BONDED IMPORTER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-935, RELATING TO RECISION OF A PURCHASER'S ELIGIBILITY AND ELECTION TO DEFER PAYMENT OF THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, SO AS TO CHANGE A STATUTORY REFERENCE WITHIN THE CODE SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-940, RELATING TO COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF THE MOTOR FUEL TAX DUE, SO AS TO CHANGE A STATUTORY REFERENCE WITHIN THIS SECTION, AND TO SUBSTITUTE "CREDIT" FOR "DEDUCTION" IN ONE INSTANCE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-970, RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF A BACKUP TAX EQUAL TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 12-28-310, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE BACKUP TAX UPON THE DELIVERY IN THIS STATE INTO THE FUEL SUPPLY TANK OF A HIGHWAY VEHICLE OF "ALTERNATIVE FUELS"; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1130, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND THE TANK WAGON OPERATOR-IMPORTER LICENSE AND FEE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT "OPERATORS OF TANK WAGONS DELIVERING PRODUCTS", RATHER THAN "OPERATORS OF TANK WAGON DELIVERY PRODUCT", INTO THIS STATE MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE MILES FROM THE BORDER SHALL APPLY FOR AN IMPORTER'S LICENSE UNDER SECTION 12-28-1125; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1135, RELATING TO THE FUEL VENDOR LICENSE AND FEE, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SUBSTITUTE "TRANSPORTER" FOR "CARRIER" IN ONE INSTANCE AND CHANGE A STATUTORY REFERENCE; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-28-1139 SO AS TO REQUIRE EACH PERSON LIABLE FOR THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTIONS 12-28-970 AND 12-28-990(C) WHO IS NOT LICENSED UNDER SECTIONS 12-28-1100 THROUGH 12-28-1135 TO OBTAIN A MISCELLANEOUS FUEL TAX LICENSE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THERE IS NO REGISTRATION FEE FOR THIS LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1150, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, FINGERPRINTING, AND EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE TITLE OF AN AGENCY HEAD; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1155, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE UNDER CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12, MUST BE FILED WITH A SURETY BOND OR CASH DEPOSIT, SO AS TO ADD LANGUAGE TO A PROVISION OF THIS SECTION TO THE EFFECT THAT FUEL VENDORS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-28-1135, OTHER THAN PERSONS REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED UNDER PROVISIONS OTHER THAN IN THOSE SECTIONS, AND MISCELLANEOUS FUEL TAX LICENSEES DEFINED IN SECTION 12-28-1139, ARE EXEMPT FROM THE BONDING REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1180, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, NOTICE OF PROPOSED DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE, AND CERTAIN HEARINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12, AFTER AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE, RATHER THAN TEN DAYS' NOTICE, TO THE LICENSEE AND A HEARING, IF REQUESTED, PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1300, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, VERIFIED STATEMENT BY A SUPPLIER, AND REPORTING OF INFORMATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE REPORTS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 13 OF CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12, RATHER THAN BY SECTION 12-28-1300, MUST BE FILED WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION FOR THE PRECEDING CALENDAR MONTH "ON OR BEFORE", RATHER THAN "BEFORE", THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OF THE CURRENT MONTH, AND TO CHANGE A STATUTORY REFERENCE WITHIN THIS SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1320, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LICENSED TANK IMPORTER MUST FILE A MONTHLY VERIFIED SWORN STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, SO AS TO REFER TO AND IMPOSE THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS SECTION UPON, A "LICENSED TANK WAGON OPERATOR IMPORTER", RATHER THAN A "LICENSED TANK IMPORTER"; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1390, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND A FUEL VENDOR'S REPORTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE FUEL VENDOR'S ANNUAL REPORT MUST BE FILED BEFORE FEBRUARY TWENTY-EIGHTH, RATHER THAN "BEFORE JANUARY TWENTY-FIRST", ANNUALLY FOR THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-28-1395 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON LICENSED AS A MISCELLANEOUS FUEL TAX LICENSEE IN SOUTH CAROLINA SHALL FILE MONTHLY A SWORN STATEMENT ON PRESCRIBED FORMS AND FURNISH ANY INFORMATION CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-1505, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SHIPPING DOCUMENTS, SO AS TO DELETE A CERTAIN REFERENCE TO "THE SECRETARY OF STATE" AND SUBSTITUTE "THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION OR ITS AGENT"; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-2110, RELATING TO SPECIALIZED COMPENSATING FUEL TAXES AND THE FUEL REPLACEMENT TAX, SO AS TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DELETE CERTAIN LANGUAGE AND PROVISIONS, AND TO REQUIRE THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-2360, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND REFUND OF THE INSPECTION FEE ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PROOF OF CLAIM BEING SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 12-54-85, RATHER THAN WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN ON THE DELIVERY MANIFEST; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-2380, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES, THE PROVISION THAT MOTOR FUELS USED IN THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ARE TAXABLE, AND THE EXEMPTION FOR THE SELLER-USER OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL MOTOR FUELS PLACED INTO MOTOR VEHICLES FOR USE IN THEIR OPERATION OR FOR THE OPERATION OF THEIR PARTS OR ATTACHMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE "FEES", RATHER THAN THE "TAX", PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 23 OF CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12, RATHER THAN "PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 28, TITLE 12"; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-2520, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS, REPORTS AND BOND REQUIREMENTS, AND OIL COMPANY BOND EXEMPTION BASED ON STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT "A MOTOR FUEL LICENSEE", RATHER THAN "AN OIL COMPANY", MAY FURNISH A STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THAT IF IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY, THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE "MOTOR FUEL LICENSEE", RATHER THAN "THE OIL COMPANY", IS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE STATE IN THE PAYMENT OF ALL "MOTOR FUEL TAXES", RATHER THAN "GASOLINE TAXES", DUE, A BOND IS NOT REQUIRED; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 12-28-2510, RELATING TO THE TAX ON MOTOR FUELS AND THE ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT OF GALLONS SOLD THROUGH RETAIL OUTLETS.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4833 -- Reps. Robinson, Herdklotz, Waldrop, Fulmer, Trotter, Sandifer, Marchbanks, Rice, Haskins and Harrell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-795, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO INTEREST DUE ON GASOLINE TAX REFUNDS, SO AS TO CORRECT THE REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS ON INTEREST ON TAX OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-28-2360, RELATING TO REFUNDS OF GASOLINE TAX INSPECTION FEES, SO AS TO EXTEND THE GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON THE ASSESSMENT OF STATE TAXES TO CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-2680, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO VALUATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OF PROPERTY TAXES, SO AS TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE AUDITOR'S DUTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-43-300, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO APPEALS OF VALUATION FOR PURPOSES OF THE PROPERTY, SO AS TO DELETE REDUNDANT PROVISIONS AND CORRECT A REFERENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-25, RELATING TO INTEREST ON TAX UNDERPAYMENTS AND OVERPAYMENTS, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION TO INCREASE FROM FIFTEEN TO THIRTY DAYS THE TIME FOR WHICH INTEREST MAY BE WAIVED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-85, RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON TAX ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE DATES WHEN CERTAIN TAXES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN PAID OR RETURNS FILED; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-30, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX APPEALS, SO AS TO REVISE DEFINITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-40, RELATING TO WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TAX APPEALS, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO EXTEND ANY TIME LIMITATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-50, RELATING TO THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE WHEN TIME PERIODS EXPIRE ON WEEKENDS OR LEGAL HOLIDAYS, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO ALL TAXES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-410, RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENTS FOR A TAX PERIOD FOR WHICH A FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM THESE AN ORDER ABATING A JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT OR ASSESSMENT ARISING FROM ADDITIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ASSESSMENTS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-440, RELATING TO DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT RESTRICTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THESE RESTRICTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-920, RELATING TO JEOPARDY ASSESSMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FURTHER FOR ASSESSMENTS AND APPEALS IN THESE CASES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-1350, RELATING TO THE EXCLUSIONS OF APPEALS UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA REVENUE PROCEDURES ACT, SO AS TO EXTEND THESE EXCLUSIONS TO LICENSES SUSPENDED OR REVOKED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPEALS OF THESE MATTERS TO BE HANDLED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-2130, RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF PROPERTY VALUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, SO AS TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNTY ASSESSOR TO APPEAL A DEPARTMENTAL DETERMINATION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-60-2150, RELATING TO CLAIMS FOR REFUND BASED ON PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE FROM PROTEST TO CLAIM FOR REFUND; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 12-4-760, 12-47-75, AND 12-54-60, RELATING RESPECTIVELY TO APPEALS TO THE TAX BOARD OF REVIEW, THE PROPER CREDITING OF TAXES ERRONEOUSLY CREDITED, AND AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION TO ESTIMATE TAXES DUE WHEN A REQUIRED REPORT OR RETURN IS NOT FILED.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4834 -- Reps. Robinson, Herdklotz, Waldrop, Sandifer, Fulmer, Trotter, Marchbanks, Rice, Haskins and Harrell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-2-75 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE METHOD OF SIGNING INCOME TAX RETURNS; TO AMEND SECTION 12-4-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION, SO AS TO REVISE A REFERENCE TO THE BOND REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-50, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SECTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 NOT ADOPTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME, SO AS TO DELETE THE EXCLUSION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO AN INNOCENT SPOUSE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-31-60, RELATING TO PENALTIES PROVIDED UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL TAX AGREEMENT, SO AS TO MAKE THESE PENALTIES APPLY IN LIEU OF OTHER PENALTIES AND INTEREST OTHERWISE REQUIRED; TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-36-110, AS AMENDED, 12-36-120, AS AMENDED, 12-36-1710, AS AMENDED, 12-36-2110, AS AMENDED, AND 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SALES AND USE TAX ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITIONS OF "RETAIL SALE" AND "WHOLESALE SALE", CLARIFY A REFERENCE IN AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE CASUAL EXCISE TAX, REQUIRE LEASES TO BE IN WRITING FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING THE THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS MAXIMUM SALES TAX ON CERTAIN ITEMS, CLARIFY THE SALES TAX EXEMPTION FOR SUPPLIES REQUIRED BY DIABETICS, AND TO EXEMPT GOODS PROVIDED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET; TO AMEND SECTION 12-39-260, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND TAXATION TO APPROVE OTHER MEANS OF ACCOUNTING FOR AND REPORTING OF REAL ESTATE SALES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-35, RELATING TO THE INNOCENT SPOUSE RULE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THOSE INSTANCES WHEN THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-50, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PENALTY ON A RETURNED CHECK FOR TAXES, SO AS TO EXTEND THE PENALTY TO ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AND CLARIFY THIS PENALTY AS AN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER PENALTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-90, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO REVOKE LICENSES ISSUED TAXPAYERS FOR VIOLATIONS OR OMISSIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE NOTICE BY FIRST CLASS RATHER THAN CERTIFIED MAIL; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-210, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN RECORDS FOR TAX PURPOSES, SO AS TO EXTEND THE REQUIREMENT TO LICENSES, FEES, AND SURCHARGES AND TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH MICROFILM RECORDS ARE ADEQUATE; TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-227, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE PARTIES TO COLLECT TAXES, SO AS TO ALLOW THE NOTICE TO TAXPAYERS TO BE MADE BY FIRST CLASS RATHER THAN CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 12-6-5040, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO REQUIRE COPIES OF FEDERAL TAX RETURNS.
On motion of Senator LEATHERMAN, the Bill was carried over.
H. 4994 -- Rep. Delleney: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1996, AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AT LARGE, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1997; TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2000; AND TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR TO A CERTAIN JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT, 13TH CIRCUIT, SEAT 1, WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2001.
On motion of Senator MOORE, the Resolution was carried over.
THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.
PROPOSED, DEBATE INTERRUPTED
H. 3624 -- Rep. Sharpe: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 48, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 57 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT ACT OF 1995 SO AS TO DEFINE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS AND AUDIT REPORTS AND TO CREATE A PRIVILEGE WITH REGARD TO CONTENTS OF THESE REPORTS AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Senator LEVENTIS spoke on the Bill.
Senators LAND, HAYES and SALEEBY proposed the following Amendment No. P-1 (PFM\9229AC.96), which was adopted:
Amend the Report of the Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, as and if amended, page 3624-3, Section 48-57-30, by inserting an appropriately lettered subsection at the end to read:
/( ) Nothing contained in this chapter may restrict a party in a proceeding before the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission from obtaining or discovering any evidence necessary or appropriate for the proof of any issue pending in the case, regardless of whether evidence is privileged pursuant to this chapter. Further, nothing contained in this chapter may prevent the admissibility of evidence which is otherwise relevant and admissible in a proceeding before the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, regardless of whether the evidence is privileged pursuant to this chapter. However, the commission, upon motion made by a party to the proceeding, may issue appropriate protective orders preventing disclosure of information outside of the workers' compensation proceeding./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Senator MOORE explained the amendment.
Senator LEVENTIS argued in favor of the adoption of the amendment.
Senator LEVENTIS moved that the amendment be adopted.
Senator RICHTER argued contra to the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment was adopted.
Senators MOORE, J. VERNE SMITH and FORD proposed the following Amendment No. P-3 (S-LCI\3624.002):
Amend the Committee Report, as and if amended, SECTION 1, page [3624-1], by striking line 24 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/Environmental Audit Privilege and Voluntary Disclosure Act of 1996"./
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-1], by striking line 27 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/Environmental Audit Privilege and Voluntary Disclosure/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-1], by striking lines 28 through 42, and on page [3624-2], by striking lines 1 through 3, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/Section 48-57-10. (A) The General Assembly finds that the protection of the environment rests principally on the public's voluntary compliance with environmental laws; that voluntary compliance is most effectively achieved through the implementation of regular self-evaluative activities such as audits of compliance status and management systems to assure compliance; and that it is in the public's interest to encourage these activities by assuring limited protection of audit findings and of fair treatment of those who report an environmental compliance violation or audit findings to regulatory authorities in accordance with Section 48-57-100. In order to encourage owners and operators of facilities and persons conducting other activities regulated under federal, state, regional, or local laws to conduct voluntary internal environmental audits of compliance programs or management systems and to assess and improve compliance with these laws, an environmental audit privilege is established and recognized to protect the confidentiality of communications relating to voluntary internal environmental audits and a limited protection from penalties is established for those who disclose an environmental compliance violation or audit findings to regulatory authorities.
(B) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to protect individuals, entities or facilities from a criminal investigation and/or prosecution carried out by any appropriate governmental entity./
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-2], by striking line 20 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/identified as such with a completion date existing either individually or as a compilation/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-3], by striking lines 1 through 16 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/of an environmental audit report is privileged and, therefore, immune from discovery and is not admissible as evidence in a legal action, except as provided in Sections 48-57-40, 48-57-50, and 48-57-60. These documents are not entitled to the privilege:
(1) information obtained by observation by a regulatory agency;
(2) information obtained from a source independent of the environmental audit;
(3) information obtained pursuant to specific permit conditions that require monitoring or sampling records and reports or assessment plans and management plans required to be maintained or submitted to the department pursuant to an established schedule or pursuant to specific permit conditions, final departmental orders, or environmental laws that require notification of releases to the environment;
(4) documents prepared either prior to the beginning of the environmental audit or subsequent to the completion date of the audit report, and in all cases, any documents prepared independent of the audit or audit report; or,
(5) documents prepared as a result of multiple or continuous self auditing conducted in an effort to intentionally avoid liability for violations./
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-4], by striking lines 13 and 14 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/an in camera review, may revoke the privilege provided for in Section
48-57-30/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-4], by striking line 20 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/48-57-30:/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-4], by striking line 32 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/camera review, may revoke the/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-4], by striking line 39 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/48-57-30:/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-5], by adding to the end of line 18 the following:
/In the absence of an on-going proceeding, where the parties are not in agreement, the department may seek a declaratory ruling from the circuit court on the issue of whether the materials are privileged under Section 48-57-30 and whether the privilege, if existing, should be revoked pursuant to Section 48-57-50 or Section 48-57-60./
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-5], by adding to the end of line 28 the following:
/Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide immunity from criminal penalties./
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, SECTION 2, page [3624-5], by striking line 43 and continuing on to page [3624-6], by striking lines 1-4, and inserting:
/(1) specific permit conditions require monitoring or sampling records and reports or assessment plans and management plans to be maintained or submitted to the department pursuant to an established schedule;
(2) specific permit conditions, final departmental orders, or environmental laws require notification of releases to the environment;/
Amend the Committee Report further, as and if amended, page [3624-6], by striking SECTION 3 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
/SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. The audit report privilege contained within this chapter does not apply to any administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings pending or any violations which were known or discovered by the owner or operator before the effective date of this act./
Amend title to conform.
Senator MOORE explained the amendment.
At 1:21 P.M., Senator PEELER assumed the Chair.
Senator MOORE continued explaining the amendment.
On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, debate was interrupted by adjournment.
Having received a favorable report from the Horry County Delegation, the following appointment was confirmed in open session:
Reappointment, Horry County Board of Voter Registration, with term to commence March 15, 1996, and to expire March 15, 1998:
Mr. J. Michael Frazier, 731 Bucksport Road, Conway, S.C. 29527
Having received a favorable report from the Spartanburg County Delegation, the following appointments were confirmed in open session:
Reappointments, Spartanburg County Voter Registration Board, with terms to commence March 15, 1996, and to expire March 15, 1998:
Mr. George F. Abernathy, 908 Iron Ore Road, Spartanburg, S.C. 29303
Mrs. Dodie W. Graham, 120 Somerset Lane, Spartanburg, S.C. 29302
On motion of Senator WALDREP, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of Mr. John K. Grisso, Jr. of Anderson, S.C.
At 1:32 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:58 P.M.