Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 a.m.
Deliberations were opened with prayer by Rev. Charles E. Seastrunk, Jr., as follows:
Our thought for today is from 1 Chronicle 29:11: "Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours."
Let us pray. O Lord, since all things are Yours, protect us in this world with Your love and Your great power. For the work ahead of us this day, give Your people strength, courage, and integrity to deal with each problem and turn it into an opportunity for service and for the common good of all people. Direct these Representatives with Your compassionate and loving hand. Bless our Nation, President, State, Governor, Speaker, this Honorable Assembly, and all who serve in this place. Protect our defenders of freedom at home and abroad as they protect us. Hear us as we pray. Amen.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3, the House of Representatives was led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America by the SPEAKER.
After corrections to the Journal of the proceedings of yesterday, the SPEAKER ordered it confirmed.
Rep. SHOOPMAN moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in memory of Army Specialist David Lee Leimbach of Taylors who was killed in Afghanistan.
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 3:30 p.m. today for the purpose of ratifying Acts.
On motion of Rep. BEDINGFIELD the invitation was accepted.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
S. 1252 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman and Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 2-75-30 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE MATCHING ENDOWMENT, TO PROVIDE THAT THE INTEREST EARNINGS IN THE FUND MAY BE USED AT THE RESEARCH CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE REVIEW BOARD'S DISCRETION FOR ADDITIONAL STATE AWARDS.
Rep. COOPER explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was introduced:
H. 5232 (Word version) -- Rep. Talley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES THE CSX RAILROAD TRACKS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 215 THE "M. D. PUTNAM BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "M. D. PUTNAM BRIDGE".
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions.
The following was introduced:
H. 5233 (Word version) -- Rep. Knight: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND MELANIE PENDARVIS,
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5234 (Word version) -- Rep. Battle: A HOUSE RESOLUTION HONORING AND THANKING REVEREND DONNIE MCBRIDE AND THE PARISHIONERS OF ST. JOHN AME CHURCH IN MARION FOR HOSTING THE 117TH SESSION OF THE NORTHEAST ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SEVENTH EPISCOPAL DISTRICT OF THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
The Resolution was adopted.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1333 (Word version) -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON AGING TO CONVENE A PURPLE RIBBON ALZHEIMER'S TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPACT OF ALZHEIMER'S IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO ASSESS THE RESOURCES FOR AND NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH ALZHEIMER'S AND RELATED DISORDERS SO AS TO DEVELOP A STATE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THIS HEALTH ISSUE.
The Concurrent Resolution was ordered referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.
The following was introduced:
S. 1421 (Word version) -- Senators Matthews and Hutto: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF BOULEVARD STREET IN THE CITY OF ORANGEBURG FROM ITS
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Ott Owens Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Shoopman Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Talley Taylor Toole Umphlett Walker Whipper
White Whitmire Williams Witherspoon Young
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, May 29.
Carl Anderson Don Bowen William Bowers Joan Brady Bill Cotty Kris Crawford Ralph Davenport Tracy Edge Gloria Haskins Chip Huggins H.G. Hutson Kenneth Kennedy Phillip Lowe James Merrill Denny Neilson Anne Parks Bakari Sellers Gary Simrill James E. Smith Leon Stavrinakis James E. Stewart Michael Thompson Thad Viers David Weeks B.W. Bannister Chris Hart
Announcement was made that Dr. John Raymond of Charleston was the Doctor of the Day for the General Assembly.
Reps. DUNCAN and M. A. PITTS presented to the House the Laurens Academy "Crusaders" Varsity Baseball Team, the 2008 South Carolina Independent Schools Association Class A Champions, their coaches and other school officials.
Rep. HOSEY presented to the House the Allendale-Fairfax High School "Tigers" Varsity Boys Track Team, the 2008 Class A Champions, their coaches and other school officials.
In accordance with House Rule 5.2 below:
"5.2 Every bill before presentation shall have its title endorsed; every report, its title at length; every petition, memorial, or other paper,
Bill Number: H. 5231 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/29/08 WHIPPER
Bill Number: H. 5231 (Word version)
Date: ADD:
05/29/08 R. BROWN
The following Bills were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
S. 1367 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 742 OF 1946, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE LORIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL COMMISSION, ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT TERMS OF ALL MEMBERS EXPIRE ON OCTOBER FIRST OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THEIR TERMS EXPIRE.
S. 1297 (Word version) -- Senator Hawkins: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 890 OF 1976, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE HOLLY SPRINGS VOLUNTEER FIRE DISTRICT IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT TO THE "HOLLY SPRINGS FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT".
S. 1322 (Word version) -- Senators O'Dell and Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 780 OF 1928, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
On motion of Rep. CLEMMONS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 1367 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. MAHAFFEY, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 1297 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. AGNEW, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that S. 1322 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:
S. 530 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO ENACT THE PROVISO CODIFICATION ACT OF 2007, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CODIFICATION IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS OF CERTAIN PROVISOS CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT EFFECTIVE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 ONLY.
S. 669 (Word version) -- Senator Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 43-7-465 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL INSURERS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF A CLAIM FOR A HEALTH CARE ITEM OR SERVICE AS A CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE SHALL PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
S. 1059 (Word version) -- Senator O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROHIBITED CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE AND REFERENCE CHANGES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 44-79-60, RELATING TO PERMISSIBLE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS SERVICES CONTRACTS ON CONDITION THAT THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL BE FOR NO MORE THAN ONE MONTH, THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL PROVISION BE DISCLOSED IN BOLD TYPE OF AT LEAST TEN-POINT FONT ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE INITIAL CONTRACT, AND THE CUSTOMER BE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO OPT OUT OF THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL PROVISION AT THE TIME THE INITIAL CONTRACT IS EXECUTED, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PRICE OF AN AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED CONTRACT MAY NOT CHANGE WITHOUT WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CUSTOMER AT LEAST THIRTY BUT NO MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANGE IN PRICE, AND TO PROVIDE CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT VOIDS AUTOMATIC RENEWAL PROVISIONS.
S. 218 (Word version) -- Senator Courson: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 9, TITLE 25 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT, TO NAME THE COMPACT THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT INSTEAD OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT; TO AMEND ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 25,
S. 503 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Ford and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-5-190, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENDORSEMENT AND EXECUTION OF WARRANTS ISSUED IN OTHER COUNTIES OR BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE A WARRANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ENDORSED BY A MAGISTRATE IN THE COUNTY WHERE A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIME RESIDES OR WHERE HE IS LOCATED, TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR SERVING A WARRANT, AND TO MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES.
S. 1159 (Word version) -- Senator Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 61-4-90, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF BEER OR WINE FOR CONSUMPTION BY PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE IN ONE CODE SECTION FOR CLARIFICATION; TO AMEND SECTION 61-6-4070, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE, SO AS TO DELETE A REFERENCE IN ONE CODE SECTION FOR CLARIFICATION; AND TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-8920 AND 20-7-8925, RELATING TO UNDERAGE PURCHASE, CONSUMPTION, OR POSSESSION OF BEER, WINE, OR ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, SO AS TO ALLOW ESTABLISHMENTS TO USE PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE TO TEST COMPLIANCE.
S. 1122 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-515 SO AS TO PERMIT AMERICAN INDIAN ARTISTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A TRIBE RECOGNIZED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS TO ADVERTISE AND SELL THEIR ARTS AND CRAFTS
S. 577 (Word version) -- Senator Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-3-560, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A MAGISTRATE MAY PUNISH BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS, OR BOTH, ALL ASSAULTS AND BATTERIES AGAINST SPORTS OFFICIALS AND COACHES.
S. 181 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Richardson and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-210 AND 24-13-230, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GOOD BEHAVIOR, WORK, AND ACADEMIC CREDITS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO DEVELOP POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES TO ALLOW CERTAIN PRISONERS TO RECEIVE A REDUCTION IN THEIR SENTENCES AND TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THAT MAY BE REDUCED FROM A SENTENCE; TO AMEND SECTION 24-27-200, RELATING TO THE FORFEITURE OF WORK, EDUCATION, OR GOOD CONDUCT CREDITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A REDUCTION IN THESE CREDITS MAY BE IMPLEMENTED PURSUANT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 30-4-40, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MATTERS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, DRAWINGS, OR SCHEMATICS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICIES WHOSE DISCLOSURE WOULD REASONABLY BE USED TO FACILITATE AN ESCAPE FROM LAWFUL CUSTODY MAY BE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.
S. 88 (Word version) -- Senators Campsen, Sheheen and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-1-207 AND 14-1-208, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ASSESSMENTS ON MAGISTRATES COURT OFFENSES AND MUNICIPAL COURT OFFENSES, RESPECTIVELY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THESE ASSESSMENTS MAY NOT BE IMPOSED ON
S. 1115 (Word version) -- Senators Leventis, Land, Ford, Anderson, Hutto, Malloy, Matthews, Williams, Peeler, Short, Sheheen, Drummond, Jackson, Ceips and Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-112-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO IN-STATE TUITION AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THESE PERSONNEL AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AND RETAIN IN-STATE TUITION RATES.
S. 1007 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 34, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT, SO AS TO REVISE ITS NAME TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT" AND TO PROVIDE UPDATED ARTICULATIONS OF THE PRUDENCE STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT OF CHARITABLE FUNDS AND FOR ENDOWMENT SPENDING, APPLY PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS TO CHARITIES ORGANIZED AS A TRUST, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY, IMPOSE ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON THOSE WHO MANAGE AND INVEST CHARITABLE FUNDS, AND UPDATE RULES GOVERNING EXPENDITURES FROM ENDOWMENT FUNDS AND PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE RELEASE AND MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON CHARITABLE FUNDS.
S. 691 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-170, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR BUYING, SELLING, OR DISPLAYING FOR SALE CARCASSES OR PARTS OF WILD RABBITS IN GAME ZONES 2 AND 4, SO AS TO MAKE SUCH CONDUCT UNLAWFUL STATEWIDE AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-300 SO AS TO DESIGNATE WHICH SPECIES CONSTITUTE BIG GAME; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-520, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE STUDY OF GAME ZONES RESTOCKED WITH WILD TURKEYS AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO SET OPEN AND CLOSED SEASONS ON MALE WILD TURKEYS, SO AS TO ALSO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT TO SET OTHER OPEN AND CLOSED SEASONS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-565, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE USE OF CROSS BOWS, SO AS TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE SECTION AND PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF ARCHERY EQUIPMENT AS USED IN THIS TITLE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-385, RELATING TO THE MINIMUM SIZE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS FROM LAKES
The following Bills were read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title of each be changed to that of an Act, and that they be enrolled for ratification:
S. 1244 (Word version) -- Senators Campsen, Gregory, Cromer, Ceips, McConnell, Scott and Cleary: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-3-730, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF ASSETS OF THE WILDLIFE ENDOWMENT FUND, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ALL LIFETIME PRIVILEGE FEES SHALL BE PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE FUND; TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-510, RELATING TO HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES AUTHORIZED FOR SALE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LIFETIME STATEWIDE HUNTING LICENSE MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT AT DESIGNATED LICENSING LOCATIONS RATHER THAN AT THE DEPARTMENT'S COLUMBIA HEADQUARTERS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-520, RELATING TO LIFETIME COMBINATION LICENSES, SO AS TO REVISE THE TYPE OF LICENSES OFFERED, THE FEES FOR THESE LICENSES, THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH THEY MAY BE OBTAINED, AND THE PROCESS FOR CONVERTING CERTAIN LIFETIME LICENSES INTO SENIOR LIFETIME LICENSES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-540, RELATING TO FISHING LICENSES, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT CERTAIN LICENSES ARE FOR RECREATIONAL FRESHWATER FISHING AND TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE AND FEE FOR OBTAINING A LIFETIME SALTWATER RECREATIONAL FISHERIES LICENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1130, RELATING TO WHEN COMMERCIAL FRESHWATER FISHING LICENSES ARE REQUIRED, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR WHEN THESE LICENSES ARE REQUIRED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1135, RELATING TO WHEN COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL FRESHWATER FISHING LICENSES ARE REQUIRED WHEN USING CERTAIN DEVICES, SO AS TO
S. 903 (Word version) -- Senators Campsen, McConnell and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-15-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMISSION ON WOMEN, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO FIFTEEN AND TO PROVIDE THAT ONE MEMBER MUST BE APPOINTED FROM EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND THE REMAINING MEMBERS FROM THE STATE AT LARGE.
S. 1022 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Setzler, Campbell and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 110 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE ACT" TO ESTABLISH THE CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE FUND; TO IMPROVE THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED NURSES IN THIS STATE BY PROVIDING NURSING FACULTY SALARY ENHANCEMENTS, TO CREATE NEW FACULTY POSITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NURSING STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS, LOANS, AND GRANTS, TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE RESEARCH TO ANALYZE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF NURSES; AND TO PROVIDE THE CHAPTER'S PROVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
S. 955 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 1-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, SO AS TO REVISE A PORTION OF THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA, AND GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA.
S. 1011 (Word version) -- Senators Jackson, Leatherman, Patterson, Ford, Hutto, Short, Fair, Matthews, Elliott, Setzler, Lourie, Campbell, Williams, Reese, Hayes and Anderson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-
S. 1095 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 25-1-380, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR THE ARMY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERALS TO TWO.
S. 241 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, Knotts, Reese, Leventis, Jackson, Thomas, Pinckney, McGill, Hutto, Sheheen, Williams, Matthews, Patterson, Cromer, Scott, Setzler and Bryant: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 16, TITLE 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 9-16-55 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION, ACTING CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, TO DIVEST ITS PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS IN CERTAIN COMPANIES THAT IN THEIR OPERATIONS ARE COMPLICIT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN IN THE DARFUR GENOCIDE AND TO PROHIBIT FUTURE INVESTMENTS BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH COMPANIES.
The following Joint Resolutions were taken up, read the third time, and ordered sent to the Senate:
H. 4928 (Word version) -- Reps. Jefferson, Lowe, Howard, G. M. Smith, Crawford, Cobb-Hunter, Alexander, Moss, Kennedy, Brantley, Williams,
H. 5191 (Word version) -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION, BOARD OF PHYSICAL THERAPY EXAMINERS, RELATING TO ESTABLISHING FEES, GUIDELINES FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE AS A PHYSICAL THERAPIST AND PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 3202, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. J. M. NEAL moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, June 3, which was adopted:
S. 297 (Word version) -- Senator Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 TO CHAPTER 61, TITLE 44 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES EMPLOYMENT ACT" AND TO REQUIRE AFTER JUNE 30, 2007, A PERSON SEEKING EMPLOYMENT AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT) TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT, TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON AS AN EMT IF THE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN FELONY CRIMES OR CRIMES AGAINST CERTAIN VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS, TO EXEMPT AN EMT EMPLOYED ON JULY 1, 2007, FROM A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK UNLESS AND UNTIL THE EMT CHANGES HIS EMT EMPLOYMENT, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY.
Rep. TOOLE moved to adjourn debate upon the following Bill until Tuesday, June 10, which was adopted:
S. 1156 (Word version) -- Senator Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-43-86, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHARMACIES, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM THREE TO FOUR THE NUMBER OF TECHNICIANS THAT A PHARMACIST MAY SUPERVISE AND TO REQUIRE THAT IF A PHARMACIST SUPERVISES FOUR TECHNICIANS, TWO OF THE FOUR MUST BE STATE CERTIFIED.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 1158 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, Sheheen, Gregory, Short and Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-230, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS, SO AS TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE CATAWBA RIVER AS A SCENIC RIVER.
Rep. LOFTIS made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 1210 (Word version) -- Senator Leatherman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 49-29-230(4) OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO SCENIC RIVERS, TO EXPAND THE PORTION OF LYNCHES RIVER THAT IS DESIGNATED AS A SCENIC RIVER.
Rep. LOFTIS made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 980 (Word version) -- Senator Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-121, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION, PURPOSE, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING PROHIBITS A COUNTY FROM PROVIDING GUARDIAN AD LITEM SERVICES IF THE COUNTY'S PROGRAM IS CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION AND TO PROVIDE THAT THIS SUBARTICLE APPLIES TO SUCH PROGRAMS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-126 AND 20-7-127, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING, RESPECTIVELY, TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS AND IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO COUNTY GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAMS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-129, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH FUNDING IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR A COUNTY GUARDAIN AD LITEM PROGRAM.
Rep. SCARBOROUGH made the Point of Order that the Bill was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The following Bill and Joint Resolution were taken up, read the second time, and ordered to a third reading:
H. 5144 (Word version) -- Rep. Clemmons: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 11 TO CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 55 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE GRAND STRAND AIRPORT DISTRICT, DEFINE ITS AREA, ESTABLISH ITS GOVERNING COMMISSION, DESCRIBE THE FUNCTIONS, AND POWERS OF THE DISTRICT AND ITS COMMISSION, MAKE PROVISIONS FOR BORROWING BY THE DISTRICT INCLUDING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, AND PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE FACILITIES OF THE DISTRICT.
Rep. CLEMMONS explained the Bill.
H. 5231 (Word version) -- Reps. Howard, Cobb-Hunter, Whipper and R. Brown: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, RELATING TO LICENSING STANDARDS FOR CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 3204, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. HOWARD explained the Joint Resolution.
On motion of Rep. HOWARD, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 5231 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. CLEMMONS, with unanimous consent, it was ordered that H. 5144 (Word version) be read the third time tomorrow.
On motion of Rep. HARRISON, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Judiciary:
S. 1313 (Word version) -- Senators Knotts, Peeler, Williams, Elliott, Ford, Vaughn, Grooms, Malloy, Cromer, Bryant, Courson, Setzler, McConnell, Ceips, Ritchie, Cleary, Campsen, Short, McGill, Patterson, Reese, Ryberg, Fair, Thomas, Campbell, Anderson, Drummond, Pinckney, Jackson, Alexander, Leatherman, O'Dell, Lourie, Matthews, Martin, Rankin, Hayes and Verdin: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-223 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO THROUGH A BOND FOR TITLE, LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT, CONTRACT FOR SALE, OR OTHER TYPE OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OWNS AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN A PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY, THE LEGAL TITLE TO WHICH REMAINS IN THE SELLER, WHICH THAT PERSON MAINTAINS AS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE QUALIFIES FOR A FOUR PERCENT ASSESSMENT RATIO THEREON IF HE MEETS ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED BY LAW FOR SUCH CLASSIFICATION INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT IN THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REAL PROPERTY TAXES ON THE PROPERTY.
On motion of Rep. KIRSH, with unanimous consent, the following Concurrent Resolution was ordered recalled from the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs:
S. 1333 (Word version) -- Senator Setzler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON AGING TO CONVENE A PURPLE RIBBON ALZHEIMER'S TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPACT OF ALZHEIMER'S IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TO ASSESS THE RESOURCES FOR AND NEEDS OF PERSONS WITH ALZHEIMER'S AND RELATED DISORDERS SO AS TO DEVELOP A STATE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THIS HEALTH ISSUE.
Rep. FUNDERBURK asked unanimous consent to recall H. 4058 (Word version) from the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Rep. CATO objected.
Rep. HAGOOD asked unanimous consent to recall S. 987 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. SCOTT objected.
Rep. WHIPPER asked unanimous consent to recall S. 979 (Word version) from the Committee on Judiciary.
Rep. HARRISON objected.
On motion of Rep. HAGOOD, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Judiciary:
S. 987 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF BOATING LAWS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT, THE AUTHORITY OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THESE PROVISIONS, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-114, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO OPERATING A WATER DEVICE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AND THE IMPLIED CONSENT FOR A BREATH TEST TO DETERMINE BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVELS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURAL MATTERS IN REGARD TO THESE TESTS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-21-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES OF A VESSEL OPERATOR INVOLVED IN A COLLISION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THESE DUTIES INCLUDING WHEN AN ACCIDENT REPORT IS REQUIRED AND TO STIPULATE THE PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO MAY OBTAIN A COPY OF THE REPORT; BY ADDING SECTION 50-21-118 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE OPERATOR OF A WATERCRAFT IS STRICTLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF ALL PERSONS ON BOARD AND ANY PERSONS BEING TOWED BY THE WATERCRAFT; TO AMEND
The motion of Rep. G. M. SMITH to reconsider the vote whereby the following Bill was given a second reading was taken up and agreed to:
S. 110 (Word version) -- Senators Thomas, Elliott, Knotts and Ford: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY DESIGNATING THE EXISTING SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 22, TITLE 17 AS ARTICLE 1 AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 SO AS TO ENACT THE "UNIFORM EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT", TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF ALL CRIMINAL RECORDS, AND TO AUTHORIZE EACH SOLICITOR'S OFFICE IN THE STATE TO ADMINISTER THE PROCEDURE.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4334 (Word version) -- Reps. J. M. Neal, Harrell, Clyburn, Haskins, Hosey, Cotty, Toole, Mahaffey, Moss, Mulvaney and Knight: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-61-80, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS TO BE CERTIFIED AS AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO UNDERGO A CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK FOR CERTIFICATION AND FOR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION.
Rep. SELLERS proposed the following Amendment No. 2A (Doc Name COUNCIL\DKA\3912DW08), which was tabled:
Amend the amendment sponsored by Rep. CRAWFORD to the bill, as and if amended, bearing document number P:\Legwork\ House\Amend\ Council\NBD\12371AC08, dated May 22, 2008, by striking 44-29-135(e) as contained in SECTION 2 and inserting:
/ (e) in cases involving a minor, the name of the minor and medical information concerning the minor must be reported to appropriate agents if a report is required by the Child Protection Act of 1977. No further information is required to be released by the department. If a minor has Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, and is attending the public schools, the superintendent of the school district and the nurse or other health professional assigned to the school the minor attends must be notified. /
Amend further, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/ SECTION __. Article 2, Chapter 10, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 59-10-220. By January 1, 2009, each school district shall adopt the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations on universal precautions for bloodborne disease exposure and shall communicate written notice of these procedures to each school within the district. The notice must provide information regarding education and training in the areas of infection control, universal precautions, and disinfection and sterilization techniques." /
Rep. J. M. NEAL moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
The House refused to agree to the Senate Amendments and a message was ordered sent accordingly.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3159 (Word version) -- Reps. Toole, Umphlett, Littlejohn, Huggins, Sandifer, Viers, Hamilton, G. R. Smith, Leach, Haskins, Cato, Shoopman, Bedingfield, Loftis and Lowe: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 10-1-210 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS AND EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL REGARDING THE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF AMERICAN LAW MAY BE USED IN APPROVED DISPLAYS, MONUMENTS, PLAQUES, OR SIMILAR FIXTURES IN STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC AREAS, BUILDINGS, OR PLACES.
Rep. DELLENEY explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3852 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrison and McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-4-130, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL'S EMERGENCY HEALTH POWERS, SO AS TO
Rep. HAGOOD explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4229 (Word version) -- Rep. McLeod: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 14-25-130 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS FROM THE ELECTRONIC FILE OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD TO BE FURNISHED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO MUNICIPAL JURY COMMISSIONERS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-25-125 AND 14-25-155, BOTH RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL COURT JURY LISTS, BOTH SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE JURY LIST TO BE USED BY THE MUNICIPALITY IS THE LIST PREPARED BY THE JURY COMMISSIONERS FROM THE LATEST OFFICIAL LIST PROVIDED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS FROM THE ELECTRONIC FILE OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD TO BE FURNISHED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONERS.
Rep. DELLENEY explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Joint Resolution were taken up for consideration:
H. 4899 (Word version) -- Reps. Edge, Ott, Crawford, Whipper, Huggins, Alexander, Anthony, Bales, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Brady, Branham, Cato, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Davenport, Duncan, Erickson, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan,
Rep. CRAWFORD made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4713 (Word version) -- Rep. White: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 25-11-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE VETERANS' CEMETERIES AND QUALIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE A PLOT IN A STATE VETERANS' CEMETERY, SO AS TO REDUCE FROM TWENTY YEARS TO FIVE YEARS THE TIME A VETERAN MUST HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE IN ORDER TO MEET ONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR OTHER QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION AS TO WHEN THE VETERAN WAS REQUIRED TO BE A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE.
Rep. WHITE explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3023 (Word version) -- Rep. Bingham: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 95 TO TITLE 38 SO AS TO ENACT THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE PRODUCT REGULATION COMPACT TO REGULATE CERTAIN DESIGNATED INSURANCE PRODUCTS AND ADVERTISEMENT OF THOSE PRODUCTS UNIFORMLY AMONG THE STATES THAT ARE COMPACT MEMBERS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THIS STATE TO JOIN THE COMPACT.
Rep. CATO explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3723 (Word version) -- Reps. Neilson, Anthony, Bales, Clyburn, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Jefferson, Mack, Moss and Williams: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-17-155 SO AS TO REQUIRE, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STATE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR PROGRAM FOR EACH HIGH SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES THAT SUCH A DEFIBRILLATOR IS PROVIDED ON THE GROUNDS OF EACH HIGH SCHOOL, THAT DISTRICT EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS REASONABLY EXPECTED TO USE THE DEVICE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OR THE SUPERINTENDENT'S DESIGNEE, ARE TRAINED IN ITS USE, AND THAT THESE DEVICES ARE PERIODICALLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED, TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT SHALL DEFINE
Rep. HAYES explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 3028 (Word version) -- Reps. Funderburk, Haskins, Witherspoon, Whipper, Hardwick, Hagood, Clemmons, Neilson and Erickson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-42 SO AS TO DEFINE "FOOD" OR "FOOD PRODUCT" AND TO MAKE IT AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY TO MISREPRESENT THAT A FOOD OR A FOOD PRODUCT IS A PRODUCT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Rep. HAGOOD explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 5090 (Word version) -- Rep. Vick: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-180, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN
Rep. HAYES moved to adjourn debate upon the Senate Amendments until Tuesday, June 3, which was agreed to.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 968 (Word version) -- Senators McGill, O'Dell, Williams and Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-405, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF "WEAPON" AND THE HANDLING OF WEAPONS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, SO AS TO REMOVE "KNIFE WITH A BLADE OVER TWO INCHES LONG" FROM THE DEFINITION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-460, RELATING TO CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF KNIVES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFENSE UNLESS THEY ARE USED WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME.
Rep. M. A. PITTS explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4400 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Harrison, Cato, Cooper, Walker, Witherspoon, Merrill, Sandifer, Haley, Young, Erickson, Littlejohn, Simrill, Bowen, Crawford, Barfield, Cotty, Taylor, Spires, Davenport, E. H. Pitts, Frye, Lowe, Shoopman, Hardwick, Bingham, Skelton, Clemmons, Thompson, Bedingfield, Bannister, Mahaffey, Herbkersman, J. R. Smith, Haskins, Huggins, Hutson, Leach, Toole, Viers, Brady, Dantzler, Delleney, Gambrell, Hamilton, Kelly, Rice, Scarborough, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, Talley, Umphlett, Duncan, Owens, Mulvaney, White, Loftis and Edge: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-31-40, RELATING TO DUTIES OF THE STATE COMMISSION ON MINORITY AFFAIRS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A HOTLINE FOR REPORTING IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS; TO ADD CHAPTER 14 TO TITLE 8 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT EVERY PUBLIC EMPLOYER PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL WORK AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM OR USE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY ALL NEW EMPLOYEES, TO REQUIRE CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS WHO CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYERS FOR THE PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES TO REGISTER AND PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL WORK AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM OR OTHERWISE VERIFY EMPLOYEES, TO DEFINE TERMS, TO ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR COMPLIANCE BY PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, CONTRACTORS, AND SUBCONTRACTORS, TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER ARE ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, RELIGION, GENDER, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO PRESCRIBE FORMS AND PROMULGATE RULES NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THE ACT AND PUBLISH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE; TO ADD SECTION 23-3-80 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF A MEMORANDUM OF
Rep. HARRISON explained the Senate Amendments.
Rep. BALES made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
Rep. HARRISON moved to waive Rule 5.15.
Rep. HARRISON demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Ballentine Barfield Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey
Merrill Miller Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Funderburk Govan Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Mack McLeod Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Scott F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Weeks Whipper Williams
So, Rule 5.15 was not waived.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 5001 (Word version) -- Reps. Owens, Hiott, F. N. Smith, Cotty, Haley, Simrill, Merrill, Spires, M. A. Pitts, Skelton, E. H. Pitts, Bedingfield, Kirsh,
Rep. OWENS explained the Senate Amendments.
The Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following Bills were taken up, read the third time, and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments:
S. 970 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-29-135, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE RECORDS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AND SCHOOL NURSE IF A MINOR IS ATTENDING A SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT AND HAS ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME OR IS INFECTED WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS.
S. 951 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-33-245, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
S. 490 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Martin, Peeler, Leventis, Ryberg, Knotts, Ford, Campsen and Vaughn: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-77-300, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEY'S FEES IN STATE-INITIATED ACTIONS, SO AS TO LIMIT THE FEE TO A REASONABLE HOURLY RATE.
The following Bill was taken up:
S. 913 (Word version) -- Senators Martin and Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-310, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MUST PROVIDE FOR BALLOTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND TO DELETE OBSOLETE LANGUAGE.
Rep. SCOTT moved to adjourn debate on the Bill until Tuesday, June 3.
Rep. CLEMMONS moved to table the motion.
Rep. CLEMMONS demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Ballentine Barfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler
Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers White
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Govan Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Scott F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Weeks Whipper Williams
So, the motion to adjourn debate was tabled.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Hutson Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Funderburk Govan Hart Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Mack
McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Scott F. N. Smith J. E. Smith Stavrinakis Weeks Whipper Williams
So, the Bill was read the third time and ordered returned to the Senate with amendments.
Rep. G. M. SMITH moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request:
S. 274 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Verdin, Anderson, Sheheen, Campsen, Thomas, Williams, Bryant, Cromer and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE DAY REPORTING CENTERS FOR CERTAIN INMATES AND OFFENDERS, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR CERTAIN TERMS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INMATE'S PLACEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN A DAY REPORTING PROGRAM IS AT THE JOINT DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PARTICIPANT FROM THE PROGRAM, AND TO PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE PILOT PROJECT DAY REPORTING CENTER PROGRAM TERMINATES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 22-5-110, RELATING TO A MAGISTRATE'S RESPONSIBILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CHARGED WITH CERTAIN MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES MUST BE GIVEN A COURTESY SUMMONS.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference. The SPEAKER appointed Reps. G. M. SMITH, HERBKERSMAN and JENNINGS to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
FREE CONFERENCE REPORT
S. 274
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., April 30, 2008
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 274 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Verdin, Anderson, Sheheen, Campsen, Thomas, Williams, Bryant, Cromer and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH DAY REPORTING CENTERS FOR CERTAIN INMATES OR OFFENDERS.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
/ SECTION 1. Chapter 21, Title 24 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 24-21-1300. (A) The Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services may develop and operate day reporting centers within the State.
(B) 'Day reporting center' means a state facility providing supervision of inmates or offenders placed on supervision, which
(C) 'Eligible inmate' means a person sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months, excluding a person sentenced for:
(1) a violent crime, as provided for in Section 16-1-60;
(2) a Class A, B, or C felony, as provided for in Section 16-1-20;
(3) the following Class D felonies:
(a) robbery, as provided for in Section 16-11-325;
(b) disseminating obscene material to a minor twelve years of age or younger, as provided for in Section 16-15-355; and
(c) aggravated stalking, as provided for in Section 16-3-1730(C).
(4) an unclassified crime which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more, as provided for in Section 16-1-10(D);
(5) the unclassified crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in which the original indictment was for an offense that would require registration as a sex offender, as provided for in Section 23-3-430; or
(6) a crime which requires a registration as a sex offender, as provided for in Section 23-3-430. 'Eligible inmate' does not include a person who does not provide an approved in-state residence as determined jointly by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.
(D) 'Eligible offender' means a person placed on probation, parole, community supervision, or any other supervision program operated by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, excluding a person sentenced for:
(1) a violent crime, as provided for in Section 16-1-60;
(2) a Class A, B, or C felony, as provided for in Section 16-1-20;
(3) the following Class D felonies:
(a) robbery, as provided for in Section 16-11-325;
(b) disseminating obscene material to a minor twelve years of age or younger, as provided for in Section 16-15-355; and
(c) aggravated stalking, as provided for in Section 16-3-1730(C).
(4) an unclassified crime which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of fifteen years or more, as provided for in Section 16-1-10(D);
(5) the unclassified crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature in which the original indictment was for an offense that would require registration as a sex offender, as provided for in Section 23-3-430; or
(6) a crime which requires a registration as a sex offender, as provided for in Section 23-3-430. 'Eligible offender' does not include a person who does not provide an approved in-state residence as determined jointly by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.
Section 24-21-1310. (A) Notwithstanding another provision of law, the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services may develop and operate day reporting centers for eligible inmates and eligible offenders, if the General Assembly appropriates funds to operate these centers. The Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services shall develop policies, procedures, and guidelines for the operation of day reporting centers. The period of time an eligible inmate or offender is required to participate in a day reporting program and the individual terms and conditions of an eligible inmate's or offender's placement and participation are at the joint discretion of the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.
(B) An inmate or offender has no right to be placed in a day reporting center. The Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services have absolute discretion to place an eligible inmate or offender in a day reporting center and nothing in this article may be construed to entitle an inmate or offender to participate in a day reporting center program.
Section 24-21-1320. (A) An eligible inmate or offender placed in a day reporting center must agree to abide by the conditions established by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, which may include, but are not limited to:
(1) seek and maintain employment;
(2) participate in any educational, vocational training, counseling, or mentoring program recommended by the department;
(3) refrain from using alcohol or nonprescription medication; and
(4) pay a reasonable supervision fee, which may be waived by the department, that must be retained by the department to assist in funding this program.
(B) An eligible inmate or offender who fails to abide by the conditions established by the Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services may be removed from the community and brought before an administrative hearing officer of the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. The Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services is the sole authority for determining whether any condition has been violated and for determining the actions to be taken in response to the violation. A participant revoked from participation in a day reporting center may be subject to further criminal proceedings or the institution of internal disciplinary sanctions for violations of any conditions associated with his placement in the day reporting center program. An inmate who fails to report as instructed, or whose whereabouts are unknown, may be considered to be an escapee by the department and may be apprehended and returned to custody as any other inmate who is deemed an escapee by the department.
(C) If a sentence to a day reporting center is revoked, the inmate must serve the remainder of his sentence within the Department of Corrections.
Section 24-21-1330. The pilot project day reporting center program terminates twelve months from its opening, unless extended by the General Assembly."
SECTION 2. Section 22-5-110 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 22-5-110. (A) Magistrates shall cause to be arrested all persons found within their counties charged with any offense and persons who after committing any offense within the county escape out of it, examine into treasons, felonies, grand larcenies, high crimes and misdemeanors, commit or bind over for trial those who appear to be guilty of crimes or offenses not within their jurisdiction and punish those guilty of such offenses within their jurisdiction.
(B) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a person charged with any misdemeanor offense requiring a warrant signed by non-law enforcement personnel to ensure the arrest of a person must be given a courtesy summons."
Amend title to read.
/ A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE DAY REPORTING CENTERS FOR CERTAIN INMATES AND OFFENDERS, TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR CERTAIN TERMS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN INMATE'S PLACEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN A DAY REPORTING PROGRAM IS AT THE JOINT DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PARTICIPANT FROM THE PROGRAM, AND TO PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE PILOT PROJECT DAY REPORTING CENTER PROGRAM TERMINATES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 22-5-110, RELATING TO A MAGISTRATE'S RESPONSIBILITIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CHARGED WITH CERTAIN MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES MUST BE GIVEN A COURTESY SUMMONS. /
Sen. Michael L. Fair Rep. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. Sen. Vincent A. Sheheen Rep. William Herbkersman Sen. Paul G. Campbell, Jr. Rep. Douglas Jennings, Jr. On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. PARKS moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request:
S. 799 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR
The motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to, by a division vote of 69 to 5.
The Committee of Conference was thereby resolved into a Committee of Free Conference. The SPEAKER appointed Reps. PARKS, HERBKERSMAN and SPIRES to the Committee of Free Conference and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
S. 799--Free Conference Report
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., May 21, 2008
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
S. 799 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO PHYSICIANS, SURGEONS, AND OSTEOPATHS, TO DELETE THE
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
/ SECTION 1. Section 40-47-755 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 10 of 2005, is amended to read:
"Section 40-47-755. Auricular detoxification therapy may take place under the direct supervision of a licensed acupuncturist or a person licensed to practice medicine under this chapter. A treatment by an auricular detoxification specialist is strictly limited to the five ear-point treatment protocol for detoxification, substance abuse, or chemical dependency as stipulated by NADA."
SECTION 2. Section 40-47-710(C) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 10 of 2005, is amended to read:
"(C) The committee shall meet at least two times yearly and at other times as may be necessary. Four Three members constitute a quorum. At its initial meeting, and at the beginning of each year thereafter, the committee shall elect from its membership a chairman, vice chairman, and secretary to serve for a term of one year."
SECTION 3. Section 40-47-725(B) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 10 of 2005, is amended to read:
"(B) An individual who has continuously practiced acupuncture in this State since 1980 or auricular therapy since 1997, who has remained in good standing, must be issued a license and renewal licenses without meeting the requirements of this chapter after submitting:
(1) a completed application as prescribed by the board; and
(2) fees as provided for in Section 40-47-800."
SECTION 4. Section 40-47-745(A) of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 10 of 2005, is amended to read:
"(A)(1)(a) It is unlawful for a person not licensed under this article to hold himself out as an acupuncturist, auricular therapist, or auricular detoxification specialist without being licensed pursuant to this article, during a period of suspension, or after his or her license has been revoked by the board.
(b) A person who violates subsection (A)(1)(a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.
(2) The titles 'Licensed Acupuncturist' (L.Ac.), and 'Acupuncturist' may only be used by a person licensed to practice acupuncture pursuant to this article. Further, a person licensed to practice auricular therapy or auricular detoxification may not practice acupuncture or hold himself out as an acupuncturist. The title 'Auricular Detoxification Specialist' (ADS) may only be used by a person licensed to practice auricular detoxification therapy pursuant to this article. Possession of a license as an auricular therapist or an auricular detoxification specialist does not, by itself, entitle a person to identify himself or herself as an acupuncturist. A person who holds himself out as an acupuncturist, auricular therapist, or auricular detoxification specialist without being licensed pursuant to this article, during a period of suspension, or after his or her license has been revoked by the board is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.
(3) Subject to the approval of the Board of Medical Examiners, these titles may be used by a person licensed to practice acupuncture pursuant to this article:
(a) a licensee who holds the Diplomate of Acupuncture from the NCCAOM may use the title 'Doctor of Acupuncture' (D.Ac.);
(b) a licensee who holds the Diplomate of Oriental Medicine from the NCCAOM may use the title 'Oriental Medicine Doctor' (O.M.D.);
(c) 'Certified Acupuncturist' (C.Ac);
(d) 'Doctor of Acupuncture' (D.Ac.);
(e) 'Oriental Medicine Doctor' (O.M.D.);
(f) 'Doctor of Oriental Medicine' (D.O.M.)
(g) 'Doctor of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine' (D.A.O.M.)."
SECTION 5. Section 40-47-730 of the 1976 Code is repealed.
SECTION 6. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Amend title to read:
/TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPISTS MUST BE SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ACUPUNCTURIST; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-710,
Sen. Robert W. Hayes Rep. Julia A. Parks Sen. Joel Lourie Rep. William G. Herbkersman Sen. Kevin L. Bryant Rep. Lawrence K. Spires On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
The Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. COOPER moved that the House recur to the morning hour, which was agreed to.
Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 5232 (Word version) -- Rep. Talley: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES THE CSX RAILROAD TRACKS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 215 THE "M. D. PUTNAM BRIDGE" AND
Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
H. 5037 (Word version) -- Rep. Funderburk: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO URGE THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE PRISONER OF WAR - MISSING IN ACTION ISSUE REGARDING UNRESOLVED MATTERS PERTAINING TO UNITED STATES PERSONNEL UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM THIS NATION'S WARS AND CONFLICTS BEGINNING WITH WORLD WAR II.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Rep. LEACH, from the Committee on Invitations and Memorial Resolutions, submitted a favorable report on:
S. 1421 (Word version) -- Senators Matthews and Hutto: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF BOULEVARD STREET IN THE CITY OF ORANGEBURG FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 21 TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 33 "WEBBER BOULEVARD" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "WEBBER BOULEVARD".
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
The following was introduced:
H. 5235 (Word version) -- Rep. Cobb-Hunter: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE HOLLY HILL ACADEMY "LADY RAIDERS" SOFTBALL TEAM FOR ITS OUTSTANDING SEASON AND FOR CAPTURING THE 2008 SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ASSOCIATION CLASS AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5236 (Word version) -- Rep. Knight: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO THANK LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA FOR THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEDICATED AND DILIGENT SERVICE (DADS) MENTORING PROGRAM IN DORCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR AND FOR ALLOWING ITS EMPLOYEES TO USE COMPANY TIME TO BE DADS TO THESE STUDENTS.
The Resolution was adopted.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
S. 1143 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Martin, Alexander, Hayes, Hutto, Ceips, Peeler, Leventis, Rankin, Setzler, Knotts and Malloy: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS FROM THE STATE SALES TAX, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES OR THE SALES PRICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
Rep. COOPER explained the Senate Amendments.
Rep. HAGOOD made the Point of Order that the Senate Amendments were improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
Rep. COOPER moved to waive Rule 5.15.
Rep. COOPER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady G. Brown Cato Clemmons Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hiott Huggins Hutson Jefferson Kelly Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Weeks White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Breeland R. Brown Dantzler Hagood Harvin Hodges Jennings Kennedy Kirsh Mack Miller Perry Stavrinakis Whipper
Rep. JENNINGS moved to commit the Bill to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Rep. COOPER moved to table the motion.
Rep. COOPER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anthony Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Cato Chalk Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Gambrell Govan Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Herbkersman Hiott Hosey Howard Huggins Hutson Jefferson Kelly Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal Ott Owens Parks Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire Williams Young
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Bales Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Dantzler Funderburk Hagood Harvin Hayes Hodges Jennings Kirsh Mack McLeod Miller Neilson Perry Stavrinakis Weeks Whipper
So, the motion to commit the Bill was tabled.
Rep. JENNINGS spoke against the Senate Amendments.
Rep. PERRY raised the Point of Order that the Bill as amended by the Senate was out of order in that the Bill was no longer germane to the original version of the Bill.
SPEAKER HARRELL stated that the House had no authority to rule as to whether or not Senate Amendments were germane to a Bill and he overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. HARRISON moved to adjourn debate on the Senate Amendments until Tuesday, June 3.
Rep. M. A. PITTS moved to table the motion.
Rep. HAGOOD demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bedingfield Bowen Cato Chalk Clemmons Cooper Davenport Duncan Gambrell Govan Gullick Harrell Herbkersman Hiott Leach Loftis Lowe Mahaffey
J. H. Neal Ott Owens E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Shoopman Skelton G. M. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bingham Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cotty Daning Dantzler Delleney Erickson Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Littlejohn Lucas Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Parks Perry Phillips Rice Scott Simrill D. C. Smith G. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Weeks Whipper Williams Young
So, the House refused to table the motion.
The question then recurred to the motion to adjourn debate until Tuesday, June 3, which was agreed to.
Rep. WHITMIRE moved that the Committee of Conference on the following Bill be resolved into a Committee of Free Conference and briefly explained the Conference Committee's reasons for this request:
H. 4662 (Word version) -- Reps. Walker, Harrell, Whitmire, Toole, Gullick, Spires, Hiott, Bannister, J. R. Smith, Loftis, Ballentine, Pinson, Cotty, Brady, Bedingfield, Hardwick, Edge, Herbkersman, Lowe, Crawford, Limehouse, Hamilton, G. R. Smith, Harrison, Duncan, Bowen, Huggins, Mahaffey, Erickson, Leach, Owens, Frye, Rice, Hutson, Bingham, Haskins, Littlejohn, Cato, Chalk, Clyburn, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Gambrell, Kelly, Lucas, Merrill, Moss, Neilson, E. H. Pitts, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, W. D. Smith, Talley, Taylor, Umphlett, Viers, White, Witherspoon, Young, Barfield, Knight, Miller, Battle, Perry, Bales, Phillips, J. M. Neal, R. Brown and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH STUDENTS ARE ASSESSED AND SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS ARE ASSESSED AND ACCREDITED, TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATION TO SIGNIFY VARYING LEVELS OF SCHOOL ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, AND TO REVISE AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS REGARDING EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY; TO PROVIDE THAT THE PALMETTO ACHIEVEMENT CHALLENGE TEST DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 18 OF TITLE 59 AS OF JULY 1, 2008; AND TO AMEND SECTION 59-67-270, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INSPECTION OF SCHOOL BUSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT SCHOOL BUSES MAY BE INSPECTED BY EITHER THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OR THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF THE MONETARY SAVINGS FROM THE REVISED INSPECTION PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.
The motion to resolve the Committee of Conference into a Committee of Free Conference was agreed to by a division vote of 78 to 1.
FREE CONFERENCE REPORT
H. 4662
The General Assembly, Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
The COMMITTEE OF FREE CONFERENCE, to whom was referred:
H. 4662 (Word version) -- Reps. Walker, Harrell, Whitmire, Toole, Gullick, Spires, Hiott, Bannister, J.R. Smith, Loftis, Ballentine, Pinson, Cotty, Brady, Bedingfield, Hardwick, Edge, Herbkersman, Lowe, Crawford, Limehouse, Hamilton, G.R. Smith, Harrison, Duncan, Bowen, Huggins, Mahaffey, Erickson, Leach, Owens, Frye, Rice, Hutson, Bingham, Haskins, Littlejohn, Cato, Chalk, Clyburn, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Gambrell, Kelly, Lucas, Merrill, Moss, Neilson, E.H. Pitts, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Skelton, D.C. Smith, G.M. Smith, W.D. Smith, Talley, Taylor, Umphlett, Viers, White, Witherspoon, Young, Barfield, Knight, Miller, Battle, Perry, Bales, Phillips, J.M. Neal, R. Brown and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH SCHOOLS ARE ASSESSED AND ACCREDITED, TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATION TO SIGNIFY VARYING LEVELS OF SCHOOL ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, AND TO REVISE AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS REGARDING EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY.
Beg leave to report that they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend:
That the same do pass with the following amendments:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
/ SECTION 1. Chapter 18, Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
Section 59-18-100. The General Assembly finds that South Carolinians have a commitment to public education and a conviction that high expectations for all students are vital components for improving academic achievement. It is the purpose of the General Assembly in this chapter to establish a performance based accountability system for public education which focuses on improving teaching and learning so that students are equipped with a strong academic foundation. Accountability, as defined by this chapter, means acceptance of the responsibility for improving student performance and taking actions to improve classroom practice and school performance by the Governor, the General Assembly, the State Department of Education, colleges and universities, local school boards, administrators, teachers, parents, students, and the community.
Section 59-18-110. The system is to:
(1) use academic achievement standards to push schools and students toward higher performance by aligning the state assessment to those standards and linking policies and criteria for performance standards, accreditation, reporting, school rewards, and targeted assistance;
(2) provide an annual report card with a performance indicator system that is logical, reasonable, fair, challenging, and technically defensible, which furnishes clear and specific information about school and district academic performance and other performance to parents and the public;
(3) require all districts to establish local accountability systems to stimulate quality teaching and learning practices and target assistance to low performing schools;
(4) provide resources to strengthen the process of teaching and learning in the classroom to improve student performance and reduce gaps in performance;
(5) support professional development as integral to improvement and to the actual work of teachers and school staff; and
(6) expand the ability to evaluate the system and to conduct in-depth studies on implementation, efficiency, and the effectiveness of academic improvement efforts.
Section 59-18-120. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Oversight Committee" means the Education Oversight Committee established in Section 59-6-10.
(2) "Standards based assessment" means an assessment where an individual's performance is compared to specific performance standards and not to the performance of other students.
(3) "Disaggregated data" means data broken out for specific groups within the total student population, such as by race, gender, and family income level of poverty, limited English proficiency status, disability status, or other groups as required by federal statutes or regulations.
(4) "Longitudinally matched student data" means examining the performance of a single student or a group of students by considering their test scores over time.
(5) "Norm-referenced assessment" means assessments designed to compare student performance to a nationally representative sample of similar students known as the norm group.
(6)(5) "Academic achievement standards" means statements of expectations for student learning.
(7)(6) "Department" means the State Department of Education.
(8)(7) "Absolute performance" means the rating a school will receive based on the percentage of students meeting standard on the state's standards based assessment.
(9)(8) "Improvement performance" "Growth" means the rating a school will receive based on longitudinally matched student data comparing current performance to the previous year's for the purpose of determining student academic growth.
(10)(9) "Objective and reliable statewide assessment" means assessments that yield consistent results and that measure the cognitive knowledge and skills specified in the state-approved academic standards and do not include questions relative to personal opinions, feelings, or attitudes and are not biased with regard to race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The assessments must include a writing assessment and multiple-choice questions designed to reflect a range of cognitive abilities beyond the knowledge level. Constructive Constructed response questions may be included as a component of the writing assessment.
(11)(10) "Division of Accountability" means the special unit within the oversight committee established in Section 59-6-100.
(12)(11) "Formative assessment" means assessments used within the school year to analyze general strengths and weaknesses in learning and instruction, to understand the performance of students individually and across achievement categories, to adapt instruction to meet
Section 59-18-300. The State Board of Education is directed to adopt grade specific performance-oriented educational standards in the core academic areas of mathematics, English/language arts, social studies (history, government, economics, and geography), and science for kindergarten through twelfth grade and for grades nine through twelve adopt specific academic standards for benchmark high school credit courses in mathematics, English/language arts, social studies, and science. The standards are to promote the goals of providing every student with the competencies to:
(1) read, view, and listen to complex information in the English language;
(2) write and speak effectively in the English language;
(3) solve problems by applying mathematics;
(4) conduct research and communicate findings;
(5) understand and apply scientific concepts;
(6) obtain a working knowledge of world, United States, and South Carolina history, government, economics, and geography; and
(7) use information to make decisions.
The standards must be reflective of the highest level of academic skills with the rigor necessary to improve the curriculum and instruction in South Carolina's schools so that students are encouraged to learn at unprecedented levels and must be reflective of the highest level of academic skills at each grade level.
Section 59-18-310. (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, is required to develop or adopt a statewide assessment program to promote student learning and to measure student performance on state standards and:
(1) identify areas in which students, schools, or school districts need additional support;
(2) indicate the academic achievement for schools, districts, and the State;
(3) satisfy federal reporting requirements; and
(4) provide professional development to educators.
Assessments required to be developed or adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section or chapter must be objective and reliable.
(B) The statewide assessment program in the four academic areas must include the subjects of English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies in grades three through eight, as delineated in Section 59-18-320(B), to be first administered in 2009, an exit examination in English/language arts and mathematics, which is to be first administered in a student's second year of high school enrollment beginning with grade nine, and end-of-course tests for gateway courses awarded Carnegie units of credit in English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Student performance targets must be established following the 2009 administration. The assessment program must be used for school and school district accountability purposes beginning with the 2008-2009 school year. The publication of the annual school and school district report card may be delayed for the 2008-2009 school year until no later than February 15, 2010. A student's score on an end-of-year assessment may not be the sole criterion for placing the student on academic probation, retaining the student in his current grade, or requiring the student to attend summer school. Beginning with the graduating class of 2010, students are required to pass a high school credit course in science and a course in United States history in which end-of-course examinations are administered to receive the state high school diploma.
(C) To facilitate the reporting of strand level information and the reporting of student scores prior to the beginning of the next school year, beginning with the 2009 administration, multiple choice items must be administered as close to the end of the school year as possible and the writing assessment must be administered earlier in the school year.
(C)(D) While assessment is called for in the specific areas mentioned above, this should not be construed as lessening the importance of foreign languages, visual and performing arts, health, physical education, and career or occupational programs.
(D)(E) By March 31, 2007, the The State Board of Education shall create a statewide adoption list of formative assessments for grades one through nine aligned with the state content standards and satisfying in English/language arts and mathematics that satisfies professional measurement standards in accordance with criteria jointly determined by the Education Oversight Committee and the State Department of Education. The formative assessments must provide diagnostic information in a timely manner to all school districts for each student during the course of the school year. For use beginning with the 2007-08 2009-2010 school year, with funds appropriated by the
(E) The State Board of Education shall adopt a developmentally appropriate formative reading assessment for use in first and second grades to be administered initially in the 2007-08 school year. The assessment must provide opportunities for periodic formative assessment during the school year, reports that are useful for informing classroom instruction, strand, or significant groupings of standards level information about individual students, and must be compatible with best practices in reading instruction and reading research. The State Department of Education shall provide appropriate and on-going professional development to support appropriate use of the assessment.
(F) The State Department of Education shall provide on-going professional development in the development and use of classroom assessments, the use of formative assessments, and the use of the end-of-year state assessments so that teaching and learning activities are focused on student needs and lead to higher levels of student performance.
Section 59-18-320. (A) After the first statewide field test of the assessment program in each of the four academic areas, and after the field tests of the end of course assessments of benchmark high school credit courses, the Education Oversight Committee, established in Section 59-6-10, will review the state assessment program and the course assessments for alignment with the state standards, level of difficulty and validity, and for the ability to differentiate levels of achievement, and will make recommendations for needed changes, if any. The review will be provided to the State Board of Education, the State Department of Education, the Governor, the Senate Education Committee, and the House Education and Public Works Committee as soon as feasible after the field tests. The Department of Education will then report to the Education Oversight Committee no later than one month after receiving the reports on the changes made to the assessments to comply with the recommendations.
(B) After review and approval by the Education Oversight Committee, the standards-based assessment of mathematics,
(C) After review and approval by the Education Oversight Committee, the end of course assessments of benchmark high school credit courses will be administered to all public school students as they complete each benchmark course.
(D) Any new standards and assessments required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, for use as an accountability measure, must be developed and adopted upon the advice and consent of the Education Oversight Committee.
Section 59-18-330. The State Board of Education, through the State Department of Education, shall develop, select, or adapt a first-grade readiness test that is linked to the adopted grade-one academic standards and a second-grade readiness test that is linked to the adopted grade-two academic standards. The purpose of the tests is to measure individual student readiness, and they are not to be used as an accountability measure at the state level. However, the grade-two readiness test will serve as the baseline for grade-three assessment. The State Department of Education shall provide continuing teacher training to ensure the valid and reliable use of the assessments and develop a minimum statewide data collection plan to include the amount and types of evidence to be collected. Beginning with the 2006-07 school year, the readiness assessment must be modified to provide detailed information on student literacy development.
Section 59-18-340 Section 59-18-330. The State Board Department of Education is directed to administer annually coordinate the annual administration of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) to obtain an indication of student and school performance relative to national performance levels. A school randomly selected by NAEP must comply with the administration of the assessment to obtain an indication of state performance relative to national performance levels.
Section 59-18-350 Section 59-18-340. High schools shall offer state-funded PSAT or PLAN tests to each tenth grade student in order to assess and identify curricular areas that need to be strengthened and reinforced. Schools and districts shall use these assessments as diagnostic tools to provide academic assistance to students whose scores reflect the need for such assistance. Schools and districts shall
Section 59-18-360 Section 59-18-350. (A) The State Board of Education, in consultation with the Education Oversight Committee, shall provide for a cyclical review by academic area of the state standards and assessments to ensure that the standards and assessments are maintaining high expectations for learning and teaching. All academic areas must be initially reviewed by the year 2005. At a minimum, each academic area should be reviewed and updated every seven years. After each academic area is reviewed, a report on the recommended revisions must be presented to the Education Oversight Committee and the State Board of Education for its consideration. After approval by the Education Oversight Committee and the State Board of Education, the recommendations may be implemented. However, the previous content standards shall remain in effect until approval has been given by both entities. As a part of the review, a task force of parents, business and industry persons, community leaders, and educators, to include special education teachers, shall examine the standards and assessment system to determine rigor and relevancy.
(B) Beginning with the 2005 assessment results, the The State Department of Education annually shall convene a team of curriculum experts to analyze the results of the assessments, including performance item by item. This analysis must yield a plan for disseminating additional information about the assessment results and instruction and the information must be disseminated to districts not later than January fifteenth of the subsequent year.
Section 59-18-370 Section 59-18-360. Beginning with the 2010 assessment administration, the The Department of Education is directed to provide assessment results annually on individual students and schools by August first, in a manner and format that is easily understood by parents and the public. In addition, the school assessment results must be presented in a format easily understood by the faculty and in a manner that is useful for curriculum review and instructional improvement. The department is to provide longitudinally matched student data from the standards based assessments and include information on the performance of subgroups of students within the school. The department must work with the Division of Accountability in developing the formats of the assessment results. Schools and districts shall be are responsible for disseminating this information to parents.
Section 59-18-500. (A) Beginning in 1998-99 and annually thereafter, at the beginning of each school year, the school must notify the parents of the need for a conference for each student in grades three through eight who lacks the skills to perform at his current grade level based on assessment results, school work, or teacher judgment. At the conference, the student, parent, and appropriate school personnel will discuss the steps needed to ensure student success at the next grade level. An academic plan will be developed to outline additional services the school and district will provide and the actions the student and the parents will undertake to further student success.
(B) The participants in the conference will sign off on the academic plan, including any requirement for summer school attendance. Should a parent, after attempts by the school to schedule the conference at their convenience, not attend the conference, the school will appoint a school mentor, either a teacher or adult volunteer, to work with the student and advocate for services. A copy of the academic plan will be sent to the parents by certified mail.
(C) At the end of the school year, the student's performance will be reviewed by appropriate school personnel. If the student's work has not been at grade level or if the terms of the academic plan have not been met, the student may be retained, he may be required to attend summer school, or he may be required to attend a comprehensive remediation program the following year designed to address objectives outlined in the academic plan for promotion. Students required to participate the following year in a comprehensive remediation program must be considered on academic probation. Comprehensive remediation programs established by the district shall operate outside of the normal school day and must meet the guidelines established for these programs by the State Board of Education. If there is a compelling reason why the student should not be required to attend summer school or be retained, the parent or student may appeal to a district review panel.
(D) At the end of summer school, a district panel must review the student's progress and report to the parents whether the student's academic progress indicates readiness to achieve grade level standards for the next grade. If the student is not at grade level or the students assessment results show standards are not met, the student must be placed on academic probation. A conference of the student, parents, and appropriate school personnel must revise the academic plan to address academic difficulties. At the conference it must be stipulated
(E) Each district board of trustees will establish policies on academic conferences, individual student academic plans, and district level reviews. Information on these policies must be given to every student and parent. Each district is to monitor the implementation of academic plans as a part of the local accountability plan. Districts are to use Act 135 of 1993 academic assistance funds to carry out academic plans, including required summer school attendance. Districts' policies regarding retention of students in grades one and two remain in effect.
(F) The State Board of Education, working with the Oversight Committee, will establish guidelines until regulations are promulgated to carry out this section. The State Board of Education, working with the Accountability Division, will promulgate regulations requiring the reporting of the number of students retained at each grade level, the number of students on probation, number of students retained after being on probation, and number of students removed from probation. This data will be used as a performance indicator for accountability.
Section 59-18-700. The criteria governing the adoption of instructional materials shall must be revised by the State Board of Education to require that the content of such materials reflect the substance and level of performance outlined in the grade specific educational standards adopted by the state board.
Section 59-18-710. By November, 2000, the State Board of Education, working with the Department of Education and recommendations from the Accountability Division, must promulgate regulations outlining the criteria for the state's accreditation system which must include student academic performance. The State Department of Education shall provide recommendations regarding the state's accreditation system to the State Board of Education. The recommendations must be derived from input received from broad-based stakeholder groups. In developing the criteria for the accreditation system, the State Board of Education shall consider including the function of school improvement councils and other school decision-making groups and their participation in the school planning process.
Section 59-18-900. (A) The Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education, is directed to establish an a comprehensive annual report card, and its format, and an executive summary of the report card to report on the performance for the individual primary, elementary, middle, high schools, and school districts of the State. The comprehensive report card must be in a reader-friendly format, using graphics whenever possible, published on the state, district, and school website, and, upon request, printed by the school districts. The school's ratings on academic performance must be emphasized and an explanation of their significance for the school and the district must also be reported. The annual report card must serve at least four five purposes:
(1) inform parents and the public about the school's performance;
(2) assist in addressing the strengths and weaknesses within a particular school;
(3) recognize schools with high performance; and
(4) evaluate and focus resources on schools with low performance; and
(5) meet federal report card requirements.
(B) The Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education and a broad-based group of stakeholders, including, but not limited to, parents, business and industry persons, community leaders, and educators, shall determine the criteria for and establish five academic performance ratings of excellent, good, average, below average, and school/district at-risk unsatisfactory. Schools and districts shall receive a rating for absolute and improvement growth performance. Only the scores of students enrolled in the school at the time of the forty-five-day enrollment count shall be used to determine the absolute and improvement growth ratings. Graduation rates must be used as an additional accountability measure for high schools and school districts. The Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education, shall establish three student performance indicators which will be those considered to be useful for assessing a school's overall performance and appropriate for the grade levels within the school.
The student performance levels are: Not Met, Met, and Exemplary. 'Not Met' means that the student did not meet the grade level standard. 'Met' means the student met the grade level standard. 'Exemplary'
(C) In setting the criteria for the academic performance ratings and the performance indicators, the Education Oversight Committee shall report the performance by subgroups of students in the school and schools similar in student characteristics. Criteria must use established guidelines for statistical analysis and build on current data-reporting practices.
(D) The comprehensive report card must include a comprehensive set of performance indicators with information on comparisons, trends, needs, and performance over time which is helpful to parents and the public in evaluating the school. Special efforts are to be made to ensure that the information contained in the report card is provided in an easily understood manner and a reader-friendly format. This information should also provide a context for the performance of the school. Where appropriate, the data should yield disaggregated results to schools and districts in planning for improvement. The report card should include information in such areas as programs and curriculum, school leadership, community and parent support, faculty qualifications, evaluations of the school by parents, teachers, and students. In addition, the report card must contain other criteria including, but not limited to, information on promotion and retention ratios, disciplinary climate, dropout ratios, dropout reduction data, student and teacher ratios, and attendance data.
(E) After reviewing the school's performance on statewide assessments, the The principal, in conjunction with the School Improvement Council established in Section 59-20-60, must write an annual narrative of a school's progress in order to further inform parents and the community about the school and its operation. The narrative must be reviewed by the district superintendent or appropriate body for a local charter school. The narrative must cite factors or activities supporting progress and barriers which inhibit progress. The school's report card must be furnished to parents and the public no later than November fifteenth.
(F) The percentage of new trustees who have completed the orientation requirement provided in Section 59-19-45 must be reflected on the school district website report card.
(G) The State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations outlining the procedures for data collection, data accuracy, data
Section 59-18-910. No later than June 1, 1999, the Accountability Division must report on the development of the performance indicators criteria and the report card to the Education Oversight Committee and the State Board of Education. A second report, to include uniform collection procedures for academic standards and performance indicators, is due by September 1, 1999. No later than September, 1999, the State Department of Education shall report to the Oversight Committee the determination of the levels of difficulty for the assessments by grade and academic area. By March 1, 2000, a report on the development of baseline data for the schools is due from the division. Beginning in 2013, the Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education and a broad-based group of stakeholders, selected by the Education Oversight Committee, shall conduct a comprehensive cyclical review of the accountability system at least every five years and shall provide the General Assembly with a report on the findings and recommended actions to improve the accountability system and to accelerate improvements in student and school performance. The stakeholders must include the State Superintendent of Education and the Governor, or the Governor's designee. The other stakeholders include, but are not limited to, parents, business and industry persons, community leaders, and educators.
Section 59-18-920. A charter school established pursuant to Chapter 40, Title 59 shall report the data requested by the Department of Education necessary to generate a report card. The Department of Education shall utilize this data to issue a report card with performance ratings to parents and the public containing the ratings and explaining its significance and providing other information similar to that required of other schools in this section. The performance of students attending charter schools sponsored by the South Carolina Public Charter School District must be included in the overall performance ratings of the South Carolina Public Charter School District. The performance of students attending a charter school authorized by a local school district must be reflected on a separate line on the school district's report card and must not be included in the overall performance ratings of the local school district. An alternative school is included in the requirements of this chapter; however, the purpose of an alternative school must be taken into consideration in determining its performance rating. The Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of
Section 59-18-930. Beginning in 2001 and annually thereafter the The State Department of Education must issue the executive summary of the report cards card annually to all schools and districts of the State no later than November first. The executive summary shall be printed in black and white, be no more than two pages, use graphical displays whenever possible, and contain National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores as well as national scores. The report card summary must be mailed made available to all parents of the school and the school district.
The school, in conjunction with the district board, must also inform the community of the school's report card by advertising the results in at least one South Carolina daily newspaper of general circulation in the area. This notice must be published within ninety forty-five days of receipt of the report cards issued by the State Department of Education and must be a minimum of two columns by ten inches (four and one-half by ten inches) with at least a twenty-four point bold headline.
Section 59-18-1100. The State Board of Education, working with the division and the Department of Education, must establish the Palmetto Gold and Silver Awards Program to recognize and reward schools for academic achievement and for closing the achievement gap. Awards will be established for schools attaining high levels of absolute performance, and for schools attaining high rates of improvement growth, and for schools making substantial progress in closing the achievement gap between disaggregated groups. The award program must base improved performance on longitudinally matched student data and may include such additional criteria as:
(1) student attendance;
(2) teacher attendance;
(3) student dropout graduation rates; and
(4) any other factors promoting or maintaining high levels of achievement and performance. Schools shall be rewarded according to specific criteria established by the division. In defining eligibility for a reward for high levels of performance, student performance should exceed expected levels of improvement. The State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations to ensure districts of the State utilize these funds to improve or maintain exceptional performance according to
Section 59-18-1110. (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a school is given the flexibility of receiving exemptions from those regulations and statutory provisions governing the defined program provided that, during a three-year period, the following criteria are satisfied:
(1) the school has twice been a recipient of a Palmetto Gold or Silver Award, pursuant to Section 59-18-1100;
(2) the school has met annual improvement standards for subgroups of students in reading and mathematics; and
(3) the school has exhibited no recurring accreditation deficiencies.
(B) Schools receiving flexibility status are released from those regulations and statutory provisions referred to above including, but not limited to, regulations and statutory provisions on class scheduling, class structure, and staffing. The State Board of Education in consultation with the Education Oversight Committee must promulgate regulations and develop guidelines for providing this flexibility by December 1, 2001.
(C) To continue to receive flexibility pursuant to this section, a school must annually exhibit school improvement at or above the state average as computed in the school recognition program pursuant to Section 59-18-1100 and must meet the gains required for subgroups of students in reading and mathematics. A school which does not requalify for flexibility status due to extenuating circumstances may apply to the State Board of Education for an extension of this status for one year.
(D) In the event that a school is removed from flexibility status, the school is not subject to regulations and statutory provisions exempted under this section until the beginning of the school year following notification of the change in status by the State Department of Education. Subsequent monitoring by the State Department of Education in a school that is removed from flexibility status shall not include a review of program records exempted under this section for the period that the school has received flexibility status or for the
Section 59-18-1120. (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a school designated as unsatisfactory school/district at-risk while in such status is given the flexibility of receiving exemptions from those regulations and statutory provisions governing the defined program or other State Board of Education regulations, dealing with the core academic areas as outlined in Section 59-18-120, provided that the review team recommends such flexibility to the State Board of Education.
(B) Other schools may receive flexibility when their strategic school renewal plan explains why such exemptions are expected to improve the academic performance of the students and the plan meets the approval by the State Board of Education. To continue to receive flexibility pursuant to this section, a school must annually exhibit overall school improvement as outlined in its revised plan and must meet the gains set for subgroups of students in reading and mathematics content areas included in the accountability assessments. A school which does not requalify for flexibility status due to extenuating circumstances may apply to the State Board of Education for an extension of this status for one year according to the provisions of Section 59-18-1110(D).
Section 59-18-1300. The State Board of Education, based on recommendations of the division, must develop regulations requiring that no later than August, 1999, each district board of trustees must establish and annually review a performance based accountability system, or modify its existing accountability system, to reinforce the state accountability system. Parents, teachers, and principals must be involved in the development, annual review, and revisions of the accountability system established by the district. The board of trustees shall ensure that a district accountability plan be developed, reviewed, and revised annually. In order to stimulate constant improvement in the process of teaching and learning in each school and to target additional local assistance for a school when its students' performance is low or shows little improvement, the district accountability system must build on the district and school activities and plans required in Section 59-139-10. In keeping with the emphasis on school accountability, principals should be actively involved in the selection, discipline, and dismissal of personnel in their particular school. The date the school
Section 59-18-1310. The strategic plans and improvement reports required of the public schools and districts in Sections 59-18-1300, 59-18-1500, and 59-20-60 are consolidated and reported as follows: district and school five-year plans and annual updates and district programmatic reports, and school reports developed in conjunction with the school improvement council to parents and constituents to include recommendations of any an Education Accountability Act external review teams as approved by the State Board of Education and the steps being taken to address the recommendations, and the advertisement of this report are due on a date established by the Department of Education, but no later than April thirtieth annually; schools reviewed by external review teams shall prepare a report to the parents and constituents of the school, to be developed in conjunction with the School Improvement Council, and this report shall must be provided and advertised no later than April thirtieth annually. The school report card narrative in Section 59-18-900 continues on its prescribed date.
Section 59-18-1500. (A) When a school receives a rating of below average or school/district at-risk unsatisfactory, the following actions must be undertaken by the school, the district, and the board of trustees:
(1) The faculty of the school with the leadership of the principal must review its improvement renewal plan and revise it with the assistance of the school improvement council established in Section 59-20-60. The revised plan should look at every aspect of schooling,
(2) Once the revised plan is developed, the district superintendent and the local board of trustees shall review the school's strategic plan to determine if the plan focuses on strategies to increase student academic performance. Once the district board has approved the plan, it must delineate the strategies and support the district will give the plan.
(3) After the approval of the revised plan, the principals' and teachers' professional growth plans, as required by Section 59-26-40 and Section 59-24-40, should be reviewed and amended to reflect the professional development needs identified in the revised plan and must establish individual improvement criteria on the performance dimensions for the next evaluation.
(4) The school, in conjunction with the district board, must inform the parents of children attending the school of the ratings received from the State Board of Education and must outline the steps in the revised plan to improve performance, including the support which the board of trustees has agreed to give the plan. This information must go to the parents no later than February first. This information must also be advertised in at least one South Carolina daily newspaper of general circulation in the area. This notice must be published within ninety
(5) Upon a review of the revised plan to ensure it contains sufficiently high standards and expectations for improvement, the Department of Education is to delineate the activities, support, services, and technical assistance it will make available to support the school's plan and sustain improvement over time. Schools meeting the criteria established pursuant to Section 59-18-1560 59-18-1550 will be eligible for the grant programs created by that section.
(B) The Department of Education shall provide regional workshops to assist schools in formulating school renewal plans based on best practices that positively improve student achievement. The chairman of the local board of education or a board member designee, the superintendent or district instructional leader, and the principal of any school receiving technical assistance funds must attend at least one of the workshops in order to receive any state aid for technical assistance.
Section 59-18-1510. (A) When a school receives a rating of unsatisfactory school/district at-risk or upon the request of a school rated below average, an external review team process must be assigned implemented by the Department of Education to examine school and district educational programs, actions, and activities. The Education Oversight Committee, in consultation with the State Department of Education, shall develop the criteria for the identification of persons to serve as members of an external review team which shall include representatives from selected school districts, respected retired educators, State Department of Education staff, higher education representatives, parents from the district, and business representatives.
(B) The activities of the external review committee may include:
(1) examine examining all facets of school operations, focusing on strengths and weaknesses, determining the extent to which the instructional program is aligned with the content standards, and recommendations which draw upon strategies from those who have
(2) consult consulting with parents, community members, and members of the School Improvement Council to gather additional information on the strengths and weaknesses of the school;
(3) identify identifying personnel changes, if any, that are needed at the school and/or district level and discuss such findings with the board;
(4) work working with school staff, central offices, and local boards of trustees in the design of the school's plan, implementation strategies, and professional development training that can reasonably be expected to improve student performance and increase the rate of student progress in that school;
(5) identify identifying needed support from the district, the State Department of Education, and other sources for targeted long-term technical assistance;
(6) report reporting its recommendations, no later than three months after the school receives the designation of unsatisfactory school/district at-risk to the school, the district board of trustees, and the State Board of Education; and
(7) report reporting annually to the local board of trustees and state board over the next four years, or as deemed necessary by the state board, on the district's and school's progress in implementing the plans and recommendations and in improving student performance.
(C) Within thirty days, the Department of Education must notify the principal, the superintendent, and the district board of trustees of the recommendations approved by the State Board of Education. After the approval of the recommendations, the department shall delineate the activities, support, services, and technical assistance it will provide to the school. With the approval of the state board, this assistance will continue for at least three years, or as determined to be needed by the review committee to sustain improvement.
Section 59-18-1520. If the recommendations approved by the state board, the district's plan, or the school's revised plan is are not satisfactorily implemented by the school rated unsatisfactory school/district at-risk and its school district according to the time line developed by the State Board of Education or if student academic performance has not met expected progress, the principal, district superintendent, and members of the board of trustees must appear before the State Board of Education to outline the reasons why a state of emergency should not be declared in the school. The state
(1) furnish continuing advice and technical assistance in implementing the recommendations of the State Board of Education;
(2) declare a state of emergency in the school and replace the school's principal; or
(3) declare a state of emergency in the school and assume management of the school.
Section 59-18-1530. (A) Teacher specialists on site must may be assigned in any of the four core academic areas to a an elementary, middle, or high school in an impaired district or designated as below average or school/district at-risk unsatisfactory, if the review team so recommends and recommendation is approved by the State Board of Education. Teacher specialists on site must be assigned at a rate of one teacher for each grade level with a maximum of five to elementary schools in impaired districts or designated as below average or unsatisfactory. Teacher specialists may be placed across grade levels and across subject areas when placement meets program criteria based on external review team recommendations, need, number of teachers receiving support, certification, and experience of the specialist. The Department of Education, in consultation with the Division of Accountability, shall develop a program for the identification, selection, and training of teachers with a history of exemplary student academic achievement to serve as teacher specialists on site. Retired educators may be considered for specialists.
(B) In order to sustain improvement and help implement the review team's recommendations, the specialists will teach and work with the school faculty on a regular basis throughout the school year for up to three years, or as recommended by the review committee and approved by the state board. Teacher specialists are limited to three years of service at one school unless the specialist submits application for an extension, the application is accepted by the State Department of Education, and placement is made. Upon acceptance and placement, the specialist can receive the salary and supplement for two additional years but is no longer attached to the home district or guaranteed placement in the home district upon leaving the teacher specialist program. Teacher specialists must teach a minimum of three hours per day on average in team teaching or teaching classes. Teacher specialists shall not be assigned administrative duties or other responsibilities outside the scope of this section. The specialists will
(C) To encourage and recruit teachers for assignment to below standard average and unsatisfactory school/district at-risk schools, those assigned to such schools will receive their salary and a supplement equal to fifty percent of the current southeastern average teacher salary as projected by the State Budget and Control Board, Office of Research and Analysis. The salary and supplement is to be paid by the State for three years. Teacher specialists may be employed, pursuant to subsection (B), as a component of the technical assistance strategy.
(D) In order to attract a pool of qualified applicants to work in low-performing schools, the Education Oversight Committee, in consultation with the Leadership Academy of the South Carolina Department of Education, shall develop criteria for the identification, selection, and training of principals with a history of exemplary student academic achievement. Retired educators may be considered for a principal specialists specialist position. A principal specialist may be hired for a school designated as school/district at-risk unsatisfactory, if the district board of trustees chooses to replace the principal of that school. The principal specialist will assist the school in gaining knowledge of best practices and well-validated alternatives in carrying out the recommendations of the review team. The specialist will demonstrate effective leadership for improving classroom practices, assist in the analyses of assessment data, work with individual members of the faculty emphasizing needed changes in classroom instructional strategies based upon analyses of assessment data, and support teachers in acquiring new skills designed to increase academic performance. School districts are asked to cooperate in releasing employees for full-time or part-time employment as a principal specialist.
(E) In order to attract a pool of qualified principals to work in low-performing schools, the principal specialists hired in such schools will receive their salary and a supplement equal to 1.25 times the supplement amount calculated for teachers. The salary and supplement are to be paid by the State for two years. Principal specialists may be
(F) The supplements are to be considered part of the regular salary base for which retirement contributions are deductible by the South Carolina Retirement System pursuant to Section 9-1-1020. Principal and teacher specialists on site who are assigned to below average and unsatisfactory school/district at-risk schools shall be allowed to return to employment with their previous home district at the end of the contract period with the same teaching or administrative contract status as when they left but without assurance as to the school or supplemental position to which they may be assigned.
(G) For retired educators drawing benefits from the state retirement system who are serving in the capacity of principal or teacher specialist on site, the earnings limitations which restrict the amount of compensation that may be earned from covered employment while drawing benefits under the state retirement system do not apply to any compensation paid to them as an on-site specialist not to exceed one year of such employment whether they are working directly for the school district or for some entity in this capacity. However, no further contributions may be made to the state retirement system related to this compensation and no additional retirement benefits or credits may be received or accrued. The Department of Education shall work with school districts and schools to broker the services of technical assistance personnel delineated in Section 59-18-1590 as needed, and as stipulated in the school renewal plan.
(H) Within the parameters herein, the school district will have final determination on individuals who are assigned as teacher specialists and principal specialists.
Section 59-18-1540. Each principal continued in employment in schools in districts designated as impaired or in schools designated as below average or unsatisfactory school/district at-risk must participate in a formal mentoring program with a principal. The Department of Education, working with the Education Oversight Committee, shall design the mentoring program and provide a stipend to those principals serving as mentors. A principal mentor may be employed as a component of the technical assistance strategy.
Section 59-18-1550. Each teacher employed in schools designated as below average or unsatisfactory who participate in the professional development activities and the improvement actions of the school which go beyond the normal school day and year may earn credits toward recertification according to the criteria established by the State Board of Education. To receive credit, activities must be based on identified professional development needs outlined in the school's improvement plan and must include at least one of the following:
(1) summer institute with follow-up activities;
(2) practice of new teaching strategies with peers regularly throughout the school year;
(3) work with peer study groups during the academic year in planning lessons; and
(4) observing and coaching regularly in one another's classrooms.
The activities must be approved by the Department of Education and the department shall determine the amount of credit earned by the participation.
Section 59-18-1560. Section 59-18-1550. (A) The State Board of Education, working with the Accountability Division and the Department of Education, must establish grant programs for schools designated as below average and for schools designated as unsatisfactory. A school designated as below average will qualify for a grant to undertake any needed retraining of school faculty and administration once the revised plan is determined by the State Department of Education to meet the criteria on high standards and effective activities. A school designated as unsatisfactory will qualify for the grant program after the State Board of Education approves its revised plan. A grant or a portion of a grant may be renewed annually over the next three years, if school and district actions to implement the revised plan continue. In order to implement the school district and school renewal plan, a school must be eligible to receive the technical assistance funding over the next three years in order to implement fully systemic reform and to provide opportunity for building local education capacity. Should student performance not improve, any revisions to the plan must meet high standards prior to renewal of the grant. The revised plan must be reviewed by the district and board of trustees and the State Department of Education to determine what other actions, if any, need to be taken. A grant may be extended for up to an additional two years, if the State Board of Education determines it is needed to sustain academic improvement. The Technical assistance funds previously received must be expended based on the revised plan
(B) The State Board of Education, working with the Department of Education and with the approval of the Education Oversight Committee, will develop guidelines outlining eligibility for the grant programs and methods of distributing funds which will be in effect until such time as the school ratings in Section 59-18-900(B) are implemented. In developing the eligibility guidelines, the board should consider criteria similar to that used in the former impaired district program. Until such time as regulations are promulgated, the funds shall be distributed on a per teacher basis for use only as outlined in the revised school plan. (C) A public school assistance fund shall must be established as a separate fund within the state general fund for the purpose of providing financial support to assist poorly performing schools. The fund may consist of grants, gifts, and donations from any public or private source or monies that may be appropriated by the General Assembly for this purpose. Income from the fund shall be retained in the fund. All funds may be carried forward from fiscal year to fiscal year. The State Treasurer shall invest the monies in this fund in the same manner as other funds under his control are invested. The State Board of Education, in consultation with the commission, shall administer and authorize any disbursements from the fund. The State Board of Education shall promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of this section.
Section 59-18-1570. Section 59-18-1560. (A) When a district receives a rating of below average, the state superintendent, with the approval of the State Board of Education, shall appoint an external review committee to study educational programs in that district and identify factors affecting the performance of the district. The review committee must:
(1) examine all facets of school and district operations, focusing on strengths and weaknesses, determining the extent to which the instructional program is aligned with the content standards and shall make recommendations which draw upon strategies from those who have been successful in raising academic achievement in schools with similar student characteristics;
(2) consult with parents and community members to gather additional information on the strengths and weaknesses of the district;
(3) identify personnel changes, if any, that are needed at the school and/or district level and discuss such findings with the board;
(4) work with school staff, central offices, and local boards of trustees in the design of the district's plan, implementation strategies, and professional development training that can reasonably be expected to improve student performance and increase the rate of student progress in the district;
(5) identify needed support from the State Department of Education and other sources for targeted long-term technical assistance;
(6) report its recommendations, no later than three months after the district receives the designation of school/district at-risk unsatisfactory, to the superintendent, the district board of trustees, and the State Board of Education; and
(7) report annually over the next four years to the local board of trustees and state board, or as deemed necessary by the state board, on the district's and school's progress in implementing the plans and recommendations and in improving student performance.
(B) Within thirty days, the Department of Education must notify the superintendent and the district board of trustees of the recommendations approved by the State Board of Education. Upon the approval of the recommendations, the Department of Education must delineate the activities, support, services, and technical assistance it will provide to support the recommendations and sustain improvement over time. The external review committee must report annually to the local board of trustees and the state board over the next four years, or as deemed necessary by the state board, on the district's progress in implementing the recommendations and improving student performance.
(C) The review committee shall be composed of State Department of Education staff, representatives from selected school districts, higher education, and business.
Section 59-18-1580. Section 59-18-1570. (A) If recommendations approved by the State Board of Education are not satisfactorily implemented by the school district according to the time line developed by the State Board of Education, or if student performance has not made the expected progress and the school district is designated as school/district at-risk unsatisfactory, the district superintendent and members of the board of trustees shall appear before the State Board of
(B) The state superintendent, with the approval of the State Board of Education, is granted authority to:
(1) furnish continuing advice and technical assistance in implementing the recommendations of the State Board of Education to include establishing and conducting a training program for the district board of trustees and the district superintendent to focus on roles and actions in support of increases in student achievement;
(2) mediate personnel matters between the district board and district superintendent when the State Board of Education is informed by majority vote of the board or the superintendent that the district board is considering dismissal of the superintendent, and the parties agree to mediation;
(3) recommend to the Governor that the office of superintendent be declared vacant. If the Governor declares the office vacant, the state superintendent may furnish an interim replacement until the vacancy is filled by the district board of trustees. District boards of trustees negotiating contracts for the superintendency shall include a provision that the contract is void should the Governor declare that office of superintendency vacant pursuant to this section. This contract provision does not apply to any existing contracts but to new contracts or renewal of contracts; and
(4) declare a state of emergency in the school district and assume management of the school district.
(C) The district board of trustees may appoint at least two nonvoting members to the board from a pool nominated by the Education Oversight Committee and the State Department of Education. The appointed members shall have demonstrated high levels of knowledge, commitment, and public service, must be recruited and trained for service as appointed board members by the Education Oversight Committee and the State Department of Education, and shall represent the interests of the State Board of Education on the district board. Compensation for the nonvoting members must be paid by the State Board of Education in an amount equal to the compensation paid to the voting members of the district board.
Section 59-18-1590. Section 59-18-1580. To assist schools and school districts as they work to improve classroom practice and student performance, the Department of Education must increase the delivery of quality technical assistance services and the assessment of
(1) establish an ongoing state mechanism to promote successful programs found in South Carolina schools for implementation in schools with similar needs and students, to review evidence on instructional and organizational practices considered to be effective, and to alert schools and classroom teachers to these options and the sources of training and names of implementing schools;
(2) provide information and technical assistance in understanding state policies, how they fit together, and the best practice in implementing them; and
(3) establish a process for monitoring information provided for accountability and for assessing improvement efforts and implementation of state laws and policies which focuses on meeting the intent and purpose of those laws and policies.
Section 59-18-1595. Section 59-18-1590. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in order to provide assistance at the beginning of the school year, schools may qualify for technical assistance based on the criteria established by the Education Oversight Committee for school ratings and on the most recently available end-of-year assessment scores. In order to best meet the needs of low-performing schools, the funding provided for technical assistance under the Education Accountability Act may be reallocated among the programs and purposes specified in this section. The State Department of Education shall establish criteria for reviewing and assisting schools that will be rated unsatisfactory school/district at-risk or below average using a tiered system with the lowest-performing schools receiving highest priority. Not to exceed the statewide total number of specialists stipulated by the Education Accountability Act, the highest priority school assistance shall include a year-long technical assistance team that may include a lead principal or curriculum specialist, or both. All specialists shall have a demonstrated record of success in their field and shall be entitled to the incentives and benefits of a teacher specialist. Technical assistance for below average schools shall be provided to the extent possible in order of need. Funds must be expended on strategies and activities expressly outlined in the school plan. The activities may include, but are not limited to, teacher specialist, principal specialist, curriculum specialist, principal leader,
Section 59-18-1600. (A) A school that has received a unsatisfactory school/district at-risk absolute academic performance rating on its most recent report card shall offer an orientation class for parents. The orientation class must focus on the following topics:
(1) the value of education;
(2) academic assistance programs that are available at the school and in the community;
(3) student discipline;
(4) school policies;
(5) explanation of information that will be presented on the school's report card issued in November; and
(6) other pertinent issues.
(B) The school shall offer the orientation class each year the school receives a unsatisfactory school/district at-risk absolute academic performance rating on the school report card and shall provide parents with written notification of the date and time of the meeting. Schools are encouraged to offer the orientation class at a time in which the majority of parents would be able to attend. Additionally, schools are encouraged to provide orientation classes in community settings or workplaces so that the needs of parents with transportation difficulties or scheduling conflicts can be met.
(C) A parent or guardian of each student who is registered to attend the school shall attend the orientation class each year it is offered.
Section 59-18-1700. (A) An on-going public information campaign must be established to apprise the public of the status of the public schools and the importance of high standards for academic performance for the public school students of South Carolina. A special committee shall must be appointed by the chairman of the Education Oversight Committee to include two committee members representing business and two representing education and others representing business, industry, and education. The committee shall plan and
(B) A separate fund within the state general fund will be established to accept grants, gifts, and donations from any public or private source or monies that may be appropriated by the General Assembly for the public information campaign. Members of the Oversight Committee representing business will solicit donations for this fund. Income from the fund shall must be retained in the fund. All funds may be carried forward from fiscal year to fiscal year. The State Treasurer shall invest the monies in this fund in the same manner as other funds under his control are invested. The Oversight Committee shall administer and authorize any disbursements from the fund. Private individuals and groups shall be encouraged to contribute to this endeavor.
Section 59-18-1910. The State Board of Education shall establish grant programs to fund homework centers in schools and districts designated as below average and unsatisfactory. Until such time as these ratings are established, all schools in districts declared to be impaired are eligible to receive funding on a per pupil basis. Schools receiving such below average or school/district at-risk designations may use technical assistance funds allocated pursuant to Section 59-18-1590 to must provide homework centers that go beyond the regular school hours where students can come and receive assistance in understanding and completing their school work. Technical assistance funds Funds provided for these centers may be used for salaries for certified teachers and for transportation costs. Homework centers meeting the criteria established by the board shall receive funds as appropriated by the General Assembly. For 1998-99, of the funds appropriated for assessment, up to five hundred thousand dollars shall be used for homework centers.
Section 59-18-1920. (A) The State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, shall establish a grant program to encourage school districts to pilot test or implement a modified school year or school day schedule. The purpose of the grant is to assist with the additional costs incurred during the intersessions for salaries, transportation, and operations, or for additional costs incurred by lengthening the school day. For a district to qualify for a grant, all the
(B) To obtain a grant, a district shall submit an application to the state board in a format specified by the Department of Education. The application shall include a plan for implementing a modified year or day that provides the following: more time for student learning, learning opportunities that typically are not available in the regular student day, targeted assistance for students whose academic performance is significantly below promotion standards, more efficient use of facilities and other resources, and evaluations of the impact of the modified schedule. Local district boards of trustees shall require students whose performance in a core subject area, as defined in Section 59-18-300, is the equivalent of a 'D' average or below to attend the intersessions or stay for the lengthened day and receive special assistance in the subject area. Funding for the program is as provided by the General Assembly in the annual appropriations act. Each grant award for program pilot testing or implementation may not exceed a three-year period.
Section 59-18-1930. The Education Oversight Committee shall provide for a comprehensive review of state and local professional development to include principal leadership development and teacher staff development. The review must provide an analysis of training to include what professional development is offered, how it is offered, the support given to implement skills acquired from professional development, and how the professional development enhances the academic goals outlined in district and school strategic plans. The Oversight Committee shall recommend better ways to provide and meet the needs for professional development, to include the use of the existing five contract days for in service. Needed revisions shall be made to state regulations to promote use of state dollars for training which meets national standards for staff development.
Upon receipt of the recommendations from the comprehensive review of state and local professional development, the State Department of Education shall develop an accountability system to ensure that identified professional development standards are effectively implemented. As part of this system the department shall provide information on the identified standards to all principals and other professional development leaders. Training for all school districts in how to design comprehensive professional development
"(A)(1) All publicly owned or leased school buses, including buses owned or leased by a public school district, must be inspected annually in compliance with either the State Department of Education's annual school bus inspection program or the federal Department of Transportation annual inspection program if the standards of the federal inspection program meet or exceed the standards of the state's program. The State Department of Education shall assist school districts using the Department of Education's program in this requirement by providing the training and certification of a limited number of personnel designated by a school district to perform the inspection, providing the inspection manuals and forms, and supplying the inspection certificate stickers for the school buses. The State Department of Education's assistance must be free of charge. Any savings resulting from the ability to be inspected by either the State Department of Education or the federal Department of Transportation shall be expended on accountability programs set forth in Chapter 18 of this title."
SECTION 4. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Amend title to conform.
Sen. Robert Wesley Hayes, Jr. Rep. William Ramsey Whitmire Sen. Linda H. Short Rep. Eric Michael Bedingfield Sen. Nikki Giles Setzler Rep. James M. Neal On Part of the Senate. On Part of the House.
Rep. WHIPPER demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
So, the Free Conference Report was adopted and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
September 16, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am hereby vetoing and returning without my signature H. 4328, R. 290.
H. 4328 (Word version) amends the Administrative Procedures Act's sections dealing with review of final agency decisions, including DHEC permitting decisions, by the administrative law court. Among other things, this bill makes changes to the automatic stay provisions in the APA by exempting some permitting matters from automatic stays, by adding a three-day time frame for an administrative law judge to hold a hearing on lifting an automatic stay, and by creating a standard for an administrative law judge to apply when deciding whether to lift an automatic stay.
I struggled with this bill over the last few days because I very much agree with the thinking behind it. There is something fundamentally wrong in leaving so much uncertainty to our permitting process that no more than a $250 check for filing an appeal can halt a project or investment involving millions. Too often, some in the environmental community use stays as their most ready tool in thwarting development efforts. While I understand their sentiment, I think it would be far more productive to have tighter regulations where appropriate rather than simply continuing the use of stays as a relatively weak substitute for tighter laws.
For this reasons I would like to sign a bill that brings a greater degree of certainty to our permitting process, but the way in which this bill seeks to do this is flawed on several fronts. This Administration is
In general, I also happen to be concerned about the process by which this proposal has come to my desk. Rather than having a broad debate on the stay process, this bill went through the House, and only in the last week and one half of the session was the stay provision added in the Senate. Without the Socratic process of both the House and Senate having hearings and mark-ups on this bill, no one fully defined how this law would be applied and there is an absolute lack of clarity on how the bill might be applied.
I also think it is telling who, at this point, began much of the push for the bill - the Ports Authority. Their interest in moving forward with the North Charleston site is well documented, and some believe this bill is an attempt to limit legal challenges to their work based on traffic congestion issues and challenges on 1-26. While this administration is as committed as anyone in the state to more port capacity on our coast, we think there is wisdom in not snuffing out debates that can ultimately lead to better solutions.
It needs to be remembered in this instance the debate is not about someone unfairly holding a private developer hostage with a stay, but concerned citizens being able to fully voice their concerns on a large state entity's use of public funds and its impact to a citizen's ability to not be stuck in traffic on 1-26. Not so many years ago it was a small local activist on the Cain Hoy peninsula by the name of Fred Lincoln who used as his only tool the stay process to stop government's condemnation of private property to build a railroad that was ultimately proven not to be in the public interest.
Long story short we are committed to creating certainty in the permitting process for individual and corporate investors and businesses, but want to make certain this bill does not jeopardize those same private individuals and entity's ability to question how their tax dollars are being used in governmental projects.
We believe that if we give definition to the conditions under which stays can be applied and a slightly longer time frame to challenge the lifting of a stay, we think this could be a great bill. As mentioned earlier we are committed to gathering other stakeholders over the summer to determine ways to make this bill better. Consequently, it's our hope over the next few months that this legislation will be improved and we will have the chance to sign a bill that would both better our regulatory framework - and at the same time retain environmental protections key to the quality of life in South Carolina.
For these reasons, I am vetoing H. 4328, R. 290.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R290) H. 4328 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrison, Delleney, Haskins, G. M. Smith, Cotty, McLeod and Hart: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-505 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT SHALL HAVE AN OFFICIAL SEAL; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allen Anthony Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Branham Cato Clemmons Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Govan Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Howard Huggins Jefferson Leach Littlejohn Lowe Mack Mahaffey Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney Ott Owens Parks Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Anderson Bales Ballentine Bowers Brady Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Coleman Cotty Davenport
Erickson Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Hart Harvin Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Kelly Kirsh Loftis Lucas McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Phillips Scarborough Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Toole Whipper Williams
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
May 28, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3906 (Word version), R. 289.
This bill mandates that an out-of-state or overseas dental laboratory employ a dental technician registered in South Carolina if the lab performs dental technological work prescribed by a dentist licensed in this state. Additionally, the bill requires dental laboratories to provide certification of the country where the lab work was performed; a list of materials used to make the device; as well as the name, address, and certificate number of the person or organization authorized to make the device.
This bill is well meaning, but unfortunately South Carolina does not have jurisdiction to enforce this regulation outside of our state which would render it useless. South Carolinians filing complaints against any dental laboratory would submit the complaint to the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. But the agency has no jurisdiction outside South Carolina and has no power to send a "cease and desist"
In this case, although I support insuring the quality and materials used by dental laboratories, state government is going too far by involving itself where it has no enforceable jurisdiction.
For these reasons, I am vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3906, R. 289.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R289) H. 3906 (Word version) -- Reps. Witherspoon and Moss: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-15-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE A DENTAL LABORATORY THAT PERFORMS DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE TO EMPLOY A PERSON WHO IS REGISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY TO AUTHORIZE SUCH WORK BASED ON THE PRESCRIPTION OF A DENTIST LICENSED IN THIS STATE, TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE WORK WAS PERFORMED, AND TO REQUIRE THE LABORATORY TO PROVIDE A LIST OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE WORK; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-15-280, RELATING TO WORK AUTHORIZATIONS FOR DENTAL TECHNOLOGICAL WORK, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE INVOICE FOR A PRESCRIPTION TO INCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE NUMBER OF THE PERSON EMPLOYED BY THE LABORATORY WHICH IS TO PERFORM THE WORK.
Rep. PARKS explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Crawford Delleney Edge Erickson Funderburk Govan Harrison Harvin Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Taylor Weeks Whipper Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Chalk Cooper Cotty Daning Dantzler Davenport Duncan Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Herbkersman Kelly Kirsh Leach Loftis Merrill Mulvaney Owens Perry Rice Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Thompson
Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 286, S. 1161 by a vote of 43 to 0:
(R286, S1161 (Word version)) -- Senator Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 254 OF 1981, RELATING TO THE MARION COURT LIBRARY COMMISSION AND THE MARION COURT LIBRARY, TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS REMAINING IN THE MARION COURT LIBRARY FUND AFTER PURCHASING BOOKS, LEGAL PERIODICALS, AND OTHER NECESSARY LIBRARY SUPPLIES MAY BE USED FOR THE COURT SYSTEM IN MARION COUNTY.
Very respectfully,
President
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
May 28, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 1161 (Word version), R. 286.
This veto is based on my belief that this bill is unconstitutional. S. 1161 allows funds from the Marion Court Library to be used for operating expenses of the Marion County court system. This legislation affects only Marion County and is, therefore, clearly an act for a specific county.
Such acts are in violation of Article VIII, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, which provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to this legislation have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7.
For this reason, I have vetoed S. 1161, R. 286.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R286) S. 1161 (Word version) -- Senator Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND ACT 254 OF 1981, RELATING TO THE MARION COURT LIBRARY COMMISSION AND THE MARION COURT LIBRARY, TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS REMAINING IN THE MARION COURT LIBRARY FUND AFTER PURCHASING BOOKS, LEGAL PERIODICALS, AND OTHER NECESSARY LIBRARY SUPPLIES MAY BE USED FOR THE COURT SYSTEM IN MARION COUNTY.
Rep. ALEXANDER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Jennings
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the Veto by the Governor on R. 285, S. 1085 by a vote of 43 to 0:
(R285, S1085 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-13-1331 SO AS TO PROVIDE A CORPORATION OR COMMITTEE OF A CORPORATION MAY SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF PERSONNEL OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, BRANCHES, AND DIVISIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN DEFINITIONS RELATED TO ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY SENATE STAFF MEMBERS IS THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF MEMBERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ETHICS COMMITTEE; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE EXEMPT SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF MEMBERS FROM CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1300, AS AMENDED,
Very respectfully,
President
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
May 28, 2008
The Honorable André Bauer
President of the Senate
State House, First Floor, East Wing
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 1085 (Word version), R. 285, which requires the House and Senate legislative ethics committees to
This bill extends the current process of legislators enforcing ethics laws against fellow legislators to legislative staff. I believe this bill, as well as the current system of legislative law enforcement, is fundamentally flawed because it puts legislators in the very awkward position of having to police themselves and their staff on potential violations of ethics laws. The founding fathers were deliberate about the separation of powers because, at minimum, they knew it was difficult to be hard on someone who could hold the keys to your advancement and, at maximum, they recognized the potential for abuse. This process could easily create potential conflicts of interest because ethics committee members, who are investigating alleged misconduct of legislators and staff, are also working with other members and their staff on a daily basis during the session. Even with the most objective and principled of ethics committee members, it is difficult to avoid an appearance of a biased and predisposed enforcement system in the eyes of the general public, which I believe diminishes the integrity of the ethics process.
The State Ethics Commission handles ethics complaints and administers sanctions against all public officials and employees, except legislators. With the passage of S. 1085, this world grows to include their staff. This Commission is an independent body and its members are protected from being removed at the discretion of any governor. The General Assembly's purpose for creating a layer of independence and protection around the State Ethics Commission was to prevent improper influence or interference by any public official, including the governor, in an ethics matter and to avoid an appearance of impropriety.
I believe the General Assembly should apply the same principles it has applied to the Executive Branch to itself and create a more objective process for enforcing ethics laws against legislators and their staff.
For these reasons, I am vetoing and returning without my approval S. 1085, R. 285.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R285) S. 1085 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell and Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 8-13-1331 SO AS TO PROVIDE A CORPORATION OR COMMITTEE OF A CORPORATION MAY SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF PERSONNEL OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, BRANCHES, AND DIVISIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN DEFINITIONS RELATED TO ETHICS AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY SENATE STAFF MEMBERS IS THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF MEMBERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ETHICS COMMITTEE; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-320, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO AS TO PROVIDE EXEMPT SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF MEMBERS FROM CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY POWERS OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1300, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN DEFINITIONS RELATED TO CAMPAIGN PRACTICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY SENATE STAFF MEMBERS IS THE SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND THE APPROPRIATE SUPERVISORY OFFICE FOR THE FILING OF CERTAIN ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORTS BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF MEMBERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ETHICS COMMITTEE; TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-530, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, SO AS TO INCLUDE LEGISLATIVE STAFF; TO AMEND
Rep. HARRISON explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Haskins Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Howard Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn
Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
On motion of Rep. G. M. SMITH, with unanimous consent, the following Bill was ordered recalled from the Committee on Judiciary:
S. 429 (Word version) -- Senators Malloy and Jackson: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 17, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 28, THE "ACCESS TO JUSTICE POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING ACT", SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR POST CONVICTION DNA TESTING, AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 28, THE "PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE ACT", SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
S. 1403 (Word version) -- Senators Sheheen and Malloy: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES THE LYNCHES RIVER WHICH FORMS THE BOUNDARY FOR CHESTERFIELD AND LANCASTER COUNTIES ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 THE "JUDGE PAUL M. BURCH BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS BRIDGE THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "JUDGE PAUL M. BURCH BRIDGE".
Whereas, the Honorable Paul M. Burch was born on February 10, 1954 in Charlotte, North Carolina, the son of William B. and Laura Arant Burch; and
Whereas, he obtained the following degrees from the University of South Carolina: Bachelor of Science in 1976; Master of Arts in 1978; and Doctor of Juris Prudence in 1980; and
Whereas, Judge Burch is married to the former Kimberly Lee Thomas, and together they are the proud parents of three children; and
Whereas, he is a faithful member and officer of the Pageland United Methodist Church; and
Whereas, from 1983 to 1988, he served as a member of the Chesterfield County Council, and from 1988 to 1991, he served as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives; and
Whereas, for thirty-six years he, has been a member of the Pageland Volunteer Fire Department, and for six years he was an officer with the Pageland Police Department; and
Whereas, since 1991, he has served as a Judge of South Carolina's Fourth Judicial Circuit; and
Whereas, it is fitting and proper for the members of the General Assembly to forever recognize the long service to this State that Judge Burch has rendered as a church leader, law enforcement officer,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the Department of Transportation name the bridge that crosses the Lynches River which forms the boundary for Chesterfield and Lancaster Counties along South Carolina Highway 9 the "Judge Paul M. Burch Bridge" and erect appropriate markers or signs at this bridge that contain the words "Judge Paul M. Burch Bridge".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Department of Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
H. 5198 (Word version) -- Rep. Davenport: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ERECT SIGNS IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 AND OLD FURNACE ROAD AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 9 AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 85 THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "BOILING SPRINGS HOME OF THE BOILING SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL BULLDOGS 2008 CLASS AAAA STATE BASEBALL CHAMPIONS".
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
H. 5217 (Word version) -- Reps. McLeod and Duncan: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 26 AND SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 121 INTERCHANGE IN NEWBERRY COUNTY AS THE "U. S. MARSHAL ISRAEL BROOKS, JR. MEMORIAL INTERCHANGE" IN RECOGNITION
Whereas, Israel Brooks, Jr., a native of Newberry County, served his State and nation with great distinction in law enforcement; and
Whereas, he was born June 30, 1944, graduated from Newberry's Gallman High School in 1962, and promptly enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, where he served for four and one-half years until honorably discharged as sergeant in 1966; and
Whereas, in 1967, Israel Brooks became the first African American to serve as a state trooper on the South Carolina Highway Patrol; and
Whereas, he also became the first African American promoted to a supervisory rank within the South Carolina Highway Patrol, in that he was quickly promoted through the ranks to corporal, then sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and major, and thereby became second in command, in charge of the highway patrol's administrative and support functions; and
Whereas, in 1994, upon recommendation of United States Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Israel Brooks was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina and served in this very important position until his retirement in November of 2002; and
Whereas, in addition to his long and rewarding career of public service in law enforcement, he also was a highly respected civic and community leader and role model, devoting considerable time and effort in guest lectures at numerous elementary, middle, and high schools, and institutions of higher learning throughout South Carolina; and
Whereas, Israel Brooks died September 7, 2007, at Lexington Medical Center following a long battle with cancer. He is survived by his wife, Barbara; son, Errol; three daughters, Miriam, Nadine, and Tiffini; and nine grandchildren. Funeral services were held on
Whereas, it is fitting and proper that the Interstate Highway 26 and South Carolina Highway 121 interchange in Newberry County be named the "U. S. Marshal Israel Brooks, Jr. Memorial Interchange" in recognition of the many achievements of Israel Brooks, Jr. attained during his illustrious law enforcement career. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the South Carolina General Assembly request the Department of Transportation to name the Interstate Highway 26 and South Carolina Highway 121 interchange in Newberry County as the "U. S. Marshal Israel Brooks, Jr. Memorial Interchange" and to erect appropriate signs or markers reflecting this designation.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mrs. Barbara Gallman Brooks and to the Department of Transportation.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
The following Concurrent Resolution was taken up:
S. 1420 (Word version) -- Senators Hawkins and Ritchie: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE NEW SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 215 SECTION AROUND ROEBUCK THE "L. E. GABLE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND TO ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "L. E. GABLE MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".
Whereas, Mr. Gable was born in 1915 as the eleventh of twelve children in Antreville, South Carolina; and
Whereas, Mr. Gable was known throughout his community as a friend, educator, and coach; and
Whereas, Mr. Gable was active in his community. He was a member of Roebuck Baptist Church where he was a Deacon, Sunday school teacher, and former chairman of the Board. He was a Mason and Past Master of Roebuck Masonic Lodge Number 357, one of the originators of the Roebuck Improvement Association, and former President of the South Carolina School Business Association; and
Whereas, Mr. Gable is survived by a loving wife and family and will be dearly missed by his family, friends, and neighbors. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly request that the Department of Transportation name the new South Carolina Highway 215 section around Roebuck the "L. E. Gable Memorial Highway" and erect appropriate markers or signs that contain the words "L. E. Gable Memorial Highway".
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. Gable's wife, Mrs. Jimmie Wise Alman Gable.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted and sent to the Senate.
Rep. MACK moved that the House recur to the Morning Hour, which was agreed to.
The following was introduced:
H. 5237 (Word version) -- Rep. Hodges: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR SUSANNA "SUSIE" POLLINS GLAZE AND WALTER E. GLAZE OF BEAUFORT COUNTY FOR THEIR SUCCESS AS PARENTS AND TO CONGRATULATE THEM AND
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5238 (Word version) -- Reps. Anderson, Agnew, Alexander, Allen, Anthony, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bedingfield, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brantley, Breeland, G. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Chalk, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Crawford, Daning, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Erickson, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Govan, Gullick, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, Hiott, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Hutson, Jefferson, Jennings, Kelly, Kennedy, Kirsh, Knight, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Mitchell, Moody-Lawrence, Moss, Mulvaney, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rice, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Scott, Sellers, Shoopman, Simrill, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Spires, Stavrinakis, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Umphlett, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams, Witherspoon and Young: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOR THE ANDREWS HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY BOYS TRACK AND FIELD TEAM OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY FOR A SUCCESSFUL SEASON AND TO CONGRATULATE THE TEAM MEMBERS AND THEIR COACHES FOR CAPTURING THE 2008 CLASS AA STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TITLE.
The Resolution was adopted.
The following was introduced:
H. 5239 (Word version) -- Reps. Neilson, Williams and Lucas: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND CONGRATULATE THE DARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL "LADY FALCONS" SOFTBALL
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
Rep. HAYES moved to reconsider the vote whereby Rule 5.15 was not waived on the Senate Amendments to the following Bill, which was taken up and agreed to:
H. 4400 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Harrison, Cato, Cooper, Walker, Witherspoon, Merrill, Sandifer, Haley, Young, Erickson, Littlejohn, Simrill, Bowen, Crawford, Barfield, Cotty, Taylor, Spires, Davenport, E. H. Pitts, Frye, Lowe, Shoopman, Hardwick, Bingham, Skelton, Clemmons, Thompson, Bedingfield, Bannister, Mahaffey, Herbkersman, J. R. Smith, Haskins, Huggins, Hutson, Leach, Toole, Viers, Brady, Dantzler, Delleney, Gambrell, Hamilton, Kelly, Rice, Scarborough, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, Talley, Umphlett, Duncan, Owens, Mulvaney, White, Loftis and Edge: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-31-40, RELATING TO DUTIES OF THE STATE COMMISSION ON MINORITY AFFAIRS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A HOTLINE FOR REPORTING IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS; TO ADD CHAPTER 14 TO TITLE 8 SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT EVERY PUBLIC EMPLOYER PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL WORK AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM OR USE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY ALL NEW EMPLOYEES, TO REQUIRE CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS WHO CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYERS FOR THE PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES TO REGISTER AND PARTICIPATE IN THE FEDERAL WORK AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM OR OTHERWISE VERIFY EMPLOYEES, TO DEFINE TERMS, TO ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR COMPLIANCE BY PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, CONTRACTORS, AND SUBCONTRACTORS, TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER ARE ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, RELIGION, GENDER,
Rep. YOUNG moved to waive Rule 5.15, which was agreed to by a division vote of 73 to 3.
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:
H. 4400 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Harrison, Cato, Cooper, Walker, Witherspoon, Merrill, Sandifer, Haley, Young, Erickson, Littlejohn, Simrill, Bowen, Crawford, Barfield, Cotty, Taylor, Spires, Davenport, E. H. Pitts, Frye, Lowe, Shoopman, Hardwick, Bingham, Skelton, Clemmons, Thompson, Bedingfield, Bannister, Mahaffey, Herbkersman, J. R. Smith, Haskins, Huggins, Hutson, Leach, Toole, Viers, Brady, Dantzler, Delleney, Gambrell, Hamilton, Kelly, Rice, Scarborough, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, Talley, Umphlett, Duncan, Owens, Mulvaney, White, Loftis and Edge: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-31-40, RELATING TO DUTIES OF THE STATE COMMISSION ON MINORITY
Rep. HARRISON explained the Senate Amendments.
Rep. J. E. SMITH raised the Point of Order that the Bill was out of order under Rule 5.13 in that a fiscal impact statement was not attached to the Bill.
Rep. J. E. SMITH raised the Point of Order that the Bill was out of order under Rule 5.13 in that the Senate Amendments altered the Bill in such a way that a revised fiscal impact statement was required.
SPEAKER HARRELL stated that a revised impact statement was only required if the Bill had been reported out of committee with a committee report suggesting a significant change. He, therefore, overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. CLEMMONS proposed the following Amendment No. 2A (Doc Name COUNCIL\GGS\22131MM08), which was tabled:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately lettered subsection to Section 23-3-1100, as contained in SECTION 11, to read:
/ ( ) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a person who is convicted of a criminal offense in this State who is determined not to be lawfully admitted to the United States pursuant to the provisions of this section is not eligible for probation, parole, or any other early release program as may be provided by law including, but not limited to, the Youthful Offender Program pursuant to Chapter 19, Title 24. However, the provisions of this subsection do not apply if Immigration and Customs enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, or another appropriate federal agency takes custody of the person. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. CLEMMONS explained the amendment.
Rep. MERRILL moved to table the amendment.
Rep. OTT demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anthony Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen
Brady Cato Chalk Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Mahaffey Merrill Moss Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Toole Umphlett Walker White Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Davenport Edge Funderburk Gambrell Govan Harvin Haskins Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kennedy Knight Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Scott Sellers D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith
Thompson Viers Weeks Whipper Williams
So, the amendment was tabled.
Rep. MERRILL demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson Anthony Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Govan Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mahaffey McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett
Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cobb-Hunter Hayes Hodges Kennedy Mack J. H. Neal Ott Scott Sellers Whipper
So, the Senate Amendments were agreed to, and the Bill having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
I was called away on legislative business and was not in the Chamber during the vote on H. 4400. If I had been present, I would have voted "yea", in favor of the Bill.
Rep. Liston Barfield
In regards to the vote to table Amendment No. 2A on H. 4400, I voted "yea" because I thought we were voting on passage of the Bill. If I had realized that the vote was to table this Amendment, I would have voted "nay".
Rep. Bob Walker
Rep. MERRILL moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Senate Amendments to the following Bill were concurred in, which was taken up:
H. 4400 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrell, Harrison, Cato, Cooper, Walker, Witherspoon, Merrill, Sandifer, Haley, Young, Erickson, Littlejohn, Simrill, Bowen, Crawford, Barfield, Cotty, Taylor, Spires, Davenport,
Rep. MERRILL moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. OTT demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Anthony Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Jennings Kelly Kirsh Knight Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney Neilson Owens Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker White Whitmire Young
Alexander Allen Anderson Bales Bowers Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Harvin Hayes Hodges Hosey Jefferson Kennedy Mack McLeod Mitchell J. H. Neal Ott Parks Scott Sellers Weeks Whipper Williams
So, the motion to reconsider was tabled.
Rep. J. E. SMITH moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on the following Bill was sustained:
H. 4328 (Word version) -- Reps. Harrison, Delleney, Haskins, G. M. Smith, Cotty, McLeod and Hart: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-505 SO AS TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS; BY ADDING SECTION 1-23-535 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT SHALL HAVE AN OFFICIAL SEAL; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-310, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO CHANGE A REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-320, RELATING TO CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION REGARDING THE HANDLING OF ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS, AND OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OR RELIEF FROM AN AGENCY SUBPOENA BEFORE THE COURT; TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-380, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Rep. HAGOOD moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. R. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Bales Ballentine Bowers Branham Brantley G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Coleman Cotty Davenport Erickson Frye Funderburk
Gullick Hagood Harvin Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Jennings Kelly Kirsh McLeod Miller J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Scarborough Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Spires Toole Weeks Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allen Anderson Anthony Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Huggins Jefferson Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Merrill Mitchell Moss Mulvaney Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Umphlett Viers White Williams Young
So, the House refused to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. CATO moved to adjourn debate on the motion to reconsider.
Rep. HAGOOD moved to table the motion.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bowers Brantley R. Brown Coleman Cotty Davenport Erickson Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Harvin Herbkersman Hodges Howard Kelly Kirsh McLeod J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Scarborough Scott Sellers J. E. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Toole Whipper
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady Branham G. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Delleney Duncan Edge Gambrell Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Haskins Hayes Hiott Hosey Huggins Jefferson Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Mulvaney Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson
Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks White Whitmire Williams Young
So, the House refused to table the motion to adjourn debate on the motion to reconsider.
The question then recurred to the motion to adjourn debate on the motion to reconsider until Tuesday, June 3, which was agreed to.
Rep. SCOTT moved that the House do now adjourn.
Rep. MERRILL demanded the yeas and nays which were taken, resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson Bowers Brantley Breeland Coleman Dantzler Hagood Hosey Howard Jefferson Littlejohn Mack J. H. Neal Scott F. N. Smith G. R. Smith Whipper Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Anthony Bales Ballentine Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Brady G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson Frye Funderburk Gambrell Gullick Haley Hardwick Harrell Harvin Haskins Herbkersman Hiott
Huggins Jennings Kelly Kirsh Leach Loftis Lowe Lucas Merrill Miller Moss Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Weeks White Whitmire Young
So, the House refused to adjourn.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. GOVAN a leave of absence for the remainder of the day for a doctor's appointment.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
May 28, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
South Carolina House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 4801 (Word version), R. 294, the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Reserve Fund Appropriations Bill, with the line-item vetoes detailed below.
Veto 1 Section 1; Item 4; Clemson University; LightRail; $800,000.
Veto 2 Section 1; Item 5; University of South Carolina-Columbia; LightRail; $800,000.
These line items allocate $2.1 million for MUSC, Clemson, and the University of South Carolina to implement SC LightRail, which is a computer network for our research universities. While we understand that this project has already begun, we believe that the research universities have other ways to complete this project. First, we believe that the research universities can and should fund this project through their carry forward and reserve accounts. For example, it has been reported that Clemson has carry forward funds of up to $80 million, and USC has a similar amount. With some state agencies already projecting a deficit in the next fiscal year, these schools are well ahead of almost all of state government. The universities will argue that these carry forward funds are already committed to other projects, in which case we would simply ask our research institutions to prioritize and decide whether those other projects are more or less important than the completion of SC LightRail. Second, we believe that this project is the exact kind of project that the Research University Infrastructure Act (RUIA) was intended to fund. Funding through RUIA, which encourages public-private partnerships, would allow us to accomplish the goal of implementing SC LightRail in a much more cost-effective manner for the South Carolina taxpayers and the universities.
Veto 4 Section 1; Item 7; Commission on Higher Education; Research Authority-Hydrogen Grants; $2,500,000.
I am vetoing this line-item for the same three reasons I vetoed Act 83 of 2007, the legislation which authorized this appropriation for the South Carolina Research Authority to receive public and private funds for the purpose of awarding grants for hydrogen development purposes. First, while we are supportive of hydrogen research, we don't believe we should expand our investment by another $2.5 million until we have seen tangible results of the investments already made. In that vein, we have supported $3.6 million in recurring state funds for hydrogen-related projects, $1 million for fuel cell research at USC, and $400,000 for the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance.
Second, we don't believe the role of government is to lead the private sector. Japan tried it and failed in the 1970's with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Korea tried it and failed in the 1980's with cars and steel. I believe it's short-sighted to think government can pick the "winning" industry of tomorrow and beat the marketplace and private capital.
Third, we believe that when government does invest in developing technologies, public monies should be matched with significant private investment. That is not the case with this appropriation. Finally, it is ironic that funding for hydrogen grants was prioritized over funding for the Closing Fund at the Department of Commerce. The Closing Fund has proven to be a successful tool for Commerce to attract economic development for the state. However, instead of continuing to fund an effective economic development program, this budget zeros out all of the Closing Fund and finds $2.5 million for public grants for a developing and unproven industry. For these reasons, I am vetoing this line-item.
For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the authority granted to the governor by Article IV, Section 21, of the South Carolina Constitution, I am vetoing the specific sections and items of H. 4801, R. 294, the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Reserve Fund Appropriations Bill, as indicated. I look forward to working together toward the goal of disciplined budgetary practices and cooperative service to the citizens of South Carolina.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R294) H. 4801 (Word version) -- Ways and Means Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE MONIES FROM THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008.
Veto 1 Section 1; Item 4; Clemson University; LightRail; $800,000.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales
Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Davenport Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Walker Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Delleney Frye Gullick Hagood Haskins Kirsh Mulvaney Scott Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett
Veto 2 Section 1; Item 5; University of South Carolina-Columbia; LightRail; $800,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Edge Erickson Funderburk Gambrell Haley Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Leach Lowe Lucas Mack McLeod Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Viers
Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Frye Gullick Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Haskins Kirsh Mulvaney Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3 Section 1; Item 6; Medical University of South Carolina; LightRail; $800,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bedingfield Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Brantley Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Clyburn Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Dantzler Duncan Edge Erickson Funderburk Haley Harrell
Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Jefferson Jennings Kelly Knight Leach Littlejohn Lowe Lucas Mack Miller Mitchell Moss J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Shoopman Skelton F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Taylor Thompson Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine Daning Davenport Delleney Frye Gambrell Gullick Hagood Hamilton Hardwick Haskins Kirsh Merrill Mulvaney Simrill D. C. Smith Stewart Toole Umphlett Viers
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 4 Section 1; Item 7; Commission on Higher Education; Research Authority-Hydrogen Grants; $2,500,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bingham Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Davenport Delleney Edge Frye Gambrell Gullick Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hiott Hodges Hosey Huggins Kelly Lowe Lucas Mack Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss Neilson Owens Parks Perry Phillips E. H. Pitts Rice Sandifer Scarborough Scott Sellers Simrill Skelton F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Taylor Thompson Toole Weeks Whipper White Whitmire Williams Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Brantley Cobb-Hunter Cotty Duncan Erickson Funderburk Hagood Haskins Jefferson Kirsh Knight Leach
McLeod Mulvaney Ott M. A. Pitts Shoopman G. M. Smith Talley Umphlett Viers Walker
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has requested and has granted free conference powers and appointed Senators Hayes, Short and Setzler of the Committee of Free Conference on the part of the Senate on H. 4662:
H. 4662 (Word version) -- Reps. Walker, Harrell, Whitmire, Toole, Gullick, Spires, Hiott, Bannister, J. R. Smith, Loftis, Ballentine, Pinson, Cotty, Brady, Bedingfield, Hardwick, Edge, Herbkersman, Lowe, Crawford, Limehouse, Hamilton, G. R. Smith, Harrison, Duncan, Bowen, Huggins, Mahaffey, Erickson, Leach, Owens, Frye, Rice, Hutson, Bingham, Haskins, Littlejohn, Cato, Chalk, Clyburn, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Gambrell, Kelly, Lucas, Merrill, Moss, Neilson, E. H. Pitts, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, W. D. Smith, Talley, Taylor, Umphlett, Viers, White, Witherspoon, Young, Barfield, Knight, Miller, Battle, Perry, Bales, Phillips, J. M. Neal, R. Brown and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH STUDENTS ARE ASSESSED AND SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS ARE ASSESSED AND ACCREDITED, TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATION TO SIGNIFY VARYING LEVELS OF SCHOOL ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, AND TO REVISE AND FURTHER PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED PROVISIONS REGARDING EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY; TO PROVIDE THAT THE PALMETTO ACHIEVEMENT CHALLENGE TEST
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on H. 4662. The Report of the Committee of Free Conference having been adopted by both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification:
H. 4662 (Word version) -- Reps. Walker, Harrell, Whitmire, Toole, Gullick, Spires, Hiott, Bannister, J. R. Smith, Loftis, Ballentine, Pinson, Cotty, Brady, Bedingfield, Hardwick, Edge, Herbkersman, Lowe, Crawford, Limehouse, Hamilton, G. R. Smith, Harrison, Duncan, Bowen, Huggins, Mahaffey, Erickson, Leach, Owens, Frye, Rice, Hutson, Bingham, Haskins, Littlejohn, Cato, Chalk, Clyburn, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Gambrell, Kelly, Lucas, Merrill, Moss, Neilson, E. H. Pitts, Sandifer, Scarborough, Shoopman, Skelton, D. C. Smith, G. M. Smith, W. D. Smith, Talley, Taylor, Umphlett, Viers, White, Witherspoon, Young, Barfield, Knight, Miller, Battle, Perry, Bales, Phillips, J. M. Neal, R. Brown and Whipper: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH STUDENTS ARE ASSESSED AND SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS ARE ASSESSED AND ACCREDITED, TO PROVIDE
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to H. 3006:
H. 3006 (Word version) -- Reps. J. E. Smith, G. R. Smith, Talley, Gullick, Herbkersman, Brady, Mulvaney, Scarborough, Pinson, Shoopman, Hagood, Agnew, Stewart, Bedingfield, McLeod, Funderburk, Perry, Bales, Toole, Stavrinakis, Harrison, Vick, Ceips, Whipper and Bowen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 56-5-160 AND 56-19-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "BICYCLE", SO AS TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION AND TO EXCLUDE CHILDRENS' TRICYCLES; TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-1810, RELATING TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS REQUIRING ONE TO DRIVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROADWAY, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SLOWER MOVING VEHICLES, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY THESE REQUIREMENTS AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE INTENT OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS IS TO
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 1050:
S. 1050 (Word version) -- Senators Verdin and Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 OF THE 1976 CODE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE OPERATION DESERT STORM-DESERT SHIELD VETERANS LICENSE PLATES, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM VETERANS LICENSE PLATES, AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM VETERANS LICENSE PLATES.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it concurs in the amendments proposed by the House to S. 1007:
S. 1007 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 34, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT, SO AS TO REVISE ITS NAME TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA UNIFORM PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS ACT" AND TO PROVIDE UPDATED ARTICULATIONS OF THE PRUDENCE STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT OF CHARITABLE FUNDS AND FOR ENDOWMENT SPENDING, APPLY PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS TO CHARITIES ORGANIZED AS A TRUST, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY, IMPOSE ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON THOSE WHO MANAGE AND INVEST CHARITABLE FUNDS, AND UPDATE RULES GOVERNING EXPENDITURES FROM ENDOWMENT FUNDS AND PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE RELEASE AND MODIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON CHARITABLE FUNDS.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
S. 1122 (Word version) -- Senator Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-11-515 SO AS TO PERMIT AMERICAN INDIAN ARTISTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A TRIBE RECOGNIZED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION FOR MINORITY AFFAIRS TO ADVERTISE AND SELL THEIR ARTS AND CRAFTS CONTAINING WILD TURKEY FEATHERS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
and has ordered the Bill enrolled for ratification.
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that the Report of the Committee of Free Conference on the following Bill, having been adopted by both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification:
S. 799 (Word version) -- Senator Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-755, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUPERVISORY AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPY, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AURICULAR DETOXIFICATION THERAPISTS MUST BE SUPERVISED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ACUPUNCTURIST; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-710, RELATING TO THE ACUPUNCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SO AS TO CLARIFY THAT THREE MEMBERS, RATHER THAN FOUR, CONSTITUTE A QUORUM OF THE FIVE MEMBER BOARD; TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-725, RELATING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PERSONS PRACTICING ACUPUNCTURE SINCE 1980 ARE EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE, SO AS TO ALSO
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 3623:
H. 3623 (Word version) -- Rep. Thompson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 6-11-340, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-1-206, 14-1-207, AND 14-1-208, ALL AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MONETARY ASSESSMENTS LEVIED AGAINST FINES IMPOSED IN GENERAL SESSIONS, MAGISTRATES, AND MUNICIPAL COURTS, SO AS TO DELETE THE TERM "DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY" AND REPLACE IT WITH THE TERM "SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACADEMY"; TO AMEND SECTION 23-11-110, RELATING TO CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS THAT A SHERIFF MUST POSSESS, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE; TO AMEND SECTION 23-23-70, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CERTIFICATES, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO SECTION 23-6-440 AND REPLACE IT WITH REFERENCES TO SECTION 23-23-60; TO AMEND SECTIONS 23-28-20, 23-28-60, AND 23-28-90, ALL RELATING TO
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Free Conference on S. 274:
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The following was received:
Columbia, S.C., May 29, 2008
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that the Report of the Committee of Free Conference, having been adopted by both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification:
S. 274 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Verdin, Anderson, Sheheen, Campsen, Thomas, Williams, Bryant, Cromer and Scott: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
Very respectfully,
President
Received as information.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1436 (Word version) -- Senator Campsen: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING ACADEMIC MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL IN NORTH CHARLESTON FOR BEING SELECTED BY NEWSWEEK AS SEVENTH BEST HIGH SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was taken up for immediate consideration:
S. 1437 (Word version) -- Senator Jackson: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF LEON LOTT AND TO DECLARE
Whereas, public service is an honorable calling which demands persons of character, courage, and integrity; and
Whereas, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott embodies the best attributes of individuals called to serve; and
Whereas, a veteran with more than thirty years of law enforcement experience, Sheriff Lott has set a standard of excellence time and again as he rose through the ranks achieving the rank of Captain at the Richland County Sheriff's Department, Police Chief in St. Matthews, and presently Richland County Sheriff; and
Whereas, the high standards set by Sheriff Lott have led to improved community relations, and high levels of trust among the county's residents for the sheriff and his deputies. These occurrences have led to increased involvement by the citizenry in the department's affairs as well as affairs of the community; and
Whereas, in recognition of his service as Richland County Sheriff and in honor of his accomplishments, the General Assembly has determined to declare a day in his honor. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the members of the South Carolina General Assembly recognize the accomplishments of Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott and declare Saturday, May 31, 2008, as "Leon Lott Day" in Hopkins, South Carolina.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Sheriff Leon Lott.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The SPEAKER ordered the following Veto printed in the Journal:
May 28, 2008
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning H. 4800 , R. 293, the Fiscal Year 2008-09 General Appropriations Bill, with the line-item vetoes detailed below. It is this Administration's view that, as a nation, we are not yet out of the economic slow down that has driven the requirement for some of the cuts already made by the House and Senate - and those outlined on the pages that follow. At the front end of a slowing economic cycle we believe it is vital that policymakers ensure a balanced budget - so as to not require yet greater cuts in subsequent years. While we hope the national economy will quickly improve, it was former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, Gordon Sullivan, who wrote that hope is not a method. Accordingly we propose the attached course of action.
This Administration's goals for our veto message are based on four primary objectives: (1) correct what is effectively unconstitutional deficit spending authorized by the General Assembly in this budget, (2) replenish the funds taken from the OPEB account this year, (3) replenish the funds borrowed from Medicaid this year, and (4) materially reduce the $161 million annualization hole created in this budget.
In approaching our veto message this year, we have tried to be very deliberate and concise in the number of items we vetoed and the objectives that we believe we can realistically attain in the veto process. Given our more than limited and judicious approach, and what we believe to represent an effort to find compromise between the Legislative and Executive Branches in the budget process, it is our hope that the overwhelming bulk of these vetoes will be supported.
The overarching goal in each of the four objectives listed above is to eliminate spending that we believe is inconsistent with the priorities of South Carolinians in these challenging economic times. The line-item veto is a very cumbersome tool from which to get at spending because many of the more troublesome areas of government are rolled up into entire agency budgets. In those instances, the only way to get at
As a practical matter to get to the $100 million borrowed from Medicaid at this point in the process, we would have to veto entire agency budgets. Along with gutting the entire agency, offering these kinds of vetoes would make their passage essentially impossible, and therefore, render the exercise indeed counter-productive. A number of the vetoes that we have proposed, if sustained, would begin the process of replenishing the $100 million borrowed from Medicaid. We would also ask that policy-makers earmark any residuals left aside in the Capital Reserve Fund to replenishment of the Medicaid borrowings.
Our Administration will continue to push for common sense in our budgeting practices, and we believe that borrowing from a critical reserve account like Medicaid and, more commonly, borrowing from a whole host of one-time monies to pay for recurring needs of government - as is done in the annualization process - is reckless. The first order of business in our executive budget in the new fiscal year will be addressing the Medicaid borrowings and annualizations, and it's our sincere hope that the General Assembly will follow suit.
Positives
Before I expand on the reasons behind these vetoes, I want to thank the General Assembly for adopting a long list of vetoes, many of which, we have proposed for five years now. In a perfect world, all things at all times would be funded for all people. As we all know we live in less than that perfect world - and for this reason we have consistently proposed setting spending priorities. Many of these cuts we don't like, but we accept them as part of the reality that must come in deliberately setting priorities as businesses and families do across our state.
In this regard it's worth highlighting the importance of the General Assembly's adoption of many of the cuts and funding proposals we have now offered in the executive budget for five years. This budget
The General Assembly has also removed a majority of the dollars in the appropriations bill that we vetoed last year. In fact, $142 million of the $167 million - or 85 percent - of what we vetoed last year is no longer a part of this year's budget.
While we would have liked for the General Assembly to have made these choices well before the state's economy weakened and revenues dramatically dropped, we still give them credit for making the tough decisions because we believe they are important to both the sustainability of the government systems now in place - and taxpayers' wallets. We would hope to see more restrained and responsible spending practices as South Carolina continues to get through these difficult economic times.
Shortfalls
This budget creates what amounts to an unconstitutional deficit because it appropriates money with the full expectation that the anticipated revenues will not be sufficient to cover all state government expenditures. It is one thing to have a shortfall due to an unforeseen hurricane hitting our state; it is another to run deficits in education when everyone now knows that diesel is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, above $4.00 a gallon. Unfortunately, we are at this point because budget writers have chosen to grow government faster than the underlying economy - increasing spending by over 40 percent over the past three years alone - while ignoring the reality that the good times would not last forever. Now the good times are over, as tax revenues are expected to decrease for only the second time in 50 years. Instead of making admittedly tough choices and prioritizing spending to adequately fund our basic state obligations, I am troubled that the General Assembly has not fully addressed the fact that there will not be enough revenue to pay for recurring budget obligations - effectively authorizing an unconstitutional deficit.
The South Carolina Constitution requires the General Assembly "to insure that annual expenditures of state government [do] not exceed annual state revenue." Article X, Section 7(a). Inherent in this balanced budget mandate is the General Assembly's responsibility to use sound budgeting principles and adequately prioritize spending to
Just last year, legislation was passed to establish a school bus replacement cycle for our aging bus fleet. Though there is some merit to the idea, we vetoed it on the grounds that the costly proposition failed to include less expensive options of getting to the same end - and for us those include leasing and private transportation providers. Our veto was overridden on promises that funding would be there for buses and just one year later, the money that had been "committed" to buses will go elsewhere and it is now likely that few, if any, new buses will be purchased.
Instead, the State Department of Education is projecting a deficit of up to $20 million based on rising fuel prices, while at the same time borrowing an additional $38 million from the school bus replacement fund. If FED EX built a business budget on the assumption of not replacing its aging plane and truck fleet vital to its ability to serve customers, and at the same time knowingly ignored the rise in fuel prices, most would argue they were not building a balanced budget. Indeed, to build a budget that plans on being short by approximately $20 million for education is to not build a balanced budget.
2. The Department of Corrections will continue to operate on deficit spending under this year's budget.
In this budget, the Department of Corrections will once again be forced to run a deficit. Corrections has been consistently underfunded for many years which has resulted in the agency running a deficit five out of the last seven years. In this current fiscal year, Corrections is running a $4 million deficit and cutting their budget will only make the situation worse. Corrections will potentially face an $8 million deficit next year based on rising fuel prices and further budget cuts. This level of funding for Corrections is unacceptable because the agency performs the essential function of housing and rehabilitating our state's inmate populations. Inadequate funding will eventually lead to prisons being closed, inmates being furloughed, and prison security being diminished. We believe our state cannot afford these results because they affect the safety of all our residents.
3. The Department of Health and Human Services' reserves are raided, jeopardizing the long-term solvency of Medicaid.
This budget raids the Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid reserves to the tune of $100 million. The state has a
Using the reserve funds to pay for existing obligations causes serious concerns about whether the state can fully fund Medicaid in the near future when current economic conditions are worsening, unemployment is growing, and medical costs are soaring. When the economy weakens and unemployment rises, the number of people relying on Medicaid grows, and it makes no sense to use these reserve funds with a possible recession looming. Such action neglects the long-term solvency of Medicaid.
4. Budgeting should be long term, not one year.
This budget, with its significant cuts and potential deficits, is not simply the result of a weakened economy. We believe that the poor budgeting practices of overspending and annualizing in previous years have contributed significantly to this year's across the board cuts and agency deficits.
The budgets of the previous three years simply spent all of the money coming to Columbia with, what seemed, very little consideration of a future economic downturn. This notion of good times and bad times dates all the way back to the Biblical story of the seven fat cows and the seven skinny cows. During times of prosperity, we failed to restrain spending and as a result, the actions taken during times of economic weakness are correspondingly deeper.
South Carolina has grown the size of government more than any other state in the Southeast over the past two years. Government spending has increased by more than 40 percent over the last three years and almost 30 percent in just the past two, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.
Another year has passed where no statewide spending cap has been enacted, and as a consequence, we will continue down the road of poor fiscal planning. In addition, we believe there should be a wholesale change to budgeting that requires Columbia to look longer term. A few years ago, we enacted a requirement that some agencies had to provide three-year projections of their needs. We will now take it one step further and call for legislation in the next year to establish a five-year spending projection on all legislation and for every program once the budget has been completed. Simply put, we have got to stop spending more than we can afford; reforming the budget process is a meaningful step in this direction.
5. Annualizations continue to increase.
If we are going to slow down unsustainable spending, we must stop the practice of annualizations - using one-time money to fund recurring needs - because this has been a major factor in the unsustainable growth of state government. Last year, in the FY 2007-08 Appropriations Act, annualizations almost doubled from the previous year to $270 million. In our executive budget we recommended only $25 million, while the General Assembly took a different and unwise approach by including $161 million in annualizations. We believe that continuing to increase annualizations is irresponsible because there is no guarantee that we will be able to fund these recurring obligations after the one-time money runs out.
6. Unfunded liabilities for state employee retiree benefits remain outstanding.
We believe that annualizations are particularly troubling considering that the state has billions of dollars outstanding in unfunded liabilities tied to future state employee retiree benefits. South Carolinians now hold a more than $20 billion "I.O.U." composed of promises made but not paid for - including retiree benefits and health care. This invisible mortgage totals $10,000 per taxpayer, and will only increase if we choose to pass it on to our children and grandchildren. The numbers look even worse when this liability includes the ad hoc cost of living increases (COLAs) that have historically been given above the legislatively mandated one percent, growing the liability to $27 billion - almost four times that of the entire state budget. Instead of looking for ways to increase the size of government through new spending and annualizations, we need to save now to pay off future debts. This budget fails to do that, and we believe continues to jeopardize the state's ability to meet its obligations in the future.
7. Spending is not adequately prioritized to avoid across the board budget cuts.
To move closer to fiscal responsibility, we need to do a better job of prioritizing spending. With less money coming into the coffers, this means that we must reevaluate our core governmental functions and programs and prioritize them based on their importance. All functions and programs are not created equally, and that is why this Administration has consistently opposed across the board budget cuts.
Since the beginning of this Administration, we have prioritized spending by utilizing activity based budgeting in our executive budget and by directing our budget line-item vetoes at the most egregious examples of unnecessary spending. Although many of our ideas and vetoes were initially rejected, many others have been gradually accepted over time. For example, this year's budget adopted a handful of the proposals included in our executive budget, resulting in a budget savings of $24.2 million. Also, 152 items that we vetoed but were overridden last year were not included in this year's budget, for a total of $141.5 million. I am glad that our voice is having a lasting, if not immediate, impact in bringing more fiscal responsibility to the state, and I appreciate the General Assembly's willingness to reconsider our ideas.
Despite this progress in making more prudent budgeting decisions, this budget, nevertheless, suffers from across the board cuts and the cuts necessary to avoid defacto deficit spending. To remedy some of these defects, we have identified several areas in this budget that we believe need to be removed. Overall, I have vetoed 69 separate and distinct items of spending that represent $72.1 million in savings this fiscal year. Of the items that I have vetoed, many are meritorious in their own right and potentially deserving of funding in more prosperous times. Faced with a budget that almost certainly requires deficit spending, I believe that I have a constitutional obligation to veto these items to ensure that the state has a balanced budget. We, therefore, submit the following vetoes and request that those dollars be recommitted to the general fund so agencies next year don't run further in the red.
As I mentioned on the first page these budget vetoes are broken in to sections based on the four objectives that we enumerated at the start of this document. They are as follows:
I. Vetoes of Part IA
Our first priority with budget vetoes this year is to provide enough vetoes to close out what we view to be an unconstitutional deficit embedded in this appropriations bill. As stated earlier it is one thing to run a deficit based on an unanticipated act of God, it is quite another to run one based on fuel prices that we can very reasonable expect to stay above $3 a gallon over the next year. These vetoes in total amount to
We give due credit to legislators for eliminating the majority of pass throughs and line-item funding for non-profits in this year's budget, but this program, which brings high school students to the State House for mock government every year, falls into the same category of pass throughs and line items that should have been eliminated.
Veto 2 Part IA; Section 7; Page 30; Higher Education Tuition and Grants Commission; I. Administration; Special Items; SC Student Legislature; $25,000.
This line item supports the South Carolina Student Legislature program, which brings college students to the State House for mock government every year. While we agree that the program certainly has value, we are facing serious shortfalls in the state budget. As with so many other special line items that have been taken out of this budget, this item should also be removed and funded by alternative means.
Veto 3 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Hospitality, Tourism, and Management Program; $545,000.
This special line item, added last year, effectively picks winners and losers when it comes to funding higher education. For example, Coastal Carolina is surrounded by one of the strongest tourism regions in the state, and yet they have no earmark in their budget for a Tourism program. We'd commend the University of Charleston for trying to add value to our tourism industry, but if this specific program has merit, we'd encourage the university to consider funding it with their base budget - which has itself grown by almost 27 percent in state funding over the past four years and during this same time, concurrently, seen tuition increase 49.5 percent.
Veto 4 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Business - Economic Partnership Initiative; $1,204,314.
We are vetoing this item because you don't make new political promises without first paying off past ones. The fact remains that South Carolina is staring at more than $20 billion in unfunded liabilities going forward, and while the Real Estate Program at the University of Charleston may be worthwhile, our view is that it's a lower priority
Veto 5 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; Education & General; Special Items; Effective Teaching & Learning; $901,800.
We are vetoing this line item for three reasons. First, we believe that these services are duplicative of the Education and Economic Development Act, which performs many of these same functions at all public high schools. The EEDA allows students to pick a career major and take relevant courses, which will then prepare them for post-secondary education or related work. Secondly, the program works to increase HSAP passage rates and SAT scores, which is commendable; however, the State Department of Education already allocates state and federal funds to school districts to cover materials and preparation for the SAT. Third, we believe this program should be able receive some funding through the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Veto 6 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Global Trade & Resource Center; $350,000.
There is clear merit in linking South Carolina to the rest of the world, but it is this Administration's view that we shouldn't enact legislative pass throughs. This line item provides $350,000 to the Global Trade & Resource Center at the University of Charleston. It was added last year to partially support South Carolina World Trade Center (SCWTC) employees by paying for travel expenses at conferences and seminars. We consider this type of transaction a backdoor way of providing a pass through in a budget year when - to the General Assembly's credit - the majority of such questionable line items have been eliminated.
Veto 7 Part IA; Section 12; Page 44; Francis Marion University; I. Education and General; A. Unrestricted; Special Items; Rural Assistance Initiative; $600,000.
We believe the Rural Assistance Initiative is duplicative of existing state programs in two ways. First, the Initiative's goal of providing health care screenings in rural areas is similar to DHECs Primary Care Office, which focuses on retention and recruitment of health care professionals in rural areas. Second, the Initiative's second goal is to provide leadership training for non-profits and foster economic development in poorer counties. We believe this is currently being done through the Department of Commerce's Rural Crossroads
Veto 8 Part IA; Section 12; Page 44; Francis Marion University; I. Education & General; A. Unrestricted; Special Items; Omega Project; $75,000.
We are vetoing this line item for two reasons. First, though the Omega Project performs a meritorious service, the state already has a primary agency assigned to mentor high school students and encourage them to attend college. Through the Workforce Development initiatives at the Department of Commerce - with funding at almost $70 million - there is a coordinated statewide program in place.
Second, we do not believe that state government should be in the business of favoring some non-profits over others. Bear in mind, too, that similar mentoring programs that offer positive and effective partnerships do not receive state funds - such as the Boys and Girls Club and the Big Brothers Big Sisters program of South Carolina.
Veto 9 Part IA; Section 15F; Page 61; USC - Salkehatchie Campus; Education & General; Unrestricted; Salkehatchie Leadership Center; $100,460.
We are vetoing this line item which increases USC-Salkehatchie's budget by $100,460 for the purpose of funding its Leadership Center. Although this is a well-intentioned program, we are facing serious shortfalls in this budget. As with so many other special line-items that have been eliminated from this budget, this item should be removed and funded from other sources.
Veto 10 Part IA; Section 21; Page 85; Department of Health and Human Services; II. Programs and Services; A. Health Services; 3. Medical Assistance Payment; Z. Children's Health Insurance Program; $21,279,557.
Veto 11 Part 1B; Section 21.32; Pages 359-360; Department of Health and Human Services; State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Last year our Administration vetoed this funding because, while well-intended, we were concerned about both long-term consequences on our ability to fund health care and to participate in private markets. This year, we share the same concerns.
First, we are concerned because the Board of Economic Advisors projects that $30 million will be needed to fully implement the State Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) for FY 2008-2009. As a result, the funds provided fall short of the amount necessary to manage this program in the coming year.
Several years ago, the General Assembly funded $500 million in the Medicaid program with one-time funds. In 2000, the Medicaid program comprised $1 out of every $7 in state funding; now the ratio is approximately $1 out of every $5. Even without last year's expansion in S-CHIP, projections showed that the state could spend as much as $1 out of every $3 in the state budget.
Since expanding this type of entitlement program in May 2008, Medicaid has added almost 2,000 participants to the program. Our current program covers a significant number of children relative to other states. For instance, the South Carolina program covers more than 40 percent of all children ages 0-18; only Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont and the District of Columbia cover a higher percentage. Regionally, South Carolina covers a higher percentage of children than Georgia, Florida or North Carolina. Expanding this system puts us even further toward the top.
As a reminder, last year we supported a logical provision requiring co-payments to be based on participants' income in an effort to make the cost of this expansion more affordable. However, the final version had no requirement for such payments, thus eliminating an important check on the growth of the program.
Additionally, as a result of S-CHIP expansions there is a certain "crowd-out" effect, whereby people who were covered by private insurance either through an employer or their own efforts find it more advantageous to go onto a taxpayer-funded program. Nationally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted a reduction in the number of children participating in private health insurance and that 50 percent of the children now enrolled in S-CHIP were covered by private health insurance the prior year.
Finally, expansion of programs can bring in new enrollees, beyond those expected for the new program. The creation of the original S-CHIP program a decade ago led to many new enrollees in the existing Medicaid program. So not only were there new S-CHIP children, but thousands more were found eligible for regular Medicaid, and the expanded rolls led to DHHS declaring a deficit shortly thereafter. By continuing to fund this program at 200 percent of the federal poverty level opens the door to thousands of more beneficiaries and places the program in jeopardy for all.
Veto 12 Part IA; Section 30; Page 129; Art Commission; II. Statewide Arts Services; Special Items; McClellanville Arts Council; $12,500.
I am vetoing this line item because it is the only local arts council that receives a separate and recurring line in the state budget. The General Assembly has rightly removed the majority of the direct pass throughs from this year's budget, and there seems to be no justification for this one to remain. In any case, we don't believe that government should be in the business of picking winners and losers through the budgetary process. If state funds are allocated to a special item like this one, it should be done through a merit-based, competitive process.
Veto 13 Part IA; Section 47; Page 180; Commission on Indigent Defense; III. Office of Circuit Public Defenders; Special Items; DUI Defense of Indigents; $1,000,000.
Veto 14 Part IA; Section 47; Page 180; Commission on Indigent Defense; III. Office of Circuit Public Defenders; Special Items; Criminal Domestic Violence; $1,320,000.
We're vetoing these items - which provide money to public defenders for criminal domestic violence and DUI indigent defense - based on the common sense notion that you can't move forward if you're constantly taking two steps back. South Carolina is near the top nationally when it comes to both DUI-related deaths and domestic violence deaths. Consequently, it seems odd to dedicate more dollars to defending the perpetrators of DUI and domestic violence when we're already facing these grim statistics, and, oftentimes law enforcement officers are forced to prosecute their own cases without the help of an attorney.
Veto 15 Part IA; Section 49; Page 187; Department of Public Safety; II. Programs and Services; D. Bureau of Protective Services; Special Item; Hunley Security; $257,317.
This line item appropriates taxpayer dollars to fund security for the Hunley. We recognize the Hunley's value to the state and the need to protect it. While providing taxpayer-financed security may have made sense when the Hunley project was in its infancy, seven years later we do not believe state funding is appropriate. Additionally, we believe providing this funding is inconsistent with how other Bureau of Protective Service (BPS) posts are funded. For example, the Confederate Relic Room does not receive funding for a BPS detail. Our hope is that this veto would be sustained and the Hunley Commission, or the Friends of the Hunley, could negotiate with private security contractors for this need.
Veto 16 Part IA; Section 73; Page 256; Lieutenant Governor's Office; II. Office on Aging; Special Item; Silver Haired Legislature; $15,000.
While we admire the mission of the Silver Haired Legislature, it often lobbies the General Assembly for programs and appropriations that it believes benefit our state's senior population. We are vetoing this line item because as a principle we do not believe taxpayer money should be spent lobbying for more public money. We issued an executive order to that effect in the first year of our Administration.
Veto 17 Part IA; Section 78; Page 266; Adjutant General's Office; X. State Guard; Other Operating Expenses; $97,768.
There is no doubt that the men and women of the National Guard make sacrifices in times of need, both here and abroad. That said, crowd control training is one of the core functions of the South Carolina National Guard and should be funded from the Adjutant General's Office general budget. This type of training could be incorporated within the confines of a guard training weekend - without additional cost to the taxpayer.
Veto 18 Part IA; Section 80A; Page 271; Budget and Control Board; II. Operations and Executive Training; C. Executive Institute; Total Executive Institute, $269,357.
The Executive Institute under the Office of Human Resources acts as a training resource for on average 40 South Carolina state employees per year. With stand-alone funding of roughly $269,000, the program spends $6,725 per state employee graduate. In addition to this rather inappropriate cost per graduate, we're vetoing this program because the Office of Human Resources already provides comparable leadership training, making the Executive Institute a prime example of government duplication.
II. Vetoes of Part 1B Temporary Provisos
Our second priority with budget vetoes this year is to provide enough vetoes to replenish the monies borrowed from OPEB. We have $10 billion worth of unfunded political promises, and when joined with our healthcare liability the total is over $20 billion. In the same way that everyone seems to recognize that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are looming liabilities that have to be addressed we have the same problem at the state level with OPEB. If something significant isn't done, taxes will be substantially raised or benefits will be materially cut to address this unbalance. In the private sector, if you didn't have concrete assets to match these liabilities you would go to jail based on federal law. In fact, in the wake of the Enron debacle, new federal requirements (so-called GASB requirements) would require our state to come up with $500 million a year in addressing the OPEB liability. We think the first step rests in not going backward
Veto 19 Part 1B; Section 6.29; Page 349; Commission on Higher Education; In-State Tuition.
We are vetoing this proviso because there is no guarantee that a person with the "intent" to make South Carolina their permanent home will actually do so; therefore, we believe we should not make such persons eligible for in-state tuition. This proviso would allow potential college students who have lived in South Carolina for less than a year to be eligible for in-state tuition and fees, provided that the person "intends" to make this state their permanent home, and that they are employed full time in an adjoining county in North Carolina or Georgia. At a time when colleges are asking for greater appropriations to fully serve their student populations, and at a time with South Carolina ranks number one in the Southeast for in-state tuition costs, we do not think it makes sense for the state to consider funding college costs for individuals who have lived in this state fewer than 12 months.
Veto 20 Part 1B; Section 19.4; Pages 352-353; Paragraphs 1 and 2; Educational Television Commission; ETV: SC Educational Broadband Service Commission/Broadband License.
This proviso creates a South Carolina Educational Broadband Service Commission. We are vetoing only Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this proviso because we recently signed H. 4735 into law which sets up the structure and authority for this commission and is identical to the language found in Paragraphs 1 and 2. Therefore, since permanent law has been enacted, portions of this temporary proviso are unnecessary. (This veto applies to the second reference to paragraphs (1) and (2) in this proviso, not the references setting up the membership of the commission.)
Veto 21 Part 1B; Section 21.12; Page 356; Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS: Chiropractic Services.
This veto was requested by the Department of Health and Human Services, and we agree with the agency that this proviso hurts their ability to best determine how to serve its customers, particularly in a tight budget year.
While it was most likely not this proviso's intent, because of federal rules, the effect of this proviso forces DHHS to provide this type of chiropractic coverage to literally every class of beneficiary. Last year, that meant DHHS spending $90,000 to provide chiropractic services to children younger than the age of six - even though one would be hard pressed to find research supporting the benefits of those
Veto 22 Part 1B; Section 21.26; Page 358; Department of Health and Human Services; Prior Authorization Exemptions.
This proviso requires DHHS to fund certain mental health medications without the patient receiving prior authorization. We are vetoing this proviso for two reasons. First, mental health drugs were "carved out" of the preferred drug list - which was originally set up by the General Assembly to encourage responsible prescribing and competitive bidding by manufacturers. If any mental health drug is available, the state cannot force a drug company to offer a rebate.
Second, DHHS believes and we agree that the director should have the flexibility to determine the best way to administer drug coverage - without having efforts restricted by the demands of special interests. Additionally, the State Health Plan and other commercial plans in South Carolina are not forced by proviso to not require prior authorization for more expensive drugs.
Veto 23 Part 1B; Section 21.35; Page 360; Health and Human Services; Long Term Care Facility Reimbursement Rates.
This veto was requested by DHHS to give the agency the flexibility to select a more convenient date to submit an important Medicaid amendment based on the agency's workload. This proviso directs the agency to submit the Medicaid State Plan amendment for long-term care facility reimbursement rates to the federal government by August 1. However, DHHS must review and examine 150 cost reports from nursing homes across the state before it can submit the amendment. This proviso hamstrings the agency by forcing it to make a submission by August 1, which does not give the agency adequate time to carefully review the nursing home reports.
Veto 24 Part 1B; Section 21.36; Page 360; Department of Health and Human Services; Carry Forward Funds-Health Initiatives, $1,283,695.
This proviso takes $1,283,695 from DHHS' carry forward funds to be used as the state match for rate increases to dentists. We believe it makes little sense to raid Medicaid funds intended to be used for some of the neediest in our state in exchange for increasing the compensation of a profession that already earns an annual average of $118,000 a year. This part of the proviso also limits the agency's flexibility by restricting the use of any money that will be carried
Veto 25 Part IB; Section 21.36; Page 360; Medical University of South Carolina, Rural Dentist Program, $250,000.
We are vetoing this pass-through from the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) to the Area Health Education Consortium which attempts to fund an increase in the number of dentists serving rural South Carolina. Although attracting dentists to rural areas is a worthwhile goal, we'd doubt that the roughly $5,000 per county this program allows for would have little if any impact on dentists' professional locales. Additionally, we'd point to the ridiculous fact that last year more than half of the eight dentists receiving these rural grants to repay student loans were MUSC dental school faculty members with state salaries averaging more than $115,000.
Veto 26 Part 1B; Section 21.38; Page 360; Department of Health and Human Services; DHHS: Monthly Reporting Requirement.
This proviso requires DHHS to provide monthly impact statements to the General Assembly. We are vetoing this requirement because it is wasteful and redundant based on readily available information. Currently, DHHS provides quarterly statements to both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. A similar proviso was proposed in the FY 2004-2005 Appropriations Bill and vetoed. The veto was sustained in the House. Further, this proviso is duplicative of Executive Order 2002-23, which requires DHHS to prepare an annual report with the same information as required in this section.
Veto 27 Part 1B; Section 21.39; Page 361; Health and Human Services; Upper Payment Limit for Non-State Owned Public Nursing Facilities.
We are vetoing this proviso for two reasons. First, DHHS requested the veto because it is in violation of the state's commitment to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) "transitional funding agreement" to terminate nursing facility payment methodology. Second, this proviso potentially jeopardizes the state's ability to negotiate future transition periods that would ease the impact of changes made by the federal government to the state's programs.
Veto 28 Part 1B; Section 21.40; Page 361; Health and Human Services; Nursing Services to High Risk/ High Tech Children.
We are vetoing this proviso because Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has informed the agency that the proviso would not
Veto 29 Part 1B; Section 26.18; Page 375; Department of Social Services; C.R. Neal Learning Center.
We are vetoing this proviso because it directs DSS to provide funding to C.R. Neal Learning Center, which no longer exists. Instead, the Center has been transferred to the Midlands Community Development Corporation, which actively solicits donations and generates revenue from the rental of the 33,000 square foot facility. While Senator Jackson's group undoubtedly provides quality after-school services for low- and moderate-income families, we believe that DSS should ultimately be able to make choices about who they contract with for services. This Administration has advocated that awards such as this should be based on the merits of a program and not the relative political strength of its supporters. Especially in cases like this where there is a direct connection to a member of the General Assembly.
Veto 30 Part 1B; Section 26.28; Page 377; Department of Social Services; Teen Pregnancy Prevention; $1,200,000.
If this were truly a merit-based system, how could two distinct entities end up receiving the exact same dollar amount? We are vetoing the proviso because it sets up a process by which a legislatively-appointed commission must select two entities that will equally divide the $1.2 million. If this is truly going to be a competitive process, our recommendation would be to allow the grant process to be open. We believe the Department of Social Services should be administering those dollars on a truly competitive, results-based basis. This proviso leads an objective observer to believe this is an attempt to mask the directive of appropriations to the two agencies that have historically received these funds: Heritage Community Services and the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
Veto 31 Part 1B; Section 37.1; Pages 382-383; Department of Natural Resources; County Funds.
Veto 32 Part 1B; Section 37.2; Page 383; Department of Natural Resources; DNR: County Game Funds/Equipment Purchase.
I am vetoing these two provisos because in Knotts v. SCDNR the Supreme Court found that legislative involvement into nearly identical funds to be unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers' precept was in large measure based on the balance of the separation of power. These two provisos breach that separation of power by having the legislative
This proviso deals with the governance structure of the PalmettoPride program, which we believe is a legislative encroachment on an Executive Branch program. Sustaining this veto would not affect PalmettoPride's funding, and would simply return the governance of the program to its original form.
Veto 34 Part 1B; Section 39.7; Page 386; Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; State Park Privatization Approval.
This proviso would tie the hands of PRT from pursuing any kind of competitive sourcing arrangement for any activity, no matter how minor, at Cheraw State Park, which lost $304,588 in FY 2006-07, and Hickory Knob State Park, which lost $286,531 in FY 2006-07. Frankly, we're surprised by the resistance that a Republican-controlled General Assembly has shown to the idea of privatization, particularly considering the positive results it has yielded in other cases.
As an example, PRT outsourced the state parks' reservation system to a private contractor who provides that service for many other park systems around the country. The reaction from most of the parks' customers has been positive as the change to a private contractor has led to vastly improved services, lower costs for taxpayers, and higher revenue. I strongly believe that officials at PRT should be free to pursue other similar arrangements to provide better services at lower costs.
This proviso was created three years ago in response to this Administration's and PRT's request for proposal to explore the feasibility of privatizing golf course operations at Cheraw State Park. It is our firm belief that whatever government does it ought to do well, but that which the private sector can do, in fact, ought to be done by the private sector. The running and administration of the golf course has proven to be a core competence of the private sector in South Carolina. We see no reason why we wouldn't want that expertise applied in this instance.
Veto 35 Part 1B; Section 39.15; Page 387; Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Regional Tourism.
This proviso takes $550,000 from the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism and allocates it to the eleven Regional Tourism Districts in the state. We believe the first order of business should be to investment in statewide tourism efforts and, in as much as the Regional Tourism Districts are willing to assist in these efforts, we welcome it. However, in a budget that cuts PRT's marketing dollars $11.5 million, this proviso puts PRT at an even further disadvantage in recruiting visitors to our state.
Veto 36 Part 1B; Section 40.20; Page 390; Department of Commerce; Funding for I-73 & I-74.
We are vetoing this proviso because we do not believe that it is the General Assembly's role to tie the hands of the Secretary of Commerce and his team in determining the best ways in which to grow the economy of South Carolina. This Administration has long been a supporter of the I-73/74 project, and in fact, the Governor, as a member of the U.S. Congress, was able to change the terminus of the original routing so that it ended in Myrtle Beach. We have correspondingly lobbied the federal government for flexibility and funding of I-73/74.
The principle at play here is a fairly simple one - the General Assembly should not be routing money to specific earmarks - whether buildings, festivals, or, in this case, a road - because, at the end of the day, a politically-driven decision is often times at odds with the most meritorious option. We will continue to work with both the federal and state DOTs to look for ways to facilitate this interstate, and it is our strong belief that a tolling option will be the most expeditious way of making this road possible.
I-73/74 would make a remarkable difference not just to the people of Myrtle Beach, but by extension, the economy of South Carolina. If we simply wait for $1 million a year - given the $1 million it costs to build one mile of this proposed road - then it will be a long time before this project is realized.
Veto 37 Part 1B, Section 40.29; Pages 390-391; Department of Commerce; County Industrial Utility Infrastructure Grant Program; $1,500,000.
This proviso requires the Department of Commerce to set aside $1,500,000 in a special account for grants. We are vetoing this proviso because the money allocated to this program could be put to better use. This proviso has been in the budget for the last two years, yet during that time no funds have been drawn from this account. These funds
Veto 38 Part 1B; Section 40.35; Pages 391-392; Department of Commerce; Economic Development Organizations.
We are vetoing this proviso because we believe that these funds should be given directly to the Department of Commerce in support of a coordinated, statewide approach to economic development. For many years one of the curses of our state has been a balkanized approach to economic development. To his credit, Governor Carroll Campbell started the Department of Commerce with the belief that a coordinated approach to economic development would serve the state better than what was traditionally a "Greenville vs. Charleston" and "Florence vs. Aiken" approach to economic development. While we think that these development organizations can be a useful and important compliment to that statewide effort, we don't think it should be done to the detriment of the statewide umbrella. In this instance it is, given the cuts to the Department of Commerce that would not be seen by these local economic development organizations in accord with this proviso. The remaining funds from last year's budget for these Economic Development Organizations should revert to the Department of Commerce to offset the dramatic cuts to its budget this year.
Veto 39 Part 1B; Section 40.41; Page 392; Department of Commerce; Repayment of Energy Loan.
This is a fine idea, but we do not believe the Department of Commerce should be forced to repay this loan. Instead, we proposed repaying the money from the so-called "competitive grants" committee.
We certainly appreciate having Lockheed Martin in the Upstate. So much so, that this Administration secured an unprecedented $1 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission to help pay for the upgrades at the Donaldson Center. However, given the fact that Commerce's budget for closing economic development deals has been reduced by 35 percent, we believe the General Assembly should find a lower priority program, like "competitive grants" to repay this loan.
Veto 40 Part 1B; Section 51.32; Pages 410-411; Department of Corrections; Quota Elimination.
This proviso requires the Department of Corrections to accept new inmates from local jails. We are vetoing this proviso because of the impact it is having - and will continue to have - on the agency. As we stated at the last Budget and Control Board meeting, this proviso can be directly linked to the deficit being created at Corrections that could climb as high as $12 million next year. In the past we have tried to reach an agreement with all parties involved to ensure a smooth and seamless transition of prisoners held at the local level to Corrections. However, this proviso gives the agency little flexibility in accepting prisoners from around the state. This proviso supersedes all funding requirements and, in light of the fact that Corrections was not adequately funded, we are left with little choice but to veto this proviso.
Veto 41 Part 1B; Section 65.10; Page 420; Labor, Licensing and Regulation; Wind and Structural Engineering Research Lab, $100,000.
LLR is requesting this veto because the $100,000 in pass through money funds an in-state study of wind and seismic data that is already being performed on the national level using the very same instruments. Therefore, this proviso is duplicative and unnecessary.
Veto 42 Part 1B; Section 76.15; Page 438; State Treasurer's Office; Printing Wage Statements.
This proviso would effectively eliminate all state employee rights to receive full disclosure of their pay under the Wage Payment Act because this proviso eliminates the State Treasurer's duty to provide wage statements to state employees for every pay period. The South Carolina Wage Payment Act, S.C. Code Section 41-10-30, requires every employer to provide each employee with an itemized statement showing gross pay and deductions for each pay period. This provision in the Wage Payment Act is intended to give timely and full disclosure of the details of employee pay so that employees can ensure that they actually receive all of their earnings. State employees, just like private employees, have the right to monitor their pay, and this right should not be taken away just because it may be cheaper for the State Treasurer to provide the notification less than every pay period.
Veto 43 Part 1B; Section 80A.6; Page 442; Budget and Control Board; Real Property - Sale/Leaseback/Repurchase Revenue Account.
We are vetoing this proviso because we believe that agencies should not be in the land management business as a means to supplement budgetary needs. This proviso allows agency heads to sell state property and bring those dollars back into the agency outside of
Veto 44 Part 1B; Section 80A.9; Page 443; Budget and Control Board; Compensation - Agency Head Salary.
As a result of this proviso, the executive branch members of the Budget and Control Board will have no role in overseeing agency head salaries and providing a check to the legislative appointees that compose a majority of the Agency Head Salary Commission. If this proviso would have been in effect last year, agency heads would have received a nearly 4 percent increase in salaries at a time when the state could have least afforded them. The Board voted to reject these raises, proving that it provides an important check on the commission.
This proviso gives the Agency Head Salary Commission final approval authority over all salaries for agency heads and technical and community college presidents - eliminating the Board's oversight in determining proper salary levels. The Commission is composed of eight members appointed by the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Chairmen, three members appointed by the Governor, and is chaired by the Senate Finance Chairman.
We believe giving the commission final approval authority gives the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee too much authority in setting salaries.
Veto 45 Part 1B; Section 80A.47; Page 451; Paragraph 3; Budget and Control Board; Employee Compensation.
Paragraph 3 of this proviso seeks to undo a 2-0 vote that was taken by the Budget and Control Board in December of 2007 in which four percent average salary increases were proposed for agency heads. We think this is a mistake and does not make common sense for agency heads to receive on average a four percent increase, while our everyday state employee receives a one percent raise.
By way of background, when this issue came up at the Budget and Control Board several months ago the two legislative members, along with the Treasurer, refused to take a vote. As a consequence the affirmative votes of the Governor and Comptroller General prevailed and the pay raise was stopped. Their point then, which holds today, was that leadership ought to lead by example - and that today's budget climate was not the environment for four percent raises. The very same members who refused to vote on the measure in December are now trying to circumvent the process by inserting this into the budget at the 11th hour.
Veto 46 Part 1B; Section 22.40; Page 367; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants.
Veto 47 Part 1B; Section 39.6; Page 386; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants.
Veto 48 Part 1B; Section 40.23; Page 390; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants.
Veto 49 Part 1B, Section 80A.31; Page 447; Budget and Control Board; Competitive Grants.
Veto 50 Part 1B, Section 80A.33; Pages 447-448; Budget and Control Board; Grants Review Committee.
Veto 51 Part 1B; Section 89.87; Page 482; General Provisions; Competitive Grants Funds Carry Forward.
In a budget year where we may see a large deficit at the Department of Corrections and the State Department of Education, allowing this program to continue makes absolutely no sense. This program has been referred to by some as a "legislative slush fund" and has funded many items from pork-themed festivals to an Elvis impersonator. There is currently $18.5 million in the fund that should revert back to the general fund to be used for a higher priority.
The biggest flaw in the program is that there is no priority setting process in place for either considering or making awards. Until recently, reporting requirements back to the Competitive Grants Committee or the Budget and Control Board were limited and poorly enforced.
The program has funded a wide variety of items, but a few examples raise concerns about the strength of the program. One grant was approved for "playground equipment" though it was later learned the funds went to a town festival and paid for an Elvis impersonator. Another grant, funded as economic development to buy "needed equipment" was actually used to purchase a deep fryer at the baseball field. Another grant sent $10,000 to support a festival that reported back an $18,000 profit.
In a year where there are projected shortfalls for school buses and secure prisons, we believe there are better ways to spend this funding. We would add that if the General Assembly is willing to raid $100 million from reserve funds at the Department of Health and Human Services intended for health care for our neediest citizens, they should be willing to take back these low priority funds.
We believe this program should be eliminated and the committee should be asked to stop all future grants from being considered.
Veto 52 Part 1B; Section 89.94; Page 483; General Provisions; Homeland Security Projects.
This proviso allows the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate to direct a taxpayer-funded security measure at the State House. Our objection to this proposal is that the dollars spent protecting the political class in Columbia could be better spent on higher priority law enforcement activities around the state.
In the days following September 11, 2001, there was a good deal of concern that so-called "high profile" structures would be subject to potential terrorist attacks. However, seven years later, this outdated mindset only reinforces the castle mentality that political figures need and deserve better protection than the average citizen.
Meanwhile, South Carolina consistently ranks in the Top 5 for violent crimes and cities like North Charleston continue to struggle to keep the streets safe. If we are really serious about prioritizing, does it really make sense to further harden a spot that has its own state house police force, security cameras and limited access - at the expense of putting this money to places wherein it would make a material difference?
Finally, the proviso exempts this project from the procurement process and puts it in the hands of the Speaker and the President Pro Tem management authority for the project. This breech from normal procedure might be warranted if policy makers seriously thought the State House was actually a serious terrorist target, and as a consequence thought it necessary to fast track this project. Actions suggest otherwise as we are nearing almost two full years since the funding was provided. The project not only remains incomplete, but will not even be implemented until well after the legislative session is over. This project should be stopped and the remaining dollars should be dedicated to providing greater security to the people of this state.
Veto 53 Part 1B; Section 89.96; Page 483; General Provisions; Employee Actions.
This proviso is built around protecting the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Environmental Control's job as head of the agency and was put into place last year after the Governor's re-election to office. We think that this is a mistake given the current law and practice with regard to the head of DHEC which has served the state well for more than the past 30 years. To put in something that protects any governmental employee further insulates that person from the concerns of the South Carolina citizenry. This point was underscored recently when the person who had been head of the Solid
Veto 54 Part 1B; Section 89.99; Page 483; General Provisions; I-95 Corridor Study.
I am vetoing this proviso, which relates to funds for the I-95 Corridor Study, because the General Assembly has appropriated no money for this project in this year's budget. Last year, the budget included $500,000 in non-recurring funds for Francis Marion and South Carolina State University to conduct this study, and this funding was not renewed this year. This proviso is, therefore, unnecessary.
Veto 55 Part 1B; Section 89.100; Page 483; General Provision; Lt. Governor Security Detail.
We are vetoing this proviso because it directs money budgeted for the Lieutenant Governor's Office to be spent on a security detail, whereas we believe that money would be better spent on core functions of the Office on Aging.
To be clear, we are not vetoing the funding - this veto does not affect the $106,255 additional dollars included in Part 1A for the Lieutenant Governor's Office - only how the funds are spent. As we said last year, we believe former Lieutenant Governor Bob Peeler set the correct example when he refused his Security Detail, a practice that subsequently served his office and state taxpayers well for a decade. Based on the tight financial times we are facing, we believe it would be prudent to return to that model.
As for the funding tied to this line item, we believe it would best be used as a down payment for a recurring source of funding for the Meals on Wheels program. Again this year, budget writers declined to fund a recent supplement to that program using recurring dollars, instead choosing to use one-time money. Using this money for that purpose would be a small but important step toward ensuring the program's future funding.
Veto 56 Part 1B, Section 89.103, Page 484; General Provisions; Attorney Dues.
This proviso would allow state agencies the option of using taxpayer funds to pay the South Carolina Bar Association fees for their attorney employees. This practice is not consistent across state government for professional license fees and members of other professions. As an example, medical doctors at the Department of Corrections do not have their licensing fees paid for by the state.
Veto 57 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 489; Item E; Department of Health and Human Services; Rural Hospital Grants; $3,000,000.
We are vetoing this bill for the following reasons:
First, this program is currently limited to only 13 of the 23 designated rural hospitals in South Carolina. The grants program began at the Department of Health and Human Services under the previous administration as a direct payment to some hospitals. Since this type of direct provider subsidy is outside of DHHS's core mission, we ended this practice. The former DHHS Director, who initiated the program, has now successfully lobbied to successfully restore the program.
Second, the program, in its current form, equally distributes the funding to each of the recipients. As with other grant programs, this should be a proposal to encourage rural hospitals to invest in outcomes - not simply to collect a check.
Third, we do not think that health care is well-served in South Carolina when funds are raided from Medicaid, which provides health care for the neediest in our state and dedicate it to purposes like this. Roughly $100 million was raided from reserve funds set up to transition in our Medicaid reforms and to absorb growth in the softening economy.
Veto 58 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 489; Item G; MUSC Disproportionate Share; $7,000,000.
We are torn on this particular veto. There are two components that have merit and are worthy of support. First, the $600,000 for the Hollings Cancer Center at MUSC reflects a priority we have laid out in Executive Budgets. This year, the Hollings Cancer Center is expected to become a National Cancer Institute designated cancer center, the first of its kind in South Carolina. Second, $575,000 would also be dedicated to fully funding the Disproportionate Share Hospital tax for MUSC.
Unfortunately, the funding is tied to a larger amount that is dedicated to neither of those items and is simply an increase to the MUSC budget through the Department of Health and Human Service's reserve funds.
While MUSC does an extraordinary job of providing care to the less fortunate, they are far from the only hospital that does so. Since MUSC is the state's teaching hospital, DSH funds are appropriated through the budget.
We do not think we enhance health care in South Carolina by taking funds from Medicaid, which covers the neediest of the needy
Veto 59 Part IB; Section 90.12; Page 490; Item C.4; Department of Disabilities and Special Needs; Greenwood Genetics Center; $3,500,000.
Our Administration supports the important efforts of Greenwood Genetic Center in preventing and finding treatments for genetic diseases - which is why we have never vetoed limited state funding for the Center. The Center was established in 1974 as a private, non-profit institution; however, it has a public and private funding structure with the bulk of its funding coming from private and charitable sources and a limited amount from the state - $126,000 per year in the last six years. We are vetoing this special line item in this proviso because it appropriates $3.5 million to build a new treatment center. We certainly commend the worthy goal of building this center for treatment of genetic disorders; however, we believe in our current fiscal climate, we must focus on meeting critical state obligations, like providing fuel for school buses, and let the primary source of the Greenwood Genetic Center's funding - private and charitable sources - support the development of the new treatment center.
In addition, we believe funding for a capital project, although important, should not be taken from Medicaid funds, which covers the neediest of the needy. Roughly $100 million was raided from reserve funds set up to transition in our Medicaid reforms and to absorb unexpected growth in the softening economy.
Veto 60 Part 1B; Section 90.12; Statewide Revenue; Page 490; Item E.2.; Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services; State Block Grants; $500,000.
We are vetoing this money because it exceeds the amount the Department originally requested and it is our view that instead of measuring alcohol, tobacco and other drug use outcomes and evaluating processes, this money would be better spent as our Executive Budget suggested - in evidence-based direct prevention services.
Veto 61 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(4); Non-recurring Revenue; H12-Clemson University; LightRail; $700,000.
Veto 62 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(5); Non-recurring Revenue; H27-University of South Carolina-Columbia; LightRail; $700,000.
Veto 63 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(6); Non-recurring Revenue; H51-Medical University of South Carolina; LightRail; $700,000.
These line items allocate $2.1 million for MUSC, Clemson, and the University of South Carolina to implement SC LightRail, which is a computer network for our research universities. While we understand that this project has already begun, we believe that the research universities have other ways to complete this project. First, we believe that the research universities can and should fund this project through their carry forward and reserve accounts. For example, it has been reported that Clemson has carry forward funds of up to $80 million, and USC has a similar amount. With some state agencies already projecting a deficit in the next fiscal year, these schools are well-ahead of almost all of state government. The universities will argue that these carry forward funds are already committed to other projects, in which case we would simply ask our research institutions to prioritize, and decide whether those other projects are more or less important than the completion of SC LightRail. Second, we believe that this project is the exact kind of project that the Research University Infrastructure Act (RUIA) was intended to fund. Funding through RUIA, which encourages public-private partnerships, would allow us to accomplish the goal of implementing LightRail in a much more cost-effective manner for the South Carolina taxpayers and the universities.
Veto 64 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(10); Non-recurring Revenue; P20-Clemson University-PSA; Operating expenses; $275,000.
Under this line item, Clemson PSA would receive an additional $275,000 in operating funds. In a year when state agencies are facing roughly 2.5 percent across-the-board budget cuts, we don't think it is appropriate to increase Clemson PSA's operating budget. State government's core functions, like fuel for our school busses or securing our prisons, should be fully funded before we ask taxpayers to fund projects such as Master Gardeners, Master Bee Keepers, and turf grass research.
Veto 65 Part IB; Section 90.13; Page 491; Item (B)(14); Non-recurring Revenue; E23-Commission on Indigent Defense; Public Defenders & Staff; $3,993,844.
This appropriates non-recurring funds to the Commission on Indigent Defense to hire public defenders and staff. We are vetoing this line item because we believe it is bad public policy to pay employee salaries with non-recurring funds - especially in uncertain
Our third priority with budget vetoes this year was to provide enough in the way of vetoes to replenish the General Assembly's borrowing of $100 million from Medicaid. We believe that this is a particularly poor year to borrow from this program which helps the neediest of the needy in our state. I say this because it's a $5 billion program and our reserves are paper thin in even a year without change. This is, however, a big year of change given our waiver from the federal government to be the first state in the nation in instituting a consumer-directed approach to Medicaid. We think leaving those reserves in place are vital because we can't quantify to the penny utilization rates in the new program. Those reserves are also important given that the national economy has slowed - because historically, demand for Medicaid has gone up when the economy slows.
As we moved to this level of vetoes, it essentially became impossible to find line items that would work. Rather than going through the pointless exercise of vetoing entire agencies necessary in reaching $100 million, we would ask that policymakers earmark any residuals left aside in the Capital Reserve Fund to replenishment of the Medicaid borrowings. A number of the vetoes that we have proposed, if sustained, would begin the process of replenishing the $100 million borrowed from Medicaid.
IV. Annualizations
As an Administration, we will continue to push for common sense in our budgeting practices and we believe that borrowing from a critical reserve account like Medicaid and more commonly borrowing from a whole host of one-time monies to pay for recurring needs of government - as is done in the annualization process - is reckless. The first order of business in our executive budget in the new fiscal year will be addressing the Medicaid borrowings and annualizations and it's our sincere hope that the General Assembly will follow suit.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to the authority granted to the governor by Article IV, Section 21, of the South Carolina Constitution, I am vetoing the specific sections and items of H. 4800, R. 293, the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 General Appropriations Bill, as
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
The Veto on the following Act was taken up:
(R293) H. 4800 -- Ways and Means Committee: AN ACT TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS AND TO PROVIDE REVENUES TO MEET THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2008, TO REGULATE THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT DURING THIS FISCAL YEAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Rep. RICE moved to adjourn debate on the Veto.
Rep. COOPER moved to table the motion to adjourn debate on the Veto, which was agreed to.
Veto 1 Part 1A, Section 1; Page 12; Department of Education, Section XIII. Aid to School Districts; C. Special Allocations, YMCA - Youth in Government; $18,445.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bowen Bowers Branham
Breeland G. Brown Cato Clyburn Coleman Cooper Crawford Daning Dantzler Edge Gambrell Harrell Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Lowe Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Perry Phillips Sandifer Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith W. D. Smith Spires Taylor Thompson Whipper White Whitmire Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Chalk Cotty Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Hardwick Harrison Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lucas Merrill Mulvaney E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Scarborough Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith Stewart Talley Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 2 Part IA; Section 7; Page 30; Higher Education Tuition and Grants Commission; I. Administration; Special Items; SC Student Legislature; $25,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Allen Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Chalk Clemmons Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper Daning Dantzler Gambrell Hamilton Hardwick Harrell Hart Harvin Haskins Hayes Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings Kelly Kennedy Knight Littlejohn Mack McLeod Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Ott Parks Phillips M. A. Pitts Sandifer Scott Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. E. Smith W. D. Smith Viers Whipper White Whitmire Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Cato Cotty Crawford Davenport Delleney Duncan Edge Erickson
Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Haley Harrison Herbkersman Hiott Huggins Kirsh Leach Loftis Lucas Merrill Mulvaney Neilson Perry E. H. Pitts Rice Scarborough Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Walker Weeks Young
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Veto 3 Part IA; Section 10; Page 38; University of Charleston; I. Education & General; Special Items; Hospitality, Tourism and Management Program; $545,000.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the Veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Anderson Anthony Bales Bannister Bowen Bowers Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Cooper Daning Edge Gambrell Hardwick Harrell Harvin Hayes Herbkersman Hodges Hosey Howard Jefferson Jennings
Kelly Knight Mack Merrill Miller Moss J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Parks Phillips Scarborough Scott Sellers F. N. Smith G. R. Smith J. E. Smith J. R. Smith Spires Taylor Whipper White Young
Those who voted in the negative are:
Agnew Allen Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Brady Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cotty Crawford Dantzler Davenport Delleney Duncan Erickson Frye Funderburk Gullick Hagood Haley Hamilton Harrison Hart Haskins Hiott Huggins Kennedy Kirsh Leach Littlejohn Loftis Lowe Lucas McLeod Mulvaney Owens Perry E. H. Pitts M. A. Pitts Rice Sandifer Shoopman Simrill Skelton D. C. Smith G. M. Smith Stavrinakis Stewart Talley Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Whitmire Williams
So, the Veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. COOPER moved that upon the completion of the Ratification of Acts, the House stand adjourned, which was agreed to.
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Alexander Anthony Bales Bannister Bowen Bowers Brady Branham Breeland G. Brown R. Brown Cato Chalk Clemmons Coleman Cooper Cotty Crawford Daning Delleney Edge Erickson Gambrell Gullick Hardwick Harrell Harrison Harvin Herbkersman Hosey Jefferson Kelly Kennedy Kirsh Loftis Lowe Lucas Mack Merrill Miller Mitchell Moss J. H. Neal Perry Phillips M. A. Pitts Sandifer Scarborough Sellers Skelton F. N. Smith J. R. Smith Stavrinakis Whipper White Whitmire
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allen Anderson Ballentine Bedingfield Bingham Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Davenport Duncan Frye Funderburk Hagood Haley Hamilton Hart Haskins Hayes Hiott Hodges Huggins Jennings Knight Leach Littlejohn McLeod Mulvaney J. M. Neal Neilson Ott Owens Parks E. H. Pitts Rice Scott Shoopman Simrill D. C. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith
J. E. Smith Spires Stewart Talley Taylor Thompson Toole Umphlett Viers Walker Weeks Williams Young
So, the motion to adjourn was agreed to.
Further proceedings were interrupted by adjournment, the pending question being consideration of Veto No. 4.
At 3:30 p.m. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolutions were duly ratified:
(R296, S. 75 (Word version)) -- Senators Ryberg, Bryant and Verdin: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-4-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA TUITION PREPAYMENT PROGRAM MAY NOT ACCEPT NEW PARTICIPANTS UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THAT THE PROGRAM REMAINS IN OPERATION FOR EXISTING PARTICIPANTS; AND BY ADDING SECTION 59-4-120 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN ANNUAL INCREASE IN TUITION FOR AN INSTITUTION CANNOT EXCEED SEVEN PERCENT PER YEAR FROM FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES, THE INSTITUTION SHALL GRANT A WAIVER OF THE DIFFERENCE TO THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY.
(R297, S. 104 (Word version)) -- Senators McConnell, Courson, Vaughn, Knotts and Campsen: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 11, TITLE 60, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ARCHIVES ACT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA CIVIL WAR SESQUICENTENNIAL ADVISORY BOARD, AND BY REDESIGNATING SECTIONS 60-11-10 THROUGH 60-11-100, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY, AS ARTICLE ONE.
(R298, S. 241 (Word version)) -- Senators Lourie, Knotts, Reese, Leventis, Jackson, Thomas, Pinckney, McGill, Hutto, Sheheen, Williams, Matthews, Patterson, Cromer, Scott, Setzler and Bryant: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 16, TITLE 9 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 9-16-55 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMISSION, ACTING CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, TO DIVEST ITS PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS IN CERTAIN COMPANIES THAT IN THEIR OPERATIONS ARE COMPLICIT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF SUDAN IN THE DARFUR GENOCIDE AND TO PROHIBIT FUTURE INVESTMENTS BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH COMPANIES.
(R299, S. 311 (Word version)) -- Senator Grooms: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-2723 SO AS TO REQUIRE ALL CHILDCARE CENTERS, GROUP CHILDCARE HOMES, AND FAMILY CHILDCARE HOMES THAT DO NOT CARRY LIABILITY INSURANCE, OR WHOSE LIABILITY INSURANCE LAPSES OR IS CANCELED AND NOT REPLACED, TO OBTAIN STATEMENTS FROM THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF A CHILD ENROLLED IN THE CHILDCARE FACILITY INDICATING THAT THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN HAS RECEIVED NOTICE FROM THE FACILITY THAT THE FACILITY DOES NOT CARRY LIABILITY INSURANCE OR THAT THE INSURANCE LAPSED OR WAS CANCELED, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES TO INFORM EACH CHILDCARE CENTER, GROUP CHILDCARE HOME, AND FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME OF THIS REQUIREMENT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION IS A CONDITION OF LICENSURE; TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2725, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT CHILDCARE CENTER EMPLOYEES UNDERGO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS AND THAT PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN OFFENSES ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING EMPLOYED BY A CHILDCARE CENTER, SO AS TO ALSO REQUIRE A CENTRAL REGISTRY OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CHECK TO BE CONDUCTED ON THE PERSON SEEKING CHILDCARE CENTER EMPLOYMENT, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONAL EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO
(R300, S. 463 (Word version)) -- Senators Leatherman, Alexander, Verdin, Short, Setzler, Vaughn and Elliott: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16, ARTICLE X OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO BENEFITS AND FUNDING OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION PLANS IN THIS STATE AND THE INVESTMENTS ALLOWED FOR FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE-OPERATED RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FUNDS OF ANY TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR THE FUNDING OF POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS MAY BE INVESTED AND REINVESTED IN EQUITY SECURITIES SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS ON SUCH INVESTMENTS APPLICABLE FOR THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS STATE-OPERATED RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SET ASIDE FOR THE FUNDING OF POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, INCLUDING FUNDS INVESTED IN AN INDEPENDENT TRUST ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PURPOSE, MAY BE SIMILARLY INVESTED.
(R301, S. 873 (Word version)) -- Senators Knotts and O'Dell: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-9-515 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
(R302, S. 903 (Word version)) -- Senators Campsen, McConnell and McGill: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-15-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CREATION OF AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COMMISSION ON WOMEN, SO AS TO INCREASE THE MEMBERS FROM SEVEN TO FIFTEEN AND TO PROVIDE THAT ONE MEMBER MUST BE APPOINTED FROM EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND THE REMAINING MEMBERS FROM THE STATE AT LARGE.
(R303, S. 950 (Word version)) -- Senators Hutto and Matthews: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 59-53-630, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE DENMARK TECHNICAL COLLEGE AREA COMMISSION, SO AS TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO ENTER INTO GROUND LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES UPON APPROVAL BY THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; TO AMEND SECTIONS 59-53-740, 59-117-65, 59-125-130, 59-127-85, 59-130-60, AND 59-133-60, ALL RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO GROUND LEASE AGREEMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 35 OF TITLE 11; AND BY ADDING SECTION 59-53-290 SO AS TO ALLOW THE AREA COMMISSION OF TRI-COUNTY COLLEGE TO ENTER INTO GROUND LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE
(R304, S. 955 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes and Gregory: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, SO AS TO REVISE A PORTION OF THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA, AND GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA.
(R305, S. 996 (Word version)) -- Senators Ceips, Grooms and Cleary: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 15 OF TITLE 57, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF FERRIES, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW A COUNTY TO GRANT CHARTERS FOR FERRIES AND ALL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE CHARTERING AND OPERATION OF FERRIES BY A COUNTY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAY PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FERRIES, TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTIES MAY PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC FERRIES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COUNTIES MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES TO FINANCE, ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE PRIVATE FERRIES, TO PROVIDE THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS, AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ENTITIES MAY ASSIST A FERRY OPERATOR IN DEFRAYING THE OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF A FERRY, TO PROVIDE THAT ON JULY 1, 2009, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO OPERATE ITS FERRY IN GEORGETOWN COUNTY AND MAY TRANSFER ITS FERRY VESSEL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
(R306, S. 1011 (Word version)) -- Senators Jackson, Leatherman, Patterson, Ford, Hutto, Short, Fair, Matthews, Elliott, Setzler, Lourie, Campbell, Williams, Reese, Hayes and Anderson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-7-25 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE JOINT CITIZENS
(R307, S. 1022 (Word version)) -- Senators Peeler, Setzler, Campbell and Ford: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 110 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE ACT" TO ESTABLISH THE CRITICAL NEEDS NURSING INITIATIVE FUND; TO IMPROVE THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED NURSES IN THIS STATE BY PROVIDING NURSING FACULTY SALARY ENHANCEMENTS, TO CREATE NEW FACULTY POSITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NURSING STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS, LOANS, AND GRANTS, TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE FOR HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE RESEARCH TO ANALYZE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND DEMAND, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF NURSES; AND TO PROVIDE THE CHAPTER'S PROVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
(R308, S. 1058 (Word version)) -- Senators Hayes, Courson, Lourie, Short, Sheheen and Ceips: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 17, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHILDREN'S TRUST FUND, SO AS TO ELIMINATE DUPLICATIVE DUTIES OF THE ORGANIZATION AND REVISE ITS GOVERNANCE BY RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSISTING OF
(R309, S. 1082 (Word version)) -- Senator Thomas: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTIONS 38-72-65, 38-72-67, AND 38-72-69 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR RESCINDING AND ISSUING LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND TO REQUIRE THE LICENSING AND TRAINING OF A PRODUCER OF THESE POLICIES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-72-40, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN THE LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE ACT, SO
(R310, S. 1095 (Word version)) -- Senator Hayes: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 25-1-380, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR THE ARMY, SO AS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERALS TO TWO.
(R311, S. 1104 (Word version)) -- Senator McConnell: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-242 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN USED IN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP SPECIFIED DISEASE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND UNLESS OTHERWISE DEFINED IN THE POLICY, THE TERMS "ACTUAL CHARGE", "ACTUAL CHARGES", "ACTUAL FEE", OR "ACTUAL FEES" MEANS THE AMOUNT THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AGREED TO ACCEPT OR IS OBLIGATED BY LAW TO ACCEPT AS PAYMENT FOR GOODS OR SERVICES PROVIDED AND TO REQUIRE THAT NO INSURER OR ISSUER OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP SPECIFIED DISEASE INSURANCE POLICY PAY ANY CLAIM OR BENEFIT UNDER THE
(R312, S. 1168 (Word version)) -- Senators Peeler and Alexander: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 15-9-510, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SUPERINTENDENT OF A STATE MENTAL HOSPITAL, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "SUPERINTENDENT" OF SUCH HOSPITAL; TO AMEND SECTION 44-9-50, RELATING TO DIVIDING THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH INTO DIVISIONS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION REQUIRING A MEDICAL DIVISION TO BE HEADED BY A MEDICAL DOCTOR; TO AMEND SECTION 44-9-60, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EACH HOSPITAL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "SUPERINTENDENT" OF SUCH HOSPITALS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-9-90, RELATING TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION, SO AS TO DELETE REFERENCES TO EPILEPSY AND TO CERTAIN OBSOLETE TERMS, TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS, AND TO SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "SUPERINTENDENT" OF A MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL; TO AMEND SECTION 44-9-100, RELATING TO AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY OVER WHICH THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION MAY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY, SO AS TO DELETE OBSOLETE TERMS, MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS, AND SUBSTITUTE "DIRECTOR" FOR "SUPERINTENDENT" OF A MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL; TO AMEND SECTION 44-22-220, RELATING TO PATIENT RIGHTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A GRIEVANCE MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT A DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE WHETHER CORRECTIVE ACTION IS WARRANTED; TO AMEND SECTION 44-23-10, RELATING TO DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, SO AS TO REVISE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 44-23-210, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PATIENTS BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MENTAL
(R313, S. 1182 (Word version)) -- Senator Grooms: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A STUDY COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY AND BENEFITS OF THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, AND TUNNELS THROUGH THE UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND VENTURES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE.
(R314, S. 1221 (Word version)) -- Senators Hutto and Massey: AN ACT TO AMEND ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 3, TITLE 22, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIVIL PROCEDURE IN MAGISTRATES COURT, SO AS TO REVISE THE ARTICLE SUBSTANTIALLY IN ORDER TO DELETE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA RULES OF MAGISTRATES COURT AND TO RENAME THE ARTICLE TO CONFORM WITH THE REVISIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 5-7-12, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A STUDENT ARRESTED FOR A MISDEMEANOR BY A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER MUST RECEIVE A BOND HEARING WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF HIS ARREST AND MAY RECEIVE A COURTESY SUMMONS.
(R315, S. 1244 (Word version)) -- Senators Campsen, Gregory, Cromer, Ceips, McConnell, Scott and Cleary: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION
(R316, S. 1329 (Word version)) -- Senators McGill, Grooms and Bryant: AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING BY ADDING ARTICLE 101 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF "I BELIEVE" SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES AND PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THESE LICENSE PLATES MAY BE ISSUED.
(R317, S. 1366 (Word version)) -- Senator Land: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-190, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS IN CLARENDON COUNTY, SO AS TO REDESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH LINES OF THESE PRECINCTS ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, AND CORRECT CERTAIN REFERENCES.
(R318, S. 1372 (Word version)) -- Senator Land: AN ACT TO DESIGNATE MAP DOCUMENT NUMBERS FOR MAPS DELINEATING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 IN CLARENDON COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE MAPS DELINEATING THIS BOUNDARY BE FILED AND MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
(R319, H. 3028 (Word version)) -- Reps. Funderburk, Haskins, Witherspoon, Whipper, Hardwick, Hagood, Clemmons, Neilson and Erickson: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-42 SO AS TO DEFINE "FOOD" OR "FOOD PRODUCT" AND TO MAKE IT AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY TO MISREPRESENT THAT A FOOD OR A FOOD PRODUCT IS A PRODUCT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
(R320, H. 3058 (Word version)) -- Reps. W.D. Smith, Haskins, Young, G.R. Smith, Cobb-Hunter, Kirsh, Mahaffey, Sandifer, Brady, Bedingfield, Funderburk, Mitchell, M.A. Pitts, Whipper and R. Brown: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-25-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SO AS TO RESTRUCTURE THE PENALTY PROVISIONS, INCREASE CERTAIN PENALTIES, AND ADD THAT CRIMINAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS IN OTHER STATES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN DETERMINING A PREVIOUS CONVICTION FOR PURPOSES OF ENHANCING THE PENALTY.
(R321, H. 3326 (Word version)) -- Reps. Harrison and Cotty: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY
(R322, H. 3723 (Word version)) -- Reps. Neilson, Anthony, Bales, Clyburn, Hodges, Hosey, Howard, Jefferson, Mack, Moss and Williams: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-17-155 SO AS TO REQUIRE, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STATE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR PROGRAM FOR EACH HIGH SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES THAT SUCH A DEFIBRILLATOR IS PROVIDED ON THE GROUNDS OF EACH HIGH SCHOOL, THAT DISTRICT EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS REASONABLY EXPECTED TO USE THE DEVICE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OR THE SUPERINTENDENT'S DESIGNEE, ARE TRAINED IN ITS USE, AND THAT THESE DEVICES ARE PERIODICALLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED, TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT SHALL DEFINE THE PROGRAM AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT OPERATES, TO PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROGRAM EXCEPT FOR GROSSLY NEGLIGENT ACTS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO ESTABLISH A STATE CONTRACT FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS.
(R323, H. 3957 (Word version)) -- Rep. Harvin: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 44-39-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF THE DIABETES INITIATIVE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD; TO PROVIDE THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD; AND TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD'S
(R324, H. 4065 (Word version)) -- Rep. Harrison: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 62-1-302, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT, SO AS TO ADD THE WORD "GENERAL" BEFORE "PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES" IN CONNECTION WITH FORMAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THEIR APPOINTMENT.
(R325, H. 4229 (Word version)) -- Rep. McLeod: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 14-25-130 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS FROM THE ELECTRONIC FILE OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD TO BE FURNISHED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO MUNICIPAL JURY COMMISSIONERS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 14-25-125 AND 14-25-155, BOTH RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL COURT JURY LISTS, BOTH SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE JURY LIST TO BE USED BY THE MUNICIPALITY IS THE LIST PREPARED BY THE JURY COMMISSIONERS FROM THE LATEST OFFICIAL LIST PROVIDED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 14-7-130, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF JURY LISTS FROM THE ELECTRONIC FILE OF PERSONS HOLDING A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD TO BE FURNISHED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONERS.
(R326, H. 4363 (Word version)) -- Reps. Harrison, G.M. Smith, Delleney, Bales, McLeod, Hart and Weeks: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 1-23-660, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEARINGS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CHANGES, DELETE THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE
(R327, H. 4400 (Word version)) -- Reps. Harrell, Harrison, Cato, Cooper, Walker, Witherspoon, Merrill, Sandifer, Haley, Young, Erickson, Littlejohn, Simrill, Bowen, Crawford, Barfield, Cotty, Taylor, Spires, Davenport, E.H. Pitts, Frye, Lowe, Shoopman, Hardwick, Bingham, Skelton, Clemmons, Thompson, Bedingfield, Bannister, Mahaffey, Herbkersman, J.R. Smith, Haskins, Huggins, Hutson, Leach, Toole, Viers, Brady, Dantzler, Delleney, Gambrell, Hamilton, Kelly, Rice, Scarborough, G.M. Smith, G.R. Smith, Talley, Umphlett, Duncan,
(R328, H. 4529 (Word version)) -- Reps. Weeks, Whipper and R. Brown: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 37-25-70, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR ILLEGALLY DISPENSING CONTACT LENSES, SO AS TO PROVIDE RELIEF IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT FOR A CONTESTED CASE, AND TO DELETE CERTAIN NOTICE PROVISIONS IMPOSED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.
(R329, H. 4601 (Word version)) -- Reps. W.D. Smith, Cobb-Hunter, Talley, Hagood, Scott, Viers, Mitchell, Clemmons and Whipper: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO VICTIMS' COMPENSATION AWARDS, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING FOR VICTIMS; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS, SO AS TO ALLOW CLAIM SUBMISSION VIA FACSIMILE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS; TO AMEND ARTICLE 14, CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 16, RELATING TO THE VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, SO AS TO RESTRUCTURE THE PROGRAM TO EMPOWER THE STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM ASSISTANCE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND, TO RESTRUCTURE THE VICTIMS' SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, AND TO CREATE THE VICTIM SERVICES COORDINATING COUNCIL AND PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP; TO AMEND SECTION 16-3-1620, RELATING TO THE CRIME VICTIMS' OMBUDSMAN OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' OMBUDSMAN AND ESTABLISH CERTIFICATION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VICTIM SERVICE PROVIDERS; AND BY ADDING SECTION 16-3-1680 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE CRIME VICTIMS' OMBUDSMAN TO PROMULGATE NECESSARY REGULATIONS.
(R330, H. 4662 (Word version)) -- Reps. Walker, Harrell, Whitmire, Toole, Gullick, Spires, Hiott, Bannister, J.R. Smith, Loftis, Ballentine, Pinson, Cotty, Brady, Bedingfield, Hardwick, Edge, Herbkersman, Lowe, Crawford,
(R331, H. 4713 (Word version)) -- Rep. White: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 25-11-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO STATE VETERANS' CEMETERIES AND QUALIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE A PLOT IN A STATE VETERANS' CEMETERY, SO AS TO REDUCE FROM TWENTY YEARS TO FIVE YEARS THE TIME A VETERAN MUST HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE IN ORDER TO MEET ONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR OTHER QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION AS TO WHEN THE VETERAN WAS REQUIRED TO BE A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE.
(R332, H. 4746 (Word version)) -- Rep. Bowers: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURED HOUSING BOARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD MUST BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING INDUSTRY FROM A LIST OF CANDIDATES SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR BY THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING INSTITUTE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING INDUSTRY, SO AS TO DEFINE MANUFACTURED HOME APPRENTICE RETAIL SALESPERSON AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-29-200, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPRENTICE SALESPERSON LICENSE.
(R333, H. 4900 (Word version)) -- Reps. Cato, Gambrell, Bowen, Mitchell, Hiott, J.R. Smith, Kelly, Brady, Walker, Bedingfield, Agnew, Barfield, Battle, Bowers, Clemmons, Gullick, Limehouse, Loftis, Lowe, Mahaffey, Moss, Owens, Pinson, Sandifer, D.C. Smith, Spires, Talley, Toole, White, Hardwick and Whipper: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 51 TO TITLE 23 SO AS TO ENACT THE "REDUCED CIGARETTE IGNITION PROPENSITY STANDARDS AND FIREFIGHTER PROTECTION ACT", TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, TO PROVIDE THAT CIGARETTES MAY NOT BE SOLD OR OFFERED FOR SALE IN THIS STATE UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN TEST METHODS, MET CERTAIN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, RECEIVED CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS, AND HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MARKED, TO SPECIFY THE TESTING METHODS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT MUST BE MET.
(R334, H. 4921 (Word version)) -- Reps. Moss, M.A. Pitts, Lowe, Phillips and Pinson: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 47-1-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS IN REGARD TO CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, SO AS
(R335, H. 4930 (Word version)) -- Reps. G.M. Smith, Cato and Bannister: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-17-680, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO UNLAWFUL PURCHASE OF COPPER, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PURCHASE NONFERROUS METALS FROM A PERSON WHO IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED RETAILER OR WHOLESALER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A SECONDARY METALS RECYLCLER AND VERIFIES THE SELLER'S NAME AND ADDRESS, CERTAIN OTHER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THE SECONDARY METALS RECYCLER MAY ONLY PURCHASE NONFERROUS METALS FOR CASH CONSIDERATION, PROCEDURES FOR WRITTEN HOLD NOTICES ARE CREATED WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE NONFERROUS METAL IS STOLEN, TO DEFINE CERTAIN NECESSARY TERMS, TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR ALUMINUM CANS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PREEMPTION OF LOCAL ORDINANCES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 16-11-523 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO WILFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY CUT, MUTILATE, OR DEFACE REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING NONFERROUS METALS, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES, AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE ATTEMPTED THEFT OF NONFERROUS METALS.
(R336, H. 4934 (Word version)) -- Education and Public Works Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION ACT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION
(R337, H. 4935 (Word version)) -- Education and Public Works Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, RELATING TO FREE TEXTBOOKS, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 3138, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Rep. CHALK moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Veto on H. 3906 (Word version) was sustained and the motion was noted.
Rep. WEEKS moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 1 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. STAVRINAKIS moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 2 was sustained on H. 4800 and the motion was noted.
Rep. STAVRINAKIS moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 3 on H. 4800 was sustained and the motion was noted.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 5186 (Word version) -- Reps. G. M. Smith, Weeks and G. Brown: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE PORTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 261 IN SUMTER COUNTY FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH UNITED STATES HIGHWAY 76/378 TO THE SUMTER/KERSHAW COUNTY LINE THE "MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE L. MABRY, JR. CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS ALONG THIS PORTION OF HIGHWAY THAT CONTAIN THE WORDS "MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE L. MABRY, JR. CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT MEMORIAL HIGHWAY".
At 4:15 p.m. the House, in accordance with the motion of Rep. SHOOPMAN, adjourned in memory of Army Specialist David Lee Leimbach of Taylors who was killed in Afghanistan, to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
This web page was last updated on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 12:03 P.M.