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 ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator COURSON.

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House of Representative

FROM:   J. Verne Smith, Chairman

Employment Security Commission Screening Committee

DATE:     January 13, 2004

In compliance with the provisions of Act 391 of 1996, Title 2, Chapter 20 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives or otherwise distributed according to law.

The Screening Process

Pursuant of Act 391 of 1996, Title 2, Chapter 20 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, the committee has considered the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the South Carolina Employment Security Commission.

The committee's report includes the Transcript of the Proceedings Before the Screening Committee on November 12, 2003. The transcript does not include all exhibits offered by candidates at the hearing because of the length of some exhibits. Exhibits which are not reproduced as a part of the transcript may be viewed in the Office of the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee (Room 313 of the Gressette Building), since these exhibits were reviewed and considered by the committee in making its findings.

Report of the Members of the Employment Security Commission Screening Committee:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Senator J. Verne Smith, Chairman
Representative Lewis R. Vaughn, Vice-Chairman
Senator Robert Ford
Senator William H. O'Dell
Senator W. Greg Ryberg
Representative John L. Scott, Jr.
Representative J. Adam Taylor
Representative Michael D. Thompson

ALSO PRESENT:
Helen Ann S. Thrower, House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee
Martha Craig, Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee
Cynthia Wood, Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee

The Employment Security Commission Screening Committee meeting was held on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 308 of the Gressette Building, Columbia, South Carolina before Lisa D. Jeter, Registered Professional Report and Notary Public in and for the State of South Carolina.

CANDIDATES:
J. William McLeod - Columbia
Becky R. Martin - Anderson
Rebecca Davis Richardson - Lake Wylie
McKinley Washington, Jr. - Ravenel

THE CHAIRMAN: We're going to call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome Mr. McLeod and Representative Martin to the hearing. And I think the first person that we're going to speak with is Commissioner McLeod.

MS. CRAIG: Mr. Chairman, do you want to swear them in, or do you want me to?
If you will stand and raise your right hand. You've got to be sworn in.
(WITNESS SWORN.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Please be seated. The staff will ask you some questions.

MS. CRAIG: Mr. McLeod, we have a series of questions. And for the members of the committee, Mr. McLeod has provided a sworn statement and a Personal Data Questionnaire with detailed answers to questions regarding education, employment history, professional memberships and affiliations, appropriate conduct, office administration and temperament. That statement was provided to all of the commission members earlier and is included in your notebooks under tab one. I see no concerns with the statement. And with the committee's approval, I would ask that the statement be entered into the public record at this time.

SENATOR RYBERG: So moved.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.

EXAMINATION BY MS. CRAIG:

Q.     Mr. McLeod, if you would answer the following questions:
Do you affirm that the answers you previously provided the committee on the Personal Data Questionnaire, the statement of economic interest and the sworn statement are true and correct?

A.     They are.

Q.     There was one change you --

A.     I would like to mention -- I think it was number 17 that we discussed earlier about the letterhead.

Q.     This is on the sworn statement. Question 17, it asked, If currently serving as a commissioner while campaigning for this office, if you used commission letterhead or the services of your staff or your campaign?

A.     Right. I have two stationeries. I have the state, and of course I have a personal stationery that I send birthday letters out and so forth that I hope each one of you have received in the past. But this one was sent on my state stationery, which just said my intent to run for the House - I mean, for the commission. And I think I sent it to Chairman Verne; is that correct?

Q.     Yes, sir.

A.     I wanted to clarify that, because I think when I checked the answer, I checked no.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: The other thing, in the event if usage of that nature does occur, all it does is require the individual to pay the cost of it, the cost associated with it. I don't think the question addressed that if you have -- if you reimbursed the state for the necessary costs related to it.

MR. MCLEOD: I wanted to clarify that, because after our discussion, I did check no when it should have been I used it for an answer to number 17.

THE CHAIRMAN: So you will reimburse the state for that?

MR. MCLEOD: I'll be more than happy to.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
BY MS. CRAIG:

Q.     If you will proceed and answer the following questions: Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which contracts with state or federal government?

A.     No.

Q.     Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which receives state or federal funds from the Employment Security Commission?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you ever been arrested, charged or held by federal, state or other law enforcement authorities for a violation of the law, regulation or ordinance?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you, to your knowledge, ever been under federal, state or local investigation for possible violation of a criminal statute?

A.     No.

Q.     Has a tax lien or collection procedure ever been instituted against you personally by federal, state or local authorities?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any court, agency, association or professional group?

A.     No.

Q.     Are you now or have you ever been employed as a lobbyist or acted in the capacity of a lobbyist principal?

A.     No.

Q.     Do you know of any reason you would have difficulty performing the duties of the Employment Security Commission?

A.     No.

Q.     As of today, have you asked for any commitments from any person for this position?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Have you made any statements that you have a certain number of votes already committed to you?

A.     No, I have not.

MS. CRAIG: Okay. One thing we did not send to you all is the financial information and the credit report. We have it available if you would like to look at it, but everything was in good standing.

BY MS. CRAIG:

Q.     If you would tell us briefly about yourself and explain why you would like to serve on this board.

A.     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It has been a pleasure and certainly a privilege for me to serve as commissioner for the past 16 years. You and your colleagues have elected me four times to serve as commissioner, and I think I have done an excellent job with your trust, and I will be seeking -- this is my fifth term, and will be my final term. I would think after 20 years, I will have enough time in at that time that would meet my retirement. So this would be the last time I would be seeking this office. But with my 16 years, I'm the senior member of the commission. Commissioner Wells, who is not going to run this time, has eight years; and Commissioner Washington is concluding his first term, which is four years. I feel like with my experience of the 16 years, that I offer a service not only to my employees that work with our agency, but to the state and to the people that we serve. We're going through, like most state agencies, some tough times. And I would hope that you would agree that my 16 years of experience would certainly help not only our agency, but the people. I will be glad to answer any questions at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone on the panel have a question? Senator Ryberg?

SENATOR RYBERG: Billy, how many employees do you all have?

MR. MCLEOD: Around 1,100 at this time. And when I went there in 1988, we had right at 1,300, Senator. So because of some of the budget cuts and all, although we're federally funded, we are down 200 employees, and we're probably doing as much work now as we have in the past because of the plant closures and the unemployment rate at this time.

SENATOR RYBERG: So you all are federally funded for operations, not any state money that's --

MR. MCLEOD: We federally funded our budget. Our money comes out of the labor department. Now, the taxes are paid by the employer, as you're aware of, I'm sure. You pay on each employee that you have that works for you. That's the money that's used to pay the unemployment benefits. But our actual operating expenses, I think, during the budget year are less than $200,000, is what we get from the state to run the agency.

SENATOR RYBERG: The monies that are collected, do y'all control those or does the treasurer control them? How is the --

MR. MCLEOD: We control them. They're put -- we have a trust fund, which -- and I'm glad you asked that, because I wanted to get to our trust fund. At this point, it's $420 million which is in our trust fund. That sounds like a lot. But in the year 2000, we had over $800 million in this trust fund. Now, what has happened, because of the unemployment rates and the plant closures and all, we have not been taking in as much money from the employers to pay all of the unemployment benefits. So when that happens, we have to take money out of the trust fund, which I try to explain to people that we're no more than an insurance company. You're paying an insurance premium on your employees. And the last couple of years, we've been having to take money out of the trust. So we've actually used around $300 million of our trust fund money to make up for the money that has not been coming in from the employers.

SENATOR RYBERG: What has the shortfall run over the last 12 months? Is it a couple hundred million dollars?

MR. MCLEOD: Last year, I think we used 140 million from our trust fund, just to be able to meet our obligations to the unemployment.

SENATOR RYBERG: The trust fund is vested in what, short-term securities or --

MR. MCLEOD: Yes. And that's another problem we're having, where we had 800 million, of course, the interest goes into the trust fund. So when we had 800 million, we were getting a lot more interest on our money than we do now. So I think -- I could check on this for you. But if I'm not mistaken, maybe we've got around $10 million or maybe 15 million this year, something like that, was the interest. So we get hurt in two ways when it drops down.

SENATOR RYBERG: Billy, you're the chairman of the Employment Security Commission.

MR. MCLEOD: I'm the chairman at this time. We have a very unusual situation, and it's apparently always been this way. We rotate

SENATOR RYBERG: Every 16?

MR. MCLEOD: Every 16 months we rotate. So each commissioner would be chairman for 16 months out of the four-year term. And it's been where I've always been the chairman the end of the last 16 months of each of my terms.

SENATOR RYBERG: Is there an executive director?

MR. MCLEOD: Yes. We have an executive director that the commissioners hire, and he works at our pleasure. And the current executive is Ted Hadley from Camden. He works at our pleasure.

SENATOR RYBERG: Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Representative Thompson?

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Thank you, Senator. Billy, you said that you had a total of $200,000 from state appropriated funds, correct, for --

MR. MCLEOD: It's actually less than 200. That's the ballpark figure. I think it's probably maybe closer to 160,000, is what we get from the state. And that's for one particular program. We call it SCOIT (phonetic). That's the one where we send people into high schools. And they go around and tell ninth and tenth graders maybe what field vocation they should be in by the time they graduate, and that's the only area that we get state funds.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: What's the total budget? I mean, proceeds that you get from the federal government.

MR. MCLEOD: Give me a corner and five minutes and I will tell you. But offhand, I don't -- it is really -- I wish I could answer that for you. I don't know offhand. I would hate to give you the wrong figure.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: You had mentioned the trust fund that you had. Is the trust fund - is the sole purpose of the trust fund to cover shortfalls?

MR. MCLEOD: Yeah. As a matter of fact, 1999 or 2000, we went to the General Assembly -- when I say "we," I mean the Employment Security Commission - and asked you all to help us maintain our trust fund, because there was a move at one time when everything was doing good in the economy that people thought maybe employers shouldn't have to continue paying the tax rates that they were paying. And after we made our case to both the Senate and the House, you all were kind enough to allow us to continue to -- we have a formula that keeps our trust fund where we will not actually ever lose it. North Carolina at this

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Is there like a minimum balance that you have to keep in this trust account, or it just fluctuates?

MR. MCLEOD: Well, it's fluctuating now. But actually, there's a formula where 2 percent of the employers' wages, total wages -- just for example, it was 43 billion dollars, is the wages that were turned in by the employers last year. We have 93,000 employers in this state, and the total wages were almost $43 billion. Two percent of that is supposed to remain in our trust fund to keep us in a position where we would never go broke like some of the states - our neighboring states.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: You said one time it was at $800 million. Is that the highest it's ever been?

MR. MCLEOD: That's the highest, and that's where we would probably like to have it now. It will not jump up that much in one year. We're hoping if times get better and the economy turns around, that it will eventually get up to around 800 million. But this year, we only have 430 million now, I think, in our trust fund and we're -- I think even with the new tax increase that will be given to the employers, we're looking at still about a $200 million - somewhere around 600 million is what we expect to have there next year.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: I apologize to all of you for being late, but we had to attend the big announcement about our Clemson, BMW, Microsoft deal in Mauldin, and it was a very exciting announcement. It looks like it's going to be a great thing, and I think it's going to be a -- it's going to be good enough to where it's worth waiting for. I hope so.

MR. MCLEOD: I think one of my fellow commissioners may have been up there with you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I believe she was red-headed.

MR. MCLEOD: Mr. Washington and I sent her up there on our behalf so we could be here with you.

THE CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you were represented, Mr. McLeod.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, after each commissioner, do we make a motion or what?

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we want to be sure that everybody is through asking questions.

SENATOR FORD: I mean after that.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Then what did you say about executive session, Ms. Martha? She said we want to hear from all of them first

SENATOR O'DELL: Mr. Chairman?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR O'DELL: Commissioner McLeod, on the trust fund that you're speaking of, that's the state money that goes in there, or is that state and federal?

MR. MCLEOD: That's the money that we get from the employers, but it's the state. Well, actually, I reckon it's your federal money, if you think about we're a federal agency. It's the money, Senator, that you pay on your employees like you're required to do. That's the money that we put in the trust fund to pay out the unemployment, if you would have to have some employees who was entitled to the unemployment benefits.

SENATOR O'DELL: In other words, when an employer sends the money in, that's where it goes into that trust fund?

MR. MCLEOD: We keep that money, and it's put into -- like I explained awhile ago, we feel like it's an insurance. Actually, that's where the name -- we got the unemployment insurance, because, really, all it is is a policy that you as an employer are paying to protect your employees in case something would happen and you would have to have a layoff or they would be discharged.

SENATOR O'DELL: What happens if we go broke?

MR. MCLEOD: Well, thanks to you all, I don't think that would happen right now because y'all have given us some measures, safety nets that would protect us. But there are some surrounding states and states at this time that are having to borrow money now from the federal government from the labor department in Washington just to pay their unemployment benefits. And they will have to, I imagine, pay that money back. I imagine they're going to eventually have to tax the employers more in order to recover that money, is what I would think.

SENATOR O'DELL: That would be the avenue of something we --

MR. MCLEOD: That would be the only way we could get the money. If something would happen, to answer your question, and we would run out of money with our trust fund, the only option we would have would be to increase the taxes you're paying to rebuild the trust fund, yes.

SENATOR O'DELL: This commission has the authority to do that, to increase the levy on the employers?

MR. MCLEOD: Only with you all's approval.

SENATOR O'DELL: The legislature --

MR. MCLEOD: Right. We would have to go to you and ask you to allow us to raise the taxes for that purpose.

SENATOR O'DELL: Can you project anything in the future on where we are and how we're looking?

MR. MCLEOD: Well, the only projection we have is, next year we're still looking to probably not take in enough money to meet the unemployment that we will be paying out. So we're looking for another year of reducing our trust fund, but not as a great amount as we did this past year. Of course, all of that is projections.

SENATOR O'DELL: Well, that ends my questions. I want to commend you for a great job. I think you're doing a great job.

MR. MCLEOD: Thank you so much, Senator.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from members of the committee? Thank you, sir. We will call on the next person.

MR. MCLEOD: Is it all right at this time that I could leave? There is no reason for me to stay around?

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you think it's all right to let him go?

SENATOR O'DELL: Since he's had back surgery, we might as well let him go.

THE CHAIRMAN: So you had some back surgery?

MR. MCLEOD: September the 8th, I had a ruptured disk.

THE CHAIRMAN: I hope you get along good. Thank you. Helen Ann, go ahead and swear Ms. Becky in.

MS. THROWER: Ms. Martin, would you please raise your right hand to be sworn?
(WITNESS SWORN.)

THE CHAIRMAN: You want to ask those questions for us, please, ma'am?

MS. THROWER: Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Martin has provided a sworn statement and a Personal Data Questionnaire, with detailed answers to questions regarding education, employment history, professional memberships and affiliations, appropriate conduct, office administration and temperament. That statement and questionnaire was provided to all committee members earlier and is included in your notebooks, I believe, behind tab two. I have reviewed the documents, and at this point, I have no concerns and would ask that they be admitted into the record at this time. And Mr. Chairman, I would have a few questions of Ms. Martin.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.

EXAMINATION BY MS. THROWER:

Q.     Ms. Martin, with regards to your Personal Data Questionnaire -- you and I discussed this briefly earlier today -- number 28, when asked expenditures you've made in furtherance of your candidacy for this position, your answer was to see the attached. I wanted to clarify for the record that the attachment you provided was actually regarding expenditures for your house seat, and that you've in fact spent, I believe, $86 on stationery and stamps in furtherance of this position; is that correct?

A.     Right. But I think that actually came out of my own personal -- I think there was a list, and a page was left off when it was put on the disk.

Q.     Right.

A.     So since I was already in training, I didn't have the written. I will get a copy of the written. The stationery is something like $30. The envelopes or the -- and the printing was a little bit about that, and the stamps.

Q.     Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. With the exception of that question, do you affirm that the answers you previously provided to the committee on your Personal Data Questionnaire, sworn statement and statement of economic interest are true and correct?

A.     Yes.

Q.     Ms. Martin, do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which contracts with state or federal government?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which receives state or federal funds from the Employment Security Commission?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you ever been arrested, charged or held by federal, state or other law enforcement authorities for violation of the law, regulation or ordinance?

A.     No.

Q.     Ms. Martin, have you, to your knowledge, ever been under federal, state or local investigation for possible violation of a criminal statute?

A.     No.

Q.     Has a tax lien or collection procedure ever been instituted against you personally by federal, state or local authorities?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any court, agency, association or professional group?

A.     No.

Q.     And are you now or have you ever been employed as a lobbyist or acted in the capacity of a lobbyist principal?

A.     Yes, ma'am.

Q.     You have? Will you tell us a little bit about that, briefly?

A.     From 1990 to 1996, I was proud to work for the state employees under the State Employees Association. I worked -- I lobbied for their benefits, insurance, and mainly to be a liaison between the working staff of the government and the legislators who were making the decisions about what benefits and pay they would receive.

Q.     Thank you. Ms. Martin, do you know of any reason you would have difficulty performing the duties of this position?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you sought or received a pledge of any legislator prior to this date?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     Have you sought or received a conditional pledge of support of any legislator pending the outcome of your screening?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     And are you familiar with the pledging prohibitions under Title Eight, which prohibits a candidate for an office elected by the General Assembly from seeking directly the pledge of a member of the General Assembly until the qualifications of all candidates for the office have been determined by the appropriate joint committee to review the candidates for that office?

A.     Yes, ma'am.

Q.     Thank you, Ms. Martin.

MS. THROWER: I apologize. I would like to note that as Ms. Craig stated, the financial statement and credit check are available, if you all would like to review those. I have reviewed the documents and have no questions.

BY MS. THROWER:

Q.     My last question is, if you would, briefly tell us about yourself and explain why you would like to serve on this commission.

A.     Thank you. Well, I apologize for the cold and the deep voice today. I am married, and my husband is a letter carrier, and we have two daughters and two grandsons. And because of the grandsons, I probably have this cold, because when you love them and they love

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ma'am. Do any members of the committee have questions? You must have been very convincing. I don't think they have anything.

MS. MARTIN: Well, I appreciate you all being here. Also, being a legislator, I understand the many hours that you put in, and it's a nice day out there. So thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: We're glad to have you, Ms. Becky. You're free to go.

SENATOR RYBERG: Mr. Chairman, is there a list of qualifications for people to serve in this position or is there a -- is there legislative criteria?

THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know, Martha. Is there legislative criteria?

MS. CRAIG: This is the only board left that you do -- that has no qualifications. There's nothing in the statute dealing with qualifications for this board.

THE CHAIRMAN: It's left up to our judgment.

SENATOR RYBERG: Just the fact that you have served in the legislator is the only qualification?

MS. CRAIG: This is the only one you can be a sitting legislator and run for. We're ahead of schedule. Mr. Washington, we just called him. He is on his way over. Ms. Richardson said she would be here by 3:25. If you want to go ahead and vote on these two at this point.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Ms. Martha a question?

THE CHAIRMAN: You certainly can.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Billy, the first gentleman, said that -- he said that he's got 1,100 employees. Are they state employees; do you know?

MS. CRAIG: You're considered for the purposes of retirement and state benefits state employees.

SENATOR FORD: But the money comes from the feds?

MS. CRAIG: Right.

SENATOR FORD: Explain that 43 billion again. What was he saying about that; do you know?

SENATOR RYBERG: What he said was, it was 43 billion dollars payroll, but they collect taxes on it.

THE CHAIRMAN: All of the workers.

SENATOR FORD: In the state.

MS. CRAIG: I gave Representative Thompson the budget. It's 177,000 of state funds and 117 million --

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: $117,535,779 total base budget.

MS. CRAIG: Only 177,000 are state dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: It might be incumbent upon this committee to let one of the appropriations -- Senate appropriations, House appropriations, take a look at where we are in terms of compensation payout and projection as we need to in this upcoming budget year. If it looks like the economy is going to be soft for a little while longer, to raise the percentages or the rate to be charged. We need to probably send something forward, rather than waiting on the trust fund to zero itself out and come to us, and we don't have a whole lot right now to put in there. But if we can get ahead of this thing by a year or so, we can probably reinstate the trust fund. It's always easy to cut it in good times, but to raise it in bad times --

THE CHAIRMAN: Who would you recommend do that, Representative Scott?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: You can get it on the Senate side --

SENATOR RYBERG: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend you have it done on the House side. I don't think the Senate wants to.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Well, I don't think it's -- I don't think to do those projections is that big of a deal. If you will look at what your normal payout is, I'm pretty sure that, through the use of the Budget and Control Board, may have to send it over to them, as well,

THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to request --

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I think this committee needs to make that kind of request before we get ourselves so far in the rate that we have not done anything, and end coming back to the committee anyway. At least have somebody take a look at it.

THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Vaughn?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Didn't the first speaker, Mr. McLeod, say that they had made the projections for this coming year and that it would not affect the trust fund to the point where we would need to do that? I don't know who made the projection.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Maybe she can read back what he said, but I thought he said after this year, we'll have some pretty tough shortfalls, unless I misunderstood.

REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: If I could interject. He did say that the trust fund still had a pretty healthy balance of around $450 million.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: He also said that the trust fund had come from the $800 million to 400.

SENATOR RYBERG: But I think he also said, Representative Scott, that he expected it -- I thought he said increases put in to have it go back to $600 million. So --

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: He said that they could come to the legislature and ask for increases to bring it back up. I don't know what their numbers look like. I don't want to sit on this thing and then get a balloon.

THE CHAIRMAN: What about asking Commissioner McLeod to have their staff report to us in writing on this question, so we would have it in hand and we would know more?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: That sounds pretty reasonable.

THE CHAIRMAN: Would that suit you all?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR O'DELL: Mr. Chairman, I believe he also said that if something went wrong with it, it went broke, they could borrow it from the federal government. So we're not looking at a situation where it's just going to be depleted all at one time. I don't want to raise any employment taxes unless we --

THE CHAIRMAN: It won't hurt us to get it in writing, on account of what he told us. I will ask Ms. Martha if it's agreeable with the committee.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, this committee, after we finish our duties on this, that's the end of us; right?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

SENATOR FORD: Well, not the end of us, but --

THE CHAIRMAN: We were created for one purpose.

SENATOR FORD: One purpose, right.

THE CHAIRMAN: It's to screen the candidates. But as a member of the General Assembly, we are still under an obligation to learn a little more about the financial situation. I guess that's what you feel, Mr. Scott. That will be all right. Well, we have to wait, I guess, on the others. How about voting on the two we've got? Would that suit you?

SENATOR RYBERG: That's a good idea.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a motion that we would recommend John William (Billy) McLeod for confirmation?

SENATOR FORD: So moved.

THE CHAIRMAN: A motion is made and seconded. All in favor, say aye. The ayes have it. Now, how about Ms. Becky R. Martin?

SENATOR FORD: So moved.

THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is made, seconded. All in favor say aye or vote no. They ayes have it. That tends to work on those two. Now we've got two more, if we can get them here.

THE CHAIRMAN: I'm going to call the committee back to order. We have the distinguished Former Senator McKinley Washington, who I've had the great honor of serving with in the Senate. We're glad to have you, Mr. Washington. And we will ask Ms. Helen Ann to ask you some questions and kind of guide us through this. I believe she's going to have to swear you in. I know you ain't much on swearing.

MR. WASHINGTON: No, sir.

MS. THROWER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Washington, if you would, please raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(WITNESS SWORN.)

MS. THROWER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Mr. Washington has provided a sworn statement and Personal Data Questionnaire with detailed answers to questions regarding education, employment history, appropriate conduct and temperament of the office. That statement and questionnaire was provided to the committee members earlier and included in your notebooks. I have no concerns with any of those materials and would ask that they be entered into the public record at this time. Mr. Chairman, at this time I just want to ask a few questions behind tab four of the materials.

THE CHAIRMAN: All right.

EXAMINATION BY MS. THROWER:

Q.     Mr. Washington, do you affirm that the answers you previously provided the committee on your Personal Data Questionnaire, sworn statement and the statement of economic interest are true and correct?

A.     Yes, ma'am, I do.

Q.     Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which contracts with state or federal governments?

A.     No, I do not.

Q.     Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which receives state or federal funds from the Employment Security Commission?

A.     We do not.

Q.     Have you ever been arrested, charged or held by federal, state or other law enforcement authorities for violation of the law, regulation or ordinance?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     Have you, to your knowledge, ever been under federal, state or local investigation for possible violation of a criminal statute?

A.     No.

Q.     Mr. Washington, has a tax lien or a collection procedure ever been instituted against you personally by federal, state or local authorities?

A.     No, ma'am.

Q.     Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any court, agency, association, or professional group?

A.     No, I've not.

Q.     Are you now or have you ever been employed as a lobbyist or acted in the capacity of a lobbyist principal?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Mr. Washington, do you know of any reason you would have difficulty performing the duties of this position?

A.     No, I do not.

Q.     As of this point you have made no campaign expenditures as of today; is that correct?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Have you sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to this date?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Are you familiar with the pledging prohibitions of Title Eight, which prohibits a candidate for office elected by the General Assembly from seeking directly the pledge of a member of the General Assembly's vote until the qualifications of all candidates for that office have been determined by the appropriate joint committee to review candidates for that office?

A.     Yes, ma'am, I'm aware of that.

MS. THROWER: For the record, I would like to note that Mr. Washington's financial statement and credit check are available, if you all would like to review that. I've reviewed the documents and have no concerns with them.

BY MS. THROWER:

Q.     Mr. Washington, my last question: If you would, briefly tell us about yourself and explain why you want to serve on the commission, continue serving.

A.     Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished panel, thank you for allowing me to be here today. Of course, I have had the opportunity over the years to serve with all of you on the panel today and have served for many, many years in the General Assembly. I am also a Presbyterian pastor. And for the last three years and few months, I have been on the Employment Security Commission, served as the chairperson of that commission. We rotate the chairmanship on the commission. I have been blessed with the opportunity to serve this state for many, many years, now some 20-something years as a legislator and as the commissioner, and had the opportunity to work with the commission, and particularly in a difficult time. The unemployment rate has been very high. And we have been able to provide the kind of service to this state and to the people of this state that we are very proud of. I want to also say that since I've been on the commission, this commission has been awarded the top award for the last couple of years, the two highest awards this past year of any Employment Security Commission in the nation. The executive director and our computer staff director was awarded the top award just a few months ago out in the state of Washington. So we're very proud of what the agency has done. And also, in the last few years, this agency was way down the line as far as their employment record as far as diversity, et cetera. Now we're up in the top. We have a strong director who is doing a tremendous job, and certainly I would want to continue to serve just a little bit longer to make sure that we continue to build the agency the way it ought to be.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.

MS. THROWER: I have no further questions at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: Members of the committee? You all are going to let him get by that easy?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Good man.

SENATOR FORD: Tell us about the Presbyterian church.

MR. WASHINGTON: I think I will leave that up to Elder Smith to do that for you.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are clicking on the same burner on that, aren't we?

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Senator Washington, it's a pleasure to have you with us, and glad that you'll serve on this important commission, because I know you will do a good job. We will excuse you now, and we are going to vote on you as soon as you go out the door. I don't want you to see who votes against you now.

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the members of this committee for the support that you give to the Employment Security Commission and some of the legislation that you had to pass to make sure that our job is taken care of and make it much easier for us. And I just want to say to you that we will continue to ask you to support the Employment Security Commission, particularly now with -- the unemployment rate is still going up, and of course the next report will be out next week, and there will -- you're still going to see that we still have a problem in this state.

THE CHAIRMAN: Senator, Representative Scott had some concerns about a little more information on the financial. If you would, ask him what you think we need, Representative Scott, and he can get it for us.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Yes, sir. This was nothing skewed towards you, Senator. It was more skewed towards making sure that the trust fund maintained the level of dollars it needed to. I don't know how far you guys are along with doing an analysis. In the event the state may need to raise the rate to make sure you've got enough funds, so we don't end up going to the federal government to try to borrow a little money, so we can offset this thing early on, maybe with a little small increase until this market picks up a little bit.

MR. WASHINGTON: We're in pretty good shape right now, Representative Scott. We were much higher than we are now. We're still around about 400 million, I believe. This money comes from the employers, et cetera. We looked at what North Carolina did and what -- the condition that they're in now. They're in terrible, terrible trouble,

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Thank you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Does that satisfy you?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR FORD: Senator, how many commissioners are in North Carolina; do you know? And how are they elected? Do they go through the same process that we go through?

MR. WASHINGTON: No, they are not. I don't think North Carolina --

SENATOR FORD: They're elected by popular vote from the public; right?

MR. WASHINGTON: No, no.

SENATOR FORD: They're not? The states that have popular election, how are they doing?

MR. WASHINGTON: We don't have any popular election of Employment Security Commissioners that I'm aware of. Either they are by the General Assembly or they're on the governor's.

SENATOR FORD: What's North Carolina?

MR. WASHINGTON: North Carolina, I think, is appointed with the advice and consent.

SENATOR FORD: So we can always blame the governor if we go to that system.

MR. WASHINGTON: Don't get me into that one.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, one more question to you. This is to you. In your years in politics, have you ever known anybody to pay back the federal government, any government entity? I know the city, we borrowed a lot of money when I was on council.

THE CHAIRMAN: Charleston never paid nobody back.

THE CHAIRMAN: You didn't pay the state back.

SENATOR FORD: I thought that was a loan borrowed.

THE CHAIRMAN: I just don't have that information.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I think he's trying to ease up out of his seat.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will let you go. We enjoyed having you. I don't want to keep you away from your work too long. As much as we pay you, I want you to work hard.

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you so much.

THE CHAIRMAN: Did we vote on that? Representative Scott moves that we approve Senator Washington.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Seconded.

THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye, vote no. The ayes have it. We will recess until the other lady comes.

THE CHAIRMAN: We will call our committee back to order. And I am going to ask Ms. Martha to ask you a few questions, Ms. Becky.

MS. CRAIG: Ms. Richardson, if you would, raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(WITNESS SWORN.)

MS. CRAIG: Thank you. Ms. Richardson has provided a sworn statement and a Personal Data Questionnaire with detailed answers to questions regarding education, employment history, professional memberships and affiliations, appropriate conduct, office administration and temperament. That statement was provided to all commission members earlier and it's included in your notebook under tab three. I've looked at the information. There are no concerns. Everything seems to be in order. And with the committee's approval, would ask that these statements be entered into the public record at this time.

THE CHAIRMAN: So done.

EXAMINATION BY MS. CRAIG:

Q.     If you will answer the following questions: Do you affirm that the answers you previously provided the committee on the Personal Data Questionnaire, the statement of economic interest, and the sworn statement are true and correct?

A.     Yes. There would probably be one correction. My son, my youngest son, I said that he was an assistant manager at Starbucks.

THE CHAIRMAN: Turn your mic on.

MS. RICHARDSON: My youngest son, I think I stated in there that he was an assistant manager with Starbucks. This past week, he just took new employment. He's going to work for Standard Lighting. This is a company that my husband's son runs. So my son is going to work for my husband's son in sales at Standard Lighting in Charlotte, North Carolina.

BY MS. CRAIG:

Q.     We will make note of that. Ms. Richardson, do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which contracts with state or federal government?

A.     No.

Q.     Do you or any member of your family own or operate any business which receives state or federal funds from the Employment Security Commission?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you ever been arrested, charged or held by federal, state or other law enforcement authorities for violation of the law, regulation or ordinance?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Have you, to your knowledge, ever been under federal, state or local investigation for possible violation of a criminal statute?

A.     No.

Q.     Has a tax lien or collection procedure ever been instituted against you personally by federal, state or local authorities?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by any court, agency, association or professional group?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you now or have you ever been employed as a lobbyist or acted in the capacity of a lobbyist principal?

A.     No, I have not.

Q.     Do you know of any reason you would have difficulty performing the duties of this position?

A.     No.

Q.     Have you sought to receive the pledge of any legislator prior to this date?

A.     No.

Q.     Are you familiar with the pledging prohibitions found in Title Eight, which prohibits a candidate for an office elected by the General Assembly from directly seeking the pledge of a member until the qualifications have been published?

A.     Yes, I'm very much aware of that.

Q.     If you will, tell us briefly about yourself and explain why you would like to serve.

MS. CRAIG: Before I do that, let me tell the committee that her financial and her credit report were in good order, and they are available to anyone who wants to look at them on the committee.

MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. I want to thank you for traveling down here and for waiting for me, even though I'm on time. And Senator Smith, I really would like to personally thank your staff for their assistance. They were so efficient and so helpful during the application process. You have good, dedicated people working for you.

THE CHAIRMAN: Great.

MS. RICHARDSON: My desire to serve on the Employment Security Commission is really a continuation of my service in the General Assembly. I want to take the same dedication to helping people in another capacity. And having served as chairman of House Ethics Committee for a number of years now, I know the importance of fairness and honesty and integrity, and I believe that I would be a very fair and impartial hearing officer in cases coming before the commission. I have a high energy level and a desire to work really hard to be the best commissioner possible.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. RICHARDSON: Do you want me to say anything else?

THE CHAIRMAN: I think that covers it. What else?

MS. CRAIG: That's all of the questions I have.

THE CHAIRMAN: Do members of the committee have questions? You all are going to let her off that easy? Is there a motion?

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: I make the motion.

THE CHAIRMAN: Representative Vaughn makes the motion that she be confirmed. Found worthy, well qualified and whatever else we need to find out about you. Is there a second to that? Seconded. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. Just like falling off a log, wasn't it?

MS. RICHARDSON: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: We're glad to have you. I had to tease you a little bit.

MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. I'm sorry that I didn't speed your process along.

THE CHAIRMAN: We needed a little break.

SENATOR FORD: Mr. Chairman, when will --

THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Martha is going to tell us what's going to happen now.

SENATOR FORD: When are they able to get pledges?

MS. CRAIG: They cannot get pledges until the committee report is published in the journals of the House and the Senate. We will work with the clerks of the two bodies to have those printed in the journals on the first day of this session, which is January 13th. After that time, on Wednesday, the 14th, anytime after 10:00 a.m., they will be able to start seeking pledges. Also, there will be a joint resolution probably in -- going along with judicial screening to set the election for Wednesday, February the 4th. And then the newly elected commissioners would begin service on July 1st.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions from members of the committee? Is there a motion that we adjourn?

SENATOR FORD: We Abandoned.

THE CHAIRMAN: We abandoned.
(There being nothing further, the proceedings concluded at 3:38 p.m.)

The following persons were found qualified to be candidates in the Employment Security Commission election by a majority of the members of the Screening Committee:

Three Seats with four (4) year terms to begin on July 1, 2004:
J. William McLeod - Columbia
Becky R. Martin - Anderson
Rebecca Davis Richardson - Lake Wylie
McKinley Washington, Jr. - Ravenel

The candidates may begin to seek commitments after 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 14, 2004.

Respectfully submitted:
/s/ J. Verne Smith, Chairman
Employment Security Commission Screening Committee

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, with unanimous consent, the Report was ordered printed in the Journal.

Date Draft Report Issued:   Thursday, January 15, 2004
Date and Time Final Report Issued:   Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 12:00 Noon
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 12:00 Noon

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission operates under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is composed of ten members, four of whom are non-legislators. The Commission has continued the more in-depth screening format started in 1997. The Commission has asked candidates their views on issues peculiar to service on the court to which they seek election. These questions were posed in an effort to provide members of the General Assembly with more information about candidates and the candidates' thought processes on issues relevant to their candidacies. The Commission 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 he or she is seeking. The Commission feels that candidates should have familiarity with the subject matter of the courts for which they offer, and feels that candidates' responses should indicate their familiarity with most major areas of the law with which they will be confronted.

The Commission also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. Since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, the Commission believes that all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this

The Commission conducts a thorough investigation of each candidate's professional, personal, and financial affairs, and holds public hearings during which each candidate is questioned on a wide variety of issues. The Commission's investigation focuses on the following evaluative criteria: constitutional qualifications; ethical fitness; professional and academic ability; character; reputation; physical health; mental health; and judicial temperament. The Commission's investigation includes the following:
(1)   survey of the bench and bar;
(2)   SLED and FBI investigation;
(3)   credit investigation;
(4)   grievance investigation;
(5)   study of application materials;
(6)   verification of ethics compliance;
(7)   search of newspaper articles;
(8)   conflict of interest investigation;
(9)   court schedule study;
(10)   study of appellate record;
(11)   court observation; and
(12)   investigation of complaints.

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the

The Commission 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.

Routine questions related to compliance with ethical Canons governing ethics and financial interests are now administered through a written questionnaire mailed to candidates and completed by them in advance of each candidate's staff interview. These issues are no longer automatically made a part of the public hearing process unless a concern or question is raised during the investigation of the candidate. The necessary public record of a candidate's pledge to uphold the canons, etc. is his completed and sworn questionnaire.

Written examinations of the candidates' knowledge of judicial practice and procedure are given at the time of candidate interviews with staff and graded on a "blind" basis by a panel of four persons designated by the Chairman. In assessing each candidate's performance on these practice and procedure questions, the Commission has placed candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories should accurately impart the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

The screening process benefited from the newly created Judicial Fellows Program. Aside from the Fellows offering significant assistance in the general screening process, the six law students also prepared an annotated catalogue of all statutory and constitutional qualifications for candidates for all levels of our judiciary. The Fellows also provided support to each of the Citizens Committees and assisted the Commission in researching and drafting questions to be asked of

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities 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.

This report conveys the Commission's findings as to the qualifications of all candidates currently offering for election to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court, and Administrative Law Judge Division.

Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Alford since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:

Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lee S. Alford meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Alford was born on May 16, 1942. He is 61 years old and a resident of York, South Carolina. Judge Alford provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:

The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Alford.
Judge Alford demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Alford reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

The Commission found Judge Alford to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Alford described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"02/16/98   Advisory Committee to Review S.C. Drug & Common Laws;
06/29/98   Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges;
08/13/98   Annual Convention;
05/13/98   Circuit Court Judges Assoc Meeting;
01/12/99   Circuit Court Judges Meeting;
01/22/99   14th Annual Criminal Law Update;
01/22/99   Trial & Appellate Advocacy System Midyear Meeting;01/23/99   Solo & Small Firm Practitioners Section-Business Valuation Seminar;
07/12/99   NJC General Jurisdiction;
08/19/99   Judicial Conference;
08/16/00   Annual Judicial Conference;
08/03/00   SCTLA Convention;
05/10/00   SCACJ Circuit Court Judges Convention;
01/21/00   15th Annual Criminal Law Update;
08/18/00   S.C. Bar Domestic Violence Seminar;
01/26/01   S.C. Bar Criminal Law Update;
05/09/01   Circuit Court Judges Conferences;
09/07/01   Lexis-Nexis Training;
08/23/01   Judicial Conference;
01/25/02   17th Annual Criminal Law Update;
08/22/02   Judicial Conference;
05/08/02   Circuit Judges' Annual Conference."
Judge Alford reported regarding law-related courses he has taught:

The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Alford did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Alford has handled his financial affairs responsibly.

The Commission also noted that Judge Alford was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Alford reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."

Judge Alford reported his service in the military as follows:
"United States Air Force; Active Duty, served from 1960 -1964. Honorable Discharge."

Judge Alford reported that he has held the following public offices:
"I served as Clerk of Court for York County for two weeks during a vacancy in that office while serving as Probate Judge for York County." Judge Alford also served as Probate Judge for York County from 1979 until 1992. He served as Family Court Judge from 1992 until 1998.

Judge Alford additionally reported the following information:
"I believe that I have contributed and been a part of improving each court (probate, family and circuit) during my tenure. During almost 25 years on the bench, I have almost always been punctual and have missed less than 10 days due to illness. I will be glad to give details of improvements if the committee would like that information."
The Commission found Judge Alford qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Circuit Court bench.

Family Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Allen since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Kellum W. Allen meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Allen was born on April 13, 1951. He is 52 years old and a resident of West Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Allen provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Allen.
Judge Allen demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Allen reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Allen testified 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;

April 3, 1979 - March 8, 1982;

May 7, 1991 - March 3, 1992;

September 15, 1994 - April 10, 1995."
Judge Allen provided the following list of his significant orders or opinions:
" (a)   SCDSS v. Lakeisha Holley, et al., (Unpublished Opinion No. 2000-UP-136);
(b)   Matthew Henry Wilson v. Linda Scruggs Walker, (Opinion No. 3172, filed 5/22/00);
(c)   William Earl Timmons v. Gail B. Timmons, Unpublished Opinion No.2002-UP-608)."
Judge Allen reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Candidate in 1980 for Republican nomination to South Carolina House of Representatives from Lexington County."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Allen's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Committee found Judge Allen to be a qualified and highly-regarded judge. The committee approved of his re-election to the Family Court bench.
Judge Allen is married to Jane Inman Allen. He has two children.
Judge Allen reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   Honorary Member of Lexington County Bar Association, President 1986;
(b)   S.C. Bar Association."
Judge Allen provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
" (a)   Mt. Hebron United Methodist Church; I have served as adult and youth Sunday School teacher, MYF leader, Lay Leader, and Chairman of numerous church committees;
(b)   Quail Hollow Community Association."

Court of Appeals, Seat 9
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Anderson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Ralph King Anderson, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Anderson was born on November 13, 1936. He is 67 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Anderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1959.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Anderson.
Judge Anderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Anderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Anderson testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Anderson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Anderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Law Clerks & Staff Attorneys Annual Conference, Ethics & Pretrial Procedure, 1985-1992;
01/28/93   1993 Mid-Year Meeting, (Trial & Appellate Advocacy) Circumstantial Evidence;
10/08/93   S.C. Circuit Court Bench/Bar, 1993 Update Riding the Wave of Demonstrative Evidence: Admissibility of Computer-Generated Animations on Videotape;
12/17/93   Is Your Law Office Safe? Frivolous Proceedings Act and Rule 11;
02/01/94   S.C. Probate Judges Annual Seminar, S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, Efficacy and Use in Probate Court;
03/05/94   N.C./S.C. Court Reporters Convention, Charlotte N.C., Duties and Responsibilities of Court Reporters in Circuit Court;
07/29/94   "Rules, Rules, Rules"-Civility in the Courtroom;
09/13/94   Law School for Non-Lawyers-Overview of the Court System;
10/21/94   The Secrets of Successful Civil Litigation, Hot Tips from the Experts (Moderator);
05/14/96   "Alternate Dispute Resolutions," S.C. Clerks of Court Convention, Myrtle Beach, S.C.;
06/07/96   Ethics-Judge's View, S.C. Bar Annual Meeting, Myrtle Beach, S.C.;
07/10/96   Trial Practice Tune-up, Florence-Darlington Technical College;

Bridge the Gap, Nuts & Bolts of Circuit Court;

1984-1996: Two Presentations Every Year;
10/02/96   1996 S.C. Solicitors' Conference, S.C. Rules of Evidence-"A Year in Review;"
01/25/97   1997 Mid-Year Meeting of S.C. Bar (Trial and Appellate Advocacy) "Habeas Corpus, Writs of Mandamus and Writs of Prohibition;"

Summer 1996, "Avoiding Discovery Disputes," published in the South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin.

In addition, I have written numerous papers for use at judicial/legal seminars."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Anderson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Anderson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Anderson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Anderson reported that he has been on the bench for 25 years, and Martindale-Hubbell does not rate judges.
Judge Anderson reported that he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from Florence County in November 1972 and served continuously until August 1979.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Anderson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Anderson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Anderson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1959.
Judge Anderson provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
" (a)   Practiced law in Columbia with Mr. R.K. Wise from July 17, 1959 until December 1, 1959;
(b)   Opened practice in Florence, South Carolina, in December 1959 through 1960;

(A)   Any final judgment from the circuit court which includes a sentence of death;

(B)   Any final judgment from the circuit court setting public utility rates pursuant to Title 58 of the S.C. Code;

(C)   Any final judgment involving a challenge on state or federal grounds to the constitutionality of a state law or county or municipal ordinance where the principal issue is one of the constitutionality of the law or ordinance; provided, however, in any case where the Supreme Court finds that the constitutional issue raised is not a significant one, the Supreme Court may transfer the case to the Court of Appeals;

(D)   Any final judgment from the circuit court involving the authorization, issuance, or proposed issuance of general obligation debt, revenue, institutional, industrial, or hospital bonds of the State, its agencies, political subdivisions, public service districts, counties, and municipalities, or any other indebtedness now or hereafter authorized by Article X of the Constitution of this State;

(E)   Any final judgment from the circuit court pertaining to elections and election procedure;

(F)   Any order limiting an investigation by a State Grand Jury under S.C. Code Ann. Section 14-7-1630;

(G)   Any order of the family court relating to an abortion by a minor under S.C. Code Ann. Section 44-41-33."
Judge Anderson reported the following regarding unsuccessful candidacies:
"Was defeated as a candidate for South Carolina House of Representatives in 1962 by an overwhelming vote and in 1970 by less than two hundred (200) votes. Two unsuccessful races for the South Carolina Supreme Court."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Anderson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Committee found Judge Anderson qualified for re-election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The Committee recommended Judge Anderson without reservation.

Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Judy Cone Bridges meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Bridges was born on March 30, 1945. She is 58 years old and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Bridges provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Bridges.
Judge Bridges demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Bridges reported that she has made less than $100 in campaign expenditures for paper, postage and typing of application forms.
Judge Bridges testified 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;

(S.C. Bar CLE)(One of three judges for Questions and Comments Segment of Seminar);
(b)   March 18, 1995, Speaker, 'Women of Achievement Awards Luncheon' (Governor's Office, Commission on Women) (Speech focusing on making your dreams come true, i.e., never give up);
(c)   January 14, 1995, Speaker, 'Task Force on Justice' (S.C. Bar CLE Seminar) (Family Court issues speech);

(Speech Re: Identify Problems and Solutions for at risk children from a Family Court Perspective);
(g)   October 20, 1995, Speaker, Bench/Bar Luncheon meeting (Charleston County Bar) (Update of August 10, 1995 speech);
(h)   January 3, 1997, Speaker, Seminar For Chief Judges for Administrative Process of the Family Courts ('Scheduling Complex Cases' guidelines for Chief Administrative Judges);
(i)   April 25, 2002, Awarded Jean Bissell award and addressed those in attendance."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Bridges did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Bridges did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Bridges has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Bridges was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Bridges reported that she was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Bridges appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Bridges appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Bridges was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.

Executive Committee, 1980; Family Law Committee, 1982.
(b)   South Carolina Bar:

Family Law Section Secretary, 1981-1983;

Family Law Sub-Committee of Practice and Procedure committee, 1981-1983;

Practice and Procedure Committee, 1981-1983;

Young Lawyers Executive Committee and District Representative, 1981;

Task Force on Justice For All, 1994-Present.
(c)   South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association:

Family Law Section Co-Chairman, 1981-1983;
(d)   South Carolina Family Court Judges Association:

Secretary-Treasurer, 1993; Vice President, 1994; President, 1995;
(e)   South Carolina Supreme Court Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution:

Family Court Mediation Committee."
Judge Bridges reported that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
" (a)   Winthrop College Board of Visitors;
(b)   Grace Episcopal Church, Lay Eucharistic Minister;
(c)   Grace Episcopal Church, Alter/Flower Guild;
(d)   Grace Episcopal Church, Chalice Bearer;
(e)   Grace Episcopal Church, Building and Grounds committee for Memorial Garden;
(f)   Grace Episcopal Church, Member of the Vestry;
(g)   Church participant in operation of Charleston Interfaith Crisis Ministry;
(h)   Participant in Preservation Tours in historic Charleston;

Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 6
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Brown since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Timothy L. Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Brown was born on September 17, 1946. He is 57 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brown.
Judge Brown demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Brown reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Brown testified 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;

Topic: Enforceability of Agreements between Spouses;

Topic: Abuse and Neglect Cases: Out of Court Statements by Children;
(c)   2001 Tips From the Bench II, 12/14/2001

Topic: Divorce/Separation Proceedings;
(d)   2002 Tips From the Bench III, 12/13/2002;

Topic: Custody and Termination of Parental Rights;
(e)   Children's Law Office, oral lectures, various topics;
(f)   Lectures during Guardian ad Litem training, Law & Procedure."
Judge Brown reported that he published an Editorial Opinion in the National Judicial College "Case In Point" Winter/Spring 2002 Edition, The Ukraine Free Enterprise Business and Law: A Judge's Perspective, as well as materials relating to CLE courses listed above.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Brown did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Brown has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Brown was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Brown reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Brown reported the following regarding military experience:
"USMC Sgt.; Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Brown appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Brown appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Brown was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976.
Judge Brown gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:
"1976:     Legal Services;

" (a)   Masons-no office held;

(b)   Shriners -no office held;

(c)   Rotary -no office held."
The Commission found Judge Brown qualified and nominated him for re-election as a Family Court judge.

Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Brown since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Wesley L. Brown meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Brown was born on June 2, 1940. He is 63 years old and a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. Judge Brown provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Brown.
Judge Brown demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Brown reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Brown testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Brown testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Brown to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Brown described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"05/98   Family Court Judges Conference;

Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Burch since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Paul M. Burch meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Burch was born on February 10, 1954. He is 49 years old and a resident of Pageland, South Carolina. Judge Burch provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Burch.
Judge Burch demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Burch reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Burch testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Cain since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Timothy M. Cain meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Cain was born on January 19, 1961. He is 42 years old and a resident of Walhalla, South Carolina. Judge Cain provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.

10/07   Lawyers Title Ins. Company Underwriting Seminar;

11/06     S.C. Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;

12/04     SCTLA Auto Torts XXI;
1999:

06/25     USCCSW, DSS Legal Training;

08/05     S.C. Assn. of County, Sexual Harassment Law Update;

08/06     Attorneys, County Government Financing; Rules of Order; Petition/Initiative Referendum; Federal Law Update; TIF Litigation/Economic Development Update; Reassessment;

09/24     S.C. Bar Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Law;

12/03-12/09   SCTLA Auto Torts XXII;
2000:

05/03     Family Court Judges Conference;

07/10     SCCA 2000 Orientation School for New Judges;

08/16     SCCA Annual Judicial Conference;

09/15     S.C. Bar A View of Ethics from the Bench;

12/01     S.C. Bar Family Court Bench Bar;
2001:

01/26     S.C. Bar Family Law;

05/03     SCCA Family Court Judges Conference;

08/23     SCCA Annual Judicial Conference;

12/07     S.C. Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;
2002:

01/25S.C. Bar Family Law Section II-Taxes; S.C. Bar Conference;

05/01     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/01     SCTLA Family Law-SCTLA Conference;

08/22     SCCA Annual Judicial Conference;

12/06     S.C. Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;
2003:

01/24     S.C. Bar Family Law-Part II;

04/30     Family Court Judges Conference;

08/20-

08/22     SCCA Annual Judicial Conference."
Judge Cain reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"In January 1997, I assisted in the presentation of an Ethics Program for the Oconee Bar entitled 'The Case of the Silent Alarm-A Study in Professionalism.' The program was based on a seminar approved by the Georgia State Bar. I was one of the moderators for this program and provided proof of compliance to the S.C. Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization on behalf of the Bar.
In September 2000, I participated as a lecturer in a continuing legal education seminar at Clemson University. My topic was 'A View of Ethics from the Bench.'
I have attended several meetings of the Anderson and Oconee County Bar Associations to discuss rules of practice and procedure in the Family Court."
Judge Cain reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cain did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made

Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Cooper since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Cooper was born on May 20, 1941. He is 62 years old and a resident of Manning, South Carolina. Judge Cooper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cooper.
Judge Cooper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cooper reported regarding campaign expenditures:
"Should I successfully pass the screening process, I would anticipate postage expense in connection with letters written to the General Assembly. At this time, no such expenditures of postage or anything else have been incurred by me in furtherance of my candidacy."
Judge Cooper testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Cooper testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

May 07   S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;

Mar 14   S.C. Bar Depositions: Technique, Strategy;

Jan 24   18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Jul 07   SCCA Orientation School;
2002:

Jan 25   17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Jul 08   Orientation School for New Judges;

Aug 01   SCTLA Annual Convention;

Aug 22   Judicial Conference;

May 08   Circuit Court Judges Annual Conference;

Sep 29   S.C. Solicitors Conference;
2001:

Jan 26   Criminal Law Update;

May 09   S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;

Jul 02   Orientation School for New Judges;

Sep 07   SCJD WestLaw Training;

Aug 23   SCCA Judicial Conference;
2000:

May 05   S.C. Bar Defective Machinery Seminar;

Aug 16   SCCA Annual Judicial Conference;

Aug 03   SCTLA Convention;

May 10   S.C. Circuit Court Judges Conference;

Jan 21   S.C. Bar 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Jun 10   SCCA Orientation School for New Judges;
1999:

Jan 22   S.C. Bar 14th Annual Criminal Law Update;

May 12   SCACJ Circuit Court Judges Meeting;

Jun 28   Circuit Court Judges Orientation;

Aug 05   SCTLA1999 Annual Convention;

Aug 19   SCCA Judicial Conference;

Oct 07   NJC National Symposium on Future of Judicial Branch Education."
Judge Cooper reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   For the past nine years, I have conducted the Common Pleas Non-Jury portion of the program at the New Judges Orientation School;
(b)   In January of 1997, at the Annual Mid-year Meeting of the South Carolina Bar Association, I was in charge of a segment on the annual Criminal Law Update Program. My portion of the program dealt with a survey of cases for the preceding calendar year from the perspective of a Trial Judge. In preparation of this segment, my law clerks and I reviewed all of the reported Opinions on criminal law cases for 1996 (both Supreme Court and Court of Appeals) and selected representative cases from that review to use in the program;
(c)   In May of 1997, I gave a lecture to the Circuit Court Judges Association program dealing with handling a high profile criminal case;
(d)   In February of 2001, I spoke at an institute co-sponsored by the South Carolina Bar and the National Practice Institute on "How to Deal with the Difficult Lawyer;"
(e)   In August of 2001, I spoke at the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association on "Recent Cases and Developments in Evidence Law;"
(f)   On two occasions, most recently, in October of 2002, I have spoken at the Annual Solicitors Convention;
(g)   In March of 2003, I served on a panel with two attorneys and a guest lecturer at a seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar dealing with discovery abuses in the deposition process;
(h)   As chairman of the Circuit Court Judges Advisory Committee, I am responsible for devising curricula and obtaining lecturers and speakers for the New Judges Orientation School held annually."
Judge Cooper reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cooper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made

This case involved novel issues surrounding the issues of judicial estoppel. The Court of Appeals initially reversed my ruling in favor of judicial estoppel. On re-hearing, en banc, the Court of Appeals affirmed my ruling.
(b)   State v. Donald Gay, 541 S.E.2d 541, 343 S.C. 543 (S.C. 2001)

This murder case involved interesting questions of an evidentiary nature regarding third party guilt and contained a rather unique sentencing question.
(c)   State v. Robert Joseph Quattlebaum, 527 S.E.2d 105, 338 S.C. 441 (S.C. 2000)

This death penalty case involved an intrusion into an attorney-client communication which was captured on

This case involved lawsuits brought by more than forty school districts in the State against the State itself alleging that the method of funding education in the State was inequitable because of the failure to take into account the relative wealth of school districts in awarding state funding in all respects. I granted the State's Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment Motions holding that school funding issues are matters of legislative prerogative and not a judicial function. The Supreme Court affirmed my dismissal on every issue but one: the interpretation of the education clause of the State Constitution. My ruling in that regard was reversed and, as this is being dictated, the issues as to whether or not the State provides an opportunity for a minimally adequate education to the Plaintiff School Districts are being tried.
(e)   Ex Parte State-Record; in re: State v. Quattlebaum, 504 S.E.2d 592, 332 S.C. 346 (S.C. 1998)

This case involved an Order of this court imposing prior restraint on the dissemination of the contents of the videotape in the Quattlebaum case (see paragraph c above). The case involved significant constitutional issues relating to the First and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the limited measures imposed in the prior

Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Doyet A. Early, III meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Early was born on January 6, 1948. He is 55 years old and a resident of Denmark, South Carolina. Mr. Early provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Early.

01/15     S.C. Auto Insurance Update;

05/08     Medical Malpractice;

08/13     SCTLA 1998 Annual Convention;
1999:     01/22     14th Annual Criminal Law

Update;

08/05     SCTLA 1999 Annual Convention;
2000:     12/01-02     Auto Torts;
2001:     01/26     Criminal Law Update;

08.24     Health Care Torts;
2002:     06/27     JCFC Judicial Conference;

08/01     SCTLA Annual Convention;

10/18     Medical Malpractice in S.C.;

12/06-07     Auto Torts XXV."
Mr. Early reported that he had lectured at four CLE courses. One was a panel discussion regarding Family Court issues; one involved handling automobile tort litigation; and two programs involved medical malpractice, one of which concerned peer review reports and their admissibility and one of which concerned punitive damages.
Mr. Early reported that he co-authored an article for the South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin, published in Summer 1998. The article concerned punitive damages in medical malpractice litigation.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Early did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Early did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Early has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Early was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Early reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Regarding military service, Mr. Early reported that he served in the South Carolina Air National Guard from March 1970 to March 1976, and that he was honorably discharged in March 1976.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Early appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Early appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Early was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974.
Mr. Early gave the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school.
"I was an associate for attorney W.D. Rhoad of Bamberg, S.C., after my admission to the Bar until July of 1975. I left him in July of 1975 and opened my firm on July 20, 1975. I began as a sole practitioner, and I am now the senior partner in the firm of Early & Ness. The firm consists of three partners, two associates, and one contract lawyer. My firm and I have provided general legal services to

Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Eric K. Englebardt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Englebardt was born on October 31, 1964. He is 39 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Englebardt provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1989. Mr. Englebardt is also licensed to practice law in North Carolina.

Family Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Fender since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jane Dowling Fender meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

Judicial Conference;

S.C. Bar Video-Litigating Custody Issues & Joint Custody;
1999:   Family Law Section Mid-Year Meeting;

Family Court Judges Conference;

SCTLA Annual Conference;

Judicial Conference;

Family Court Bench/Bar;

SCCA Annual Judicial Conference;

Family Court Judges Conference;

SCTLA Convention;

Family Court Bench/Bar;
2001:   Family Law Section;

Family Court Judges Conference;

Judicial Conference;

SCTLA Tips from the Bench;

Bench Bar Seminar;
2002:   Family Court Judges Conference;

Family Law Section II;

SCTLA Annual Convention;

Judicial Conference;

S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar."
Judge Fender reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   I have lectured at the Technical College of the Lowcountry (as substitute teacher) in domestic law;
(b)   In February, 2000, I was a speaker on 'Custody and Termination Proceedings' during a Tips From The Bench CLE Seminar in Columbia, South Carolina."
Judge Fender reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Fender did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Fender did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Fender has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Fender was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Fender reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Fender appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.

Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Diane Schafer Goodstein meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Goodstein was born on December 1, 1955. She is 48 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Judge Goodstein provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1981.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Goodstein.
Two similar complaints were filed before the Commission in opposition to Judge Goodstein's candidacy. The complainants questioned Judge Goodstein's objectivity and fairness in how she handled a criminal defendant's bond hearing and his release on electronic monitoring in 2001. The complainants, neighbors of the defendant, opposed his release on bond and contended that he was not properly monitored as ordered after his release. Although they appeared at the bond hearing, they were reluctant to testify and submitted unsworn and even some anonymous letters for the judge's consideration. The complainants contended that Judge Goodstein was "arrogant and flippant" in regards to their letters as she did not review their letters in court as well as she appeared to only consider the rights of defendant and the report of the psychiatrist who examined him. They also contended that the Judge should have afforded them an opportunity for in- chambers communication to discuss their concerns regarding the defendant. Judge Goodstein satisfactorily responded to the issues alleged in the affidavits and the Commission found no issues of concern with the judge's conduct regarding this matter. The Commission also noted its appreciation to the complainants who came forward to testify and understood their frustration that defendant was not electronically monitored 24 hours per day as ordered by the court. However, the Commission noted that the judge did the best she could in this matter with the tools with which the law provided her.
Judge Goodstein demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

Judicial Conference;

Circuit Court Judges Association Meeting;
1999:     S.C. Bar 14th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Circuit Court Judges Meeting;

General Jurisdiction;

SCTLA Annual Convention;

Judicial Conference;
2000:     Annual Judicial Conference;

SCTLA Convention;

S.C. Circuit Court Judges;

S.C. Bar 15th Annual Criminal Law Update;
2001:     S.C. Bar 16th Criminal Law Update;

S.C. Bar 2001 Colloquim;

S.C. Circuit Judges Conference;

Judicial Ethics Workshop;

Judicial Conference;
2002:     S.C. Bar 17th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Scientific Evidence and Expert;

Handling Capital Cases;

S.C. Circuit Judges;

Magistrates' Intensive Training;

S.C. Bar 18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

Civil Law Update."
Judge Goodstein reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"1999:   SCTLA Annual Convention presentation on What's Admissible?;

Medicaid/Medicare Payments and Collateral Source Rule;

S.C. Bar Tort Law Update presentation on Torts From a Circuit Court Perspective;
2000:     S.C. Bar Art of Advocacy II presentation in a panel discussion on Ethics at Trial;

S.C. Bar Tips from the Bench Seminar presentation entitled Circuit Court -Civil Jury;
2001:     SCCA Orientation School for New Judges presentation entitled 'Running of a Court;'

JMSC Judicial Ethics Workshop presentation entitled 'Limitations on Questioning Judges Under Judicial Canons;'
2002:     SCCA Orientation School for New Judges presentation entitled 'Running of a Court;'
2003:     SCCA Orientation School for New Judges presentation entitled 'Running of a Court;'

SCCA Magistrates' Intensive Training presentation entitled 'General Courtroom Protocol, Vior Dire, Jury Selection and Charge.'"
Judge Goodstein reported that she has not published or written articles other than materials written for the Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges on the subject of "Running of a Court."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Goodstein did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Goodstein did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Goodstein has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Goodstein was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.

Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Guess since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Robert E. Guess meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Guess was born on June 19, 1948. He is 55 years old and a resident of Union, South Carolina. Judge Guess provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Guess.
Judge Guess demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Guess reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Guess testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Guess testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Guess to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Guess described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Hayes since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge John C. Hayes, III meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Hayes was born on October 18, 1945. He is 58 years old and a resident of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Judge Hayes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Hayes.
Judge Hayes demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Hayes reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Hayes testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Hayes testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Hayes to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Hayes described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

Family Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Henderson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Roger E. Henderson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Henderson was born on October 12, 1949. He is 54 years old and a resident of Chesterfield, South Carolina. Judge Henderson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Henderson.
Judge Henderson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Henderson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.

The Commission found Judge Henderson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Henderson described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"I have attended all conferences organized by South Carolina Court Administration for all Judges as well as for Chief Judges for Administrative purposes. I have also attended all meetings of the South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges and the annual Family Court Bench/Bar JCLE seminar.
(a)   Seminar for Circuit and Family Court Judges for Administrative Purposes, 01/09/98;
(b)   Governor's Conference on Youth Crime, 03/05/98;
(c)   Family Court Judges Conference, 05/21/98;
(d)   Family Law Midyear Meeting, 01/23/98;
(e)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/20/98;
(f)   Family Court Bench/Bar Seminar, 11/06/98;
(g)   Family Law Section-Midyear Meeting, 01/22/99;
(h)   Family Court Judges Conference, 05/19/99;
(i)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/19/99;
(j)   Governor's Conference on Youth, 03/01/99;
(k)   S.C. Bench/Bar Seminar, 12/03/99;
(l)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/16/00;
(m)   Family Court Judges Conference, 05/03/00;
(n)   S.C. Bench/Bar Seminar, 12/01/00;
(o)   Family Law Section-Midyear Meeting, 01/26/01;
(p)   Family Court Judges Conference, 05/03/01;
(q)   Orientation School for New Judges, 07/02/01;
(r)   Annual Judicial Conference, 08/23/01;
(s)   WestLaw Computer Training, 11/02/01;

Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, D. Garrison Hill meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Hill was born on July 14, 1964. He is 39 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Hill provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990. Mr. Hill is also licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Hill reported that he has made $71.79 in campaign expenditures for postage and mailing expenses.
Mr. Hill testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hill testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Hill to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hill described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"08/97   Representing The Accused in a Capital Trial;
10/97     Representing a Public Body;
01/98     Construction Law;
01/98     Trial and Appellate Advocacy;

Family Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Frederick A. Hoefer, II meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Hoefer was born on November 20, 1954. He is 49 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Hoefer provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Hoefer.
Mr. Hoefer demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Hoefer reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Hoefer testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Hoefer testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Hoefer to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Hoefer described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"01/24/03     Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar;
03/21/03     Accident Litigation, LBCI;
06/13-14/03   Bar Examiners Workshop, NCBE;
09/05/03     Difficult Clients, SCACDL;
09/19/03     Hot Tips-Domestic, S.C. Bar;

The Commission commented that Mr. Hoefer was noted by the Bar to be an "even-tempered" attorney. They also noted that he was a well-rounded and a highly-respected practitioner. The Commission found Mr. Hoefer qualified and nominated him for election to the Family Court bench.

Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, David W. Holmes meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Holmes was born on January 25, 1953. He is 50 years old and a resident of Simpsonville, South Carolina. Mr. Holmes provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least

09/18     "SoftPro 2002 Training;"

10/02     "Estate Planning after the 2001 Tax Reform Act;"

11/12     Claims Underwriting Seminar Chicago Title Insurance Co;

12/13     "Basics in Civil, Criminal and Domestic Law."
2001:
I had taken 52 hours of CLE in 2000, which partially carried forward to 2001;
2000:

08/31     "DUI 101 for the Prosecutor;"

11/09     "Title Agent Fraud Prevention;" "Enhanced Protections for Residential Homeowners;" "Underwriting Claims and Policy Production Problems;" "New Computer-based Services for Title Agency;"

12/04-08   Supreme Court approved 40-hour Civil Mediation training;
1999:

04/05     Victims Rights and the Criminal Justice System;"

11/10     Claims Underwriting Seminar Chicago Title Insurance Co.;

12/10     S.C. Local Government Attorney's Institute:

"Practice Before South Carolina Administrative Law Judges;" "Ethics Act Issues and the Governmental Attorney;" "Confidentiality, Personnel Changes, and Ethical Issues;" "Recent Labor Law Developments;" "Case Law Update;" "Y2K Legislation and Its Impact on Governmental Entities;" "Smart Growth;" "Brownfields: A Primer."
1998:

11/05     "Risk Management in the Law Office;" "Attorney Trust Accounts;" "Title Insurance;"

11/21     "Ethical Consideration of Supreme Court Practice;"

12/04     Municipal Attorney's Association;

12/11     S.C. Local Government Attorney's Institute:

"Who is My Client?;" "Ethics Act Issues & the Governmental Attorney;"   "Due Diligence and the Roles of the Parties in the Bond Process;" "The Use of Assessments for Bond Financing;" "The S.C. Freedom of Information Act;" "Labor & Employment Law;" "Case Law Update;" "On-Line Legal Research & the Internet."
Mr. Holmes reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"I have taught undergraduate Business Law in summer school. I have spoken to various high school student groups on Law

Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Robert N. Jenkins, Sr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.

Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge John since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Steven H. John meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge John was born on December 1, 1953. He is 50 years old and a resident of Little River, South Carolina. Judge John provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.

08/01     SCTLA Annual Convention;

05/08     SCACJ Circuit Judges Annual Meeting;

08/22     SCCA Judicial Conference;

09/30     S.C. Solicitors Conference;

10/02     SCSA Association meeting;
2003:   05/07     SCACJ S.C. Circuit Court Judges Meeting;

01/24     18th Annual Criminal Law Update;

01/24     First Annual Civil Law Update;

08/21     Judicial Conference."

Family Circuit for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 4
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Johnson since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Alvin D. Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Johnson was born on June 18, 1961. He is 42 years old and a resident of Pickens, South Carolina. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.
Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.

Family Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Kinon since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Lisa A. Kinon meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Kinon was born on October 4, 1958. She is 45 years old and a resident of Conway, South Carolina. Judge Kinon provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.

Judge Kinon gave the following account of her legal experience since graduating from law school:
"Rosen, Rosen, & Scoville; August 1985-July 1986
General Practice with emphasis upon the real estate title work and Family Court practice and private contract work with the Public Defender's Office for Georgetown County;
Private practice; July 1986-July 1987
Family Court practice and private contract work with Public Defender's office for Georgetown County;

Hearn & Corbett, P.A.; July 1987-January 1988

95% of practice in Family Court;
Van Osdell, Lester, Stewart, Hearn, McCutchen, Brittain & Martin, P.A.
January 1988-January 1989 (Merged with Firm of Hearn & Corbett);
95% of practice concentrated in Family Court;
Hearn, Brittain & Martin, P.A.; January 1989-June 1995
95% of practice concentrated in Family Court;
Elected to Family Court Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2 to fill unexpired term of the Honorable Kaye G. Hearn in July 1995. Serving continually since election in 1995."
Judge Kinon provided the following list of her five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Judy Rogers and Herman Crowley, 98-DR-16-485;
(b)   Rosalyn H. Tetterton v. Ronald L. Tetterton, 98-DR-26-296. Affirmed on Appeal;
(c)   Teresa S. Horn v. Peter L. Horn, 00-DR-26-18;

Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 1
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Marvin F. Kittrell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge in the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Judge Kittrell was born on October 3, 1941. He is 62 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Kittrell provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Kittrell.
Judge Kittrell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Kittrell reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Kittrell testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Kittrell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

'Overview of the ALJ Division.' Sponsor: McAngus Goudelock & Courie Law Firm, Columbia, South Carolina, May 2, 2003. 'Practice Tips and Decorum before the ALJD,' Sponsor: Government Attorney Law section, S.C. Bar, June 19, 2003, Charleston, South Carolina;
(b)   2002,

None;
(c)   2001

'Motions Practice before the Administrative Law Judge Division,' Sponsor: South Carolina Administrative and Regulatory Law Association, September 21, 2001, Columbia, South Carolina;

'Administrative Law Cases and Developments in 2001 and Forecasts,' Sponsor: S.C. Bar, 'Ring Out the Old, Ring

'Overview of the Administrative Law Judge Division,' Sponsor: S.C. Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, Columbia, South Carolina, September 8, 2000;
(e)   1999

None;
(f)   1998

'ALJD-The Administrative Judiciary,' South Carolina Circuit Judges Meeting, May 15, 1998, Fripp Island, South Carolina. 'ALJD Motions Practice,' Sponsor: S.C. Bar, Columbia, South Carolina, October 30, 1998."
Judge Kittrell reported that he has published the following:
"(a)   Tax Procedure Under the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act: A 'User-Friendly' Approach, South Carolina Trial Lawyer, Fall 1995, p. 32;
(b)   ALJs in South Carolina, South Carolina Lawyer, May-June 1996, p. 42;
(c)   I am presently working as a co-author on several chapters (Administrative Law Appeals and the Revenue Procedures Act) for a book to be published by the S.C. Bar entitled Administrative Law in South Carolina."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittrell did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Kittrell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Kittrell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Kittrell was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Kittrell reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Kittrell reported the following about his military career:
"I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in August, 1965 at Columbia, South Carolina. In September 1965, I arrived at Newport, Rhode Island

This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals (345 S.C. 525, 548 S.E.2d 887 (Ct. App. 2001)). Subsequently, the South Carolina General Assembly, while the case was pending review by the South Carolina Supreme Court, passed legislation which was in accordance with

I have served as a founder of this organization and as its president since its formation. Its members are involved in administrative and regulatory law in South Carolina. The organization was formed to provide educational seminars and training;
(d)   National Association of Administrative Law Judges;
(e)   National Central Panel Directors Association."
Judge Kittrell provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Rotary Club of Columbia."
The Commission found Judge Kittrell qualified and nominated him for re-election as Chief Judge of the Administrative Law Judge Division.

Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 3
Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Konduros since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Aphrodite K. Konduros meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Konduros was born on January 30, 1959. She is 44 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Konduros provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Konduros.
Judge Konduros demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Konduros reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Konduros testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Konduros testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Konduros to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Konduros described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

DSS Legal Training;

S.C. Bar April Meeting;

S.C. Bar February Meeting;

DSS Legal Training;

Update of S.C. Law;

S.C. Woman Advocate;

Child Safety Seminar;

Annual S.C. Solicitor's Conference.
(b)   CLE Courses Completed in 1999-Total Hours 29.75:

S.C. Bar January Meeting;

S.C. Bar February Meeting;

'Bridges to the Future;'

DSS Legal Training;

Modified Family Court ADR Program;

Modified Circuit Court ADR Pilot;

Family and Circuit Court Judges Orientation (instructor);

Omnibus Adult Protective Act Regional Training (instructor);

S.C. Bar March Meeting.
(c)   CLE Courses Completed in 2000-Total Hours 18.00:

Child Safety Seminar II;

Persuasive Expert Testimony;

'Sharing, Caring and Shaping the Law.'
(d)   CLE Courses Completed in 2001 - Total Hours 14.00:

Office of DSS Legal Counsel Seminar;

Attorney-Client Privilege;

Office of DSS Legal Counsel Seminar.
(e)   CLE Courses Completed in 2002-Total Hours 40.25:

Orientation School for New Judges;

S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;

Judicial Conference."
Judge Konduros reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   SCTLA 2003, covered for an absent attorney and spoke on Ethical Considerations in Family Court;

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jack A. Landis meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Landis was born on June 3, 1955. He is 48 years old and a resident of Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Judge Landis provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Landis.
Judge Landis demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Landis reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Landis testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Landis testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Landis to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Landis described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:

05/21/98   Family Court Judges Conference;
06/29/98   Orientation school for New Judges;
08/13/98   SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/20/98   Judicial Conference;
05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/05/99   SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/19/99   Judicial Conference;
01/21/00   S.C. Bar Convention, Family Law Section;
05/03/00   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/03/00   SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/16/00   Annual Judicial Conference;
12/00     Bench/Bar seminar;
01/26/01   S.C. Bar Convention Family Law Section;
05/03/01   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/23/01   Annual Judicial Conference;
10/05/01   WestLaw Training;
11/02/01   Lexis-Nexis Training;
12/01     Bench/Bar Seminar;
12/14/01   Tips From the Bench;
01/25/02   S.C. Bar Convention Family Law Section II;
05/01/02   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/01/02   SCTLA Annual Convention;
08/22/02   Annual Judicial Conference;
12/06/02   Bench/Bar Seminar;
01/24/03   S.C. Bar Convention, Family Law-Part II;
04/30/03   Family Court Judges Conference;
08/21/03   Annual Judicial Conference."
Judge Landis reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   May 14, 1997   I taught a day long seminar on 'Paralegals in Family Law;'
(b)   Oct. 26, 2000   I spoke at a seminar sponsored by the Charleston County Bar Association on Family Law. My topic was 'What a Judge Wants, What a Judge Needs.' The subject was helping lawyers understand what they need to have and do to properly present a case in Family Court;

This case involved a number of issues including the determination of child support when the income of the parties exceeded guideline amounts, equitable division of a marital estate with a value in excess of six million dollars, co-mingling of funds, valuation of limited partnership stock, family trusts, and allegations of contempt;
(b)   Pendergast v. Pendergast, S.C. Ct. App. Opinion No. 3627, Westlaw Citation WL 1873476.

This case involved a request by father for modification of unallocated child support and alimony as result of the graduation of the parties' child from college. I granted a modification of support but denied a modification of alimony and awarded attorney fees to the mother. The Court of Appeals affirmed my decision in its entirety;
(c)   Wall v. Wall, S.C. Ct. App., Unpublished Opinion No. 2002-UP-405.

Child custody, visitation, legal fees, alimony, valuation of assets, and child support were issues presented in this case. Husband was seeking alimony, and a downward deviation from Child Support Guidelines alleging a diminished earning capacity. Husband was entitled to personal injury settlement proceeds in which Wife was claiming an interest and Wife was operating a veterinary clinic in which Husband claimed an interest. Approximately twelve issues were addressed in the appeal and I was affirmed on all but one issue that involved the personal injury proceeds;
(d)   Eubank v. Eubank, 347 S.C. 367, 555 S.E.2d 413, (Ct. App. 2001).

Husband appealed my order denying his request to modify or terminate his alimony obligation to Wife based upon changed circumstances. I found that the change of circumstances was one that had been contemplated and

This was an action for the termination of the parental rights of the defendants who had had their children removed by DSS as a result of abuse to the children. The Defendants were accused of extreme malnourishment of the children which necessitated hospitalization for at least two of the children. The Defendants entered into a treatment plan with DSS that had as its goal reunification of the family. The Defendants completed all of the requirements of the treatment plan. The GAL and the DSS caseworker could not accept the religious beliefs of the Defendants and therefore sought TPR as opposed to reunification regardless of the Defendants' compliance with the treatment plan. I found that the GAL and DSS decided to seek TPR even before the Defendants had had an opportunity to complete the treatment plan and in fact set up obstacles in the path of successful completion. I denied the TPR and ordered reunification after a two and a half week trial."
Judge Landis provided the following concerning employment as a judge:
"My position as Municipal Judge for Moncks Corner from May, 1987 until May, 1998, was a part-time position appointed by the Mayor and Town Council. The Town of Moncks Corner was my employer and the Mayor was my supervisor. It was my responsibility to hold court to hear municipal level offenses, hold jury trials, execute search and arrest warrants, conduct bond hearings, and conduct preliminary hearings on General Sessions level offenses."
Judge Landis provided the following concerning unsuccessful candidacies:
"In February, 1996, I ran unsuccessfully for Seat #5, Family Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. I was found qualified by the Joint

S.C. State Champions 1989, 1991, 1993, 2000, and 2002;
(e)   2003 S.C. Bar Law Related Education Lawyer of the Year;
(f)   1994 S.C. Bar Pro Bono Service Award."
The Commission found Judge Landis qualified and nominated him for re-election as a Family Court judge.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Clarke W. McCants, III meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. McCants was born on June 20,1959. He is 44 years old and a resident of Aiken, South Carolina. Mr. McCants provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge McFaddin since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge George M. McFaddin, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge McFaddin was born on November 4, 1954. He is 49 years old and a resident of Gable, South Carolina. Judge McFaddin provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McFaddin.
Judge McFaddin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge McFaddin reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge McFaddin testified he has not:

New Judges School, Family Court Judge Conference, 'Hot Tips' CLE;
2002     Family Court Judges Annual Judicial Conference, New Judges School;
2001     Magistrate's School;
2000     Domestic Violence;

Ethical Considerations in Family Law;

Magistrate's Mandatory School (1 Week);
1999     Criminal Domestic Violence;

'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Traffic Laws;
1998     Family Court Update;
1997     'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Family Law Bench/Bar;

Ethics in Family Law;
1996     Alternative Dispute Resolution;
1995     Medicare & Medicaid;

'Hot Tips' in Family Law;

Adoption;

Suing the Federal Government;
1994     Defending Juveniles In Family Court;

DUI Defense;

Trial Practice."

No offices held in any of the above."
Judge McFaddin provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   Sumter County Volunteer Firefighter since 1974;
(b)   Member and Past Clerk of Session at Salem Black River Presbyterian Church;
(c)   2001 YWCA Judiciary Award for CDV Court Initiative/Creation;
(d)   City of Sumter Teen Court Recognition Award;
(e)   2002 Order of the Silver Crescent for Community Service."
The Commission found Judge McFaddin qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court bench.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge McLin since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Nancy Chapman McLin meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge McLin was born on September 5, 1963. She is 40 years old and a resident of Summerville, South Carolina. Judge McLin provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge McLin.
Judge McLin demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge McLin reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge McLin testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge McLin testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge McLin to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge McLin described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"a)   2002 Judicial Continuing Legal Education:

Family Law Section, January 25, 2002;

Family Court Judges Conference, May 1-2, 2002;

Annual Judicial Conference, August 22-23, 2002;

Family Court Bench/Bar Update, December 6, 2003.
b)   2001 Judicial Continuing Legal Education:

Family Law Section, January 26, 2001;

Family Court Judges Conference, May 3-4, 2001;

Family Court Bench/Bar Update, December 7, 2001.
c)   2000 Judicial Continuing Legal Education:

Family Law Section, January 21, 2000;

Family Court Judge Conference, May 3-4, 2000;

SCTLA Convention, August 3, 2000;

Annual Judicial Conference, August 16-17, 2000;
Family Court Bench/Bar Update, December 1, 2000.
d)   1999 Judicial Continuing Legal Education:

Family Law Section, January 22, 1999;

Family Court Judge Conference, May 19-20, 1999;

SCTLA Convention, August 5, 1999;

Annual Judicial Conference, August 19-20, 1999;

Family Court Bench/Bar Update, December 3, 1999.
e)   1998 Judicial Continuing Legal Education:

Family Court Judge Conference, May 21-22, 1998;
Orientation School for New Family Court Judges, June 29-30, 1998;
SCTLA Annual Convention, August 13, 1998;
Annual Judicial Conference, August 20-21, 1998;
Family Court Bench/Bar Update, November 6, 1998;

Seminar for Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes, December 6, 1998."
Judge McLin reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   South Carolina Bar Association CLE, Tips from the Bench, III, December 13, 2002; Topic: Adoptions;
(b)   South Carolina Bar Association CLE, Tips from the Bench, II, December 14, 2001, Topic: Adoptions   ;
(c)   Charleston County Bar Association CLE, Family Law, November 30, 2001, Topic: Family Court Check Lists;
(d)   Domestic Law in South Carolina, on or about August 25, 1992. I lectured at a seminar on Domestic Law in South Carolina, sponsored by the National Business Institute. The topics of the lecture included prenuptial

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Peter R. Nuessle meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.

08/20 through

08/21     Judicial Conference;

04/30     Family Court Judges Conference;

01/24     Family Law, Part II;
2002

08/22     Judicial Conference;

05/01     Family Court Judges Conference;

01/25     Family Law Section II-Taxes;
2001

08/23     Judicial Conference;

05/03     2001 Family Court Judges Conference;

01/26     Family Law Section;
2000

12/01     Family Court Bench/Bar Conference;

05/03     Family Court Judges Conference;

01/21     Family Law Section;
1999

08/19     SCCA Judicial Conference;

05/19     Family Court Judges Conference;

01/22     S.C. Bar Family Law Section, Midyear Meeting."
Judge Nuessle reported that he taught Business Law at Aiken Technical College from 1973 to 1979.
Judge Nuessle reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Nuessle did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Nuessle did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Nuessle has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Nuessle was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Nuessle reported that he was not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Nuessle appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Nuessle appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Nuessle was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970.
Judge Nuessle provided the following account of his legal experience since graduation from law school:

Lay Reader, Chalice Bearer, Member of the Vestry and former Senior Warden."

The Commission found Judge Nuessle qualified and nominated him for re-election to the Family Court bench.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Rucker since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge John M. Rucker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Rucker was born on October 22, 1944. He is 59 years old and a resident of Newberry, South Carolina. Judge Rucker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Rucker.
Judge Rucker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Rucker reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Rucker testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Saunders was born on September 20, 1942. He is 61 years old and a resident of Laurens, South Carolina. Judge Saunders provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Saunders.
Mr. Robert Sherard timely filed a complaint against Judge Saunders regarding Judge Saunders' handling of certain matters involving Mr. Sherard's divorce from his former wife. Judge Saunders handled these matters in 1997 and 1998 during his prior service as Family Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial Circuit.
Mr. Sherard complained in part that Judge Saunders had not properly controlled the proceedings in his courtroom in that he allowed an observer to converse with his former wife and her attorney during the proceedings and while they were seated at counsel's table. Judge Saunders admitted that such a conversation may have taken place but offered that he allows such conversations if they are brief and do not interrupt the proceedings. The Commission is satisfied that Judge Saunders' approach is well accepted among the bench and, often, assists in the orderly and efficient handling of cases. As such, the Commission does not find merit in this part of Mr. Sherard's complaint.
Mr. Sherard also complained that Judge Saunders engaged in a courthouse grounds conversation with a friend of his ex-wife regarding Judge Saunders' 1998 candidacy for the Circuit Court and that when advised that this conversation was inappropriate, Judge Saunders failed to recuse himself. After full inquiry, the Commission found these aspects of the complaint to be without merit. As the complainant did not overhear the conversation, the Commission must necessarily rely upon Judge Saunders' recollection that the brief conversation in no way focused on the divorce action and that he was generally unaware of the other party to the conversation in relationship to the ex-wife. As to

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Edward M. Sauvain meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Sauvain was born on March 19, 1949. He is 54 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Sauvain provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sauvain.
Judge Sauvain demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Sauvain reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Sauvain testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Sauvain testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Sauvain to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sauvain described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"September 2003   S.C. Association of Probate Judges Fall Conference;

Annual Probate Bench/Bar Conference;
May 2003     Probate Court Bench and Staff Conference;

Various topics related to Probate Court issues through the National College of Probate Judges conferences;
March 2003     Logic and Opinion Writing at National Judicial College;
January 2003   New Probate Judge's School;
November 2002   Various topics related to Probate Court issues through the National College of Probate Judges conferences;
September 2002   S.C. Association of Probate Judges Fall Conference;

Annual Probate Bench/Bar Conference;
May 2002     Probate Court Bench and Staff Conference;

Various topics related to Probate Court issues through the National College of Probate Judges conferences;
March 2002     S.C. Association of Probate Judges Legislative Conference;
November 2001   Software Solutions in law offices;
May 2001     S.C. Employment Law Update;
April 2001     Mergers and Acquisitions in S.C.;
July 2000     Qualified State Tuition Program;
March 2000     Current Trends in Intellectual Property Advance Directives in S.C.;
February 2000   Mechanic's Lien Law;
May 1999     Cool Tips from the Hottest Lawyers (Domestic Relations);
March 1999     Mechanic's Liens;
August 1998   LAW Tech (Technology in law offices);
April 1998     Workplace Harassment Litigation."
Judge Sauvain reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   I've taught classes on mental health commitments, guardianships, and conservatorships to attorneys and paralegals at the annual Legal Staff Professionals of Greenville Conferences in 2002 and 2003;
(b)   I was one of the instructors for a series of classes in January 2003, on the use of Excel spreadsheets for docket reporting for Probate Judges and staff at Court Administration;

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys on Probate Court issues.

Greenville County Bar Association on Wills, Living Wills, and Powers of Attorney."
Judge Sauvain reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Sauvain did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sauvain did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sauvain has handled him financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sauvain was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with him diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Sauvain reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Sauvain reports that he has held no public offices, but reports the following military service:
"United States Air Force, 1971-1975, 1st Lieutenant, Honorable Discharge."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Sauvain appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, G. David Seay, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Seay was born on November 12, 1967. He is 36 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Seay provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1994.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Seay.
Mr. Seay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Seay reported that his wife is currently employed by the Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office and acknowledged that she would need to find alternative employment if he were to be elected as her continued employment with the Solicitor's Office would interfere with his service on the bench. Mrs. Seay has agreed to seek other employment if such conditions were to exist.
Mr. Seay reported that he has spent $5.85 on postage, paper, and envelopes.
Mr. Seay testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Seay testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Seay to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge F.P. Segars-Andrews meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Segars-Andrews was born on January 23, 1957. She is 46 years old and a resident of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. Judge Segars-Andrews provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Segars-Andrews.
Judge Segars-Andrews demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Short since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Paul E. Short, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Short was born on January 13, 1947. He is 56 years old and a resident of Chester, South Carolina. Judge Short provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1971.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Short.
Judge Short demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Short reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Short testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Short testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Short to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Short described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
"2003:

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, BUT NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Marcus L. Smith meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Smith was born on October 6, 1961. He is 42 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Smith provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

South Carolina Public Defender Conference;
2000   South Carolina Public Defender Conference;
1999   Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Law Practitioners;

South Carolina Public Defender Conference;
1998   Hot Tips from the Best Domestic Law Practitioners."
Mr. Smith reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Smith did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Smith did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Smith has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Smith was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Smith reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Mr. Smith reported the following concerning his military service:

House of Delegates 13th Judicial Circuit, July 1996-June 1998;
(b)   American Bar Association, April 1989-February 1994;
(c)   Greenville County Bar Association, 1996-present."
Mr. Smith provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"(a)   St. Francis Hospital, 'B' a Piece of Greenville, Executive Committee; Co-Chairman;
(b)   Buncombe Street United Methodist Church."

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Strom since her candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Donna S. Strom meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Strom was born on March 10, 1959. She is 44 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Strom provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1984.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Strom.
Judge Strom demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Strom reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Strom testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Strom testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the screening report.

05/21/98   Family Court Judges Conference;

08/20/98   SCCA Judicial Conference;

08/13/98   1998 SCTLA Annual Convention;

11/06/98   S.C. Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;
1999:

01/22/99   S.C. Bar Family Law Section Midyear Meeting;

05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;

08/05/99   SCTLA Annual Convention;

08/19/99   SCCA Judicial Conference;

12/3/99   S.C. Bar Family Court Bench/Bar;
2000:

01/00     S.C. Bar Family Law Section;

05/00     SCCA Family Court Judges Conference;

08/00     SCTLA Annual Convention;

08/00     SCCA Judicial Conference;

12/00     S.C. Bar Family Law Bench/Bar;
2001:

01/26/01   S.C. Bar Family Law Section;

05/03/01   SCCA Family Court Judges;

08/02/01   SCTLA Annual Convention;

08/23/01   SCCA Judicial Conference;

12/7/01   S.C. Bar Family Law Bench/Bar;
2002:

1/25/02   Family Law Section II;

05/01/02   Family Court Judges Conference;

08/01/02   SCTLA Annual Conference;

08/22/02   SCCA Judicial Conference.
Judge Strom reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Seminars:
(a)   "Domestic Practice: The Return of Hot Tips from the Experts." May 1991, Lecture Topic: Interstate Child Support Remedies;

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Toal was born on August 11, 1943. She is 60 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Chief Justice Toal provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Chief Justice Toal.

11/9/98   November Meeting, What Jurors Really Think, Columbia;
01/15/99   The Art of Advocacy (Seminar Faculty Member), Columbia;
01/22/99   The Fourteenth Annual Criminal Law Update, Columbia;
01/7/99   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court January Seminar;

07/16/99   Orientation for Disciplinary Counsel, Columbia;
08/19/99   Judicial Conference, Columbia;
09/29/99   Lunch & Learn Richland Bar, Columbia;
10/19/99   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court, October Seminar, Columbia;
01/14/00   Professionalism & S.C. Bar Annual Meeting Seminars, Charleston;
02/18/00   South Carolina-A Haven for Religious Dissent, Supreme Court Historical Society, Charleston;
05/03/00   Family Court Judges Conference, Fripp Island;
05/10/00   Circuit Court Judges Conference, Charleston;
07/10/00   Charleston Bar Riverdogs Ethics Seminar, Charleston;
07/10/00   New Judges School, Columbia;
07/27/00   S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys, Joint Claims Association Meeting, Asheville, N.C.;
07/31-
08/03/00   National Conference of Chief Justices, Seattle, WA;

08/03/00   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Meeting, Hilton Head;
08/16/00   Annual State Judicial Conference, Columbia;
09/15/00   Ethics-View from the Bench, Columbia;
10/12/00   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court, October Seminar, Columbia;
01/25/01   Annual Criminal Law Update, Charleston;
01/25/01   Family Law Update, Charleston;
02/09/01   Circuit Court Arbitration Training, Columbia;

04/19/01   2001 Supreme Court Historical Society Colloquium History of Women at the Bar, Charleston;
05/03/01   Family Court Judges Conference, Fripp Island;

Election Law 1990, "Post-Election Protest Procedure," 02/23/90;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing," 03/05/90;

Appellate Practice in South Carolina, "Overview of S.C. Appellate Court Rules," 05/11/90;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing," 07/30/90;

Criminal Practice in South Carolina, "The Fifth and Sixth Amendments," 10/19/90;

Civil Trial Advocacy, Panel "Proving Damages in the New Business Case," 10/26/90;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 03/04/91;

The Future and the Courts, Organizer at this Seminar; secured all speakers; moderator and Introductory Address, 04/04 -04/05/91;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 08/05/91;

Criminal Practice, "Fifth and Sixth Amendment Developments in 1991," 09/27/91;

Judicial Conference of the U.S. Military Court of Appeals, "Appellate Review of the Death Penalty Case," 05/01/92;

Criminal Practice "The Fifth and Sixth Amendments-Current Developments," 09/18/92;

Auto Insurance Update, "Stacking-Everything You Always Wanted to Know," 10/23/92;

Legal Ethics and Real Life, Panelist "Every day Legal Issues," 11/6/92;
Ethics in Family Court, Panelist "Ethics and Clients-in the office and other Professionals," 12/15/92;
Appellate Practice under S.C. Appellate Court Rules, "Record on Appeal-Bench Perspective," 01/15/93;
S.C. Bar Workers' Compensation Section Seminar, "Roles of Court and Commission," 01/30/93;
Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 03/01/93;
Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 05/17/93;
Litigating Constitutional Claims, "Appellate Presentation of Constitutional Claims," 10/15/93;

Serving the Best Interest of Children, "Program Overview," 11/04/93;

Election Law Ethics and Governmental Accountability, "Post-Election Protest Procedure including Hill and Fielding," 02/25/94;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 05/16/94;

Bench/Bar Symposium: Lawyers Caring About Kids, Moderator-Panelist "Overview of Critical Areas," 06/04/94;

Rules, Rules, Rules, "Appellate Procedure Review," 07/29/94;

Criminal Defense in South Carolina, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction-Plea Agreements and Guilty Pleas," 09/23/94;

Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, "Judicial Perspective on Attorneys Fees," 10/25/94;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 03/06/95;

The Woman Advocate in South Carolina, "Professionalism and the Decline of Civility in the Practice of Law," 04/21/95;

S.C. Appellate Practice, "Motions and Supersedeas Practice," 04/28/95;

Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 05/15/95;

S.C. Conference of Circuit Court Judges, "The New S.C. Rules of Evidence-Comparison with Federal Rules and outline of Major Changes," 05/18/95;

The Proposed New S.C. Rules of Evidence, "Overview/Comparison with the Federal Rules of Evidence," 06/09/95;

Federal Practice in the District of S.C.: New Directions in Civil Practice, Discussion Procedure & Evidence, "Sweet Potato Law-Ethics Beyond the Code," Panelist, 07/28/95;

The New S.C. Rules of Evidence, "Overview of the New S.C. Rules of Evidence," 08/24/95;

Criminal Practice in South Carolina, "Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Issues," "Professionalism Ethics and Criminal Practice in the Wake of People v. Simpson," Panel Discussion, 11/03/95;

The Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update, "Contemporary Issues for the Criminal Law Practitioner," Keynote Address, 01/26/96;

1996 Winter Bridge the Gap, "Effective Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy," 03/04/96;

The South Carolina Woman Advocate: From Ceiling to Sunroof, "So You Want to Be a Judge," Panel Discussion, 04/26/96;

1996 Summer Bridge the Gap, "Essential Tips for Practice in S.C. Courts-Appellate Courts," 05/14/96;

Trial Practice Tune-Ups, "Witness -Lay/Expert," 07/17/96;

1996 South Carolina Tort Law Update, "The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, in a Nutshell," 09/13/96;

1996 CPAs, Lawyers and Litigation Conference, "Application of Minority and Marketability Discounts in Valuing Closely Held Businesses In Marital Litigation Cases," Panel Discussion, 09/26/96;

Criminal Practice in South Carolina-The Sixth Annual Update, "Stops, Searches, Seizures and the State and Federal Constitutions," 11/01/96;

Auto Insurance Update, "Stacking Made Simple," 11/08/96;

The Masters in Trial, "Presiding Judge," 11/22/96;

Civility, Legal Ethics & Law Office Management, "Video Presentation: The New Discipline -A Brief Look into the Future," 12/27/96;

1997 Winter Bridge the Gap, "Essential Tips for Practice in S.C. Courts-Appellate Courts," Opening Remarks, 03/10- 03/11/97;

The South Carolina Woman Advocate: Making Practice Perfect, "Do The Right Thing: Civility in the Courtroom," Panel Discussion, 04/18/97;

Practice and Procedure in South Carolina, "Appellate Oral Argument and Brief Writing," 05/02/97;

1997 Summer Bridge the Gap, "Essential Tips for Practice in S.C. Court-Appellate Courts," 05/20/97;

South Carolina Civil Trial Techniques, "Jury Selection," 06/06/97;

1997 South Carolina Tort Law Update, "The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act," 09/26/97;
Criminal Practice in South Carolina, "Search and Seizure-A Review of 1997 Appellate Decisions Concerning Fourth Amendment Issues," 11/14/97;
Ethics for Family Law Practitioners, "The Judicial Perspective," Panel Discussion, 12/09/97;
The Masters in Trial, "Presiding Judge," 12/12/97;
1998 Winter Bridge the Gap, "Essential Tips for Practice in S.C. Courts-Appellate Courts," 03/10/98;
1998 Summer Bridge the Gap, "Essential Tips for Practice in S.C. Courts-Appellate Courts," 05/19/98;
The South Carolina Woman Advocate: Moving into the Millennium, "Women as Advocates: What Works and What Doesn't," Panel Discussion;
"Mediation: Its Time is Now-What You Need to Know," Panel Discussion, 05/29/98;
South Carolina Circuit Court Arbitrator Certification Training, "ADR in South Carolina: Past, Present and Future," 06/26/98;
American Bar Association Annual Convention, "Tort Reform: The Role of Appellate Courts," Presiding Judge for the oral Argument and participant in Panel Discussion, 08/01/98;
Judicial Conference, "Technology Update," 08/20/98;
Products Liability-The Complex Case, "Complex Case Management, Developments and Ideas," Panel Discussion; "Daubert and the Expert Witness," 10/23/98;
John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court November Meeting, "What Jurors Really Think," 11/09/98;
Masters in Trial, "Presiding Judge," 11/13/98;
Eighth Annual Presentation of Criminal Practice in South Carolina, "Update on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: A Review of

"(a)   J.M. Hoefer, 1966 Survey-Corporations, 19 S.C. L. Rev. 24 (1967);

(b)   J.M. Hoefer, 1966 Survey-Workman's Compensation, 19 S.C. L. Rev. 147 (1967);

(c)   J.H. Toal, 1967 Survey-Property, 19 S.C. L. Rev. 635 (1967);

(d)   J.H. Toal, Water Resources Research Project, Edens: The Prime Obstacle to a Redevelopment of South Carolina Water Law, 23 S.C. L. Rev. 63 (1971);

(e)   J.H. Toal and J. Aldrich, Recent Developments in Punitive Damages and Expert Witness Testimony, 22 Defense Line 7 (Winter 1994);

(f)   J.H. Toal, Book Review, The South Carolina Law of Torts, 50 S.C. L. Rev. 261 (1998);

(g)   J.H. Toal, Robert A. Muckenfuss, Shahin Vafai, Issue Preservation at Trial: Back to Basics, 10 S.C. Lawyer 14 (March/April, 1999);

(h)   J.H. Toal, Robert A. Muckenfuss, Shahin Vafai, Appellate Practice in South Carolina, (S.C. Bar CLE Division 1999), release date May 1999;

(i)   J.H. Toal, Robert A. Muckenfuss, Shahin Vafai, Appellate Practice in South Carolina, 2nd Edition (S.C. Bar CLE Division 2002), release date July 4, 2002;

(j)   J.H. Toal, Reply to Professor Tarpley's Comment Regarding Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 54 S.C.L. Rev. 267 (Winter 2002)."

3.   Aside from appellate case review, does the Judicial Department engage in any effort to ensure that our State's court system is non-discriminatory as to matters of gender, race, and ethnicity? As to matters of employment, juror selection, sentencing, and other areas where such discrimination might impact, does the Department collect and analyze empirical data?
"The Judicial Department is mandated by both the Constitution and statute to ensure the court system is non-discriminatory. Even when questions of race or gender discrimination are not properly preserved for review, our Court has reversed cases where discrimination is patent. For example, in State v. Pace, the Court granted a defendant a new trial in a case where a judge repeatedly referred to defendant's counsel as 'a nice girl' and 'a pretty girl' and told the jury not to take it out on her when he ruled against her. 316 S.C. 71, 447 S.E.2d 186 (1994). In Toyota of Florence, Inc. v. Lynch and Southeast Toyota Distributors, the Court granted a new trial for defendant Southeast Toyota where, in closing argument, the plaintiff displayed a poster with depictions of planes, mushroom clouds and people with 'Oriental features' in order to demean the defendant Japanese corporation. 314 S.C. 257, 442 S.E.2d 611 (1994). Additionally, the Court has had presentations at its annual Judicial Conference addressing discrimination in all its forms, including how to identify even subtle discrimination.
The Judicial Department employs a diverse work force, especially in senior management. Of course, the Department has no control over

To order periods of visitation for the grandparents of a minor child where either or both parents of the minor child is

a.   To the extent that these lengthy expanse of time and extensive cost factors are a result of judges and how they run their courtrooms, what can be done to improve the system?
"I do not believe the lengthy time and cost factors are factors attributable to the judges and how they run their courtrooms. Rather, I believe they are the result of the lack of funds for Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and my recent inability to freely rotate judges.

b.   To the extent that these factors are a function of the private enterprise system of attorneys and guardians "run amok" and perhaps solely being profit-driven, what can be done to improve the system?
"I believe the problems of guardians 'run amok' was solved by the legislation recently enacted by the General Assembly which requires judges to look at time spent and approve fees for guardians. As to attorneys, a litigant is always free to change attorneys if the litigant does not believe the attorney is serving the litigant's interests. As a last resort, the litigant can file a complaint against the attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. But again, many issues that come to family court, particularly visitation and custody matters, are not resolved well in an adversarial process. State-funded mediation represents an effective method of removing the adversarial approach from the process."

c.   Do you think that Family Court judges are adhering to the new guardian law? Since guardians are neither screened nor supervised, what protections are in place to deal with a biased guardian? What alternatives does a litigant have other than to seek to have a biased guardian removed? What can the Court do to ensure that a fair and impartial investigation of a guardian accused of bias is conducted?
"I do believe the judges are adhering to the new guardian law. Under the new legislation, guardians are required to have training and attend trials prior to being appointed. If a litigant believes a guardian is biased, the litigant can file a motion to have the guardian relieved. Because the family court judges are more involved, and involved earlier in cases involving guardians, I believe they can be trusted to ensure that a biased guardian is timely removed from the case."

d.   Because delay in resolution of these cases is generally never in the best interest of the child, what systemic changes would you recommend to expedite case resolutions?

"The delay in resolution of cases is a perfect example of how stressed the family court system is. First, Department of Social Services

e.   The Supreme Court has established a Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution. One of the goals/recommendations is for mandatory mediation in all 46 counties. Solely with respect to Family Court, how soon could that goal be realized and do you think it would help the system? Do you agree that it would be better that non-binding mediation be conducted without attorneys present so that parties could first meet in a non-adversarial setting? For this reason, should mediators be allowed to prohibit the attendance of attorneys?
"As previously stated, the Commission on ADR has been renewed and revived with the appointment of a new Chair to head the Commission. Mandatory mediation in all family courts is a wonderful goal but without funding from the General Assembly will not be a reality for some time to come. As to the attendance of attorneys at mediation conferences, presently Rule 4 of the Rules of Mediation provides that attorneys can be present only if the parties and the mediator consent. Thus, there is no need to prohibit the attendance of attorneys since the mediator can simply veto their presence."

f.   What can the General Assembly do legislatively to improve the Family Court system?
"As previously stated, our family court system is the envy of many other states. With the addition of more family court judges and adequate funding for ADR and the entire system, the South Carolina families that look to the family court system to resolve disputes could be resolved without the delay that they are currently facing there."
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Chief Justice Toal did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Chief Justice Toal did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Chief Justice Toal has handled her financial affairs responsibly.

The Midlands Citizens Committee found Chief Justice Toal to be a qualified and highly-regarded Supreme Court justice. The Committee approved of her re-election as Chief Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Toal is married to William Thomas Toal. She has two children.
Chief Justice Toal reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
"(a)   American Bar Association;
(b)   S.C. Bar Association;
(c)   Richland County Bar;
(d)   S.C. Women Lawyers Association;
(e)   John Belton O'Neall Inn of Court;
(f)   Conference of Chief Justices, Board of Directors 2001-2002, 2003-2006."
Chief Justice Toal provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, or fraternal organizations:
"Church:

St. Joseph's Catholic Church;

Lector (Lay Reader).
Fraternal:

Phi Beta Kappa;

Order of the Coif;

Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity;

Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity;

ODK Leadership Fraternity;

Mortar Board Leadership Fraternity.
Civic and Educational:

Conference of Chief Justices Board of Directors, 2001-2002, 2003-2006;

Agnes Scott College Board of Trustees, 1997-Present;

Kosmos Club, 1996-Present;

University of South Carolina Bicentennial Commission, 1999-2001;

Women Helping Women Achieve, University of South Carolina Women's Athletic Programs, 1998-Present;

Chair, South Carolina Rhodes Scholar Selection Committee, 1994;

ABA Presidential Working Group on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families, 1993;

S.C. Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization, 1992-Present;

Chair, South Carolina Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1992-1994;

New York University, Appellate Judges Seminar, 1988;

Trustee, Columbia Art Museum, 1980-1985;

S.C. Workers' Compensation Study Committee, 1978-1988;

Board of Visitors, Clemson University, 1978;

Founder, First Chairman, Shandon Neighborhood Council, 1972-1974;

South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, 1972-1974.
Honors:

Government Technology Top 25 Doers, Dreamers and Drivers, 2002;

Center for Digital Government, In the Arena Award, 2002;

Honorary Doctor of Law, University of South Carolina, 2000;

Honorary Doctor of Law, The Citadel, 1999;

South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Portrait Honoree, 1995;

South Carolina Women Lawyers Association, Jean Galloway Bissell Award, 1995;

Richland County Bar Association (SC), John W. Williams Award, 1994;

Dreher High School Hall of Fame, 1994;

Congaree Girl Scout Council Woman of Distinction, 1993;

South Carolina Public Relations Society of America, Citizen of the Year, 1992;

Honorary Doctor of Laws, Columbia College, 1992;

Agnes Scott College, Outstanding Alumnae Award, 1991;

University of Notre Dame Award, 1991;

Algernon Sidney Sullivan Award, University of South Carolina, 1991;

Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, College of Charleston, 1990;

University of South Carolina Mortar Board Woman of the Year, 1989;

South Carolina Pharmacists Association Legislator of the Year, 1985;

South Carolina Municipal Association DSA Award, 1980;

Columbia Record, Ten for the Future, 1976;

Greenville News Outstanding Legislator of the Year Award, 1976;

Recipient, Columbia Jaycees DSA Award, 1976;

Columbia BPW Career Woman of the Year, 1974."
Chief Justice Toal additionally reported the following:
"It is a rare privilege given few in life to have been allowed to serve as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court for the past 15 years. Today I am still filled with the same excitement and love for my work with which I began my service on March 17, 1988. I believe I have been a productive member of our Court. I have written over 900 opinions for our court in the 15 years of my tenure. Of that number, approximately 69 are dissenting opinions. The opinions I have written for the Court have addressed virtually every area of the law. I have prepared opinions for the Court analyzing and deciding issues related to the United States Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution. I have written opinions interpreting both federal and state legislation. My opinions have ranged from those involving criminal appeals, civil appeals, appeals from administrative agencies (including, but not limited to, the Worker's Compensation Commission, the South Carolina Public Service Commission, the South Carolina Health and Human Services Finance Commission, the South Carolina Department of Revenue, the State Crop Pest Commission, and the South Carolina Coastal Council), election contests, domestic appeals, and appeals arising from probate court. I have written opinions for the Court addressing certified questions from Federal District Courts. I have written several opinions for the Court where the death penalty was at issue for the appellant. I have written opinions for the Court in which the appellant was attacking an act of the legislature as unconstitutional (including, but not limited to, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, certain tax commission regulations, the Video Gaming Act, and certain sections of the probate code). I have written opinions for the Court that have become important precedents regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and regarding both civil and criminal procedures. I read and independently research, where appropriate, every matter that comes before our Court. I participate actively in Continuing Legal Education Seminars as a teacher and as a student.
As an Associate Justice, I was assigned several special projects by each of the Chief Justices under whom I have served. These projects included:
1989-1990: Chair and Co-Drafter of the new South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, submitted to the General Assembly in 1990,

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Jerry D. Vinson, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Vinson was born on October 12, 1960.   He is 43 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Mr. Vinson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Vinson.
Mr. Vinson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges,

(f)   January 24, 1998, Trial and Appellate Advocacy;
(g)   February 27, 1998, DSS Attorney Training;
(h)   June 20, 1998, Family Law Section CLE;
(i)   August 28, 1998, Domestic Practice Hot Tips (Speaker);
(j)   January 22, 1999, Family Law Section CLE;
(k)   January 22, 1999, Access to Justice Committee Ethics Program;
(l)   January 23, 1999, Business Valuation Seminar;
(m)   June 11, 1999, Trial and Appellate Advocacy Section CLE;
(n)   June 12, 1999, Family Law Section CLE;
(o)   August 6, 1999, ABA Joint Tax Workshop;
(p)   August 7, 1999, ABA Domestic Hot Tips Seminar;
(q)   September 24, 1999, Domestic Hot Tips Seminar (Speaker);
(r)   October 29, 1999, Alternative Dispute Resolution Perspectives Seminar;
(s)   December 4, 1999, Family Law Ethics Seminar (Speaker);
(t)   January 21, 2000, Family Law Section Seminar;

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, G. Edward Welmaker meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Welmaker was born on December 12, 1945. He is 58 years old and a resident of Easley, South Carolina. Mr. Welmaker provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Welmaker.
Mr. Welmaker demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Welmaker reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Welmaker testified 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;

IMLA's 67th Annual Conference, Local Government: Reaching New Heights;

South Carolina Municipal Attorneys Association, Annual Meeting & Continuing Legal Education Seminar;
2001:

South Carolina Association of County Attorneys Annual Conference; National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Legal Seminar 41;
2000:

South Carolina Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting;

South Carolina Local Government Attorneys' Institute;

South Carolina Bar, Advance Directives in S.C.: Understanding Health Care Powers of Attorney & Living Wills;

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Legal Seminar 40;

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Workplace Law;

South Carolina Council for Conflict Resolution, Basic Mediation Training;
1999:

South Carolina Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting;

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Legal Seminar 39;

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Workplace Law;

South Carolina Local Government Attorneys' Institute;
1998:

National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc., Employee & Labor Relations Workshop & Update;

The Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina Legal Seminar;

South Carolina Local Government Attorneys' Institute."
Mr. Welmaker reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:

The defendant was convicted of DUI by a jury in the City of Easley, although there was no testimony from anyone observing Mr. Portman operating the vehicle. Rather, defendant had wrecked his motor vehicle and confessed to the arresting officer to be the driver. The evidentiary concept of corpus delecti was the appellate issue. The circuit court judge upheld the conviction only after much analysis and consideration. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, although each wrote separate opinions, one in dissent;
(c)   Cartee v. Lesley, 286 S.C. 249 333 S.E.2d 341 (COA 1985), affirmed 290 S.C. 333, 350 S.E.2d 388 (1986, Supreme

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Williams since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge H. Bruce Williams meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Williams was born on March 13, 1956. He is 47 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Williams reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Williams testified 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;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.

01/09/98   Seminar of Circuit & Family Court Judges for Administrative Purposes;

03/05/98   Governor's Conference on Youth Crime;

05/21/98   Family Court Judges' Conference;

01/23/98   Family Law Midyear Meeting;

08/13/98   S.C. Trial Lawyers-1998 Annual Convention;

08/20/98   Judicial Conference;

11/06/98   1998 Family Court Bench/Bar;

05/19/99   Family Court Judges Conference;

06/28/99   Family & Circuit Court Judges Orientation School;

08/05/99   1999 Annual Convention;

08/19/99   Judicial Conference;

12/03/99   Bench/Bar Family Law Seminar;

01/21/00   Family Law Section;

08/16/00   Annual Judicial Conference;

05/03/00   Family Court Judges Conference;

08/03/00   Trial Lawyers Convention;

12/01/00   Family Law Bench/Bar;

01/26/01   Family Law Section;

05/03/01   Family Court Judges Conference;

07/31/01   Judicial Ethics Workshop;

08/23/01   Judicial Conference;

09/22/01   Wofford Alumni Attorneys;

12/07/01   Family Court Bench/Bar;

01/25/02   Family Law Section II-Taxes;

02/24/02   Current Issues in the Family Court;

04/19/02   Cool Tips;

05/01/02   Family Court Judges Conference;

07/08/02   2002 Orientation School for New Judges;

08/01/02   Trial Lawyers;

08/22/02   Judicial Conference;

12/06/02   Family Court JCLE."
Judge Williams reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   I have lectured at the required South Carolina Bar sponsored 'Bridge the Gap' Program for new lawyers for the last several years;
(b)   I have lectured to USC Law classes about abuse and neglect cases. I have spoken to USC Law classes about Juvenile Drug Court as a sentencing alternative;
(c)   I have lectured to the Richland Bar 'Lunch and Learn' Program about abuse and neglect matters in Family Court."
Judge Williams reported that he has not published any books or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Williams did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Williams has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Williams was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Williams reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Williams appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Williams appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.

Scott, Mathews and Williams, 1982-1991;

Trotter and Williams, 1991-1995;
1991-1995     Part-time Municipal Judge for Irmo, South Carolina;
1995-present   South Carolina Family Court Judge."
Judge Williams provided regarding prior judicial positions:
"(a)   Assistant Town Judge, Irmo, S.C., October 1991-June 6, 1995; appointed by Town Council; jurisdiction limited to Magistrate level, criminal and traffic offenses;
(b)   S.C. Family Court Judge, Richland County, Seat #1; June 1995-present; elected by Legislature; jurisdiction includes, but is not limited to, divorce, adoption, abuse and neglect and juvenile matters as set forth by statute. I have presided over the Richland County Juvenile Drug Court since inception in 1998;
(c)   S.C. Court of Appeals, Appointed as an Acting Judge in case of Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., et al.;
(d)   I have been appointed as a Circuit Judge to preside over Adult Drug Court."
Judge Williams provided the following concerning previous candidacies for judicial office:
"In 1994 I was a candidate for the Family Court. I was found qualified by the S.C. Bar and Joint Commission for Judicial Screening. I withdrew prior to the election. In 2003 I was a candidate for the Court of Appeals. I was found qualified and selected by the Judicial Merit Selection Committee as one of the three candidates to seek the seat on the Court of Appeals."
Judge Williams provided the following list of his most significant orders:
"(a)   Bates v. Bates, Opinion 97-UP-247; Court of Appeals affirmed post-divorce modification of alimony;
(b)   Ellis v. Commander, 96-DR-40-1708, case involved medical treatment for baby when parents objected to treatment;
(c)   Jones v. Jones, 96-DR-40-2069, divorce action with issues involving visitation and equitable distribution;

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED AND NOMINATED

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 2-19-40, the Commission waived the public hearing for Judge Williams since his candidacy for re-election was uncontested and no complaints were received.
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge James C. Williams, Jr. meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Williams was born on December 20, 1943. He is 60 years old and a resident of Norway, South Carolina. Judge Williams provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Williams.
Judge Williams demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Williams reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Williams testified 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;