Journal of the Senate
of the Second Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 9, 1996
Page Finder Index
| 
Printed Page 730, Feb. 20
| Printed Page 750, Feb. 21
|
Printed Page 740 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
The Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, and members of his party, were escorted to the rostrum by Senators HOLLAND, LEVENTIS, COURTNEY and WASHINGTON and Reps. Tucker, Klauber, Govan and Thomas.
The PRESIDENT introduced the Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Finney addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:
"Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly, other officials, members of the Judiciary, and honored guests... 20 years ago, your speaker was a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives and when I assumed the responsibility of a Circuit Judge, I thought it was probably the most awesome responsibility that I would ever assume. I tell you today, that I am having second thoughts about that because to describe in detail so that you would understand and be supportive of our mission, the budget and the concerns of the Judiciary of this State in a reasonable period of time before lunch, it is even more awesome a task. Last March I met with you and at that time, I outlined before you and my fellow South Carolinians the state of the judicial branch of South Carolina government and shared my vision for its future. I also described the roles which I envisioned were necessary for the executive branch, the legislature, the citizens of this State, and judicial system personnel to play in making our system more responsive to its mission of effectively and efficiently administering justice. Personally, on behalf of the Supreme Court, and the entire judicial branch, I want to thank you for your support, and particularly for approving the major portions of last year's budgetary request. I appreciate very much the cooperative and professional manner in which I have been received by members of these Bodies and by officials of the executive branch as we attempted to keep open the lines of communication throughout the year. In my first State of the Judiciary message, I told you that our courts were overextended, understaffed, and overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cases. Despite the fact that our judges, and other judicial branch personnel have continued to perform admirably under difficult circumstances, I am unable to report today that a miracle has occurred during the past year. So this branch has already bottomed out financially by the time of the most recent rounds of state imposed fiscal austerity. Your judicial branch went into a state of crisis prematurely over a period of decades. By the fiscal year 1995-96, we were operating with too few judges and insufficient travel funds to make full use of the judges we have. More court has been scheduled, but staffing the courts with court reporters
Printed Page 741 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
meant transcripts were delayed because of the shortage of court reporters necessitated by constant in court assignment of every available reporter. The number of other staff and support personnel remain reasonably constant during that period of time. By the time of last year's State of the Judiciary message, we found ourselves with Circuit and Family Court dockets literally out of control. Added to the previous deluge of cases, recent legislation to combat crime was causing dockets to spiral out of control. During 1995, our Circuit and Family Court judges disposed of 251,000 cases. As of December 31, 1995, there were 136,484 cases pending in the Circuit and Family Courts, an increase of over 5,552. Obviously, those figures indicate that the cases are not moving through the system at an acceptable rate. Staffing is still less than adequate. Personnel morale is suffering. Technology is lagging. And, public consternation indicates either our inability to effectively articulate the gravity of our problems or their intolerance of our pace in crafting solutions. However, I can report to you that we are beginning to see the first fruits of our collective efforts to enhance this state's judicial system. I sense a heightened awareness on the part of citizens, and what appears to be an increased receptiveness to suggestions regarding the time factors and costs involved in fashioning remedies. I am especially grateful for the insight and vision you have demonstrated by the passage last week of a supplemental appropriation for the judicial branch. These funds will enable us to maintain operations for the remainder of this fiscal year and proceed with partial implementation of programs that were authorized in our fiscal year 1995-96 appropriations, but which had to be deferred. A substantial portion of our budget consists of personnel costs and other so-called `pass-through' funds over which we have no control or discretion. Therefore, the gubernatorial veto of approximately 1.4 million dollars from that budget forced us to defer filling the nine new judgeships, delay implementation of the alternative dispute resolution pilot project, and to curtail other vital programs. The supplemental appropriations bill will enable us to proceed with the following programs, alternate dispute resolutions. March 15, 1996, has been selected as the start-up date for South Carolina's two-year experiment with court-ordered ADR. The Circuit and Family courts of Richland and Florence counties have been chosen as representative sites and they will hopefully furnish us reliable data indicating the availability and the feasibility of ADR in our court system. The nine new judges which were elected last week will enable us to add three new judges each to the Family Court, the Circuit Court, and to the Court of Appeals. Our Family Court judges are traumatized by the escalation of divorce controversies, interminable custody disputes,
Printed Page 742 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
staggering juvenile criminal matters, and soaring numbers of cases which involve clients of the Department of Social Services. The addition of three judges will at least stem the rising tide of Family Court cases and, hopefully, provide the opportunity for troubled individuals and problematic families to come before the court without excessive delay and get a just and fair resolution of their problem. The new Circuit Court judges will be rotated to counties with the heavier dockets. Among the immediate benefits will be the earlier disposition of cases involving repeat offenders and defendants accused of committing subsequent crimes while out on bond from an earlier arrest. We feel that these Circuit Judges will make the difference between state civil dockets that are stagnated with aging cases and civil dockets that are at least manageable. The three Appeals Court judges will allow the formation of a third panel. Last year, the Court of Appeals issued 498 opinions, and 252 cases were pending as the end of 1995. The additional judges will permit that court to increase its case disposition rate by at least one-third. Expanding the Court of Appeals will also facilitate another phase of our plan for a more efficient and effective appellate process. The Chief Justice serves as the chief administrative officer of the judicial branch, and ministerial functions consume an inordinate amount of time and energy. The Chief Justice also sits as one of the five-member Supreme Court which shares with the Court of Appeals the remaining portion of the state's civil and criminal appellate case load. The Supreme Court disposed of 557 cases and 4,608 motions in 1995. The Supreme Court also hears appeals from post-conviction relief proceedings, grievance and disciplinary appeals, and the five classes of appeals mandated by the constitution and statutes. The current plan provides for the Supreme Court to become a Court of Certiorari, thereby enabling that court to more effectively fulfill its constitutionally delegated functions of establishing legal parameters and setting the course of law in a more thoughtful, thorough and deliberate manner. The new proposal provides for post-conviction relief appeals to remain in the Supreme Court for the immediate future. Likewise, the Supreme Court would retain jurisdiction of grievance and disciplinary matters and the five classes of statutorily and constitutionally mandated cases. Reorganization of the Appellate Courts will require procedural changes and some shifting of personnel from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals, as well as some additional space. A contract has been let for renovations of the Calhoun building with a projected completion date of May 1, 1996. In addition, we are taking innovative methods to improve the flow on the civil and criminal side of our court. One of the examples on the civil side is the ADR study mentioned earlier and is designed to produce reliable
Printed Page 743 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
indicators of whether or not court-ordered arbitration and mediation would be fully implemented as a means of case management. Another example on the civil side has been settlement week. Several counties are utilizing settlement weeks to manage their case dockets. During these designated weeks, a mediator is available to assist parties in resolving disputes before and after lawsuits have been filed. On the criminal side, the South Carolina Bar Committee studying ways to relieve overcrowded dockets has forwarded its report and proposals on criminal docketing in South Carolina. The Supreme Court has also received recommendations on criminal docketing from the Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee. We are considering these proposals for use on a trial basis in the Circuit Court. Another idea floating around has been differentiated case management as another means of relieving docket congestion at the Circuit Court level, differentiated case management is being tested in the sixteenth judicial circuit with the endorsement of the solicitor and the approval of the Circuit judges. DCM provides a mechanism for identifying and processing each case based upon the amount of time and judicial system resources required for a particular case, as opposed to having cases automatically `wait in line' for disposition. We have heard and read much about attorneys and grievance discipline. In March we expect to release a report on our study of the grievance and disciplinary procedures for lawyers and judges. The two major areas of immediate modification will be expediting the process with a view to permitting earlier disclosure, and closer cooperation between the Supreme Court agencies which handle grievances and the prosecutorial arm of the State Attorney General's office. An internal review of judicial branch job descriptions and compensation indicated the need for further study. We commissioned a study by the State Office of Human Resources, and that agency issued its preliminary report in late January of this year. We were pleased to note that compensation for approximately 90% of the non-judiciary employees of this branch is within the range of the state average for similar positions. But, as we suspected, roughly 10% of our personnel were significantly out of line with their state counterparts, some as much as 28% below the state average. We are now in the process of rectifying this situation. In the few moments that I will take in the remainder of your time, I am going to review our budgetary request. I fully understand that a review in this perspective is not in detail and I will once again renew my request and offer to you that at any time, you or any of you, a small group or a large group, would like to discuss the budgetary request of your Judicial department, please feel free to contact us and we will make the time available. We will make ourselves available on every Wednesday from
Printed Page 744 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
now until the legislative session ends to have in depth discussion concerning our judicial budget request. The Judicial department's major budgetary request for fiscal year 1996-97 incorporates the immediate cost of the programs I have mentioned, each of which will require either additional personnel, expanded facilities or greater utilization of information technology. The requested funds are vital to efforts of the Judicial branch to meet constitutional mandates, to respond to the demands of our beleaguered fellow citizens, and to implement legislation enacted by the General Assembly and approved by the Governor. For example, since initial funding for the nine new judges was provided by supplemental appropriations, it is necessary to request funding again this year. For that reason, we are seeking recurring appropriations for the judges and their staffs. Additionally, one and a quarter million dollars ($1,259,217) are needed on a recurring basis to operate our Circuit and Family courts, which would restore this back to where it was in 1988-89; and approximately one million dollars ($1,156,496) to continue the planned phase-in of information technology. Approximately $200,000 has been requested to raise the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline and the Judicial Standards Commission to more acceptable levels of effectiveness. I assure you legislators of South Carolina that your Family Courts are besieged by too many cases and too few judicial resources. We are seeking 16 law clerks to provide research assistance for Family Court judges and to aid Family Court clientele by reducing the delay in disposing of cases. Just under $300,000 has been requested for eight additional Circuit and Family court reporters and three staff persons to relieve understaffing in the office of finance and personnel. Like the biblical warning that the love of money is the root of evil - in the judicial branch, the lack of money is at the root of the evils which beset us. Justice delayed is justice denied. Adequate funding will result in a more timely disposition of cases and, hopefully, lead to an abatement of court backlogs and the hardship imposed upon litigants, victims, witnesses and accused individuals who are unable to have their causes adjudicated within a reasonable period of time. The two crucial areas are sufficiency of funds and recurring appropriations. These are the cornerstones of our budgetary request for fiscal year 1996-97. If approved, we expect to move forward with these programs which incorporate the court's constitutional mandates, embody our vision, and correspond to the necessity which you and the people of South Carolina have articulated for a judicial system that is fair, effective and efficient. I challenge you to share the vision, to aspire to the spirit of nobility in us all as we strive - together - to set sterling examples of faithful stewardship and
Printed Page 745 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
dedicated public service in the highest and best tradition of the American system of justice and responsive, responsible state government. Once again, we are indebted to you for the affirmative role you have taken in supporting the judicial branch during the past year and I solicit your continued cooperation with our efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the South Carolina judicial system and thank you for allowing me to share these moments with you. Thank you very much."
The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the PRESIDENT declared it adjourned, whereupon the Senate returned to its Chamber and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Senate reassembled at 1:05 P.M. and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
MOTION ADOPTED
H. 3901 -- Reps. Harrell, Fleming, Cobb-Hunter, Seithel, A. Young, Limbaugh, Wilkins, Wofford, Hallman, H. Brown, Cain, Cotty, Martin, D. Smith, Fulmer, L. Whipper, Shissias, Quinn, McCraw, Knotts, Stuart, Harrison, Sheheen, Huff, Klauber, Beatty, Limehouse, Whatley, Harwell, Hodges, J. Young, Govan, Herdklotz, Jennings, Richardson, Hutson, Delleney and McElveen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-51-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REDEMPTION OF REAL PROPERTY SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE INTEREST RATE FROM EIGHT TO TWELVE PERCENT IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD FOR ALL REAL PROPERTY NOT ASSESSED AS OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
Senator MOORE asked unanimous consent to amend the motion made by Senator DRUMMOND pertaining to H. 3901 and contained on page 12 of Journal No. 5, Tuesday, January 16, 1996, by changing the date from February 21, 1996, to February 28, 1996.
There was no objection and the motion was adopted.
[The motion as amended is as follows:
Senator DRUMMOND asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Finance, retaining its place on the Calendar, with Senator WILSON retaining the floor, for the purpose of holding public hearings and, the Bill is to be reported out and
Printed Page 746 . . . . . Tuesday, February 20, 1996
available for consideration by the Senate no later than February 28, 1996.]
CONSIDERATION INTERRUPTED
S. 1117 -- Education Committee: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING CHAPTER 144 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT", TO MAKE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO CONSTRUCT AND RENOVATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF SCHOOL REVENUE BONDS FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
The Senate resumed consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senator BRYAN spoke on the Bill.
On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, with unanimous consent, consideration was interrupted by adjournment.
ADJOURNMENT
At 1:33 P.M., on motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.
* * *
Printed Page 747 . . . . . Wednesday, February 21, 1996
Wednesday, February 21, 1996
(Statewide Session)
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
Beloved, hear words recorded in the Third Letter of John (v. 4) (NRSV):
"Beloved, ... I have no greater joy than
this, to hear that my children are
walking in the truth."
Let us pray.
O God, our Father, we give thanks to You for the spirit of brotherhood and comradeship which is the climate within which we do our work together.
Help us to be:
Cheerful when things go wrong!
Persevering when things are difficult!
Serene when things are irritating!
Helpful whenever possible!
Amen!
Point of Quorum
Senator SETZLER made the point that a quorum was not present. It was ascertained that a quorum was not present.
Call of the Senate
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 Glover
Gregory Hayes Jackson
Land Lander Leatherman
Martin Matthews McConnell
McGill Mescher Passailaigue
Peeler Rankin Richter
Rose Russell Ryberg
Printed Page 748 . . . . . Wednesday, February 21, 1996
Saleeby Setzler Short
Smith, J.V. Thomas Washington
Wilson
A quorum being present, the Senate resumed.
Presence Recorded
Senators O'DELL, WALDREP, HOLLAND, REESE, GREG SMITH, PATTERSON and LEVENTIS recorded their presence subsequent to the Call of the Senate.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
February 7, 1996
Honorable Jim Miles
Secretary of State
State of South Carolina
Columbia, S.C. 29201
Dear Mr. Miles:
I, David M. Beasley, Governor of South Carolina, have this day appointed, Member, Board of Financial Institutions, with term to expire June 30, 1996:
Respectfully,
David M. Beasley
Statewide Appointment
Initial Appointment, Board of Financial Institutions, with term to expire June 30, 1996:
Credit Union League:
Mr. F.M.C. Fralix, President, South Carolina State Credit Union, 800 Huger Street, Columbia, S.C. 29201 VICE James L. Faile (retired)
Senate Confirmation: Required at this legislative session
Referred to Committee on Banking and Insurance.
Printed Page 749 . . . . . Wednesday, February 21, 1996
Doctor of the Day
Senator LEATHERMAN introduced Dr. Coleman Floyd of Florence, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
Leave of Absence
On motion of Senator LAND, at 12:25 P.M., Senator MOORE was granted a leave of absence for today.
RECALLED
H. 3779 -- Reps. Elliott, Knotts, Littlejohn, Cato, Simrill, Cain, Mason, Govan, Stuart, Delleney, Neilson, Stille, Tucker, Jennings, Hines, R. Smith, T. Brown, Wright and Riser: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-57-155, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND SALES AGENTS, SO AS TO APPLY THE REQUIREMENTS TO REAL ESTATE PROPERTY MANAGERS, AND PROVIDE THAT, FOR PROPERTY MANAGERS, THE EIGHT HOURS MUST INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF TWO HOURS OF INSTRUCTION ON FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AFFECTING PROPERTY MANAGERS AND THAT THE REMAINING HOURS MUST INCLUDE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT RELATED COURSES.
Senator SALEEBY asked unanimous consent to make a motion to recall the Bill from the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
There was no objection.
On motion of Senator SALEEBY, with unanimous consent, the Bill was ordered placed on the Calendar.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
The following were introduced:
S. 1156 -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-70-70 SO AS TO REQUIRE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF UTILIZATION REVIEW, BEFORE ANY HEALTH CARE RESOURCE OR SERVICE IS DENIED, THAT A PHYSICIAN LICENSED IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND PRACTICING IN THE SAME SPECIALTY AREA AS THE PATIENT'S OR INSURED'S TREATING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER REVIEWS THE PATIENT FILE AND AGREES WITH THE DENIAL AND TO PROVIDE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
Printed Page 750 . . . . . Wednesday, February 21, 1996
THIS SECTION IS A CONDITION FOR DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE OR FOR BEING CERTIFIED UNDER CHAPTER 70 OF TITLE 38.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.
| Printed Page 730, Feb. 20
| Printed Page 750, Feb. 21
|
Page Finder Index
This web page was last updated on
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 2:00 P.M.