South Carolina General Assembly
109th Session, 1991-1992
Journal of the Senate

Wednesday, January 15, 1992

(Statewide Session)

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.

A quorum being present the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:

Beloved, hear words from the ancient Book of Deuteronomy (Chapter 8, Verse 3):

"He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger and

fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither

did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know

that man doth not live by bread only,

but by every word that proceedeth out of the

mouth of the Lord doth man live."

The RSV renders the last phrase: "man lives by every-

thing that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord".
Let us pray.

Our Father, as we remember the birthday of the servant, Martin Luther King, Jr., we pray, as Your servants here, for a balanced view and a sense of spiritual values as we face the economic and political problems of our people.

Even as we pray for material gifts as Jesus taught us to pray in the words, "GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD"... we pray for such spiritual gifts as will make of us worthy stewards of the good resources of our planet earth, saying in our hearts:

"A charge to keep I have, A God to glorify,

To serve the present age, My calling to fulfill;

O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's

will! Amen!

The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.

REPORT RECEIVED

TO: The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House
FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: December 20, 1991

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chmn.
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chmn.
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. B.L. Hendricks, Jr.

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of the candidates seeking election to the positions of Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, and Judge of the Family Court of the Third Judicial Circuit (Seat #3).

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Instead, it is the Committee's role to determine whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge. Under the statute, the Committee's determination in regard to each candidate is not binding on the members of the General Assembly.

Having completed the investigation as required by the act, the Committee by this Report respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held in Room 207 of the Gressette Building on December 5, 1991, and the portions of the documents submitted by the candidates and others which were made part of the public record.

Each candidate's file includes an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a statement of economic interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. These documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 402 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidates were present at the screening and testified under oath.

HEARING OF DECEMBER 5, 1991

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE COMMITTEE TO ORDER. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS, PURSUANT TO ACT 199 OF 1975, REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EVERY CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING, AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS THE PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO EXAMINE THE CANDIDATES FOR VACANCIES IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT, SEVENTH CIRCUIT, EIGHTH CIRCUIT, AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, SEAT #3. I APOLOGIZE TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. WE HAVE TO PROCEED IN SOME ORDER, AND WE ARE TAKING THESE POSITIONS IN NUMERICAL ORDER, STARTING WITH THE THIRD CIRCUIT JUDGESHIP, FOR WHICH THERE ARE FIVE CANDIDATES. THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN THE BACK, I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE WILL MOVE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE CAN. I'VE HAD LARYNGITIS ALL WEEK, SO, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, MY VOICE IS BETTER THAN IT WAS. I WILL, AT THIS TIME -- WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MATTERS TO TAKE UP IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO I'LL ASK IF YOU WILL PLEASE EXCUSE US FOR A FEW MOMENTS, IF EVERYBODY COULD PLEASE VACATE THE ROOM FOR A FEW MINUTES.

(EXECUTIVE SESSION.)

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER THROUGH THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. FIRST WILL BE THOMAS W. COOPER, JR.
WHEREUPON, THOMAS W. COOPER, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q MR. COOPER, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, IT IS.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION?
A ONE, PERHAPS, MATTER ON THE FIRST PAGE, PARAGRAPH SEVEN AT THE VERY BOTTOM. IT OCCURRED TO ME AS I WAS REVIEWING THIS THAT SOMETIMES THE SENSE OF HUMOR DOES NOT COME ACROSS IN THE PRINTED WORD QUITE LIKE IT DOES IN THE SPOKEN WORD, AND I DIDN'T WANT THIS COMMITTEE TO THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT I REALLY THOUGHT THAT THE THOMAS COOPER LIBRARY WAS NAMED FOR ME, AT CAROLINA, JUST BECAUSE I WORKED THERE A COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S ACCURATE.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: IT WILL BE DONE.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Thomas W. Cooper, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
#9 Hickory Ridge Circle #8 S. Brooks Street
P. O. Box 398 P. O. Box 1292
Manning, SC 29102 Manning, SC 29102

2. He was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on May 20, 1941. He is presently 50 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Margaret Barringer Bland on July 20, 1968. He has two children: Thomas Bland, age 21 (student at the University of South Carolina), and Judith Margaret, age 16 (junior at Laurence Manning Academy).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, September 1959 - May 1963, B.A., History; Coker College, Clemson University, and the University of South Carolina, summers of 1965-1967, post-graduate work towards Master's Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September 1970 - May 1973, J.D.

7. His undergraduate days at the University of South Carolina were rather uneventful insofar as honors, activities and offices are concerned. He was an average student who went to USC from a small high school in Sumter County. He attended his first three semesters doing satisfactory work but dropped out of USC during the spring semester of his sophomore year to work. This was a personal decision and was not mandated by any unsatisfactory academic work or other external factors. He worked in a furniture factory in Sumter County during the spring and summer of 1961 and returned to USC that fall. He took extra course work during the regular sessions and attended both sessions of summer school between his junior and senior years in order to graduate on time. He went to school on a National Defense Student Loan and also worked what was then called the Undergraduate Library. (After he graduated, the library was later expanded and renamed the Thomas Cooper Library which he thought was an extremely magnanimous gesture on the part of the University, given the fact that he was simply a student assistant there for two years.)

After graduating from undergraduate school, he taught high school in English in the schools of Clarendon County District #3 for five years, where he also served as a coach. During this period of time, he was elected Teacher of the Year in 1967 from Clarendon County.

He left Clarendon County District #3 in 1968 and was Assistant Principal of Hillcrest High School (Dalzell) for one year, and then was named Principal of Shaw Heights Elementary School for one year before he enrolled in law school. He had made a decision during his year at Hillcrest High School to reactivate his original plans to become a lawyer. He was able to accomplish that with the financial assistance of his wife, who was a school teacher, and by withdrawing his teacher's retirement. He also worked during his law school days and commuted on a daily basis from his home in Sumter County. He continued to be actively involved in church and community activities during his time in law school.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

His CLE emphasis during the past five years has been similar to the emphasis in his practice. He has not attended any seminars on Criminal Law with the exception of a single December seminar about 4 years ago which he attended in order to complete his 12-hour requirement for that year. For the most part, he has had "carry over hours" from one year to the next and has focused his CLE attendance on seminars dealing with Health Care Law, Administrative Law, Real Estate and Title Insurance Issues, as well as seminars dealing with recent changes in the law, e.g., Probate Code Seminar, Comparative Negligence Seminar, etc.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Following his graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law in May of 1973, and his completion of the Bar examination in July of 1973, he began working for the Law Firm of W. C. Coffey, Jr., P.A., Manning, South Carolina. Mr. Coffey was a sole practitioner in the general practice of law with an emphasis on real estate, probate and commercial practice. He began to assist him in the real estate area of practice and, after his admission to the Bar in November of 1973, began to broaden his areas of practice into Administrative Law, Civil, Criminal and Family Law. Some of his earlier appearances following his admission to the Bar were appearances before the Public Service Commission. His practice gradually expanded into personal injury and contract litigation as well.

He was made a partner in the firm of Coffey and Cooper, P.A., in August of 1974. As his practice expanded, he began representation of institutions (school districts, municipalities and our local hospital) and eventually began to phase out his practice in Family Court and Criminal Court. That transition coincided with the expansion of their firm in 1979 to bring in another partner who handled litigation matters, and virtually all of the family and criminal practice, allowing each of them to compartmentalize their practice as much as possible in a small town. He has done no contested family practice since the mid 80's and has handled no criminal matters since about 1986.

While Criminal Court never was a major emphasis of his practice (approximately 5% to 10% of his practice at the most), he did enjoy a fair degree of success in the Court of General Sessions and voluntarily eliminated that portion of his practice in an effort to focus on other areas. Conversely, his civil practice expanded during the period of time, although a substantial amount of his practice, if not a slight majority of it, has always been in the areas of real estate, probate, close corporations, and institutional law.

In recent years, he has served as a Special Referee to hear contested non-jury matters, both in Clarendon and Sumter Counties, as a result of possible conflicts with standing Masters in those counties. Some of these controversies have been quite involved, one of which consumed some seven days of trial time and several hundred items of evidence. Most recently, he has been appointed as Special Referee in another matter in Sumter County which has thus far taken some three days of trial time and is not yet complete.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - very limited - approximately one appearance per year
State - 30-40 appearances per year in various State Courts
Other - State Appellate Courts - approximately one appearance per year

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 85%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 15%

His appearances in Family Court are limited to DSS cases involving child abuse and neglect.

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 40%
Non-jury - 60% - sole counsel in all cases

In jury cases he was associate counsel, primarily in insurance defense cases in approximately one to two cases per year; co-counsel in approximately two to three cases per year; and sole counsel in all other cases.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) Oak Forest, Inc. v. Terry M. Watson, et al., (90-CP-26-2389). In this case, the longest civil trial in the history of our State's system, their firm represented the Plaintiff in a multi-party action involving seven Defendants and a third-party action against two third-party Defendants. The case began on May 28 and ended on August 4. The actual trial itself lasted four weeks and resulted in verdicts for the Defendants on several causes of action, a mistrial on one cause of action and verdict in favor of their client on two causes of action.

The significance of this case to him, as a trial lawyer, and to all other counsel who participated in it, was largely the result of the size and scope of the controversy. This case was the first of four similar cases filed in the State Court system and a companion case in the Federal Court of Claims which was handled by another attorney in Washington. This controversy represented a case study in complex litigation and embodied almost every characteristic and aspect of the adversarial system. The controversy involved excellent trial counsel on all sides dealing with complex, and sometimes novel, issues of law, all of which had to be researched, briefed, and argued at various Motion stages, as well as throughout the trial itself. Additionally, presenting a Plaintiff's case involving various theories against several Defendants, most of whom were represented by at least two attorneys, required thorough preparation and an alert approach to every issue in question, because of the multi-faceted nature of the controversy. The trial was presided over by an excellent Trial Judge who managed the case from a trial standpoint in an outstanding fashion and each of the attorneys was privileged to see how complex litigation of this sort should be handled from a Trial Judge's perspective. The scheduling problems occasioned by the length of the trial, both to Judge, lawyers, litigants, and jurors alike was handled most efficiently and fairly.

(b) NAACP, et al. v. The City of Manning (Civil Action No. 2-90-504-8). Billy Coffey, the senior member of their firm, is City Attorney for the City of Manning. In 1990, the city was sued by the NAACP in an action in Federal Court alleging violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Coffey involved Mr. Cooper as co-counsel in the trial of the case, because Mr. Coffey has not focused on litigation practice in nearly 15 years. Additionally, since Mr. Cooper is the Town Attorney for the Town of Summerton which is faced with the threat of a similar suit, they both thought that he could assist in, and benefit from, participation in the case. This case involved unique issues to a small-town attorney confronted with defending a system that has been declared unconstitutional by Courts and illegal by Statute. It was also educational from the standpoint of exploring and developing attitudes of conciliation of all parties involved which eventually lead to a Consent Order resolving the controversy.

To anyone who has ever represented a municipality or governmental subdivision in such a lawsuit, it is obvious that the overwhelming weight of the law is against the political body. Therefore, the ultimate success or failure in such an action requires the education of one's client(s) as much as it does the exhibition of legal aplomb. This case was certainly no different and the fact that the final resolution of the issue was actually suggested by a member of the City Council for the City of Manning in the case and that they were successful in the educational process as well.

(c) Lula Edith DeLaine v. Billie Fleming and Joseph W. Coker. This was the first civil case he ever tried and, since he was successful at it, remains significant in his mind even though the actual amount of the verdict was relatively insignificant. In this case he represented the daughter of an outstanding member of the black community of Clarendon County. His client's relatives had been instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement of the early 50's which led to the Clarendon County school desegregation cases which were consolidated in the famous decision of Brown v. The Board of Education. One Defendant was a former member of the House of Representatives who has become a very good friend of his. The other Defendant was a leader of the local NAACP Chapter. Mr. Coker was represented by the late James M. Morris prior to his election as a Circuit Court Judge. The trial resulted in a verdict for the Plaintiff but, because of an irregularity in the wording of the verdict, actual recovery for his client was held up for some time. Nevertheless, the preparation for the trial of the case and the trial itself proved to him the absolute necessity of being completely and totally color blind in one's approach to the law, either as an advocate or a Trial Judge.

(d) State v. M. D. Barnhill. In this case, the last criminal case which he tried, he represented a long time client who had become a rather good friend in the process. The client was charged with burning a relative's home in order to help the relative collect the insurance proceeds. The relative testified against his client. The trial of the case itself lasted for about one and one-half days and was not significant for its length, issues, or for the seriousness of the crime charged. However, it did reinforce in his mind the need to separate one's personal feelings and emotions from the issues at hand in order to be an effective advocate. This is not to suggest that a lawyer need be a robot or technician, indeed just the opposite in this case. However, in critical decisions dealing with trial tactics and strategy, objectivity rather than emotion must be the controlling factor. Following the jury's verdict of acquittal, he saw the truly emotional side of the case in the reaction of his client and his client's family to the exoneration that was theirs.

(e) Coker Builders, Inc. v. U. S. Capital. This was significant because it was the first large construction arbitration case their firm had handled. Their firm represented the Plaintiff, Coker Builders, a pioneer in the modular building industry. The Defendant was represented by what was then the largest law firm in the State. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction costs, changes and alleged defects were in issue.

Mr. Coffey of their firm actually represented the Plaintiffs in development and real estate matters, and Mr. Cooper was called in to act as lead counsel in the arbitration proceedings. Of the two major controversies involved, they were successful in the larger and most costly issue. The owner was successful in a smaller issue of approximately one-sixth the size and value of the larger matter. Subsequently, it was necessary to sustain the arbitration award through attempts to have the original findings modified and altered, and eventually the matter was resolved along the lines of the arbitration findings prior to the actual filing of civil litigation. The significance of this case to their firm was its uniqueness to their firm, the highly specialized and complex technical nature of the issues involved, and the challenge of presenting those issues to a Board of Arbitration composed of an attorney, architect and engineer.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Clarendon Cablevision, Inc., Alert Cable TV of South Carolina, Carol D. Roach, guarantor, and Betty Roper, guarantor,...Third Party Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Register Data Systems,...Third Party Defendant/Appellant
Court of Appeals
January 4, 1989
Memorandum Opinion No. 89-MO-012

(b) First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Sumter, S. C.,...Respondent v. Wyboo Gulf Marina, Inc., A. W. Hursey, Jr., W. C. Hopper, John B. Houser, Jr., James R. Bradham, Jr., Wade H. Jones, Sr., Wade H. Jones, Jr., John T. Adair, and Alex H. Costas, Defendants, of whom: A. W. Husey, Jr., W. C. Hopper, John B. Houser, Jr., and James R. Bradham, Jr., are also...Respondents, and Wade H. Jones, Sr., and Wade H. Jones, Jr., are...Appellants
Court of Appeals
June 18, 1987
Memorandum Opinion No. 87-MO-071

(c) Debbie Sivec Tate,...Respondent, WIBZ Radio, Inc., Appellant
Court of Appeals
January 9, 1989
Memorandum Opinion No. 89-MO-015

(d) Ray M. Porter,...Appellant v. Thomas Howard Porter,...Respondent
Supreme Court
March 18, 1980
264 SE2d 416

(e) Ozetta Billups...Respondent, v. Tami Alice Leliuga,...Appellant
Court of Appeals
October 22, 1990
Opinion No. 1555

22. Public Office:
He has never sought elective office but was appointed to the Clarendon County Election Commission in 1988. He continues to serve on the Commission.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

Following his graduation from the University of South Carolina in the Spring of 1963, he began teaching school in East Clarendon School District #3 of Clarendon County. He taught high school English there from 1963 through 1968. He also coached baseball and assisted in the coaching of football and basketball.

In the summer of 1968, he left the employment of Clarendon County School District #3 and moved to Sumter County School District #2 where he was the assistant principal of Hillcrest High School and the coordinator of bus transportation for the school. At the time, Hillcrest actually contained grades 1-12, and he was also principal of the junior high school which was located on the same campus. He remained at Hillcrest for the 1968-1969 school year and then was named principal of Shaw Heights Elementary School for 1969-1970 school year. Shaw Heights Elementary School was located immediately adjacent to Shaw Air Force Base and, at the time, contained approximately 1,100 students with 33 teachers. There were no assistants or other staff personnel other than the office secretary.

During the summers of his employment at Sumter County School District #2, he worked in the District Office, either performing maintenance duties for the schools in the district, or assisting in personnel duties.

At the end of the 1969-1970 school year, he enrolled in the USC Law School.

25. Officer or Director: He is a member of the Advisory Board for South Carolina Federal Savings Bank for the Sumter-Manning area and has been since 1987. Members of the Advisory Board are primarily appointed to be a visible presence of the bank in the community at large, hopefully for the purpose of referring business to the bank, but members of the Board do not have any management or policy making power within the bank itself.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

He is presently a partner in the law firm of Coffey, Cooper, Chandler & DuRant and has numerous ongoing cases which he must necessarily continue to manage and develop through the election process. He also is the owner of a one-fourth interest in the two properties where the firm's law offices are located (Manning and Surfside Beach) and owns an undivided one-fourth interest in development property owned by their retirement plans.

His law partners and associate are prepared to take over whatever files may remain in his office, at the pleasure of his clients, in the event of his election. The files will be assigned a value, and he will either be paid at the time of his separation from the firm, or as the files are closed. However, he will not retain any interest in the outcome of any litigation or matters in controversy. Obviously, if any modification of that arrangement needs to be made in order to satisfy Judicial Standards, those modifications will certainly be made.

Regarding his ownership of the properties, his partners are prepared to buy his interest in the properties for any amount to be determined by an appraisal of the properties and the deduction of any outstanding liabilities. In order to avoid imposing a financial hardship on them, he is prepared to accept a Promissory Note, secured by a Purchase Money Mortgage, so that payment over a period of years can be accomplished. If this creates any problem with Judicial Standards, modifications will be made in order to comply.

31. Sued: Their firm was sued by two clients of Mr. Chandler, one of their partners. This action was subsequently settled prior to trial.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in May of 1989 by Dr. Vaughn R. Barnick (then of Manning, South Carolina, now of Columbia, South Carolina).

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Member, Clarendon County Bar Association; Member, South Carolina Bar; Resolution of Fee Disputes Board for the Third Judicial Circuit, 1984-present, Chairman; Member, Clarendon County Election Commission, 1988-present; Member, South Carolina Federal Advisory Board, 1987-present; Laurence Manning Academy Board of Trustees, 1983-present, Chairman; Member, Laurence Manning Board of Trustees, 1981-present.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Sunday School Teacher, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Member of Choir, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Member of Session, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1978-present; Member of Council, Presbytery of New Harmony, 1987-present; Member of Personnel Committee-Presbytery of New Harmony, 1987-present

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) A. J. Cutter, Vice President and City Executive
South Carolina Federal
P. O. Drawer B, Manning, SC 29102-0017

(b) Joseph O. Rogers, Jr., Esquire
203 N. Meadow Drive, Manning, SC 29102

(c) William J. Holmes, Jr., D. Min.
The Presbyterian Church at Manning
P. O. Box 207, Manning, SC 29102

(d) W. C. Coffey, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 1292, Manning, SC 29102

(e) Honorable Joseph W. Coker
Clerk of Court, Clarendon County
Manning, SC 29102

Q WE HAVE CHECKED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE; THEY REPORT NO COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE AS TO YOU, AS ARE THE CLARENDON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND MANNING CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS. SLED AND FBI RECORDS ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CLARENDON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOU LISTED, IN QUESTION 31, A SUIT AGAINST YOU. YOU INDICATE THAT WAS SETTLED OR DISMISSED?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ABOUT WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?
A 1980 OR '81. THE EARLY EIGHTIES.
Q YOU WERE SUED AS A MEMBER OF THE FIRM?
A YES, SIR. WHAT HAPPENED -- IF I COULD JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO EXPAND ON THAT -- IN 1979, IN OCTOBER OF 1979, WE EXPANDED AND TOOK ON AN ADDITIONAL PARTNER, MR. RAY CHANDLER, WHO, PREVIOUS TO THAT TIME, HAD PRACTICED WITH ANOTHER FIRM IN MANNING. HE BROUGHT OVER SOME OF HIS CLIENTS, OBVIOUSLY, WITH HIM. AT THE TIME, I HAD AN ONGOING CLIENT THAT I WAS WORKING WITH. WHEN MR. CHANDLER JOINED OUR FIRM, ONE OF HIS PREVIOUS CLIENTS HAD LITIGATION -- I THINK IT WAS IN FORCE, AT THE TIME -- AGAINST ONE OF MY CLIENTS. HE, THEN -- BECAUSE HE WAS JOINING OUR FIRM, I BELIEVE THE WAY HE HANDLED IT WAS TO ASSOCIATE OTHER COUNSEL, OR SEND THE FILE TO SOMEONE ELSE, TO ADMINISTER THE FILE THAT HIS CLIENT WAS SUING MY CLIENT.THE MATTERS WERE COMPLETELY UNRELATED; I WAS HANDLING A LOAN CLOSING FOR MY CLIENT, WITH A LOCAL BANK. THE BANK HAD CONTACTED US AND ASKED US TO DO JUST A SIMPLE LOAN CLOSING. I DID IT: CHECKED THE TITLE, FOUND NO JUDGMENTS, NO LIENS, CERTIFIED TITLE. THE BANK MADE ITS LOAN, WHICH, IN LARGE MEASURE, SECURED SOME ADDITIONAL -- SOME ADVANCES THAT HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR TO THAT TIME. SUBSEQUENTLY, A JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED BY MR. CHANDLER'S FORMER CLIENTS AGAINST MY CLIENT. MR. CHANDLER'S FORMER CLIENTS THEN SUED OUR FIRM, ALLEGING THAT THE FILING OF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN DELAYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE BANK TO GET A MORTGAGE IN FRONT OF THEM. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, AT ALL, AND AS I SAY, I WAS NOT EVEN AWARE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE OTHER SUIT, AND MR. CHANDLER WAS NOT AWARE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH OURS. BUT THE MATTER WAS SETTLED PRIOR TO TRIAL, AFTER SUIT WAS FILED, I THINK FOR $8,000 OR $9,000, SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE EXCELLENT. IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR, THAT'S RIGHT.
Q WE'VE REVIEWED YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, WHICH SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE'RE SATISFIED WITH YOUR NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORT. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED NOR WITNESSES HAVE NOTIFIED THEY DESIRE TO BE PRESENT. AS IN THE PAST, I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. WHAT DO YOU FEEL IS THE PROPER OR APPROPRIATE DEMEANOR FOR A JUDGE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT?
A I THINK THAT A JUDGE IS PROBABLY AS MUCH A FACILITATOR AS HE IS AN ADMINISTRATOR OF JUSTICE, AND I THINK THAT WHILE A JUDGE OBVIOUSLY MUST MAINTAIN DECORUM AND ORDER, I THINK THAT PATIENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LAWYERS AND LITIGANTS IS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION. AND I BELIEVE I BRING THAT TEMPERAMENT -- I WOULD BRING THAT TEMPERAMENT TO THE POSITION. I DO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF PATIENCE; FOR WHATEVER REASON, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I DO HAVE IT. I DON'T THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A JUDGE SHOULD OR OUGHT TO TELL LAWYERS HOW TO TRY THEIR CASES, OR TO DICTATE THE WAY IN WHICH A CASE SHOULD BE MANAGED, SO LONG AS IT'S BEING MANAGED WITHIN THE RULES AND IS NOT DILATORY AND IS NOT WASTING THE COURT'S TIME OR JURY'S TIME. I THINK THAT A JUDGE IS THERE TO SEE THAT THE RULES ARE PROPERLY ADMINISTERED AND ARE COMPLIED WITH, AND THAT JUSTICE IS METED OUT IN THAT REGARD; AND THAT THE JUDGE IS IN CONTROL, BUT THAT THE LAWYERS AND THE LITIGANTS HAVE TO TRY THE CASES.
Q I ALWAYS OBSERVED BEING A JUDGE REQUIRED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PATIENCE. IT'S A VERY BORING JOB IN SOME WAYS. COMING FROM AN ACTIVE TRIAL PRACTICE TO THAT SORT OF A BORING, PASSIVE SETTING, HOW WOULD YOU ADJUST TO THAT?
A WELL, I THINK INITIALLY IT WOULD, OF COURSE, BE NEW TO ANY OF US, AND IT WOULD TAKE AWHILE TO GET BORING, BUT I CAN IMAGINE THAT DUI SECONDS, AFTER A WHILE, WOULD PROBABLY GET SOMEWHAT BORING. I THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP UP WITH WHAT'S GOING ON, AS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND WHILE IT MIGHT BE THE EIGHTH OR NINTH DUI SECOND THAT YOU'VE LISTENED TO, OR THE EIGHTH OR NINTH RED LIGHT INTERSECTION COLLISION THAT YOU'VE HEARD DURING THAT TERM OF COURT, I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT IT'S PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE THAT THOSE LITIGANTS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, AND IT'S FRESH TO THEM, AND IT'S THE ONLY THING THEY'RE THERE FOR. AND I BELIEVE, IF WE CAN FOCUS OURSELVES IN THAT DIRECTION, THAT SOMEHOW THE BOREDOM CAN BE OVERCOME. AND AS I SAID, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A WHILE -- IF I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE ELECTED TO THIS POSITION -- IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE FOR ME TO GET BORED, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO LEARN BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.
Q MR. COOPER, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT, EFFECTIVE LAST JULY WAS THE SO-CALLED NO-PLEDGE RULE.
A YES, SIR.
Q I ASSUME YOU CAN VERIFY FOR US THAT YOU'VE OBTAINED NO COMMITMENTS OR PLEDGES FOR THIS RACE?
A YES, SIR, I CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I'LL ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SENATOR LOURIE: MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXAMINATION BY SENATOR LOURIE:

Q MR. COOPER, I THINK HUMILITY IS PROBABLY AS MUCH OF IMPORTANCE AS ANYTHING A JUDGE CAN TAKE ONTO THE BENCH.
SENATOR LOURIE: AND BY THE WAY, I WANT TO OBSERVE TO MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK IT'S NOTEWORTHY THAT NONE OF THE MEMBERS RUNNING FOR THIS POSITION ARE LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS; IT'S ALL A NON-LEGISLATIVE CONTEST.
Q AND ONE OF THE ASSETS, I THINK, OF EVEN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS, AS YOU GO FROM GAS STATION TO GAS STATION ON A HOT SPRING DAY, AND STORE TO STORE, YOU LEARN HUMILITY.
A YES, SIR.
Q SO I WOULD SAY THAT MY GREATEST CONCERN WITH SOME MEMBERS I'VE SEEN GO ON THE BENCH -- ALTHOUGH, I MUST SAY, IN SOUTH CAROLINA, IT'S BEEN A RARE OCCASION -- IS JUDICIAL ARROGANCE.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS BECOME VERY CONSCIOUS OF THAT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE TO ME ABOUT YOU OTHERWISE THAN THAT YOU WOULD KEEP SUCH HUMILITY AND FAIRNESS, AS I'VE HEARD ABOUT ALL THE CANDIDATES.
A THANK YOU.
Q I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT, OR NOT.
A WELL, SIR, I THINK -- I KNOW I CAN AGREE WITH IT, AND I WOULD IMAGINE ALL OF US COULD. HAVING FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN THE VICTIM OF JUDICIAL ARROGANCE, I WOULD TEND TO REMEMBER THAT AND NOT TRY TO INFLICT IT ON ANYONE ELSE. ARROGANCE IS NOT A PART OF MY PERSONALITY. I SAY THAT NOT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT WAY. AND I CAN'T CLAIM ANY CREDIT FOR IT. HUMILITY COMES MORE NATURALLY TO ME BECAUSE I'VE PROBABLY GOT PLENTY OF REASONS TO BE HUMBLE, AND IT FALLS MORE NATURALLY TO ME THAN DOES ARROGANCE. I'VE NEVER HAD THE SELF-CONFIDENCE, PERHAPS, OR THE ASSURANCE ENOUGH TO BE ARROGANT ABOUT WHATEVER I DO. AND I WOULD NOT HAVE THAT ABOUT A JUDICIAL POSITION EITHER, FOR MANY REASONS; NOT ONLY IS IT NOT PART OF MY PERSONALITY, BUT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ARROGANCE REFLECTS POORLY, I THINK, ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM ITSELF, AS WELL AS ON THE LAWYERS AND LITIGANTS AND EVERYONE ELSE. I THINK IT IMPEDES JUSTICE, REALLY, RATHER THAN FACILITATES IT.
Q SURELY, A LAWYER AND A LITIGANT ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURT.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU KNOW, IF THE JUDGE UNNECESSARILY ADMONISHES YOU, YOU HAVE TO SIT THERE AND TAKE IT.
A THAT'S RIGHT. YES, SIR.
Q MY GOOD FRIEND, JUDGE ALEX SANDERS LIKES TO SAY ABOUT FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES, ONCE THEY GET APPOINTED, THEY SEEM TO THINK THEY'RE DIVINELY ENDOWED, FOR SOME REASON. I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT ON OUR STATE BENCH.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THOSE ARE VERY APPROPRIATE WORDS, AND I DO THINK, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES, THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED IN QUESTIONS OF TEMPERAMENT, HARD WORK, HUMILITY, I THINK, SO ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO BE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS -- MR. COOPER WAS KIND OF PICKED ON, SINCE HE WAS FIRST. SO ALL OF YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO PROVIDE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN OF YOUR PARTICULAR INSIGHT INTO THESE AREAS, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE COMPLAINT THAT, ON OCCASION, WE HEAR, AND I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT RARE, BUT IT'S QUITE MEANINGFUL TO THE PERSON WHO IS ON THE RECEIVING END OF THAT ARROGANCE OR THAT GRIEVANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE AN ABERRATION OF THE DAYS. AS YOU SAID, MR. COOPER, A PERSON WHO IS IN COURT IS USUALLY THERE ONE TIME, FOR THAT CASE, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THAT PERSON. WE THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES, SIR. MR. HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS, AND THAT ISSUE, AND JUST COVER A FEW AREAS, IF I COULD, MR. COOPER.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q THE FIRST IS, I NOTICED IN YOUR PACKAGE, YOU SAID YOU DID BASICALLY 40 PERCENT JURY WORK AND 60 PERCENT NON-JURY, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE.
A YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WAS YOUR PRACTICE FOCUSED ON ONE PARTICULAR SIDE, PLAINTIFF'S OR DEFENSE, IN THE TRIAL WORK?
A PROBABLY MORE PLAINTIFF-ORIENTED. IN A SMALL TOWN LIKE MANNING, MOST OF THE DEFENSE LAWYERS COME IN FROM OUT OF TOWN IN FANCY CARS AND DARK SUITS, AND WE HAVE ON MANY OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, BEEN -- IN LATER YEARS -- BEEN ASSOCIATE COUNSEL FOR A LOT OF THE DEFENSE FIRMS WHO COME TO OUR COUNTY TO TRY CASES, BUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF OUR WORK -- OF MY WORK -- WOULD BE PLAINTIFF-ORIENTED.
Q AND I LOOKED IN YOUR PACKET; YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR CRIMINAL TRIAL EXPERIENCE, AND APPARENTLY YOU PHASED THAT OUT OR CUT BACK ON THAT A FEW YEARS AGO, TO CONCENTRATE ON OTHER AREAS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q WITH THE GROWING NUMBER OF CASES THAT WE SEE IN THE CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM, DO YOU SEE THAT AS A SHORTCOMING, AT ALL, AS YOU WOULD ASCEND TO THE BENCH?
A IT WOULD TEMPORARILY -- I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PREPARE AGAIN FOR THE CRIMINAL SIDE; THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I'VE NOT BEEN IN CRIMINAL COURT SINCE ABOUT 1986 OR 1987. AND IT WAS DONE CONSCIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT OUR FIRM DID EXPAND, AND WE HAD FOUR MEMBERS IN OUR OFFICE, AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL FOR ALL OF US TO PRACTICE CRIMINAL LAW. I PHASED OUT OF THAT AND THE FAMILY COURT PRACTICE, AND ALLOWED TWO OF THE OTHER MEMBERS, WHO DID THAT AND DID MORE OF IT, TO FOCUS ON IT. I TOOK SOME THINGS THEY WERE DOING; THEY TOOK SOME OF THOSE THINGS I WAS DOING. I ENJOYED THE CRIMINAL PRACTICE WHEN I DID IT, AND I HAD A FAIR DEGREE OF SUCCESS AT IT DURING THE LATER YEARS OF MY PRACTICE, SO IT WAS NOT THAT I WAS RUNNING FROM IT, IN THAT SENSE OF THE WORD. HOWEVER, I DO FEEL THAT I COULD GET MYSELF RE-ADJUSTED IN THAT AREA. I'VE LEARNED IT ONCE, AND I THINK I CAN LEARN IT AGAIN. IT'LL TAKE AWHILE TO DO, BUT I THINK, GIVEN THE GUIDANCE THAT I WOULD HAVE AND THE TIME I WOULD HAVE TO DEVOTE TO IT, THE WAY I WOULD APPROACH IT, I COULD OVERCOME WHATEVER IMMEDIATE DEFICIENCIES THAT MIGHT CREATE.
Q THE LAST QUESTION I'VE GOT DEALS WITH BAR ENDORSEMENTS. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AS WE ALL KNOW, HAS TAKEN A STRONG STAND ON THE BARS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE SCREENING PROCESS, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIKE THE ABA IN THE FUTURE AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS.
A RIGHT.
Q I'M CURIOUS ABOUT LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN YOUR CIRCUIT. HAVE YOU SOLICITED THE ENDORSEMENT OF YOUR BAR, OR HAS THE BAR OF ANY OF THE COUNTIES ENDORSED YOUR CANDIDACY?
A THE BAR OF MY OWN COUNTY HAS ENDORSED ME, YES. THE CLARENDON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION. THE ENDORSEMENT, I THINK, ARRIVED HERE TOO LATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE, BUT IT WAS SENT UP, AND MY BAR ASSOCIATION DID ENDORSE ME. YES, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. COOPER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
MR. COOPER: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. COOPER: THANK YOU, SIR.
(WHEREUPON, THOMAS W. COOPER, JR., STANDS ASIDE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS MARTHA MCELVEEN HORNE.
WHEREUPON, MARTHA MCELVEEN HORNE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q MS. HORNE, YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND IS IT CORRECT?
A IT IS BASICALLY CORRECT. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE PERMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE TO AMEND TWO PORTIONS, IF I MAY.
Q IF YOU WOULD DIRECT US TO WHICH PARAGRAPHS.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR. IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION 31, WHICH WAS NOT DIRECTLY INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, "HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SUED PERSONALLY OR PROFESSIONALLY?" -- THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED, I BELIEVE, IN THE COMMITTEE-PREPARED PACKAGE -- I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT, IN THE JOURNAL, IT BE ADDED: THE FINDINGS OF SLED REPORT A91-0177 INDICATE I WAS NAMED AS A CO-DEFENDANT, IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY, IN TWO FEDERAL LAWSUITS THAT WERE BROUGHT BY TWO ARMED ROBBERY CO-DEFENDANTS THAT I PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED. THE SUITS WERE FILED AND DISMISSED IN 1985, AND PRIOR TO RECEIVING THE SLED REPORT, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THESE LAWSUITS, AS I WAS NEVER SERVED OR CALLED UPON TO RESPOND TO THOSE SUITS. I DID REFER TO THESE ACTIONS AT QUESTION 17(C). I CITED THE CASES AS BEING ONE -- THAT CASE AS BEING ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT LITIGATED MATTERS THAT I'VE HANDLED DURING MY CAREER. SO THE COMMITTEE DOES HAVE REFERENCE TO THE CASE, BUT I STATED IN QUESTION 31 THAT I HAD NEVER BEEN SUED, AS I WAS NOT SERVED OR NOTIFIED THAT I HAD BEEN NAMED AS A PARTY.
Q THESE WERE INMATE SUITS --
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 1983?
A YES, SIR. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW, OTHER THAN THE SLED REPORT SAYS IT WAS CIVIL ACTIONS FILED BY THESE INMATES AND THAT THEY WERE FILED IN THE SUMMER OF '85 AND DISMISSED WITHIN TWO MONTHS.
Q WE WILL NOTE -- YOUR SUMMARY WILL STAND AMENDED AS YOU JUST READ.
A THANK YOU. THE OTHER IS SIMPLY A TECHNICALITY, IN REFERENCE TO QUESTION 39, "PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS." I CURRENTLY SERVE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND THE LAWYER/PHYSICIAN RELATIONSHIPS COMMITTEE. THE DATES SHOULD BE 1991-92, RATHER THAN 1990, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT ERROR. OTHER THAN THAT, EVERYTHING IS CORRECT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL INCLUDE THIS SUMMARY, AS AMENDED, AS PART OF THE RECORD.
MS. HORNE: THANK YOU.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Martha McElveen Horne
Home Address: Business Address:
710 Reynolds Road 107 East Hampton Street
Sumter, SC 29150 Sumter, SC 29150

2. She was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on December 4, 1953. She is presently 38 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to Terrell Thomas Horne on May 21, 1983. She has one child: Elizabeth McElveen, age 3.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Clemson University at Sumter, 1971-1973 (transfer to University of South Carolina); the University of South Carolina, B.A., May, 1975, cum laude; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D., May, 1978.

7. In law school she was a law clerk with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, 1976-1978; Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity, 1976-1978; and Law School Graduation Committee, 1978.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1983-1990 Attended the annual three-day Solicitors' Conference Seminars each year

1984 Completed Northwestern University Law School's 39th Annual Short Course for Prosecuting Attorneys

1985 South Carolina Bar "Child Sexual Assault Seminar" and "Criminal Trial Advocacy"; Attorney General's Office "Civil Forfeiture Seminar" and "Law Enforcement Leadership Conference"

1986 South Carolina Bar Seminar on "Law and the Art of Living"

1987 South Carolina Bar Seminar "Personal Financial Considerations for Lawyers"; South Carolina Bar Trial and Appellate Advocacy Section Seminar "How to Win Your Case before the Evidence is Presented"; South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section Seminar "Homicide, Criminal Sexual Conduct, Mitigation of Assault Cases, and Death Penalty Update"

1988 South Carolina Bar Seminar "How to Deal with the Press"; South Carolina Bar Employment and Labor Law Seminar

1989 South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section Seminar "Nuts and Bolts of Juvenile Law"; South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Seminar "Accident Reconstruction: Getting the Facts from Your Expert"

1991 "Reducing the Risks of Law Enforcement Operations" three-day course at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy with emphasis on City of Canton v. Harris civil lawsuits; South Carolina Bar Employment and Labor Law/Military Law Section Seminar on Employee Handbooks, Disclaimers, Reemployment of Veterans and Related Issues; South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section BAC Data Master Seminar

9. Courses taught of lectures given:

April, 1989: Speaker on Evidence and Trial Preparation at the South Carolina Council on Welfare Fraud Conference

1983-1991: Sumter County Reserve Officer Training Class Instructor. Courses taught include Constitutional Law, Evidence and Testifying in Court

1985-1990: Paralegal and Criminal Justice Instructor at Sumter Area Technical College. Courses taught include Torts, Workmen's Compensation, Professional Responsibility, South Carolina Legal Systems, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law, Domestic Law, and Government

10. Published Books or Articles:

1986-1987: Domestic Violence Handbook, Published by the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Committee on Spouse Abuse of which she was a member. The project was conceived by her and the approved American Bar Association (ABA) grant request was prepared by her. The publication won an ABA First Place Public Service Award and is still being used by service providers.

June, 1986: Ethical Considerations, Published by the Disciplinary Newsletter Committee of the South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division of which she was Chairman and Editor.

1985: You and the Law, 1985 WRJA-ETV Television Series where local attorneys appeared to discuss legal topics of general interest. The program was created, organized, coordinated and scripted by her with assistance from the program host and WRJA staff.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Judicial Research Aide, Circuit Court
Honorable Ernest A. Finney, Jr.
P. O. Drawer 1309, Sumter, SC 29151
August, 1978 - April, 1979

State Attorney
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Child Support Division
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
April, 1979 - March, 1981

Assistant Attorney General
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Criminal Appeals Division
P. O. Box 11549, Columbia, SC 29211
March, 1981 - May, 1983

Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Full-time prosecutor in Third Circuit Courts of General Sessions and Family Courts
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC
May, 1983 - August, 1984

Deputy Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Chief Assistant Solicitor for Third Judicial Circuit, prosecuting cases in General Sessions Court, supervising Family Court cases
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC 29150
August, 1984 - January, 1987

Part-Time Instructor, Criminal Justice and Paralegal Programs
Sumter Area Technical College
506 Guignard Drive, Sumter, SC 29150
September, 1985 - December, 1990

Sumter County Prosecutor
Part-time contract with Sumter County Council to prosecute jury trial criminal cases in Sumter County Magistrate Court
October, 1986 - December, 1990

Assistant Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit
Part-time prosecutor assigned to Sumter County and Lee County
Sumter County Courthouse, Sumter, SC
January, 1987 - December, 1990

Attorney at Law
Sole practice limited to civil matters
621 West Liberty Street, Sumter, SC 29150
January, 1987 - present
Prosecuting Attorney for the City of Sumter
Part-time contract with Sumter City Council to prosecute jury trial criminal cases in Sumter City Court
January, 1988 - present

Attorney and Legal Advisor, City of Sumter Police Department
Sumter Law Enforcement Center
107 East Hampton Street, Sumter, SC 29150
January 7, 1991 - present

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - 1985-1990: 15-25 weeks per year in General Sessions; 10-15 weeks in Magistrate Court, City Court, Family Court, and non-jury Common Pleas
Other - 0

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 1%
Criminal - 98%
Domestic - 1%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 98% - Sole Counsel or Chief Counsel
Non-jury - 2% - Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Edmundo Rodriguez, 279 S.C. 106, 302 SE2d 666 (1983). State Appellate Counsel. The case addressed state jurisdiction over federal land and whether the South Carolina Code Section 16-17-490, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, requires proof that Defendant's conduct caused the victim to willfully injure her morals.

(b) State v. James Paul Lilly, 278 S.C. 499, 299 SE2d 329 (1983). State Appellate Counsel. Case of first impression declaring possession with intent to distribute marijuana a crime of moral turpitude.

(c) State v. Alfred Augustus Green aka Muhammad Isa Muniyr and Nathaniel Zuell aka Islam Zuell, 83-GS43-703 (Judgment Roll Number 14974). Sole trial counsel for State. Defendants were convicted in April, 1984, of armed robbery and conspiracy. According to a non-indicted, testifying Co-Defendant, Defendants were the leaders of a Muslim gang responsible for a number of Sumter armed robberies and were apprehended on their way to a planned armed robbery. The trial involved working with the testifying Co-Defendant and numerous eyewitnesses as well as preparation of expert witnesses. It also involved unique Fourth Amendment search and seizure motions as to the admissibility of the gun and other evidence seized on the date of their apprehension. The Defendant Green's internal FBI sheet reflected numerous New York arrests for violent crimes with no convictions (i.e., assault on a police officer, armed assault, armed robbery, etc.). The Defendants were hostile toward the Court and law enforcement throughout the trial. Because of their religious beliefs, they were particularly hostile toward a woman prosecutor. It was significant to the safety of the Sumter community and law enforcement in general to obtain this conviction. Convictions were affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.

(d) State v. Calvin Stansbury, 86-GS43-508. (Judgment Roll Number 16347). Sole Trial Counsel for State. Defendant, a convicted child molester, was charged with molestation of the 2 1/2 year old granddaughter of his girlfriend. The incident was alleged to have occurred at grandmother's home. When the child returned home, she complained to her mother of the attack. The case involved preparation of an extremely non-verbal toddler, res gestae testimony of mother, and expert medical testimony from Charleston, South Carolina child abuse expert Sara Schuh, M.D. The State had an uphill battle because of the child's limited ability to explain what happened and the time lapse between outcry and the offense. (It was the State's position that she was too young to fabricate her complaint, that she could not give outcry to the grandmother/girlfriend who was seated at defense table during trial and listed as a defense witness, and that expert medical testimony substantiated the abuse.) Extensive pre-trial motions and in camera testimony from the child and her mother resulted in favorable rulings as to competence and res gestae admissibility. However, at the conclusion of the State's case, the Court reversed its previous rulings and directed a verdict in favor of the Defendant. She believes that statewide attention afforded this directed verdict contributed to significant legislative changes that have improved the courtroom for child victims while preserving the constitutionally protected rights of criminal defendants. She also believes this is a good example of the difficult decisions that our trial courts face each day.

(e) State v. Walter Brunson and Chris Idlett, 90-GS43-508. Sole Trial Counsel for State. These 17-year old Defendants were convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Both Defendants had juvenile records and were reportedly members of a group that calls itself "The Sumter Junior Black Mafia." While on bond and awaiting trial for this offense, Idlett participated in unprovoked gun-play at a Lee County night club that resulted in the death of a young woman. While on bond and awaiting trial for this offense, Brunson was caught with an adult cooking crack in a known crack house. It was clear from the Defendants' actions while on bond and their courtroom demeanor that they believed that their youth would protect them from criminal accountability. This successful prosecution assisted in the disposition of the Lee County murder charges. It also sent a message to the young people of the community who have "bought" the adult drug dealers' line that young people will not be held accountable for selling drugs. Perhaps this will compel some young person to reevaluate the risks associated with the big money promised for drug dealing. After conviction, the Court sentenced the Defendants to 15 years each. The convictions have been affirmed, but the cases were remanded for resentencing consideration. Each Defendant received youthful offender incarceration on October 8, 1991.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

Although she has not directly handled any civil appeals, she has handled numerous criminal appeals during her two-year tenure as an Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Criminal Appeals Division. She has taken the liberty of listing five of these published opinions under Question 19. It is also significant to note that her law clerk duties as a student and as a judicial research aide required extensive research, brief writing, and trial preparation in both civil and criminal matters.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) In the Interest of Jessie Smith, 277 S.C. 187, 284 SE2d 586 (1981): Res Gestae Ruling

(b) State v. Barrett and Olson, 278 S.C. 92, 292 SE2d 590 (1982) cert. den.
103 SCt 388: Constitutionality of State Pornography Law

(c) State v. Sloan, 278 S.C. 435, 298 SE2d 92 (1982): Death Penalty Appeal

(d) State v. Donald Ray Perry, 278 S.C. 490, 299 SE2d 324 (1983) cert. den.
103 SCt 1881: Murder Conviction Appeal

(e) State v. Dean, et al., 282 S.C. 136, 317 SE2d 744 (1984): Appeal from Trafficking Conviction on arrest/search and seizure issues

22. Public Office:

1979-1983: Appointed to serve as State Attorney and Assistant Attorney General at the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General. Primary responsibilities were to the Child Support Division (1979-1981) and the Criminal Appeals Division (1981-1983). She also served as counsel to a number of boards and agencies, including the Commission on Women, the South Carolina Board of Cosmetology, and the South Carolina Children's Bureau.

1983-1990: Appointed to serve as Third Judicial Circuit Assistant Solicitor

1987-1990: Appointed by Sumter County Council to serve as County Prosecutor for jury trials in Magistrate Court

1988-present: Appointed by Sumter City Council to serve as City Prosecutor for City Court jury trials

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Her parents own Empire Cycle Company, 621 West Liberty Street, Sumter, SC 29150. During junior high school, high school, college and law school, she worked with them after school, on weekends, summer break and Christmas vacation (1966-1978). She continued to help them at the shop during the Christmas season as her Court schedule permitted until the birth of her daughter in 1988. She still occasionally "helps out" if there is an emergency or if her schedule permits. She was a student law clerk, South Carolina Attorney General's Office, 1976-1978.
25. Officer or Director: She was elected to the SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union Board of Directors in March, 1989. Her term expires in March, 1992. She is currently a candidate for reelection to this volunteer board. She is the Fifth Congressional District Representative on the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors (elected June, 1990). Her term expires in June, 1993. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Sumter County Chapter of the American Red Cross (term expires May, 1992), the 1991 Sumter United Way Campaign and the Sumter Crimestoppers Board (ex-officio, non-expiring).

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
She is a member of the SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union Board of Directors. Her term expires in March, 1992. She is currently a candidate for reelection to this volunteer board. If she is appointed to the bench, she will resign from the board and/or remove her name from consideration for reelection. She is the Fifth Congressional District Representative on the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors. Her term expires in June, 1993. If she is appointed to the bench, she will resign from the Board of Governors. She is an ex officio member of the Crimestoppers Board. If appointed to the bench, she will resign because this board discusses matters upon which she may be called to act. She will also resign from the United Way Board as its primary purpose is the direct solicitation of charitable pledges and contributions. She knows of no other conflicts. However, she is fully prepared to follow the direction of the Chief Justice and the Code of Judicial Conduct, resigning from activities deemed to have an appearance of impropriety.

33. Her health is good. Her last physical examination was August 5, 1991 with Dr. James Stands, Palmetto Ob/Gyn Associates, P.A., 1333 Taylor Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 254-1300.

34. Hospitalized: Her only hospitalization or over ten-day absence from work was hospitalization and maternity leave related to the birth of her daughter in 1988.

35. She wears contact lens/eyeglasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Young Lawyer of the Year, 1989-1990; Member, South Carolina Bar Board of Governors, 1990-present; Member, South Carolina Bar House of Delegates, 1988-1990; Chairman, Executive Council of the South Carolina Bar Resolution of Fee Disputes Board, 1989-present; Member, South Carolina Bar Long-Range Planning Committee, 1991-92; Member, South Carolina Bar Lawyer/Physician Relationship Committee, 1991-92; Member, South Carolina Bar Board of Governors, 1987-1988; South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Executive Council, Immediate Past President 1987-1988, President 1986-1987, President-Elect 1985-1986; Secretary 1984-1985, Treasurer 1983-1984, Second Congressional District Representative 1982-1983; Member, Domestic Violence Publication Project, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division, 1986-1987 (publication received an American Bar Association First Place Award in 1987); Chairman and Editor of Ethical Consideration, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Divisions disciplinary newsletter, 1985-1986; Member, Sumter County Bar Association Committee on Professional Problems, 1986; Member, Sumter County Bar Association Law Day Committee, 1985; Chairman/Co-Chairman, South Carolina Bar Young Lawyers Division Sumter County Community Law Week, 1985 and 1986; Columbia Young Lawyers Club, President 1982-1983, Treasurer 1981-1982; Member, American Bar Association; Member, South Carolina Bar; Member, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Member, South Carolina Bar Family Law Section; Member, South Carolina Bar Criminal Law Section; Member, South Carolina Bar Trial/Appellate Advocacy Section; Member, Sumter County Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, Crimestoppers Advisory Board, 1983-present; Member, Board of Directors, American Red Cross, Sumter County Chapter, 1986-present; Member, Board of Directors, SAFE (Shaw Air Force Employees) Federal Credit Union, 1989-present; Sumter United Way Campaign, 1991-1992; Sumter County Alliance for Law Enforcement, President 1987-1988; Vice-President 1986-1987; Chairman, Sumter County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, August 1985 - August 1989; Speaker, 1991 Career Day, St. John's Elementary School (Sumter School District 2); Speaker, 1991 D.A.R.E. Graduations at St. Jude's Elementary, Alice Drive Elementary School (Sumter School District 17) and Lemira Elementary School (Sumter School District 17); Speaker, Mayor's Annual Prayer Breakfast, 1990; Volunteer, Habitat for Humanity, 1988-1989; Member, Board of Directors, The Forum, 1987-1988; Sumter County Legal Auxiliary, Vice President 1991-present, Chairman Publicity Committee 1987-1988, Chairman Membership Committee 1986-1987; Co-Chairman, Education and Funds Crusade, American Cancer Society, Sumter Division, 1983-1984; Sumter County YWCA Tribute to Women and Industry honoree, 1986; Member, Criminal Justice Advisory Board and Paralegal Advisory Boards, Sumter Area Technical College, 1985-1990; Member, Sumter County Child Abuse and Neglect Treatment Advisory Team, 1983-1987; Member, YWCA Domestic and Sexual Violence Advisory Board, 1985; Member, Daughters of the American Revolution; Member, Sumter Junior Welfare League, Co-Editor Light of the Lantern (newspaper); Member, Sumter United Way $500 Plus Club for Leadership Giving; Member, University of South Carolina Gamecock Club; Member, Camellia Ball, Sumter, SC, Publicity Chairman 1990; Member, Sunset Country Club, Sumter, SC; Member, YMCA of Sumter; Member, Grace Baptist Church, Sumter, SC, Nursery Duty Volunteer and Bereavement Committee

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Meree M. McAlister, Vice President
Citizens and Southern National Bank of S. C.
P. O. Box 1249, Sumter, SC 29151

(b) Ernest A. Finney, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 836, Sumter, SC 29151

(c) William Douglas Gray, Esquire
P. O. Box 4086, Anderson, SC 29622

(d) I. S. Leevy Johnson, Esquire
P. O. Box 1431, Columbia, SC 29202

(e) Honorable O. V. Player, Jr.
Sumter County Clerk of Court
Sumter, SC 29150

Q WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, SUMTER COUNTY, AND SUMTER CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE SLED AND FBI, AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOU'VE ALREADY AMENDED, AS TO THE SUITS.
A RIGHT.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS REPORTED TO BE VERY GOOD.
A YES, SIR.
Q WE FURTHER NOTE THAT YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND THEY ARE SATISFACTORY. NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES HAVE NOTIFIED US THAT THEY INTEND TO BE PRESENT TODAY.

MS. HORNE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT FOR A JUDGE?
A MR. CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE, AS A COURTROOM ATTORNEY, AND ONE WHO -- FROM 1983 TO 1990, I SPENT ABOUT ONE-HALF OF EACH YEAR IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS. I BELIEVE IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE -- BECAUSE REALLY, THAT'S WHAT COURT IS ALL ABOUT, IS, THE COURT IS THERE TO DEAL WITH HUMAN PROBLEMS AND HUMAN NEEDS IN A MANNER THAT CAN MAKE THEM OFFICIALLY AND LEGALLY -- IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE NOT DUKING IT OUT, BUT GOING TO COURT TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY HELP THEM SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES. I THINK THAT SOMEONE MUST HAVE AN EVEN TEMPER, AND WHAT THE DEFINITION OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT REALLY IS, IS SOMEONE WHO CAN SOMEWHAT STAND ABOVE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN FRONT OF HIM AND MAKE THEIR DECISIONS. I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE JUDICIARY, AND I'M VERY PROUD AND HAPPY THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING THAT, IN DETERMINING THE QUALIFICATIONS. IF I WERE TO TELL YOU WHAT I THINK JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS, I THINK I COULD SUM IT UP BY SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A PUBLIC SERVANT AND, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, I THINK THAT IT GIVES YOU A SPECIAL COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC; AND THAT IS, THAT I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT EVERY PERSON AND EVERY SITUATION SHOULD BE TREATED WITH AS MUCH RESPECT AS THAT SITUATION AND THAT PERSON WILL ALLOW. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BEING A DOOR-MAT, AND I CERTAINLY AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LOSING CONTROL OVER A SITUATION IF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING CONTROL, BUT I THINK THAT POWER IS A TOOL THAT YOU USE WHEN IT IS NECESSARY; THAT YOU DON'T WALK INTO A SITUATION SAYING, "I'VE GOT THIS LITTLE BIT OF POWER, AND I'M GOING TO SHOVE EVERYBODY AROUND AND I'M GOING TO USE IT." YOU WALK IN SAYING, "I WILL TREAT YOU WITH RESPECT. I WILL TREAT YOUR NEEDS AND YOUR CONCERNS WITH RESPECT, AND WITH AS MUCH RESPECT AS YOU ALLOW ME TO DO." I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SAY -- AND I THINK THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW HIM WILL APPRECIATE THIS -- THAT I'VE LEARNED THIS CONCEPT VERY EARLY; I HAD THE PLEASURE OF BEING THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT LAW CLERK FOR ERNEST FINNEY, WHO IS NOW ASSOCIATE JUSTICE FINNEY, AND THAT'S THE WAY HE RAN HIS COURTROOM. I NEVER SAW HIM LOSE CONTROL OF THE COURTROOM, AND I NEVER SAW HIM TREAT ANY LAWYER OR ANY LITIGANT WITH ANYTHING BUT RESPECT. I THINK THAT THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE LAWYERS, AND THAT THE LAWYERS THAT COME TO THEIR COURT ARE PRACTICING THE PROFESSION THAT PUT THE BLACK ROBE ON THEM, AND PRACTICING THE PROFESSION THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTING. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE THEM ARE THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LEGAL MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE HANDLED. THAT MATTER IS IMPORTANT TO THEM, AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK A JUDGE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT. I ALSO THINK THAT A JUDGE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT THE JURORS WHO ARE IN THEIR COURTROOM ARE THERE AT SOME PERSONAL EXPENSE. THEY HAVE WORK; THEY HAVE PERSONAL LIVES THAT THEY ARE PUTTING ON HOLD TO BE THERE, TO SERVE AS JUDGES -- IMPARTIAL JUDGES -- IN THE CASES. I THINK IF A JUDGE REMEMBERS THAT HE IS A LAWYER, THAT HE IS A HUMAN BEING, I THINK THAT THAT PERSON CAN BE SOMEONE WHO MAINTAINS A FAIR AND EVEN TEMPERAMENT THAT I BELIEVE REPRESENTS JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT.
Q MS. HORNE, ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, IT'S NOTED THAT YOUR PRACTICE IS PREDOMINANTLY CRIMINAL?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q 98 PERCENT, I THINK YOU SAID?
A YES, SIR.
Q TO WHAT EXTENT, IN THE PAST, HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN CIVIL TRIAL WORK?
A CIVIL TRIAL WORK -- OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S NO QUESTION -- HAS NOT BEEN SOMETHING THAT I HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT I SERVED AS A LAW CLERK IN LAW SCHOOL AND AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND IN THAT CAPACITY, I HAD OCCASION TO WORK WITH SOME WONDERFUL ATTORNEYS IN CIVIL MATTERS, ASSISTING THEM IN PREPARING PLEADINGS AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL. I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, AS JUDGE FINNEY'S LAW CLERK, I HAD THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE AND PARTICIPATE IN CIVIL MATTERS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT, BECAUSE MY HUSBAND IS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY -- HE HAS A TAX DEGREE; HE'S A BUSINESS LAWYER -- I KEEP UP WITH IT INDIRECTLY, THROUGH HIM. I TRY TO MAINTAIN, BY READING THE CASES -- OBVIOUSLY, NOT AS CAREFULLY AS I DO MY CRIMINAL CASES. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT IS NOT MY FORTE. HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT WITH TIME AND WITH EFFORT, WHICH I AM WILLING TO PUT FORTH, THAT I CAN MAKE UP FOR ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT I MAY HAVE IN THAT AREA. I THINK I HAVE THE FOUNDATION AND THE TOOLS TO DO SO.
Q FROM THE POINT OF BEING A RELATIVELY YOUNG PERSON, BEING OBVIOUSLY VERY EXPERIENCED IN THE TRIAL OF CASES, DO YOU FEEL THAT WOULD BE -- WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE PASSIVE ROLE THAT A JUDGESHIP WOULD BRING UPON YOU?
A SENATOR, IT'S INTERESTING THAT QUITE OFTEN PEOPLE SAY 'YOUNG' WHEN THEY LOOK AT ME. I FEEL REAL OLD, AND I FEEL LIKE I LOOK REAL OLD. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING 13 YEARS, AND I AM 38 YEARS OLD. I RECOGNIZE THAT ANY CHANGE IN YOUR LIFE REQUIRES SOME ADJUSTMENT. I WAS A PROSECUTOR, AND A VERY ACTIVE PROSECUTOR, FOR SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS; I'M NOW THE ATTORNEY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I MAINTAIN AN ACTIVE ROLE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, BUT I'M NOT IN THERE FIGHTING WITH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AND ARGUING TO THE JURY; AND I MISS THAT. HOWEVER, I HAVE -- I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH ME WILL TELL YOU -- ADJUSTED TO THAT CHANGE, THAT I'M DOING A GOOD JOB AT WHAT I'M DOING, BUT IT IS A MORE PASSIVE ROLE, AND I WOULD VIEW AN ELECTION TO THE BENCH AS A CHANGE, AGAIN. AND AS YOU NOTED, IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A MUCH MORE PASSIVE ROLE THAN BEING A PROSECUTOR, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT ABOUT BEING A JUDGE, SUCH AS I'VE MENTIONED EARLIER -- SOMEONE WHO CARES ABOUT PEOPLE, SOMEONE WHO RESPECTS THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AS I BELIEVE MY VOLUNTEER SERVICE WITH THE STATE BAR SHOWS THAT I LOVE BEING A LAWYER, AND I'M PROUD OF MY PROFESSION, AND I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THE PUBLIC HOW WONDERFUL WE ARE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T, QUITE OFTEN, FEEL THAT WAY. I THINK THEY SAY USED CAR SALESMEN ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT RATE BELOW US, WHENEVER YOU DO SURVEYS ABOUT "WHO DO YOU LIKE?" AS FAR AS PROFESSIONS, AND STATISTICS. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, STATISTICS SHOW THAT AS A PROFESSION, WE VOLUNTEER PRO BONO WORK -- AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT I CALL THE INVOLUNTARY VOLUNTARY WORK, WHERE YOU GET COURT-ORDERED TO DO FREE WORK; BUT ACTUALLY COMMITTEE SERVICE, COMMUNITY SERVICE. AS A PROFESSION, WE DO MORE THAN ANY PROFESSION -- ANY RECOGNIZED PROFESSION -- STATISTICALLY, AND I JUST THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO COME FROM PEOPLE WHO LOVE THE LAW AND LIKE PEOPLE, THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT.
AND I DO THINK IT WOULD BE EXCITING, BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SET THAT FORWARD, AND I THINK THAT WOULD COUNTERACT ANY TYPE OF CONCERN ABOUT IT BEING PASSIVE.
Q MS. HORNE, AS CONCERNS TO THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, I TAKE IT YOU HAVE NOT OBTAINED ANY PLEDGES?
A NO, SIR. I HAVE NOT CONTACTED ANY LEGISLATORS, OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LETTER OF INTENT THAT I SENT OUT SHORTLY AFTER JUDGE LANEY ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS RETIRING. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT I'M JOE MCELVEEN'S SISTER, AND I THINK Y'ALL ALL KNOW HOW HE FEELS ABOUT THE PROHIBITION ON PLEDGES, SO I'VE NOT CONTACTED ANYONE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HORNE?
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: TOM, I DO.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS:

Q MS. HORNE, I APPRECIATE YOUR STAND ON HOW YOU THINK A JUDGE SHOULD CONDUCT THE COURT.
A THANK YOU, SIR.
Q COULD YOU KINDLY -- RELATED TO THE STANDING OF USED CAR DEALERS AND THINGS, WHERE DOES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY COME IN, IN THAT RATING?
A WELL, SIR, IN MY OPINION, I THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE RATED REAL HIGH. IN FACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, IF YOU'D ASKED ME FOR OPENING REMARKS, I WANTED TO DO WAS THANK THIS COMMITTEE FOR THE TIME. I KNOW ALL OF YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN SESSION, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. AND IF I MAY BE SO BOLD, I'D ESPECIALLY LIKE TO THANK ATTORNEY PAULA BENSON FOR HER ASSISTANCE, AND TO PUBLICLY COMMEND BARBARA SATTERWHITE FOR HER PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY. SHE IS WONDERFUL. SHE HAS MADE A DIFFICULT TASK MUCH EASIER. AND I THINK PROBABLY EVERYONE WHO IS HERE TODAY WOULD JOIN ME IN SAYING THAT SHE IS JUST A GREAT EMPLOYEE, AND SOMEONE WHO WE SHOULD ALL BE PROUD TO HAVING WORKING FOR THE STATE. LIKE ANY PROFESSION, I'M SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AT THE TOP, BUT MY DEALINGS WITH THE LEGISLATURE, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I PERSONALLY THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE UP THERE AT THE TOP. BUT I THINK LAWYERS SHOULD BE UP AT THE TOP, TOO, AND THEY'RE NOT, SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE WITH THE PUBLIC.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q MS. HORNE, YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR BROTHER ARE INVOLVED IN AN EXTENSIVE TRIAL PRACTICE --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- IN THE SUMTER AREA. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT OR DISCUSSED HOW YOU WOULD HANDLE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE SO INVOLVED IN THAT JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, AND, I PRESUME, HAVING A TRIAL PRACTICE THAT TAKES THEM INTO A NUMBER OF COURTS IN THAT CIRCUIT. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT? WILL THAT PRESENT ANY KIND OF PROBLEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCKET IN THAT CIRCUIT?
A ON THE LEVEL OF WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE FROM ME AND FROM THE FIRM, I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION -- AND OBVIOUSLY NO QUESTION FROM THE LAW FIRM, AS I HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM -- THAT THEY COULD NOT APPEAR IN FRONT OF ME FOR ANY MATTER. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT. I DO HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE SUPPORT OF THE FIRM THAT THEY EXPECT THAT, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT. ADMINISTRATIVELY, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT. I WOULD THINK IF THERE WERE CONSENT ORDERS THAT THE OPPOSING PARTY HAD NO OBJECTION TO, OR TECHNICAL MATTERS, THAT I POSSIBLY COULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THEM. BUT AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS A MATTER THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO FACE, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY SEND ME OUT OF SUMTER COUNTY A GOOD BIT, FOR THAT REASON.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

CHAIRMAN POPE: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE, MS. HORNE?
MS. HORNE: OTHER THAN WHAT I SAID ABOUT THANKING YOU FOR THE TIME; THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
(WHEREUPON, MARTHA MCELVEEN HORNE STANDS ASIDE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT CANDIDATE WILL BE WADE S. KOLB. I'M GOING TO ASK THE VICE-CHAIRMAN TO PLEASE DO THIS, BECAUSE MY VOICE IS WEAKENING A LITTLE BIT. REPRESENTATIVE GENTRY WILL TAKE OVER.
WHEREUPON, WADE S. KOLB, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. KOLB, FIRST OF ALL, AM I PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY?
A IT'S PRONOUNCED AS IF IT WERE C-U-L-P. KOLB.
Q KOLB. I'M SORRY.
A RIGHT.
Q MR. KOLB, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A I HAVE, AND IT'S CORRECT.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DO YOU NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR CLARIFICATIONS OF ANY SORT?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MAKING THIS SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD AND OF YOUR OWN SWORN TESTIMONY?
A I WISH IT WOULD BE.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Wade S. Kolb, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
35 Paisley Park Courthouse
Sumter, SC 29150 Sumter, SC 29150
2. He was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on September 16, 1949. He is presently 42 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Dorothy Graham Skardon on May 17, 1975. He has three children: Wade S., III, age 13; Sally S., age 11; and Rebecca G., age 8.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1967-1971, B.S. in Business Administration (Accounting), GPR 3.25; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1971-1974, J.D., GPR 3.0.

7. In college and law school he was a member of the Student Government, Legislative Council, Treasurer of Student Bar Association and the Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has always earned the required hours of CLE and carried over excess hours.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:
He lectured at the South Carolina Bar CLE Seminar, "Criminal Practice in South Carolina," October 19, 1990.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1974-1977 Assistant State Attorney General - Civil jury trials representing the State Highway Department and other state agencies, Worker's Compensation, criminal appeals and criminal prosecutions

1977-1982 Assistant Solicitor - Criminal prosecutions, Family Court prosecutions, civil cases in Family Court representing DSS

1978-1980 Associate - Nash, Chappell and Wilson, Attorneys at Law, Plaintiff's trial practice, insurance trial defense, real estate and probate

1983-date Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit - Criminal prosecutions

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 0
State - 100%
Other - 0

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 0
Criminal - 100%
Domestic - 0

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 100% Chief Counsel
Non-jury -

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Clifton Nelson v. United Fire Insurance Co., 275 S.C. 92, 267 SE2d 604 (1980). He was able to help an elderly uneducated man with a complicated insurance claim involving real estate and insurance law. Mr. Nelson had sold the land but agreed with the buyer that the house thereon would remain as his property and could be moved at a later date. Before it could be moved, it was destroyed by fire. They were also able to show that Mr. Nelson maintained an insurable interest. The trial verdict for his client was upheld by the Supreme Court by a 3-2 decision.

(b) State v. David E. DuBose, 1985 Trial for Trafficking in Marijuana. Significant because he had a big role in working with law enforcement to gather documentary and photographic evidence which was very important. Appeal was 288 S.C. 266, 341 SE2d 785 (1986). He also tried the second trial and co-handled the second appeal which was affirmed without published opinion.

(c) State v. John L. Aiken, S. C. Court of Appeals, Memorandum Opinion No.
90-MO-131, September 24, 1990. This defendant had killed two prior girlfriends in other states but never received a substantial sentence. He shot this victim but she died of other causes before trial. They were able to get part of her statement in evidence as part of the res gestae.

(d) State v. Fannie Fennell, 263 S.C. 216, SE2d 433 (1974). One of his first criminal appeals. It established the proposition that "Reckless Driving" was not a lesser included offense of "DUI."

(e) State v. Michael Mapps, 1977 trial. It was appealed but no published opinion. One of his first major trials. The defendant had turned down a plea to ABHAN and other prosecutors were considering dismissal. He worked with the victim and arresting officers, helped locate corroborating evidence, and put together a strong case, resulting in a conviction for a brutal rape.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Clifton Nelson v. United Fire Insurance Company, 275 S.C. 92, 267 SE2d 604 (1980).

(b) McLeod v. McLeod, 270 S.C. 557, 243 SE2d 446 (April 13, 1978 S. C. Supreme Court)

22. Public Office:

Solicitor, Third Judicial Circuit, elected June 1982, sworn in January 12, 1983, reelected 1986 and 1990

Assistant Solicitor, appointed April 1977, resigned February 1982

Assistant State Attorney General, appointed May 1974, resigned April 1977

31. Sued: He has been named in two or three prisoner post-conviction/habeus corpus actions. All cases have been summarily dismissed by the Courts. None are pending now.

He was named as defendant in "James A. Fitts, Drew Wilder, and the South Carolina Press Association v. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., in his Official Capacity as Solicitor, Individually and as Representative of a Class of Persons with Prosecutorial Authority," which is a civil action in Federal Court, Civil Action Number 3:90-2119-17. As he was informed, the Plaintiffs had no problem with him personally but were suing him as a vehicle to have South Carolina's criminal libel law declared unconstitutional. In October, 1991, Judge Joseph Anderson ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in July of 1990, by Dr. E. MacDonald Dubose, 240 Church Street, Sumter, SC 29150.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar, since May 15, 1974; American Bar Association, since 1974; Sumter County Bar Association, since 1977; S. C. Solicitor's Association, President 1991-1992, Vice President 1989-1991, Secretary-Treasurer 1984-1989

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
The Church of the Holy Comforter (Episcopal), served on the Vestry (1983-1986), President of the Men's Club (1988-1990), Layreader Chairman (1990-); Sumter Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of Community Relations Council (1987-1988); Sumter Rotary Club; Sumter Country Club; Received 1990 Silver Scales of Justice Award from South Carolina Victim Assistance Network; Named to Outstanding Young Men in America (1986); Named to Who's Who in Law Enforcement (1990); Named to Who's Who in American Law (1991); Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of Sumter

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Orby Ferguson, Jr., Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1678, Sumter, SC 29151-1678

(b) Honorable James I. Davis, Clerk of Court
P. O. Box 281, Bishopville, SC 29010

(c) Gwen L. Herod, Victim Advocate
Courthouse, Sumter, SC 29150

(d) Sidney Vaughn
322 North Street, Sumter, SC 29150

(e) Charles F. Walton, Jr., Rector
Church of the Holy Comforter
P. O. Box 338, Sumter, SC 29151

Q ALL RIGHT. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE -- WE HAVE, OF COURSE, HAD ACCESS TO THOSE RECORDS. OF COURSE, NO COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW. RECORDS, OF COURSE, OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HAVE COME BACK NEGATIVE ON YOU, OF COURSE. WE ALSO HAD RECORDS OF THE SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE SUMTER CITY POLICE; THEY WERE ALL NEGATIVE, OF COURSE. SLED AND FBI RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AS WELL. YOUR HEALTH, HOW IS IT, SIR?
A EXCELLENT.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATION. OF COURSE, YOU FILED WITH US YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THAT?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. NO COMPLAINTS, AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. IN REGARD TO THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, OF COURSE, THERE ARE NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU; HOWEVER, SIX CIVIL ACTIONS WERE LISTED WHICH INVOLVE YOU IN YOUR POSITION AS SOLICITOR. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT SOME OF THOSE?
A YES, SIR. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, PRISONERS QUITE FREQUENTLY FILE COMPLAINTS. IN EACH ONE OF THOSE -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM WAS THE ONE WHERE MS. HORNE ACTUALLY TRIED THE CASE, AND SHE'S TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THAT EARLIER. IN EACH OF THOSE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION AGAINST ME AT ALL, THAT I HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASES; I WAS JUST NAMED BECAUSE I WAS THE SOLICITOR. THE ONLY CASE THAT INVOLVED ACTIONS THAT I TOOK WAS THE ONE WHERE CLAUDE GARDNER IS THE PLAINTIFF. HE WAS A DRUG DEALER IN LEE COUNTY, HAD A FIGHT WITH HIS WIFE. HIS WIFE TOLD POLICE THAT HE WAS DEALING DRUGS; THEY CAME OUT THERE, FOUND THE DRUGS, AND ARRESTED HIM. HE THREATENED HER, PRIOR TO TRIAL, THAT IF SHE TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM IN THE DRUG CASE THAT HE WOULD SIGN WARRANTS ON HER FOR FORGERY OF ALL CHECKS THAT SHE HAD -- HE HAD A CHECKING ACCOUNT WHERE HE WAS THE PERSON NAMED, AND SHE HAD WRITTEN CHECKS AND HAD SIGNED HIS NAME, CLAUDE GARDNER, AT PIGGLY-WIGGLY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUYING GROCERIES FOR THE FAMILY. AND HE HAD TOLD HER THAT THAT WAS FORGERY AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHARGE HER WITH FORGERY ON ALL THESE CHECKS -- ABOUT 100 CHECKS -- IF SHE TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM. IN FACT, SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY AGAINST HIM; SHE WAS AFRAID TO DO SO. AND WE TRIED TO GET HER TO, BUT THANK GOODNESS WE WERE ABLE TO CONVICT HIM WITHOUT HER TESTIMONY. AND HE WAS -- EVEN THOUGH SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY, SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY FOR HIM EITHER, AND HE WAS RIGHT ANGRY WITH HER FOR THAT. AND WHY THE MAGISTRATE LET HIM DO IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT HE CAME BACK FROM THE PRISON AND SIGNED 100-AND-SOME WARRANTS FOR FORGERY. SHERIFF TRUESDALE THERE IN LEE COUNTY LOOKED THOROUGHLY INTO THE CASE AND DISCUSSED IT WITH ME, AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT SHE SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR THOSE CHARGES, AND SO I NOL-PROSSED ALL OF THOSE CHARGES. TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE CLAIM THAT THAT WAS FORGERY. EVEN THOUGH SHE WROTE HIS NAME ON HIS CHECKS, IT WAS FOR HIS BENEFIT, AND IT WAS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND, I THOUGHT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. HE FILED THIS LAWSUIT OVER THAT AND SOME OTHER THINGS AGAINST THE OFFICERS, FOR THE SEARCH AND SO FORTH. AS THE REPORT NOTES, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT INVOLVES ANY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME. THE COMMITTEE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THAT CLAUDE GARDNER, AFTER HE GOT OUT OF JAIL ON THE DRUG CHARGES, VERY SOON AFTER THAT WENT BACK TO PRISON FOR FELONY DUI AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT HE CAUSED WHILE DRUNK, AND HE'S IN PRISON NOW, I HOPE.
Q THANK YOU, SIR. OF COURSE, MR. KOLB, AS YOU KNOW, OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN ASKED THE QUESTION IN REGARD TO TEMPERAMENT, OF COURSE, OF THE COURT. PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS ON TEMPERAMENT.
A I THINK THAT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD BE AN IMPARTIAL REFEREE. I THINK THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD LET THE LAWYERS TRY THEIR CASE. I THINK THE JUDGE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS OF GETTING AN ATTORNEY AND CLIENTS AND LITIGANTS AT ONE TIME AND IN ONE PLACE. I KNOW ABOUT THE TIME I WAS COMING INTO THE PRACTICE, YOU COULD BE A TRIAL LAWYER AND STILL DO SOME OTHER THINGS IN YOUR LIFE, AND NOW IT JUST SEEMS LIKE COURT IS EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND, AND IT'S JUST SO DEMANDING THAT A LOT OF GOOD ATTORNEYS ARE GETTING OUT OF THE TRIAL PRACTICE, AND I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT A TRIAL LAWYER CANNOT BE, DURING EVERY TERM OF COURT, TOTALLY AT THE BECK AND CALL OF THE COURT, AND I THINK A JUDGE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT AN ATTORNEY HAS COMMITMENTS IN HIS OR HER PERSONAL LIFE, IN HIS PRACTICE, IN THE OFFICE; AND ALSO, WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR THE TRIAL OF A CASE, THAT THE SAME CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT ATTORNEY BEING THERE FOR THAT IMPORTANT CASE, YOU HAVE TO CARRY OVER TO THE CLIENTS AND TO THE NECESSARY WITNESSES, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROPER APPRECIATION FOR THE DEFINITE DIFFICULTY OF GETTING EVERYBODY IN ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME. SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS: WHAT DOES A JUDGE DO, TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THOSE DIFFICULTIES, AND YET ADMINISTER THE COURT AND GET THE IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF THE COURT DONE? I THINK IT IS TO HAVE THAT GOOD TEMPERAMENT AND THAT GOOD UNDERSTANDING, BUT I THINK IT'S TO GO THE EXTRA MILE. AND EVEN MY CRITICS WOULD SAY THAT I'M A HARD WORKER, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD BELIEVE THAT I COULD MAKE A REAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE BENCH, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T EXPECT EVERYBODY TO WORK AS HARD AS ME; I WOULD EXPECT THAT I WOULD WORK HARDER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. AND I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME AFTER YOU BREAK COURT DOWN FOR THE EVENING, OR DURING YOUR RECESSES DURING THE DAY, COULD BE SPENT ON WORRYING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THE REST OF THE WEEK? THE REST OF THE TERM? AND PLANNING AHEAD TO HELP RESOLVE SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. SO THAT THEN WHEN THE CASES DO COME BEFORE THE COURT, YOU HAVE CONCILIATED AND WORKED OUT SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, AND HELPED THE COURT TO RUN SMOOTHER. SO I THINK A LITTLE EXTRA EFFORT, A LITTLE EXTRA WORK BY THE JUDGE, ALONG WITH THAT TEMPERAMENT, CAN HELP IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Q OF COURSE, MR. KOLB, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT?
A YES, SIR; I HAVE NO PLEDGES OR COMMITMENTS.
Q ALL RIGHT. I GUESS I JUST HAVE ONE PERSONAL QUESTION. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN SOLICITOR SINCE 1983, OF COURSE. WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE A JUDGE? THAT'S OF INTEREST TO ME. I FIND SOLICITOR WORK TO BE A VERY EXCITING TYPE WORK.
A I HAVE ENJOYED BEING SOLICITOR VERY MUCH, AND I HOPE I'VE MADE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION IN THAT CAPACITY. I THINK BEING A JUDGE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION ON A HIGHER LEVEL, AND I REALLY THINK THAT I COULD DO THAT. I KNOW THAT RIGHT AWAY, OF COURSE, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE CRIMINAL CASES IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; I HOPE THAT MY EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL COURTROOM -- TRIAL EVERY DAY, BASICALLY, FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS -- WOULD BE USED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE AT LARGE. I REALIZE IT WON'T BE IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT. I'M READY TO GO TO WORK RIGHT AWAY IN THE CIVIL COURTROOMS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICTS THERE, AND I THINK I CAN MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
CHAIRMAN POPE: I'LL TRY TO ASK ONE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SENATOR POPE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q AS SOLICITOR, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE VIRTUALLY DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCE IN LITIGATION ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR JOB. IN THE PAST, PRIOR TO BECOMING SOLICITOR, TELL US ABOUT YOUR CIVIL TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
A WHEN I FIRST STARTED OUT AS AN ATTORNEY, I SPENT THREE YEARS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. I HAD BEEN THERE THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THAT AS A LAW CLERK, AND HAD ALL OF THOSE EXPERIENCES. BUT AS AN ATTORNEY IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I DID A LOT OF TRIAL WORK; IT WAS ALL CIVIL AT THAT TIME. I DID A LITTLE BIT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHILE THERE. IT WAS REPRESENTING, BASICALLY, THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT IN TORT SUITS AND CONDEMNATION CASES. SO I THINK YOU'D SAY THAT WAS ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, CIVIL PRACTICE. THEREAFTER, I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS, AND IT WAS PRIMARILY A PLAINTIFF'S PRACTICE. I DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF INSURANCE DEFENSE WORK, BUT JOHN CHAPPELL DID MOST OF THAT, SO IT WAS MORE A PLAINTIFFS' PRACTICE. SO I THINK, IN THE BEGINNINGS OF MY YEARS OF PRACTICE, I HAD A GOOD BASIS FOR THE CIVIL PRACTICE. THE LAST 11 YEARS, IT'S BEEN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY CRIMINAL. THE THING THAT I THINK GIVES ME A GOOD BASIS TO BECOME A JUDGE AND DO A GOOD JOB IN THE CIVIL COURTROOM IS THAT EXPERIENCE, AND A BALANCED EXPERIENCE -- PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENSE -- ON THE CIVIL SIDE, BUT ALSO SOME GOOD ADVICE THAT THANK GOODNESS I GOT, COMING OUT OF LAW SCHOOL. AN OLDER ATTORNEY SAID, "YOU KNOW, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BE SMART, DON'T QUIT BEING A STUDENT OF THE LAW. SUBSCRIBE TO THE SUPREME COURT ADVANCE SHEETS AND READ EVERY ONE OF THOSE OPINIONS." AND THAT'S BEEN A DIFFICULT ASSIGNMENT OVER THE YEARS BUT ONE I'VE DONE. AND I'VE BEEN LAYING THERE IN BED, AT NIGHT, WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE READING SPORTS ILLUSTRATED OR TIME MAGAZINE, I WAS READING THE BLUE SHEETS, AND MY WIFE HAS HARANGUED ME FOR THAT OVER THE YEARS. BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN GOOD. EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN IN CRIMINAL COURT, I'VE BEEN READING THROUGH THOSE PSC RATE CASES AND THE DOMESTIC OPINIONS, AND I'M NOT AT ALL IGNORANT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW AND THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN THE FOREFRONT OF THIS STATE, ON THE CIVIL SIDE OF THE COURTROOM, AND I THINK I WOULD ADAPT TO THAT VERY QUICKLY.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MR. KOLB.
CHAIRMAN POPE: LET ME --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: OH, EXCUSE ME.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) I MEANT TO ASK MS. HORNE. WHAT WAS SUMTER COUNTY BAR'S POSITION ON THE RACE?
A THE SUMTER COUNTY BAR DID AN ENDORSEMENT -- OF COURSE, AS SOLICITOR, I WENT INTO IT REALIZING THAT I PROBABLY WAS NOT GOING TO BE THE DARLING OF THE BAR, ALTHOUGH I WORK VERY HARD TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE LAWYERS WHEREVER I POSSIBLY COULD -- PUTTING VICTIMS, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, AND JUSTICE ALWAYS IN THE FOREFRONT, HELPING LAWYERS WHEREVER I COULD. THE BAR DID AN ENDORSEMENT. I FINISHED SECOND IN THAT ENDORSEMENT PROCESS. ANOTHER ATTORNEY RECEIVED THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES ON THE THIRD BALLOT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHAT THE BAR THINKS. EVEN THOUGH I DID NOT FINISH FIRST -- I FINISHED SECOND, AND I'M PROUD OF THAT -- I THINK I WOULD BE A JUDGE THAT WOULD BE ACCOMMODATING TO LAWYERS AND WOULD BE A LAWYER-ORIENTED JUDGE. IN THE PAST, I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE, AND I'VE TOLD YOU WHERE I PUT MY PRIORITIES -- WITH JUSTICE AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, AND VICTIMS, FIRST -- AND WHEREVER I POSSIBLY COULD ACCOMMODATE LAWYERS, I DID, BUT I DID NOT PUT THEIR INTERESTS FIRST; I DON'T THINK IT WAS MY JOB TO DO THAT. I DID IT WHEREVER I COULD. AS A JUDGE, I'LL BE AN IMPARTIAL REFEREE, AND THERE'S NO LONGER ANY NEED TO BE AN ADVOCATE, AND I DON'T PLAN TO BE AN ADVOCATE. I PLAN TO BE A JUDGE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: REPRESENTATIVE HODGES?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVES HODGES:

Q I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE QUESTION FROM ART BAHNMULLER, IT SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS A UNANIMOUS ENDORSEMENT OF MR. PLAYER, WHO I SUPPOSE WILL COME LATER. DID THE BAR VOTE, AND THEN --
A IT WENT THROUGH THREE BALLOTS, TO GET TO A MAJORITY, AND AFTER THE MAJORITY, THEN ALL SIX CANDIDATES -- THERE WERE SIX CANDIDATES AT THAT TIME. ONE HAS SINCE DROPPED OUT. THE OTHER FIVE OF US ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. MR. BURCHSTEAD, WHO DROPPED OUT, I THINK FINISHED THIRD IN THE BALLOTING; AND ALL OF THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE SUMTER PROCESS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NONE OF US EXCEPT MR. COOPER PARTICIPATED IN THE CLARENDON PROCESS, AND WEREN'T ADVISED OF IT. THE FIVE THAT ARE BEFORE YOU NOW WERE IN THAT PROCESS, AND AFTER A MAJORITY ON THE THIRD BALLOT WENT FOR MR. PLAYER, THEN THERE WAS A MOTION -- AND I BELIEVE MR. BURCHSTEAD MADE THE MOTION -- THAT THE ENDORSEMENT BE CONSIDERED UNANIMOUS, AND IT WAS AN AYE VOTE IN THE PROCEEDING.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MR. KOLB.
(WHEREUPON, WADE S. KOLB, JR., STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. THOMAS E. PLAYER, JR., PLEASE?
WHEREUPON, THOMAS E. PLAYER, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. PLAYER, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A I HAVE, SIR.
Q ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS?
A NO, SIR.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Thomas E. Player, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
403 West Calhoun Street 21 North Harvin Street
Sumter, SC 29150 P. O. Box 1716

Sumter, SC 29150

2. He was born in Sumter County, South Carolina, on September 30, 1945. He is presently 46 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Anna Margaret Warmouth on December 30, 1983. He has three children: Anna Holbrook Jackson (stepdaughter), age 18; Katherine Elliott Jackson (stepdaughter), age 14; and Thomas E., III, age 5.

5. Military Service: October 15, 1971 through September 7, 1972, active duty, U. S. Air Force, obtained rank of Lieutenant with Honorable Discharge; Air Force Reserve - September 8, 1972 through October 31, 1978 (rank of Captain), Serial Number: *********

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1963 - 1968, B.S. Degree in Accounting; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1968 - 1971, J. D.

7. In college and law school he was a member of the Kappa Sigma Kappa (honorary service fraternity); Beta Alpha Psi (honorary professional accounting fraternity); Phi Delta Phi (legal fraternity); Phi Kappa Sigma (social fraternity); Inter Fraternity Council; Student Senate; Chairman of Senate Committee for Intramural Sports; Arnold Air Society (honorary Air Force ROTC); Freshman Football Team; Freshman Track Team.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
In each of the last five years, he has attended at least 12 hours of seminars on subjects such as automobile insurance, trial techniques, evidence and ethics.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

July 1972 - August 1972, U. S. Air Force Office of Staff Judge Advocate

October 1, 1972-December 31, 1975, Associate with the Law Firm of Richardson and James, Sumter, South Carolina, practicing in the areas of civil, criminal and domestic litigation, real estate and probate. Also served as City Recorder for the City of Sumter during 1974 and 1975.

January 1, 1976 to present, Partner with the Firm of Richardson, James and Player, Sumter, South Carolina. In recent years he has been engaged primarily in civil litigation and real estate.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - Approximately 3 per year
State - approximately 25 per year
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 98%
Criminal - 1%
Domestic - 1%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 98%
Non-jury - 2%

Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Henry Evans v. Clarendon County, et al. and James Roberson, Jr. v. Clarendon County, et al. These were two cases against Clarendon County, who he represented. Each of the Plaintiffs broke his neck when he dove into shallow water at a county park located on the shore of Lake Marion. These accidents occurred on the first two successive weekends after the effective date of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.

These cases were significant because of the following novel issues:
(1) Does the South Carolina Recreational Use Act apply to a governmental entity?
(2) Is a visitor at a public park a licensee or an invitee?
(3) If a visitor at a public park enters the water in violation of a "no swimming" sign, does he become a trespasser?

One of these cases was the first civil case tried by a newly elected circuit judge. The first case resulted in a small verdict for the Plaintiff. The second case resulted in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict. Both cases were thereafter settled.

(b) Hancock v. Carmichael. This was a case against a warden at Wateree Correctional Institution. The Plaintiff claimed that she was raped by an inmate who was working on the prison farm. The Plaintiff had been granted permission to fish in one of the farm ponds and was there for that purpose when the alleged rape took place.

This case was significant because it raised issues not previously addressed by our appellate courts concerning the liability of prison officials for negligence in supervising and restraining inmates. This case resulted in summary judgment for the Defendant.

(c) Ray Towery v. Clayton Lowder and W. R. McLeod. This controversy involved a farm of approximately 800 acres valued at approximately $750,000.00. The Plaintiff was the owner of the property when a mortgage he had placed on the property was foreclosed. The Plaintiff was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale. When he was unable to arrange financing for the balance necessary to comply with his bid, he entered into a contract with the Defendant, Lowder, whereby Lowder was assigned the bid, took title to the property and simultaneously granted Plaintiff an option to purchase. When the Plaintiff did not comply with the option terms, Lowder sold the property to his client, McLeod. Plaintiff brought suit to set aside the deed and to have the court declare that his relationship with the Defendant Lowder was that of mortgagor and mortgagee. He represented the Defendant McLeod. The Defendants prevailed at trial. This case was significant because of the value of the property involved.

(d) Columbia Capital Corporation v. William Singleton, et al. This was a construction defect case. The project was a condominium complex to be constructed on the top of Sugar Mountain in North Carolina. After construction was under way, the Plaintiff halted construction claiming defects in the design and construction of the foundation. Action was brought against the engineering firm which was managing the project and his client, William Singleton, a steel fabricator who had fabricated and erected the steel foundation. The case was tried non-jury. It took approximately three weeks to try. His client negotiated a settlement shortly before conclusion of the trial which resulted in a verdict of approximately $1,500,000.00. The case was significant because his client, a small business man, with no insurance coverage, would have been saddled with this enormous verdict had he not settled.

(e) James Scarborough v. Bertha Frazier. This was an automobile accident case in which he represented the Defendant who had made a left turn in the path of an oncoming vehicle. The Plaintiff claimed "whiplash" injury to his neck and had been treated primarily by a chiropractor. The chiropractor testified that the Plaintiff had significant permanent injuries. The Plaintiff's medical doctor testified that the Plaintiff's injuries were insignificant. The Defendant had only $15,000.00 liability insurance coverage. The Plaintiff offered to settle for $12,000.00. The insurance company did not accept this offer. The jury returned a verdict for $65,000.00. The presiding judge granted Defendant's motion for a new trial nisi remittitur, reducing the verdict to $50,000.00. The Defendant appealed, but the case was settled for the policy limits plus an amount which the insurance company estimated it would cost them in legal fees and expenses to procedure the appeal. This case was significant because of the potential exposure of the insurance company for the verdict in excess of the policy limits.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Alfred Augustus Green v. Sumter City Police Dept., et al. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, #86-7023, decided July 29, 1986. (unpublished)

(b) Charles W. Anderson v. Parker Evatt, et al. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, #90-7093, decided May 31, 1991. (unpublished)

(c) Donald Melvin Myers v. Alan L. Wates, et al. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, #91-7036, decided July 19, 1991. (unpublished)

The above cases were civil rights cases in which he represented the appellees. The decisions were rendered without formal briefs or oral argument.

(d) Emilie B. Jackson v. Thomas Bradham, decided December 9, 1982, S. C. Supreme Court, Memorandum Opinion (unpublished). He represented the respondent. The appeal was disposed of under Rule 23.

(e) Peeples v. Stafford, et al., decided August 22, 1985, Memorandum Opinion (unpublished). He represented the respondent. This case was disposed of under Rule 23.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) In the Interest of: Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, 265 SE2d 522, decided April 24, 1980.

20. Judicial office: He was appointed Recorder of Municipal Court by the Sumter City Council in 1974 and served through 1975. This court had criminal jurisdiction for offenses for which the maximum sentence was no more than 30 days confinement.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
None other than military service and part-time jobs while in college and high school.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He is a partner in a law firm. If elected, the partnership would have to be dissolved.

33. His health is good. His last physical examination was October 31, 1991, by Dr. Arland Comptom, 430 North Main Street, Sumter, SC 29150.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Sumter County Bar Association, Secretary 1974 through 1975; South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Sunset Country Club, Sumter, SC

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Orby Ferguson, Jr., Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 1678, Sumter, SC 29151-1678

(b) Honorable Stephen M. Creech, Mayor
City of Sumter
P. O. Box 1449, Sumter, SC 29151

(c) Honorable O. V. Player, Jr.
Clerk of Court for Sumter County
Sumter, SC 29150

(d) Henry B. Richardson, Sr., Esquire
P. O. Box 1716, Sumter, SC 29151

(e) Morris D. Mazursky, Esquire
P. O. Box 1645, Sumter, SC 29151

Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE, OF COURSE, EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, OF COURSE. RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE RECORDS OF THE SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND FBI RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF SUMTER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS WELL. IS YOUR HEALTH GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOUR STATEMENT OF INCOME AND INTEREST OF COURSE, SHOWS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATION. OF COURSE, YOU FILED WITH US YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION. ANY CHANGES IN THAT?
A NO, SIR.
Q NO COMPLAINTS OR STATEMENTS WERE RECEIVED AND NO WITNESSES, OF COURSE, ARE HERE TO TESTIFY. DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT OR COMMENTS TO TELL THE COMMITTEE? BEFORE YOU DO THAT, LET ME ASK YOU ALSO, THE SAME QUESTION THE OTHER CANDIDATES WERE ASKED. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS ON TEMPERAMENT OF JUDGES.
A I AM PLEASED TO SEE THE COMMITTEE PLACE THAT HIGH ON THIS AGENDA AS TO WHAT QUALIFIES ONE FOR THE JUDGESHIP. I'VE, LIKE MOST OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS YOU'VE HEARD FROM, BEEN SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL ARROGANCE, AND IN TALKING WITH SOME OF THE LOCAL MEMBERS OF OUR BAR ABOUT RUNNING FOR THIS JUDGESHIP, THAT WAS THEIR PRIMARY EMPHASIS AS WELL. SOME OF THEM SAY -- SOME OF THEM COMMENTED THAT -- NEAR MY AGE -- THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS IMPROVING, AND WE'RE ALL GLAD TO SEE THAT, AND WE'RE GLAD TO SEE THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS PLACING EMPHASIS ON THAT, AND ON HUMILITY, AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK BOTH OF THOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE SOMETHING THAT IS MISSING AMONGST SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR JUDICIARY AT THE PRESENT TIME. I'M GLAD TO SEE IT'S IMPROVING.
Q OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT, MR. PLAYER?
A YES, SIR.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
CHAIRMAN POPE: I'D LIKE TO ASK --
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SENATOR POPE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q WHAT TYPE OF LITIGATION HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS?
A PRIMARILY ON THE DEFENSE SIDE. WE DO BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENSE WORK, BUT OUR FIRM DOES PRIMARILY DEFENSE WORK.
Q IN ADDITION TO TORT LITIGATION, DO YOU DO SOME BUSINESS LITIGATION, CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION, AS WELL?
A YES. TO SOME DEGREE, YES. OUR FIRM REPRESENTS, QUITE OFTEN, THE INSURANCE RESERVE FUND, IN THE SUMTER AREA AND IN THE CIRCUIT. WE'RE INVOLVED IN 1983 ACTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING, AND ALL SORTS OF TORT LITIGATION.
Q WE'VE ASKED A COUPLE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES THIS QUESTION. YOU OBVIOUSLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN LITIGATION, AND IT HAS BEEN HEAVILY SLANTED TOWARDS CIVIL IN THE PAST. CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR EXPERTISE OR BACKGROUND IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIAL WORK?
A WELL, I STARTED PRACTICE BACK IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES, WITH THE SAME FIRM THAT I'M WITH TODAY IN SUMTER, WITH CLINT RICHARDSON AND GEORGE JAMES. AT THAT TIME -- MY LAW PRACTICE HAS CHANGED TO SOME DEGREE, BUT AT THAT TIME, YOU CUT YOUR TEETH ON CRIMINAL CASES AND FAMILY COURT CASES, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE; THAT WAS BEFORE THE DAYS OF THE STATE-FUNDED PUBLIC DEFENDERS. THE YOUNG LAWYERS WERE ASSIGNED CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASES ON INDIGENT CASES, AND QUITE FRANKLY, AT THAT TIME WE WERE GLAD TO GET THEM BECAUSE IT DID PAY A LITTLE BIT TO TAKE THOSE CASES. JOE MCELVEEN AND MYSELF AND PEOPLE IN MY CLASS AND MY CONTEMPORARIES ALL TOOK CRIMINAL CASES, AND WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR CRIMINAL COURT, WE ESSENTIALLY WERE THE LAWYERS WHO TRIED CASES IN CRIMINAL COURT. NOW, I HAVE NOT TRIED A CRIMINAL CASE IN PROBABLY FIVE YEARS. I STILL GET ASSIGNED INDIGENT CASES FROM TIME TO TIME; MOST OF THOSE, FORTUNATELY FOR THEM, AND PROBABLY FOR ME AS WELL, HAVE NOT HAD TO BE TRIED IN RECENT DAYS, BUT I STILL TAKE THOSE CASES WHEN THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO ME. I AM STILL ON THE ASSIGNMENT LIST. AND I WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT I WOULD HAVE TO DO, AS MR. COOPER INDICATED, SOME BRUSHING UP ON THE CRIMINAL LAW, TO FEEL COMFORTABLE TRYING A CRIMINAL CASE, BUT I HAVE NO RESERVATIONS ABOUT DOING THAT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MR. PLAYER.
MR. PLAYER: THANK YOU.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE TO US.
MR. PLAYER: NO. THANK YOU.
(WHEREUPON, THOMAS E. PLAYER, JR., STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MS. MARTHA P. UPSHUR.
WHEREUPON, MARTHA P. UPSHUR, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q FIRST, I WANT TO ASK YOU: AM I PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY?
A UPSHUR IS CORRECT. UH-HUH.
Q HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q ARE THERE ANY DELETIONS OR ADDITIONS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE TO YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Martha P. Upshur
Home Address: Business Address:
12 Warren Street 16 Law Range
Sumter, SC 29150 Sumter, SC 29150

2. She was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on April 6, 1938. She is presently 53 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was divorced on February 3, 1978, William M. Jones v. Martha Upshur Jones, Family Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Grounds - one year's continuous separation. She has two children: William McNeil, Jr., age 24 (Pensacola Junior College); and Blanding Upshur, age 22 (Wofford College).

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Queens College, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1956-1957, transferred at end of freshman year; Transylvania College, Lexington, Kentucky, 1957-1959, A.B. Philosophy and Religion; University of South Carolina Graduate School of Education, Columbia, South Carolina, 1962, summer and fall semesters completed requirements for teaching certificate, approximately 20 hours, left to take Graduate Assistantship in Student Personnel Administration at Ohio University; Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 1963, winter and spring quarters receiving approximately 15 hours of graduate credit in Student Personnel Administration, left because she did not enjoy being a housemother to 500 girls in a dormitory (They refused to consider women for other jobs during assistantship.); and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1979-1981, J.D.

7. In college she was involved in the concert choir, college newspaper, Editor of Yearbook, Publications Board, College Touring Choir, and a Madrigal Singer. While in law school she commuted 100 miles each day, cared for her two children (ages 9 and 12 at the outset) as a single parent including all of the normal parenting activities. There was little time for school activities.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
From 1987 through 1991, she has earned more than 125 hours of Continuing Legal Education Credit. These courses were offered at the South Carolina Bar, Trial Lawyers and Public Defender's Conventions and at the University of South Carolina School of Law. She has studied a variety of subject matter including Death Penalty, Criminal Appeals, Alternatives to Incarceration, Omnibus Crime Bill, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Probate, Health, Tort Law, Negotiations and Settlement, Hugo Law, Family Law and Appeals. She has attended a number of Judicial CLEs.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:
Sumter Area Technical College - Constitutional Law, Legal Bibliography, The Court System. Volunteer taught for three years teaching Constitutional Law for Citizens - Shepherd's Center for elderly citizens.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1982-1983 May through March - She began solo practice using the closet of an experienced attorney. He taught her how to use the Courthouse, and she did a variety of practice including real estate, wills and probate, criminal, juvenile, family law and small tort actions. During this period she associated other attorneys to help her with new matters. She was privileged to have several older and experienced attorneys who volunteered to help her whenever she had questions.

1983-1989 She set up her own office. She became part-time Public Defender (Contract System). She developed her solo practice while handling larger and larger criminal caseload. Her private practice continued to consist of a variety with a great deal of Family Law. She also took cases for a nominal fee for Palmetto Legal Services and taught law courses at Sumter Area Technical College. She purchased her own office building. Much of her time was spent in Court.

1989-1991 Hugo hit her office, taking the roof off and making practice hectic. It took more than a year to recover and to get settled again. She resigned from Public Defender work in August of 1990. She still handles a variety of legal matters, and her tort practice has been accelerating consisting of wrongful death, automobile liability and other matters. She continues to handle criminal cases and Family Law matters. She continues to spend a considerable amount of time in Court. She enjoys trial practice.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - None
State - 1,300 (approximate) cases
Other - None

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 5%
Criminal - 60%
Domestic - 35%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-jury - 80%

She was sole counsel on all but ten cases.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) The State v. Rochester. Death Penalty Case. A young man, Darrell Rochester, was accused of running over his girlfriend with a car.

Three of them (two Public Defenders and one private attorney) were assigned to this case which began with a murder indictment and accelerated into a Death Penalty case. This young man was about 19 years old and had no criminal record; no reputation for violence or for misbehavior. They did a great deal of investigation, supported the client and his family during the time between the assignment of the case and the trial, went through substantial consultation with a psychiatrist and brought the case to trial. They conferred with other attorneys who had handled cases of this magnitude.

They were successful in keeping Darrell from being condemned to death; however, he is serving a mandatory 30 years.

This was her first and only Death Penalty case. She has handled numerous murder charges, but none in which death could be the legal consequence. She believes that it was the first case of this magnitude to occur in Sumter for many years. It was a case in which the media was very interested, and they had that to deal with effectively. The case went through all phases from extensive jury voir dire, full trial, and two phases of jury deliberation, each with its individual law and preparation.

(b) The State v. Calvin Stansbury. This was the defense of a man who was convicted for sexually abusing a little girl, a stranger to him.

She was the sole counsel on this case. It was very interesting and challenging dealing with the client who denied any involvement and assessing him as psychotic at times so that she found it extremely difficult to help him with his defense. Psychiatric examination was required, but was not useful to him as a defense; although it was the only defense that was available to him. Nevertheless, he insisted on having a trial and presented himself as a very, very sick abused pedophile.

It was significant to her because of the difficulty of handling the client and balancing the legal matters along with the public attention drawn to this man and to the trial.

(c) The State v. John Weible. She was helping to prosecute this matter along with a Solicitor assigned through the office of the Attorney General.

This was a matter in which Weible was indicted for various counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor and other related offenses connected with the assault of a seven-year-old child, her client.

She personally had to pursue this case for two and a half years before it finally went to trial. She represented the child and the child's mother in addition to the Solicitor. The Defendant was a wealthy individual from the community, and the case kept getting put off. During this time one of the solicitors assigned to the case made contact with the Defendant in what could have appeared to have been a buy off. After that the Attorney General's office was brought in and another Solicitor from another Circuit was assigned to the case. There was much delay. This case was tried for an entire week in April, 1991, and ended when the Solicitor caused a mistrial on Friday evening after five days at trial. The case was retried in September, 1991. By that time the Defendant had five attorneys on his defense team. He finally pled guilty to a lesser charge. This took mammoth negotiation since his five attorneys were all participating in the negotiation and since her clients had both been hospitalized for psychiatric care and their emotional states were tenuous.

After this plea was concluded, she was able to negotiate a substantial civil settlement on behalf of her clients.

This case was significant because the Defense Team included five attorneys and an expert on sexual abuse from Minnesota. Considerable literature was written on this expert and his tactics alone. She was responsible for keeping these clients from being intimidated out of trial. They were Phillipino and were poor. The child had to be prepared for trial causing her as little trauma as possible and their experts had to be coordinated also. This direct examination and protection on cross-examination of the child was her best work.

New legal issues kept arising during preparation and during trial. While in trial they discovered three other teenage girls who had similar experiences with the same Defendant.

(d) She has prevailed on numerous criminal trials including two "not guiltys" in murder trials and five "not guiltys" in trials in absence. The State v. Sam Tomlin was a complete murder trial in which her client was a man who had killed two people while he was in a psychotic state 20 years ago. He was again accused of murder but this time had to defend himself, his wife and baby from attack. The authorities were convinced that he was guilty and was going to claim he was insane again. She did not get assigned to the case until a month had gone by and still her investigation turned up a weapon used by the decedent (purported victim) which had been left by the police at the crime scene. Her client was able to maintain his sanity in jail with the help of medication and to help with the case, to testify in his own behalf and was found not guilty by reason of self defense.

This case was significant because it is rare to have a verdict of not guilty by reason of self defense. The obstacles in keeping out evidence of prior killings and getting into evidence the weapons found at the scene were challenging.

(e) She has been successful in getting custody of children for several deserving fathers. One such case involved a military Sgt. who wanted to have custody of his young boy. The client cooperated well and took all of her advice for months before trial. She was successful in helping him to prove the mother to be unfit and in helping him to manage his life in a fashion which would accommodate his young child and help him prevail in Court.

This case was significant because the law places a great burden of proof upon a man when it comes to getting custody of small children, and it is rare for a male military member to be awarded sole custody of a small child due to the likelihood of remote assignments occurring.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:
All of her criminal appeals were handled by the Appellate Defense Office.

22. Public Office:
She has served on the Board of Directors of Sumter County Department of Social Services.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

Psychology and Humanities Instructor
Sumter Area Technical College
Designing, organizing, teaching courses to students ages 18-65
Recruiting and supervising part-time faculty in these fields
1974-1979

Special Education Instructor
Sumter High School
Mentally and emotionally handicapped students
1965-1967

Treatment Team - Child Psychiatry
Medical College Hospital
Charleston, South Carolina
Intensive training in milieu therapy
Teach - inpatient, emotionally disturbed youth - ages 3-14
1964-1965

Special Education Instructor
Central Elementary School
Sumter, South Carolina
Teacher in self-contained classroom for physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped, ages 8-13
1963-1964

Program Director Army Special Services
France and Germany
Planning, directing leisure and travel activities for United States Army Personnel
1960-1962

Youth Director
First Presbyterian Church
Lexington, Kentucky
Planning and directing activities and revitalizing youth participation in large downtown church
1959-1960

31. Sued: While serving as part-time Public Defender, she was sued professionally by two clients. The following are accounts of those suits.

Nathaniel Zuell filed pro se actions against her along with Sumter County, The Sheriff, The Solicitor, the Jail and others. He also filed and dismissed an action against her under his alias, "Alfred Augustus Green." Then he filed another action against her for slander. All of these actions were dismissed.

Zuell was alleging that the jail had put dog feces in his food while he was incarcerated in the Sumter County Jail as well as other allegations of maltreatment. He was alleging that she slandered him.

She was appointed to represent Zuell on charges which included two armed robberies. He had several co-defendants who were being represented by other defenders. She was told by one of the other Public Defenders that he believed that Zuell was the same person who, by another name, had pled guilty to a strong arm robbery against her personally.

When she asked to be relieved from representing Zuell, the Judge required that she state her grounds publicly. She stated for the record that she had been told that he was the same person who had robbed her. The Judge relieved her from representing Zuell.

When Zuell was in prison he filed suit alleging that she slandered him in public. This suit was dismissed after several Motions were heard addressing the matter.

Lew Wallace, a Public Defender client, was appointed to her. He was charged with kidnapping, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, first degree burglary at a minimum. The police had done a fine job of investigating and had recovered items belonging to Wallace which were identifiable by the victim, who was his neighbor. The case was extremely aggravated. The victim's car window had been smashed, and she had been carried into her house and tied up and then transported to woods where the rape occurred.

She did extensive investigation, examining all the evidence, talking with all sorts of witnesses. Wallace's only "good" witness, if the police had found out about him, would have incriminated Wallace with Wallace's statements about violent things that he had done to women.

Wallace had been remorseful over his behavior and gave her enough indication that he felt he wanted to plead guilty if he could bring himself to go forward without too much publicity or people present in the courtroom.

She advised Wallace that his chances at trial would not be good, and she set out all information for him.

They were able to negotiate a plea to Criminal Sexual Conduct and Burglary Second Degree, to the best of her recollection. He filed an action for Post Conviction Relief after he filed his pro se lawsuit. The suit was filed in Federal Court and was eventually dismissed for failure to state a cause of action which could be remedied in Federal Court. This took place approximately five years ago.

33. Her health is excellent. Her last physical examination was in June of 1991 by Dr. Janice Bacon, Two Richland Medical Park, Columbia, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar, Family Law Division, Criminal Law Division; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Family Law and Criminal Law Division

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Sumter County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; Lawyers Caring About Lawyers Comm.; Pro-Bono Program; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Assoc.; First Presbyterian Church, Youth Leader, Youth Committee, Choir, Strengthening of Church Committee; Santee-Wateree Mental Health Task Force, Housing for Mentally Ill; Sumter Gallery of Art Board of Directors; Sumter County Chamber of Commerce, Race/Community Relations Council; Sumter Rotary Club; Volunteer Instructor, Shepherd's Center for Mature Adults, Constitutional Law, Practical Law for Elderly; Sumter Little Theatre, cast in two productions

41. Perhaps you will notice by her resume that she has often operated under the pressure of many and varied responsibilities. She is able to handle stress and to continue with the job at hand. She is able to set and to stick to priorities in order to focus on what is really important. She is a woman, and in addition, she is a strong individual person.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Walter M. Dunlap, III, Vice President
The National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 1798, Sumter, SC 29151-1798

(b) Arthur H. Wilder, Esquire
314-A North Magnolia Street
Sumter, SC 29150

(c) John S. Hoar, Esquire
#1 Law Range, Sumter, SC 29150-4991

(d) Robert Newton, Executive Director
York Place
234 Kings Mountain Street, York, SC 29745

(e) Jennie Ariail Lowder
219 Haile Street, Sumter, SC

Q AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, AS REPORTED TO US BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. THE REPORTS FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ARE ALL NEGATIVE, AS ARE SLED AND FBI RECORDS. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS AT SUMTER COUNTY COURT, OF COURSE, CAME BACK NEGATIVE. IN REGARD TO THE FEDERAL COURT RECORD, IT SHOWS NO JUDGEMENT OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU, BUT YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN FOUR CIVIL ACTIONS. WOULD YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON THOSE, FOR US?
A YES, SIR. THOSE FOUR ACTIONS -- THREE OF THE ACTIONS INVOLVED ONE PARTICULAR CLIENT OF MINE, OR PERSON WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO ME IN MY CAPACITY AS PUBLIC DEFENDER. AND THREE OF THOSE WERE FILED BY THE SAME PERSON, USING HIS ALIAS AT ONE TIME. THESE WERE LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST ME IN MY CAPACITY AS PUBLIC DEFENDER. THE FIRST ONE WAS -- I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS EVEN SERVED WITH ONE OF THE SUITS, WHEREIN THE CLIENT SUED EVERYBODY IN THE SYSTEM. I'M SURE MR. KOLB WAS INCLUDED IN THAT SUIT, ALSO. BUT ONE OF THOSE SUITS THAT THE CLIENT FILED WAS FOR ME -- AGAINST ME, FOR SLANDER. THAT SITUATION WAS THAT I WAS TOLD BY ONE OF THE OTHER PUBLIC DEFENDERS THAT THIS GENTLEMAN -- I USE THAT TERM LOOSELY -- HAD BEEN A PERSON WHO HAD PERPETRATED A STRONG-ARM ROBBERY ON ME. I WAS A VICTIM IN A STRONG-ARM BURGLARY DURING MY YEARS IN LAW SCHOOL. AND SO I JUST -- HE TOLD ME "THAT MAN RIGHT THERE THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING -- I DEFENDED HIM ON YOUR STRONG-ARM ROBBERY." SO I FELT LIKE I HAD TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING THIS PERSON, AND I ASKED THE JUDGE IF I COULD SORT OF QUIETLY TELL HIM, ASIDE, WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, BUT I HAD TO SAY WHAT MY REASON WAS, IN OPEN COURT. AND THE FELLOW WHO WAS ACCUSING ME OF SLANDER -- HE GOT SOME REPERCUSSIONS FROM HIS FAMILY. HIS FAMILY STARTED THREATENING HIM, BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS THE PERPETRATOR OF A STRONG-ARM ROBBERY AGAINST ME, AND SO WHEN HE GOT TO PRISON, HE FILED AN ACTION FOR SLANDER AGAINST ME. AND THAT WAS DISMISSED AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. THE OTHER LAWSUIT WAS FILED BY A FELLOW BY THE NAME OF LOU WEISS, AND I'VE DESCRIBED SORT OF THE ITEMS -- THE TERMS OF THE CASE, IN MY NARRATIVE HERE. HE WAS A YOUNG MAN ACCUSED OF KIDNAPPING, RAPE, POSSESSION OF WEAPONS DURING A VIOLENT CRIME, AND SOME OTHER -- THERE WERE SOME OTHER CHARGES AGAINST HIM, TOO. HE PLED GUILTY TO THESE CHARGES, BUT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY, HE DECIDED -- AND GOT TO PRISON -- HE DECIDED THAT, YOU KNOW, HE DIDN'T -- THAT I MUST HAVE FORCED HIM INTO IT, OR THAT TYPE OF THING. THESE ARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A LOT OF TIMES -- WHEN YOU'RE A PUBLIC DEFENDER, YOU'RE SORT OF ARBITRARILY ASSIGNED TO PEOPLE AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE GOING TO GET NEXT; AND ALTHOUGH YOU'VE GOT PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW THESE PEOPLE OUT AT JAIL, OR WHEREVER THEY MAY BE BEFORE YOU COME TO COURT WITH THEM, YOU DON'T -- AS THE YEARS WENT BY, IN MY ROLE AS PUBLIC DEFENDER, I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT THE LAST PERSON WHO TOUCHED THESE PEOPLE, IF THEY WERE LIKELY TO GO TO PRISON, THEN THE LAST PERSON WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM WOULD BE SORT OF AN OBJECT OF BLAME. AND THIS MAN WAS JUST ACCUSING ME OF PERSUADING HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY WHEN HE WAS NOT GUILTY. HE HAD A PCR ALSO; HE FILED ONE OF THOSE. AND I NOTICED THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK AND BE TRIED ON ALL THESE THINGS AGAIN. SO YOU KNOW, HE JUST WAS ALLEGING THAT I HAD PERSUADED HIM, OR DONE TOO MUCH TO PERSUADE HIM.
Q YOUR HEALTH, HOW IS IT?
A I'M IN VERY GOOD HEALTH.
Q I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT TEMPERAMENT, OF COURSE. SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS ON TEMPERAMENT, HOW A JUDGE'S TEMPERAMENT SHOULD BE.
A OKAY. WELL, I'VE BEEN IN COURT AN AWFUL LOT IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, AND I TOO HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH SOME OF THE FALL-OUT FROM JUDICIAL DISTEMPERAMENT, I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT. I THINK A JUDGE NEEDS TO, FIRST OF ALL, BE A MATURE PERSON; AND A JUDGE NEEDS TO HAVE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, HIS OR HER OWN LIFE IN SOME SORT OF ORDER SO THAT PERSONAL THINGS ARE NOT SPILLING OVER TO THE GENERAL POPULATION THAT COMES INTO THE COURTROOM, AND PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY ARE ASSOCIATED. AND I THINK THAT IT IS EASY FOR JUDGES TO FORGET -- AND I'VE SEEN THIS -- TO FORGET THAT THEY ARE PEOPLE, AND ALL PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE COURTROOM ARE JUST PEOPLE, TOGETHER. AND IT'S EASY FOR THEM TO FORGET, I GUESS BECAUSE THEY GET TREATED IN A WAY SORT OF LIKE DOCTORS GET TREATED, WHERE THEY ARE ENCOURAGED TO THINK THAT THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF OMNIPOTENCE. AND I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT FOR JUDGES TO KEEP A LEVEL HEAD ON THINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF BOWED TO. BUT I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- I'M VERY DELIGHTED THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PROBLEM. I MUST SAY THAT, IF THERE HAS EVER BEEN A TIME THAT I HAD A CLIENT THAT CAME AWAY FROM COURT FEELING DISSATISFIED OR UPSET OVER WHAT WENT ON IN COURT, THE BEHAVIOR OF THE JUDGE WAS ALWAYS A COMPONENT IN IT. I'M NOT SAYING THE JUDGE WAS ALWAYS AT FAULT, BUT I'M SAYING THAT HOW THE JUDGE TREATED PEOPLE, WHAT KIND OF RESPECT THE JUDGE OFFERED TO THE GENERAL SITUATION, AND WHETHER THE JUDGE TOOK TIME TO CONSIDER THE PERSON AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS CASE AS AN INDIVIDUAL, THIS HAD SPILL-OVER INTO A CLIENT WHO WAS DISSATISFIED, AND I THINK THAT THE JUDGE IS THE CHIEF PERSON WHO GIVES THE PUBLIC IMPRESSION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE REALLY DO HAVE A COURT SYSTEM THAT CAN DISPENSE JUSTICE. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LOST FAITH IN THAT. A LOT OF MY FELLOW ATTORNEYS ARE VERY CONCERNED WHEN THEY GO BEFORE JUDGES. AND I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS OF PRIVATE ATTORNEYS -- AND I'M A SOLO PRACTITIONER, SO I GUESS MAYBE I REALIZE THIS A LITTLE MORE SOMETIMES THAN PEOPLE WHO ARE IN LARGE FIRMS. BUT LAWYERS CAN BECOME VERY CONCERNED WHEN THEY GO INTO A COURTROOM AND FIND OUT THAT THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY HAS SOME SORT OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JUDGE, AND ESPECIALLY IF THEY THINK OR IT'S PERCEIVED THAT THAT WAS INFLUENTIAL IN HOW THAT TRIAL CAME OUT, OR THE LITIGATION CAME OUT. I THINK THAT'S A BIG CONCERN ON THE PART OF LAWYERS, TOO. I'VE HAD CLIENTS COME IN AND ASK ME, "DO YOU KNOW THIS JUDGE? DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS JUDGE," WANTING TO KNOW IF I COULD AFFORD THEM SOME OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE, OTHERWISE.
Q MS. UPSHUR, FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO JUST NOTE THAT, OF COURSE -- I FAILED TO DO THIS -- YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS, AND AS YOU WELL KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS WERE FILED AGAINST YOU, AND THERE ARE NO WITNESSES HERE TODAY. AND YOU FILED, OF COURSE, YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION WITH US, AS WELL.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY QUESTIONS FROM -- MR. HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q IN LOOKING AT YOUR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, IT INDICATES FIVE PERCENT OF YOUR PRACTICE IS DEVOTED TO CIVIL LITIGATION, AND I NOTICE IN THE PHRASE UP ABOVE, YOU INDICATED THAT YOUR COURT PRACTICE WAS ACCELERATING. HAVE YOU LIMITED YOUR PRACTICE BY CHOICE, TO THE CRIMINAL AND DOMESTIC AREAS, AND YOU'VE JUST BEGUN TRYING TO NURTURE YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE? IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENED?
A NO, I DIDN'T REALLY LIMIT IT BY CHOICE. WHEN I FIRST STARTED PRACTICING LAW -- I AM BY MYSELF -- AND SO I SORT OF TOOK WHAT CAME IN. AND THEN I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE PART-TIME PUBLIC DEFENDER WORK, SO THAT PUT ME IN THE MIDDLE OF CRIMINAL TRIAL PRACTICE. I HAVE WELCOMED AS MUCH CIVIL LITIGATION AS I COULD GET. I DO -- PEOPLE, I GUESS -- PERHAPS, BEING A WOMAN IN A TOWN LIKE SUMTER, YOU TEND TO GET PEOPLE WHO COME TO YOU FOR DOMESTIC MATTERS. IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, MY CIVIL PRACTICE HAS ACCELERATED, AND I'VE HAD, WELL, HALF A DOZEN THOROUGH, FULL-FLEDGED CIVIL TRIALS. EVERY TIME I THINK I GET A GOOD CASE THAT'S GOING TO GO TO TRIAL, I GET PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SETTLE. AND I WILL SAY THAT I THINK I AM GOOD AT THAT TYPE OF THING, THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE SORT OF ASSETS THAT I COULD BRING TO THE JUDGESHIP. I FIND THAT JUDGES ARE GREAT FACILITATORS, AS FAR AS EXPEDITING MATTERS, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FULL-BLOWN TRIAL, AND I'M GOOD AT THAT.

RE-EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q ALSO, I WANTED TO ASK YOU -- OF COURSE, AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE HAVE THIS NO-PLEDGE RULE -- ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A I AM IN COMPLIANCE, YES.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MS. UPSHUR.
MS. UPSHUR: THANK YOU.
(WHEREUPON, MARTHA P. UPSHUR STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR CANDIDATES IN REGARD TO THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, OF COURSE, AND LET'S MAYBE TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. YES, SENATOR POPE?
CHAIRMAN POPE: SINCE WE'VE JUST FINISHED THAT CIRCUIT, THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO LEAVE ARE FREE TO DO SO. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU, WHICH CAME UP BEFORE, IS YOU ARE FREE TO SEEK PLEDGES AFTER THE REPORT IS COMPLETED, WHICH MAY BE AS EARLY AS, SAY, MONDAY, DEPENDING ON WHEN IT'S PREPARED AND WHEN IT'S SIGNED. MS. SATTERWHITE WILL NOTIFY EACH OF YOU BY TELEPHONE WHEN THE REPORT HAS BEEN SIGNED. I BELIEVE SHE'LL NOTIFY EVERYBODY BY TELEPHONE AND BY MAIL. IS THAT RIGHT?
MS. SATTERWHITE: (NODS HEAD.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: AND BY MAIL, AND THEN YOU'RE FREE TO COMMENCE WHATEVER CONTACTS YOU WISH TO MAKE OR WHATEVER PLEDGES YOU WANT TO ATTEMPT TO RECEIVE. BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN THE PAST. SOME PEOPLE SAY, WELL, FROM HERE ON YOU CAN START, BUT I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT THE PLEDGING WILL COMMENCE -- OR ATTEMPTS TO SOLICIT PLEDGES SHOULD COMMENCE AFTER THE BOARD'S REPORT WHEN YOU RECEIVE TELEPHONE WORD.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: OKAY. LET'S TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

(RECESS FROM 11:30 A.M. TO 11:40 A.M.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NOW WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE VACANCY REGARDING THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, OF COURSE. WE'D LIKE TO CALL MR. DERHAM COLE. THIS IS FOR SPARTANBURG AND CHEROKEE COUNTIES.
WHEREUPON, J. DERHAM COLE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. COLE, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE?
A YES, SIR, I HAVE.
Q ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR DELETIONS OR ADDITIONS TO THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A NO, SIR.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. J. Derham Cole
Home Address: Business Address:
24 Woodburn Road P. O. Box 1744
Spartanburg, SC 145 North Church Street, Suite 417

Spartanburg, SC 29304

2. He was born in Spartanburg County, South Carolina on May 27, 1952. He is presently 39 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Candace Linn Carlson on August 10, 1974. He has three children: J. Derham, Jr., age 14; Jonathan T., age 11; and A. Carlson, age 5.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended The Citadel, 1970-1971 (transferred); the University of South Carolina-Spartanburg, 1971-1972 (transferred); the University of South Carolina-Columbia, 1972-1974, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1974-1976, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
1991 - Attended S. C. Trial Lawyers Convention Seminars
1990 - Attended S. C. Trial Lawyers Convention Seminars
1989 - Attended S. C. Trial Lawyers Convention Seminars
1988 - Attended S. C. Trial Lawyers Convention Seminars
1987 - Attended Various Seminars Sponsored by the S. C. Bar

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Assistant Circuit Solicitor, Seventh Judicial Circuit, 1977-1985
Criminal Prosecutions Magistrate Court, County Court and Circuit Court

Private Law Practice, Cole and Taylor, 1985-present
General Practice, Civil and Criminal Litigation, Domestic

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - infrequent
State - frequent
Other - infrequent

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 15%
Criminal - 60%
Domestic - 25%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 25%
Non-jury - 75%

Primarily sole counsel, occasionally associate counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) The State v. Johnny Ray Suttles

Murder trial in which the death penalty was sought.

(b) The State v. Dennis McCurry
Murder case involving the issue of redaction of conflicting statements of co-defendants.

(c) The State v. Sallie Mae Thompson
Murder case involving the issue of redaction of conflicting statements of co-defendants.

(d) The State v. Mario Milian Hernandez
Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill case involving the defense of insanity.

(e) Graves v. Garner
Probate case involving difficult issue of disproving the existence of a common law marriage and an interpretation of the Probate Code respecting the existence of de novo trial in the circuit court under the Probate code.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Graves v. Garner, UP #91-UP-144, Ct. App. 1991
19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) The State v. James William Wingo

(b) The State v. Larry Blain Lee

(c) The State v. Darlene McGaha Rogers

(d) The State v. Jeral Eugene Stoker

22. Public Office:

Elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from District #32 in Spartanburg County in a special election on September 1, 1987. Re-elected without opposition in the general elections of 1988 and 1990 and presently serving in that capacity.

23. Unsuccessful candidate: In 1984 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the Office of Circuit Solicitor for the Seventh Judicial Circuit.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

In the event such would occur, he would recuse himself after notifying the attorneys involved in the matter that was pending before him.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in 1982 by Dr. William S. Scott, 106 Eastwood Circle, Spartanburg, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Spartanburg County Bar Association and South Carolina Bar

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Saint John's Lutheran Church, Stewardship Committee and Planning Committee; Spartanburg Cotillion Club; Spartanburg Country Club

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) E. Patrick Crowley, Vice President
Carolina Southern Bank
P. O. Box 5029, Spartanburg, SC 29304-5029

(b) Ben C. Harrison, Esquire
P. O. Box 5367, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(c) Noel Turner, Esquire
P. O. Box 3408, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Honorable Bill Coffey, Sheriff
P. O. Box 771, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(e) John H. Nolen, Esquire
P. O. Box 5504, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. WE CHECKED YOUR RECORDS WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WITH THE SPARTANBURG SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, WITH THE SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, FBI, JUDGEMENT ROLLS OF SPARTANBURG COUNTY, THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS, AND THEY ALL ARE NEGATIVE. OF COURSE, YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH AS BEING EXCELLENT.
A YES, SIR.
Q OF COURSE, YOU ARE FILING WITH US YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS. YOU FILED, OF COURSE, WITH US YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION. AS YOU WELL KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU AND WE HAVE NO WITNESSES PRESENT TO TESTIFY. OF COURSE WE WANT TO ASK YOU, AS WELL, OF COURSE, IN REGARD TO YOUR THOUGHTS -- WOULD YOU PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS IN REGARD TO TEMPERAMENT, OF COURSE, OF JUDGES?
A WITHOUT QUESTION, AS WELL AS THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE INDICATED, I THINK THAT'S, WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGE, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF JUDGE, IS TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TEMPERAMENT. IN FACT, I LIST ABOUT THREE QUALIFICATIONS THAT I THINK ARE MOST IMPORTANT -- THOSE BEING TEMPERAMENT, COMMON SENSE, AND EXPERIENCE -- TEMPERAMENT OBVIOUSLY COMING IN THE NUMBER ONE POSITION. AS THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE INDICATED, I, TOO, IN MY PRACTICE, HAVE EXPERIENCED BOTH SIDES OF THAT QUESTION: GOOD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, AND WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE INAPPROPRIATE OR ABUSIVE TEMPERAMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION THAT GOOD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT -- A JUDGE WHO IS A GENTLEMAN OR A LADY -- IS MUCH PREFERABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE AND A MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE FOR THE LAWYERS, AS WELL AS THE LITIGANTS, THAN THE OTHER KIND. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ONE WHO SEEKS TO BECOME A JUDGE ALSO TO REMEMBER THAT HE IS A LAWYER, NOT WAS A LAWYER, AND THAT IS A LAWYER WHO NOW HAS ANOTHER JOB, AND THAT HE HAS THAT JOB NOT BECAUSE HE IS THE SMARTEST OR BRIGHTEST OR BEST LAWYER IN TOWN, OR IN THE STATE, BUT BECAUSE HE IS RESPECTED BY HIS PEERS AND RESPECTED HOPEFULLY BY THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE TO REMEMBER, AND I CAN ASSURE THIS COMMITTEE -- AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE BAR IN MY HOME TOWN, AS WELL AS IN CHEROKEE COUNTY WILL ASSURE YOU -- THAT I AM THAT KIND OF PERSON, THAT I WILL NOT FORGET FROM WHENCE I CAME.
Q OF COURSE, MR. COLE, I KNOW YOU'RE AWARE OF COURSE, OF THE NO-PLEDGE RULE, OF COURSE, THAT WE HAVE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT?
A YES, SIR, I AM VERY MUCH IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. AS YOU KNOW, MY BEING A LEGISLATOR PUTS ME IN A RATHER PECULIAR POSITION SINCE THAT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE, AND I HAVE AVOIDED THAT IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, TO AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE THAT THERE ARE ANY COMMITMENTS BEING SOUGHT OR GIVEN.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
CHAIRMAN POPE: I HAVE A COUPLE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SENATOR POPE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q YOU'VE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES IN CRIMINAL PRACTICE; I BELIEVE YOU'VE BEEN AN ASSISTANT SOLICITOR AS WELL AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q I'M SURE YOU FEEL THAT GIVES YOU A BALANCED VIEW, ON CRIMINAL SESSIONS OF COURT?
A NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT IN MY MIND.
Q NOW, ON THE CIVIL, YOU ESTIMATED THE PERCENT OF YOUR LITIGATION AS ABOUT 15 PERCENT CIVIL?
A YES, SIR.
Q COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF YOUR CIVIL PRACTICE?
A WELL, IT'S A LIMITED CIVIL PRACTICE, NO QUESTION. I HAVE HANDLED, OBVIOUSLY, TORT CASES -- AUTOMOBILE WRECKS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE -- MORE OFTEN THAN OTHER TYPES, BUT I'VE ALSO HANDLED CONTRACT CASES AND EVEN HANDLED A FEW CASES WHEREIN THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SOLD SOME PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, AND I BROUGHT ACTIONS TO GET THAT PROPERTY BACK, AND WAS SUCCESSFUL. SO IT'S BASICALLY A GENERAL PRACTICE, BUT IT'S PRIMARILY -- THE GREATER MAJORITY IS CRIMINAL DEFENSE.
Q I ASKED MS. HORNE IN THE PREVIOUS SCREENING, ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS YOUNG AND EXPERIENCED IN THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM AS AN ACTIVE LAWYER. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE VERY ACTIVE AS A TRIAL LAWYER. DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY SHIFTING GEARS TO THE PASSIVE ROLE OF A JUDGE, WHO REALLY HAS TO SIT FREQUENTLY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND LISTEN TO SOMETIMES TEDIOUS TESTIMONY?
A I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT BEING A PROBLEM, MR. CHAIRMAN. OF COURSE, YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE COURT DOCKET IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, ESPECIALLY SPARTANBURG COUNTY, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT ABOUT 8,000-SOME-ODD CASES ON THE CRIMINAL DOCKET, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THERE WON'T BE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME BEING PASSED WITHOUT SOMETHING TO DO, TO INSURE THE SWIFT DISPOSITION OF THOSE CASES. INSOFAR AS THE FACT OF BEING YOUNG, THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL, BECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU, BY THE TIME THAT DOCKET GETS REDUCED, I'M GOING TO BE -- IF I'M ELECTED, I'LL BE A WHOLE LOT OLDER, IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT DOCKET THERE WOULD TELL YOU THE SAME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q I HOPE YOU KNOW GAMBLING IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THIS STATE --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- AND YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.
A NOT ME.
Q I HAD TWO AREAS I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. I SEE THAT YOU APPARENTLY HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE BARS OF BOTH COUNTIES THAT ARE IN YOUR CIRCUIT; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THOSE HAVE BEEN IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, THE ENDORSEMENTS?
A YES.
Q THE OTHER AREA I WANTED TO COVER WAS, AS WAS MENTIONED, YOU ARE A YOUNGER LAWYER AND OF THE RULE 5 GENERATION, LIKE MYSELF, WHERE WE HAD TO GO SIT IN COURT AND THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRY CASES ALONE AT SOME POINT. HAS YOUR CIVIL TRIAL EXPERIENCE BEEN ONE IN WHICH YOU HAVE PRIMARILY TRIED THOSE CASES ALONE, OR HAVE YOU GENERALLY HAD CO-COUNSEL ON THEM?
A NO, SIR. MY EXPERIENCE, I WOULD SAY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FIVE PERCENT, HAS BEEN SOLE COUNSEL. THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW CASES WHERE I'VE BEEN AN ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, PRIMARILY WITH MY LAW PARTNER, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS SOME CASE THAT IT WAS HELPFUL TO HAVE ASSOCIATE COUNSEL. BUT GENERALLY, I HAVE BEEN THE SOLE COUNSEL.
Q I PRESUME, FROM YOUR EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, THAT MUCH OF YOUR LITIGATION WAS IN WHICH YOU WERE LEAD COUNSEL AT THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE; IS THAT TRUE?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU TRY ANY MURDER CASES?
A EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST WEEK, OR THE FIRST DAY, I THINK I HAD SOME HELP AFTER THAT. MY LAW PARTNER, WHO WAS ALSO A VERY GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, WHO DIED TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO, THE FIRST WEEK I WAS THERE, HE SAID, "LOOK DERHAM, THE BEST WAY TO LEARN TO TRY CASES IS TO GO TRY ONE," AND HE HANDED ME ONE, AND I HADN'T BEEN THERE BUT TWO DAYS. AND IT WAS A DUI CASE WHERE A PERSON BLEW .012. SO I LEARNED YEARS LATER THAT HE HAD SET ME UP, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S HOW I GOT MY FIRST EXPERIENCE, AND SINCE THAT TIME, I HAVE BEEN TRYING THEM ON MY OWN, SO TO SPEAK. AND YES, I HAVE TRIED MURDER CASES. IN FACT, I GUESS I'VE TRIED VIRTUALLY EVERY KIND OF CRIMINAL CASE THAT THERE IS, AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS:

Q I WATCH CHANNEL 7, AND Y'ALL KILL SOMEBODY OVER THERE EVERY DAY, AS FAR AS I CAN --
A WELL, NOT "Y'ALL" NOW. SOMEBODY.
Q WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU: I'VE BEEN ON THE SCREENING COMMITTEE A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME, AND ONE THING THAT WORRIES ME IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALL THE PAPERWORK AND EVERYTHING THAT I THINK PROVES THE CHARACTER AND ABILITY OF THE PERSON WE'RE SCREENING, AND OF COURSE, PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND EVERYTHING HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IT. BUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS -- SINCE YOU'RE ONE OF THEM, I'LL ASK YOU THIS -- THEY DON'T HAVE THE EXPOSURE TO THAT, AT ALL, AND I DOUBT VERY MANY OF THEM EVER READ THE REPORT WHEN IT'S PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL. WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S CORRECT?
A THAT VERY WELL MAY BE THE CASE.
Q WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST MAYBE THE SCREENING COMMITTEE COULD DO TO BETTER PROLIFERATE THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY? HOW COULD WE EXPOSE THEM MORE FULLY?
A WELL, MR. HENDRICKS, I QUITE FRANKLY DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, AND IT'S THE SAME IN ANY PUBLIC ELECTION PROCESS. IN THIS CASE, IT'S A MUCH SMALLER CONSTITUENCY THAN IT IS IF YOU'RE RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, FOR SENATE, OR THE HOUSE. BUT AS YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AND YOU GO OUT AND TALK TO PEOPLE, AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO'S RUNNING; THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES ARE; AND QUITE FRANKLY, MANY TIMES, THEY DON'T CARE. AND IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, BUT YOU LEARN THAT QUICKLY IN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. AND YOU FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE OBLIGATION AND THE FORESIGHT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE RUNNING. AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT. PERHAPS A WAY THAT THE SCREENING COMMITTEE COULD ASSIST IN THAT IS TO PUT ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PIECES OF PAPER ON THE DESK THAT WE GET IN THE MORNING, AND SAY, "THESE ARE AVAILABLE, AND HERE'S THE REPORT. YOU KNOW, GO OUT AND FIND OUT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE." BUT MANY TIMES, THAT DOESN'T OCCUR, AND I KNOW IN MANY CASES, PEOPLE TRUST OTHERS TO GIVE THEM ADVICE OR INFORMATION ON INDIVIDUALS FROM THEIR AREA OR PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW. SO I THINK PERHAPS IF THAT IS -- IF WE TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME IN THAT AREA, THAT PEOPLE CAN COME TO KNOW EACH OF THE CANDIDATES.
Q WELL, I FIND MOST PEOPLE ARE PLEDGED WAY AHEAD OF TIME, SO --
A OH, YES.
Q AND I'VE HAD VERY FEW PEOPLE ASK ME AS A MEMBER OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, "WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT SO-AND-SO?" YOU KNOW, BUT I FIGURED WE'D PROBABLY HAVE MORE PEOPLE ASKING ABOUT IT THAN ONE OR TWO, AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY AREN'T GETTING A TRUE PICTURE OF THE CANDIDATE AND THEY'VE ALREADY PLEDGED SOMEBODY. I JUST WONDER IF THERE IS SOME BETTER WAY THAT WE COULD PROLIFERATE WHAT WE REALLY FIND OUT.
A WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK A GREAT STEP HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THAT REGARD, AT LEAST A HELP IN THAT REGARD, BY THE PREVENTING CANDIDATES FROM SEEKING PLEDGES AND PREVENTING LEGISLATORS FROM GIVING PLEDGES UNTIL AFTER THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HAS ISSUED ITS REPORT. AND I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL IN THAT RESPECT. AT LEAST, BY THE TIME THE ELECTION COMES AROUND, EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL HOPEFULLY KNOW WHO THE CANDIDATES ARE, WITHOUT HAVING COMMITTED TO SOMEONE BEFORE THEY KNEW WHO WAS IN THE RACE.
Q WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT STEP FORWARD, HOLDING UP THE PLEDGING.
A YES.
Q AND WE MIGHT HAVE A CLARENCE THOMAS KIND OF INTERROGATION SOMEDAY, AND --
A I HOPE WE DON'T START THAT TODAY, MR. HENDRICKS.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. COLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS TO US?
MR. COLE: NO, SIR. I JUST APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. COLE: THANK YOU.
(WHEREUPON, J. DERHAM COLE STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: WE NOW CALL MR. THOMAS C. DILLARD.
WHEREUPON, THOMAS C. DILLARD, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, YOU WERE LAST SCREENED I BELIEVE ON FEBRUARY 27, 1990, OF COURSE?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q OF COURSE, YOU HAVE FILED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH US. ANY CHANGES TO THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD WOULD BE IN ITEM 31 AS TO "PARTY TO SUIT."
Q YES, SIR.
A AND I WOULD -- IT'S AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART. I WAS NAMED AS A PARTY TO A SUIT AGAINST THE HOSPITAL, NEWBERRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES --
Q YES, SIR.
A -- WHEN I SERVED ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WHICH WAS A SUIT BROUGHT BY ONE OF THE DOCTORS WHOSE STAFF PRIVILEGES -- OBJECTED TO THE WAY THE EMERGENCY ROOM COVERAGE WAS OPERATED. I BELIEVE THAT WAS FILED IN 1978, AND ULTIMATELY JUDGE PERRY FOUND IN THE HOSPITAL'S FAVOR. I WAS NAMED BECAUSE I WAS, AT THAT TIME, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Thomas C. Dillard
Home Address: Business Address:
667 Stafford Avenue 258 North Church Street
Spartanburg, SC 29301 Spartanburg, SC 29301

2. He was born in Whitmire, South Carolina on October 23, 1942. He is presently 49 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Brenda R. Dillard on October 19, 1986. He was previously divorced on July 13, 1984, on the grounds of one year's separation. Thomas C. Dillard was the moving party. He has three children: Anna Ruth, age 26, (R. N., Baptist Hospice); Deborah S. Maness, age 27, (Production Assistant, Felter's Inc.); and Hope S. Davis, age 25, (Secretary, Cone Mills).

5. Military Service: None.
6. He attended Newberry College from l961-1963 and from 1968-1970, B.A. (He left school in 1963 to work and returned in 1968); and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1971-1973, J.D.

7. He worked full time while attending college.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended Trial Lawyers Association Convention Seminars since 1986. Prior to 1986, he attended regular CLE Seminars at the University of South Carolina Law School.

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal Experience since graduation from law school:

1973-1981 Associate with Robert C. Lake, Jr. - General Civil and Criminal Practice

1981-1986 Sole Practitioner at Union, South Carolina - General Civil and Criminal Practice

1986-present Spartanburg County Assistant Public Defender, Criminal Practice

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - monthly
Other - none

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 55%
Domestic - 20%

Since 1986, 100% Criminal

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 30%
Nonjury - 70%

Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:
(a) State v. Sole Dowlinton - Tried for murder. After two days, the trial jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to three years. It was significant, because he was able to convince a jury that the Defendant had no malice.

(b) State v. Margarito Guiterrez - Tried for murder. He was able to have most of the State's evidence excluded during the trial. After the State rested its case, they agreed to let the Defendant plead to involuntary manslaughter which reduced the Defendant's sentence from life to three years.

(c) Nickey B. Toby v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. This was a case which he carried from the Administrative Level to the U. S. District Court on Appeal. This case was significant because of the time involved to secure the Claimant's retroactive benefits. From the time of filing to the last appeal was seven years.

(d) State v. Jerry Wood - Tried for murder. This case was significant as it gave him more experience in trying felony cases.

(e) State v. Richard Longworth - Tried for capital murder. This case was significant in giving him experience in trying death penalty cases.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

As a Public Defender, all appeals are handled by the Office of Appellate Defense. The last appeal in which he participated was more than ten years ago when he was an associate with Robert C. Lake, Jr.

20. Judicial Office:

1981-1986 Judge, Town of Whitmire Municipal Court. He was appointed by the Town Council. It was limited to crimes which carried maximum penalty of 30 days or $200.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He worked for the City of Newberry as a water plan operator while attending college from 1968-1970. He also worked for the City of Newberry, 1965-1968. He worked as a page in the South Carolina State Senate while attending law school, 1971-1973.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He is aware of none. If there were any such conflicts, he would recuse himself if he were the sitting Judge.

30. Tax Lien: South Carolina tax liens were filed in 1983. The liens were paid in 1983.

33. His health is good in general. He has mild angina which is familial and which is controlled by medication. His last physical was in March of 1988 by Dr. E. J. Dickert, Kinard Street, Newberry, South Carolina 29108.

36. Current Treatment for Illness or Physical Condition: He is presently taking Inderal for high blood pressure. He was diagnosed for mild angina in 1976.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association and South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

40. Civic, Charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Masons, Amity Lodge #87, Newberry, SC, and York Rite Bodies, Newberry, SC; Shrine, Hejaz Shrine Temple, Greenville, SC; Union Elk Lodge, Union, SC

41. He has been placed on the Register to be eligible for an appointment to Administrative Law Judge with the Federal Government. To be placed on the registry, he was rated on experience, references, written exam, personal interview and FBI check for security clearance.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) W. C. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer
Arthur State Bank
P. O. Drawer 769, Union, SC 29379

(b) Charles W. Jones, Esquire
220 North Church Street, Spartanburg, SC 29301

(c) Gerald G. Wilson, Esquire
P. O. Box 6189, Spartanburg, SC 29304

(d) Toney J. Lister, Esquire
P. O. Box 2229, Spartanburg, SC 29304-2229

(e) David E. Turnipseed, Esquire
P. O. Box 1904, Spartanburg, SC 29304

Q I SEE. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR US. AS YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. WE'VE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE RECORDS OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, FBI, THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL RECORDS -- EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YOU MENTIONED, OF COURSE -- THOSE ALL WERE NEGATIVE, OF COURSE. YOU REPORT YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, IN GENERAL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR US, GO A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT?
A MR. GENTRY, I HAVE WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS MILD ANGINA, WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY MEDICATION AND HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A I TAKE MEDICATION EVERY DAY, FOR IT. IT'S BASICALLY HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, IS THE CAUSE, AND I TAKE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. OF COURSE, YOU FILED WITH US, OF COURSE, YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, AND YOUR, OF COURSE, FINANCIAL DECLARATION. AND OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. CERTAINLY, NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TO TESTIFY. OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU, AS WELL, OF COURSE, GOING TO TEMPERAMENT, WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE TEMPERAMENT OF JUDGES AND WHAT IT SHOULD BE?
A MR. GENTRY, I THINK PROBABLY I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. COLE AND THE OTHER CANDIDATES THAT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY, IS PROBABLY WHAT SEPARATES THE MEN FROM THE BOYS. I HATE TO PARROT BACK WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID, AS HAVING BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF SOMEONE WHO DID NOT EXERCISE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND RAN A COURTROOM AS IF IT WERE A PERSONAL LITTLE FIEFDOM. I'M SURE WE HAVE ALL, AS PRACTICING ATTORNEYS, HAD SOME OF THAT, AND WE'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH IT AND GO ON. AS MR. COOPER RELATED EARLIER, I'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH A LOT OF PATIENCE. AS JUDGE BURNETT USUALLY STARTS OFF HIS ADDRESS TO THE JURY, WHEN HE IS QUALIFYING A JURY, HE INFORMS THEM "THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT YOU WILL NEED, WHEN YOU COME INTO THIS COURT," AND I THINK IT APPLIES TO LAWYERS, LITIGANTS, JUDGES, AND HE TELLS THEM, "YOU WILL NEED A LOT OF PATIENCE, AND A SENSE OF HUMOR, AND THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BOTH RUN SHORT BEFORE WE GET THROUGH WITH THE END OF THIS TERM." I THINK THAT'S A VERY WISE STATEMENT, AND I THINK PERHAPS THE FACILITATING OF THE DIVERSE GROUPS, BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, THE LAWYERS, WHO QUITE NATURALLY ARE PRESSED -- BUT AS HAS BEEN NOTED, TO MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE, AS FAR AS LITIGANTS ARE CONCERNED, THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD TO THEM AT THAT TIME. I DON'T -- I THINK THAT A JUDGE SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE IN COURT WITH THE DEFERENCE THAT THEY DESERVE. IT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING TO BE NICE. I DON'T THINK YOU LOSE ANYTHING BY TRYING TO BE AGREEABLE, HELPFUL, AND I DON'T THINK YOU LOSE ANY JOB EFFECTIVENESS. YOU DO NOT BECOME A DOORMAT. A JUDGE MAINTAINS ORDER AND DECORUM AND RUNS HIS COURT, BUT HE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT BEING A TYRANT. THAT, TO ME, IS WHAT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS ALL ABOUT, IS SOMEONE THAT CAN MAINTAIN THE BIG PICTURE OF EVERYBODY CONCERNED: THE JURIES, LITIGANTS, THE LAWYERS, EVERYBODY'S PROBLEMS AND TRY TO FACILITATE AND MAKE IT EASY ON EVERYBODY. I THINK THAT GENERALLY IS WHAT HAS MADE OUR SYSTEM WORK AS WELL AS IT HAS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. AND WITH THE CONTINUING BACKLOGS, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES, SOLICITORS, ATTORNEYS, IN GENERAL, COOPERATE AND HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP AND BE ABLE TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE DOCKET AND BACKLOG THAT WE HAVE NOW.
Q THANK YOU, SIR. ALSO, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A YES.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY QUESTION BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. DILLARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT OR COMMENT THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE TO US?
MR. DILLARD: NO, SIR. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT I APPRECIATE BEING HERE, AND APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S PATIENCE, AND THEIR INTEREST AND CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE QUALIFIED PEOPLE SITTING ON THE BENCH.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MR. DILLARD.
(WHEREUPON, THOMAS C. DILLARD STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MS. BARBARA MACHELL, PLEASE.
WHEREUPON, BARBARA MACHELL, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q FIRST, I WANT TO ASK: AM I PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY?
A YES, SIR.
Q OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE FILED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH US. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A NO, SIR.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Barbara Machell
Home Address: Business Address:
115 Sorrento Drive
Moore, SC 29369

2. She was born in Liverpool, England on August 23, 1931. She is presently 60 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married on October 13, 1952 to Greville Machell. She has four children: Simon, age 37 (Development Manager); Bridget, age 35 (housewife); Zoe, age 34 (Management Consultant); and Adam, age 31 (Sergeant, U. S. Army).

5. Military Service: N/A
6. She attended LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia, 1969-1971, B.A. in English and French; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1977-1979, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has mainly attended seminars and trainings dealing with family law issues. In the past three years, she has attended many hours of training on child support and enforcement and establishment of paternity. She has excess hours to carry forward to 1992.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:
She taught two semesters of business law at USC-Spartanburg to business majors.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1980-1984 General practice but emphasis on domestic law, social security, wills and estates. She did some criminal cases and real estate, etc.

1984-1986 Piedmont Legal Services, mainly domestic law but also health law as it affected poor people

1986-1988 SCDSS, termination of parental rights almost entirely but two employee grievances in which she successfully represented the agency

1988-1991 SCDSS, child support enforcement. She was chief state attorney in the Greenville office and handled cases in the 9 upstate counties and supervised a staff of approximately 26 persons. She went from Attorney Level I to Level IV in three years.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -
State - 1986-1988, several times a month
1988-1991, 5 or more times a month with contempt cases followed by new actions to establish paternity/child support; sometimes a total of 60 or more cases in one day
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil -
Criminal -
Domestic - 100%
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury -
Non-jury - 100%

Sole Counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) SCDSS v. Humphries and Vereen. 374 SE2d 992 (1988)
The Court of Appeals held that DSS does not have to provide rehabilitative services when mental retardation is the grounds for termination of parental rights.

(b) McCutcheon v. Charleston County DSS. 396 SE2d 115 (1990)
She handled this case up to the beginning of the appeal process. The Court held that DSS does not have to find jobs or housing where grounds for termination of parental rights is the failure of the parents to hold steady jobs or have suitable housing.

(c) SCDSS v. Gary Darby. Court of Appeals, spring 1990, unreported
She handled this case in the early stages and supervised the staff attorney on brief and preparation for oral argument. Held that Court can find paternity based on scientific evidence and testimony even where Defendant claims non-access to mother.

(d) Heather Nicole (Bailey) v. Secretary of HHS. Appeal to Federal Court, Greenville, SC, not reported.
She proved that posthumous illegitimate child was the child of deceased worker.

(e) Claimant v. Secretary of HHS. Appeal to Federal Court, Greenville, SC, not reported
The Court agreed that SSA regulations were ambiguous and misled claimant, a Ph.D. organic chemist, and the agency's senior officer in Spartanburg.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(See answers to #17 above)

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
1948-1950 Student nurse, Royal Liverpool Babies' Hospital, Liverpool England
1950-1953 Student nurse, London Hospital, London, England
June-Dec. 1953 Staff nurse, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, England
1976-1977 Public Relations Officer at the Charles Lea Center in Spartanburg, S. C.
27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
She does not have any conflict of interest because of financial holdings. If it should be decided otherwise by the Committee, she would sell the holdings.

33. Her health is excellent. Her last physical was in January of 1991 by Dr. Stephen Bailes, Westgate Family Physicians, Powell Mill Road, Spartanburg, SC 29301.

35. She is nearsighted but is corrected to 20-20 with glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar and Spartanburg Bar

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
She supports UNICEF; Society of Friends; South Carolina Wildlife; National Wildlife Federation; Spartanburg Downtown Rescue Mission; Salvation Army; University of South Carolina School of Law

41. Barbara Machell, her husband and children are naturalized American citizens. As a mature woman with four grown children and a successful career in law, she feels she has a great deal to offer as a judge. She believes herself to be honest, fair and impartial.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Anne E. McIlroy
Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina
Five Points Office, Columbia, SC 29222

(b) R. Ross Jolly, Director
Regional and County Operations
S. C. Department of Social Services
P. O. Box 1469, Columbia, SC 29202-1469

(c) Tana G. Vanderbilt, Assistant General Counsel
S. C. Department of Social Services
P. O. Box 1520, Columbia, SC 29202-1520

(d) Robert D. Norris
1811 Old Pendleton Road, Easley, SC 29642

(e) Alice Henderson, Professor of History
University of South Carolina at Spartanburg
Spartanburg, SC 29303

Q AS YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. WE'VE CHECKED THE RECORD, OF COURSE, WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, SPARTANBURG COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND SPARTANBURG CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, FBI, THE JUDGMENT ROLLS AT THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY COURTHOUSE. ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE, OF COURSE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGEMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU, BUT YOU ARE LISTED AS A PLAINTIFF IN A CASE AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN OR TELL US ABOUT THAT, PLEASE?
A THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, AND I HAD ACTUALLY COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN ABOUT IT UNTIL I RECEIVED THE PACKET FROM MS. SATTERWHITE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT I REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A SOCIAL SECURITY CASE, AND WAS SUCCESSFUL. THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW REQUIRES THAT, BEFORE UNDERTAKING REPRESENTATION, YOU DISCUSS WITH THE CLIENT WHAT THE FEE ARRANGEMENT WILL BE, AND HAVE THE CLIENT SIGN A STATEMENT THAT HE OR SHE UNDERSTANDS IT, AND YOU HAVE THAT STATEMENT WITNESSED. WHEN WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT CASE, I SUBMITTED MY APPLICATION FOR FEE, WITH MY TIME VERY CAREFULLY LISTED AND THE HOURLY RATE THAT I WAS CHARGING AT THAT TIME. I HAD BEEN OUT OF LAW SCHOOL I THINK ABOUT THREE YEARS THEN. AND TO MY GREAT ASTONISHMENT, THE SOCIAL SECURITY PEOPLE SENT ME BACK A LETTER SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PAY ME THAT MUCH; THEY WOULD ONLY PAY A PERCENTAGE -- SOMETHING LIKE I THINK 70 PERCENT OF WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR -- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CASE PRESENTED NO PARTICULAR LEGAL DIFFICULTY AND DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY PARTICULAR LEGAL SKILL. AND AS I THINK ANYBODY HERE WHO IS AN ATTORNEY KNOWS, THE CLIENT IS USUALLY VERY WILLING TO PAY THE FEE, BECAUSE THE CLIENT IS SO HAPPY TO HAVE BEEN VINDICATED AND TO HAVE PROVEN THAT HE OR SHE IS REALLY DISABLED. SO I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH MY CLIENT, ONLY WITH THE SSA, AND I TRIED WRITING THEM LETTERS, AND I TRIED TELEPHONE CALLS, AND NOTHING HAPPENED. SO I FINALLY SPOKE WITH AN ATTORNEY IN SPARTANBURG WHO WAS MAINLY INVOLVED WITH SOCIAL SECURITY CASES, AND I SAID, "GEORGE, WHAT SHALL I DO?" AND HE SAID, "SUE THEM." SO I WAS A BIT SURPRISED, BUT I WENT AHEAD AND I SUED THEM, AND I THINK WITHIN A WEEK OF MY SUING THEM, I HAD A CALL FROM ONE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEYS WHO SAID, IN A VERY DISPIRITED SORT OF VOICE, "OH, YOU'RE NOT SERIOUS, ARE YOU?" AND I SAID, "YES." HE SAID, "WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO WITHDRAW THIS LAWSUIT?" I SAID, "GIVE ME MY MONEY." HE SAID, "WELL, ALL RIGHT, THEN, I'LL TALK TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY," AND WITHIN A VERY SHORT WHILE, I DID GET THE COMPLETE FEE, AND I DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT.
Q I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT YEAR WAS THAT?
A I THINK IT WAS '83. I'M NOT QUITE SURE. IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, BECAUSE FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I HAVE BEEN WITH SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
Q THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT FOR US. OF COURSE YOUR HEALTH, OF COURSE, YOU SAID WAS EXCELLENT?
A YES.
Q YOU FILED WITH US, OF COURSE, YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION, AND OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU AND NO ONE IS HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY. OF COURSE, WE ALSO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS -- AND PLEASE SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS -- IN REGARD TO TEMPERAMENT OF JUDGES, HOW IT SHOULD BE.
A WELL, I'VE COME AFTER A LONG LINE OF OTHER CANDIDATES, AND I OBVIOUSLY WOULD ENDORSE WHAT THEY HAVE SAID ABOUT THE GOOD QUALITIES, AND I ALSO HAVE HAD OCCASION TO SUFFER AT THE HANDS OR AT THE TONGUE OF AN ARROGANT JUDGE. BUT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO ADD, TO ALL THOSE OTHER GOOD QUALITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED HERE THIS MORNING: MATURITY, COMMON SENSE, ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS, MANAGERIAL SKILLS, THE WILLINGNESS AND THE ABILITY TO WORK HARD AND, IF NECESSARY, TO WORK LONG HOURS. WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, I WAS MOST RECENTLY INVOLVED WITH COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT, ENFORCING CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING PATERNITY. ANYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN TO COURT ON THE DAY WHEN DSS'S ARE DOING THE CHILD SUPPORT CASES KNOWS THAT IT IS PANDEMONIUM. WE MAY HAVE AS MANY AS 40 CASES SCHEDULED. WE HAVE PERHAPS 30 DEFENDANTS TURN UP. SOME OF THEM WOULD BRING THEIR FRIENDS BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAVE A RIDE. THE WOMEN WOULD TURN UP -- SOMETIMES THEY WOULD BRING THEIR FRIENDS; THEY WOULD BRING THEIR CHILDREN. AND THE COURTROOM, OR THE CORRIDORS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM WERE ABSOLUTELY SCENES OF PANDEMONIUM SOMETIMES. AND SOME JUDGES WOULD BECOME EXTREMELY IRATE AND WOULD TAKE THIS OUT ON THE DSS ATTORNEY, AND WOULD BE VERY SHORT WITH THE ATTORNEYS, VERY SHORT WITH THE LITIGANTS, WOULD BE SAYING FROM THE OUTSET, "I DON'T INTEND TO BE HERE AFTER THREE O'CLOCK," AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU HAD 20 CASES OR MORE TO PRESENT. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY REASON WHY A JUDGE SHOULD NOT WORK A FULL DAY LIKE THE REST OF THE PEOPLE DO IN THE BUSINESS WORLD, AND ATTORNEYS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE I KNOW WORK VERY LONG HOURS.
Q THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. LET'S SEE. ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, OF COURSE, A NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A YES, I AM.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?
CHAIRMAN POPE: I HAVE SOME.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: SENATOR POPE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q MS. MACHELL, YOU'VE BEEN, THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WITH DSS?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE NOTES THAT 100 PERCENT OF YOUR LITIGATION IS IN FAMILY COURT.
A YES, SIR.
Q HOW MANY JURY TRIALS OF A CIVIL NATURE HAVE YOU TRIED?
A TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WERE ONLY THREE CASES THAT EVER -- TWO CASES THAT EVER WENT TO TRIAL, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETWEEN 1980 AND 1984.
Q WERE YOU SOLE COUNSEL IN THOSE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT TYPE OF JURY TRIALS WERE THOSE?
A IN ONE OF THEM, IT WAS -- I DON'T RECALL TOO CLEARLY -- IT WAS A LAWSUIT AGAINST A REALTOR WHO WAS HANDLING A PIECE OF RENTAL REAL ESTATE FOR A WOMAN, AND AS I RECALL, HER ALLEGATIONS WERE THAT THE REALTOR RENTED THE REAL ESTATE TO HIS MISTRESS AND DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO COLLECT THE RENT, AND WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO OUST THE WOMAN, AND SO WE TOOK THAT TO TRIAL TO GET THE WOMAN OUSTED AND TO TRY AND OBTAIN FROM THE REAL ESTATE AGENT THE BACK RENTS.
Q AND THE OTHER CIVIL TRIAL INVOLVED WHAT?
A I THINK THAT WAS A TRIAL REGARDING A CONTRACT FOR BUILDING SUPPLIES THAT HAD NOT BEEN PAID FOR.
Q DID IT RESULT IN A JURY VERDICT?
A NO, THEY WERE BOTH SETTLED BEFORE THE JURY CAME BACK.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TRIED --
A OH, AND THERE WAS A THIRD CASE -- I'M SORRY -- THAT ALSO WAS TRIED, AND SETTLED BEFORE THE JURY CAME BACK. THAT WAS FOR AN ERECTION OF A FENCE THAT OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT GOING TO STAY IN PLACE VERY LONG, AND THE HOMEOWNER SUED TO HAVE THE FENCE TAKEN DOWN AND A MORE STABLE FENCE ERECTED.
Q BUT YOU NEVER PARTICIPATED IN THE TRIAL OF, SAY, AN AUTOMOBILE WRECK CASE?
A I DID HANDLE MANY OF THOSE, AND AGAIN, THEY ALL SETTLED. I DID SOME EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES -- ONE AGAINST SHONEY'S -- AND THOSE CASES ALSO SETTLED WITHOUT EVER FILING SUIT, IN FACT.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TRIED A CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL?
A NO. I DID HANDLE SOME CRIMINAL CASES, AS CO-COUNSEL WITH ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN SPARTANBURG, AND THOSE CASES DID NOT GO TO TRIAL.
Q HOW WOULD YOU OVERCOME THAT HANDICAP, SINCE A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SPENDS AT LEAST 70 PERCENT OF HIS TIME, I WOULD GUESS, IN CIVIL COURT AND CRIMINAL COURT ON JURY TRIALS? THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT INGREDIENT, AND EXPERIENCE THERE WOULD BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. HOW WOULD YOU OVERCOME THAT?
A WELL, SENATOR, I WENT BACK TO SCHOOL -- LAGRANGE COLLEGE -- WHEN I WAS ALREADY -- WELL, 1969, I WAS ALMOST 40 YEARS OLD AT THAT TIME. I GRADUATED FROM LAGRANGE COLLEGE WITH ALMOST STRAIGHT A'S. I NEEDED ONE HOUR IN MY FINAL SEMESTER, AND I TOOK ONE QUARTER OF GOLF, AND I MADE A B IN GOLF, BECAUSE I NEEDED THAT ONE HOUR; BUT FOR THAT, I WOULD HAVE HAD A PERFECT 4.0. AND AT THAT TIME, I HAD NOT BEEN BACK AT SCHOOL FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. I BUCKLED DOWN, I WORKED HARD. I TOOK THE GRADUATE RECORD EXAM AND MADE AN ALMOST PERFECT SCORE ON VERBAL ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE OF LITERATURE AND ENGLISH. I THEN WENT TO LAW SCHOOL; I DID WELL ON THE LSAT. I DID QUITE WELL IN LAW SCHOOL, EVEN THOUGH I WAS COMMUTING TO SPARTANBURG WHILE I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL. I CAN LEARN; I CAN WORK HARD. AND AS ONE OF THE OTHER GENTLEMEN SAID HERE, HE KEPT UP WITH THE ADVANCE SHEETS, AND SO DO I. AND I CAN LEARN, AND I CAN CERTAINLY WORK VERY HARD. AND I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, WITH THE DSS, FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS, I WAS DOING TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL FOR A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, WHEN A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE CAME UP, TO SAY, "YOU KNOW, MS. MACHELL, THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO A DEATH PENALTY CASE, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL IN TERMINATING THESE PEOPLE'S PARENTAL RIGHTS, THEN ALTHOUGH THEY ARE THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF THESE CHILDREN, OR THIS CHILD, THEY BECOME AS THOUGH THEY WERE DEAD TO THEM." SO I HAVE TRIED SERIOUS CASES, AND I HAVE TRIED CASES REQUIRING A GOOD DEAL OF EVIDENCE AND A GOOD DEAL OF DIVERSE EVIDENCE FROM VARIOUS SPECIALISTS.
Q EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT THE ISSUES OF FAMILY COURT ARE FREQUENTLY JUST AS IMPORTANT, IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT, TO THE LIVES OF THE LITIGANTS, AS THE CASES IN GENERAL SESSIONS OR COMMON PLEAS COURT, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY TRIED, TO CONCLUSION, TO JURY VERDICT, A CIVIL OR A CRIMINAL CASE.
A NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(WHEREUPON, BARBARA MACHELL STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THAT CONCLUDES THE CANDIDATES FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, AND OF COURSE WE'LL MOVE TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
WE WILL CALL MR. JAMES C. JOHNSON.
WHEREUPON, JAMES C. JOHNSON, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. JOHNSON, AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, YOU'VE FILED, OF COURSE, A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH US. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A YES, THERE ARE TWO CHANGES TO BE MADE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
A THE FIRST IS THAT I NO LONGER SERVE ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION. THE SECOND IS THAT ONE OF THE CASES I LISTED AS APPELLATE WORK WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ON THE DAY JUSTICE NESS'S FUNERAL OCCURRED; I HAD OTHER ENGAGEMENTS THE DAYS FOLLOWING THAT FUNERAL, AND FOR THOSE REASONS DID NOT ATTEND, AT ALL, THAT APPELLATE CASE -- MY LAW PARTNER HANDLED THAT -- SO THAT IS NOT A CASE THAT I CAN CLAIM AS ONE OF MY APPELLATE CASES.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THOSE CORRECTIONS.
A YES.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. James Clyde Johnson
Home Address: Business Address:
706 Windsor Road 128 Maxwell Avenue
Hodges, SC 29653 Greenwood, SC 29646

2. He was born in Tallahassee, Florida, on April 16, 1957. He is presently 34 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He is married to LaDonna Louise Sargent. He has three children: James Sargent, age 6; Andrew Littlejohn, age 5; and Anna Lee, age 3 months.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Clemson University, 1975-1980, B.S., Electrical and Computer Engineering; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1983, J.D.

7. At Clemson University, 1975-1980, he was Clemson University Head Student Legal Advisor; a member of Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity; Clemson University Student Government and Intra-Fraternity Counsel; Clemson University Dorm Counsel; Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers; Phi Delta Theta Fraternity and Intramural Athletics, captain. At the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1980-1983, he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta National Legal Fraternity; American Bar Association, Student Division; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Student Division; University of South Carolina Student Bar Association; First Year Student Representative, candidate; Mock Trial Competition, participant; and Intramural Athletics, captain.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1987 Practical Aspects of New South Carolina Probate Law
Pain and Suffering and Non-Economic Damages
Evidence for Trial Lawyers

1988 Evidence

1989 How to Discover Discovery
Evaluating and Settling Personal Injury

1990 Damages and Remedies
Public Benefits

1991 Comparative Negligence
Collecting Judgments (Upcoming - November 8, 1991)

9. Courses taught or lectures given:
He has given lectures at Lander College, local public schools and public forum on various legal subjects and legislative matters.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
After graduation he continued as a law clerk with a Columbia area law firm. In November, 1983 (admission to South Carolina Bar), he began his own law firm, Johnson & Johnson (with spouse) for the General Practice of Law (Criminal, Domestic, Civil and Federal).

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 50
State - 40
Other - 30

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 80%
Criminal - 10%
Domestic - 10%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-jury - 80%

Sole Counsel - 90%
Chief Counsel - 5%
Associate Counsel - 5%

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Haskins v. Breard (86-CP-24-752). This was an extremely complicated, complex and time consuming matter. Representing this Plaintiff, he was initially successful in receiving a not guilty jury verdict on charges of malicious injury to property. The subsequent civil Complaint of malicious prosecution was met with a $100,000.00 counterclaim alleging, as expected, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the same acts alleged at the criminal trial. The Defendant relied upon experts in the area of sound spectrography (voice print) from the State of Florida. While the Plaintiff did not call any experts at trial, the Plaintiff was assisted by experts from Michigan, California, Florida and South Carolina. The trial was of three-days duration and involved countless procedural questions involving expert testimony, qualification of experts, chain of custody of evidence and the opening of sealed Court records. Receiving a successful jury decision on a case this complex was significant in its lesson that there is no substitute to proper trial preparation.

(b) IN RE: The Estate of Greenfield (86-CP-24-113). In this matter, his client was the common law spouse of the Decedent. Before he entered law school, this case had gone to the South Carolina Supreme Court for determination of the Intestacy rights of a common law spouse. His involvement in this matter was to protect and preserve for that common law spouse as much of the estate's assets as possible for distribution to her and other heirs as against various creditors.

(c) Dunlap v. Marshall (companion case Smith v. Marshall), 87-CP-24-405. These actions were consolidated for trial. This case was significant, not so much for the law presented or the evidence allowed, but rather for the faith he gained in our judicial system. His clients, Plaintiffs, driver and passenger, claimed to have been injured in an automobile collision as a direct consequence of the Defendant's improper driving. The Defendant vehemently claimed that the Plaintiffs in fact were at fault attempting to illegally pass the Defendant while the Defendant was making a proper turn. Many factors were against them: combined damages to the Plaintiffs were minimal (less than $1,000.00); Smith, born out of wedlock, was the six-year-old son of Dunlap; Dunlap was uneducated and had a poor control of vocabulary; and the only people in the courtroom (including judge, clerk staff, lawyers, legal staff, jury, etc.) who were nonwhite were his clients and one witness. The Defendant was a young educated white man. The jury overlooked prejudices, educational backgrounds, life styles and all other factors that could have played a part in their decision and found, based on facts alone, in favor of the Plaintiffs for an amount ten times greater than the Defendants had offered prior to trial.

(d) State v. Armstrong. This criminal action was based on a claim that the Defendant, his client, had been driving under the influence (DUI). His case was prepared based on the facts as they were given to him by the Defendant. On the morning of trial, the Defendant contacted him and stated that the facts as he had told them to him were untrue and he could not consciously allow him to proceed on that basis. He then explained the facts as they truly occurred and stated that "even though the witnesses involved were from out of state and were not expected to be at trial, he wanted the truth argued in his behalf." While the law argued in this case was standard in a criminal DUI action founded on public eyewitness testimony and breathalyzer evidence, the significance was that the best defense to any criminal action is always the truth. As it turned out, the eyewitnesses did return from out of state to testify; but, the jury, believing the Defendant's testimony and the circumstances, found him not guilty.

(e) Hamm v. Ward (88-CP-24-649 and 89-CP-24-935). The Plaintiff, his client, in this matter had received a North Carolina judgment against this Defendant in 1989 for unpaid real estate commissions due her from the Defendant/employer. The significance of this matter in legal terms was the procedural aspects of transferring judgments intrastate, voiding real estate transfers and the due process arguments made against bringing their subsequent action for foreclosure. The human significance was that this Plaintiff had diligently persevered in attempting to collect her due. Before this case was litigated, the Defendant transferred her interest in real estate located in this County to her husband. Immediately prior to trial, the Defendant's husband transferred the subject property (which had been Defendant's only South Carolina asset) to Defendant's out-of-state mother and the Defendant herself moved out of state. Subsequent to their successful action to transfer the North Carolina judgment, they then filed a suit to foreclose on the judgment alleging improper property transfers and requesting the Court to declare these transfers void thereby reestablishing the Defendant as the property owner and allowing the property then to be sold to satisfy the Plaintiff's debt.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Penn, Administratrix DBN of the Estate of Greenfield v. Greenfield, et al. (86-CP-24-113), Appealed to Circuit for Greenwood County, date of decision -
August 15, 1986.

(b) Bell v. Duke Power Company, (WCC file #8563592), Appealed to South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, date of decision - July 21, 1987.
(c) Bell v. Sullivan, (Civil Action #9:90-25-16H), Appealed to U. S. District Court, date of decision - pending.

(d) Vickie Minor v. Billy Dean Minor, (89-DR-24-790), Appealed to South Carolina Court of Appeals, pending.

22. Public Office:

Elected: South Carolina House of Representatives, elected June 1985; reelected November 1986, November 1988 and November 1990

Appointed: South Carolina Educational Television (SCETV) Commission (1987); South Carolina Literacy Association, Board Member (1987-1991), Treasurer (1988); Lander College Board of Trustees (1988-); Joint Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (1987-1988); EIA - Five Year Review and Recommendation Committee (1987-1988); Drop Out Prevention Task Force, Governor's Appointment (1987); South Carolina House of Representatives - Deputy Majority Whip (1987-); Governor's Initiative for Workforce Excellence (1988-1989)

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law: He was owner and president of Governmental Greetings, Inc., a greeting card company (1988-1990).

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in 1988.

35. His eyesight is corrected through the use of glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
American Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; Greenwood County Bar Association; Phi Alpha Delta National Legal Fraternity; American Judicature Society; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Association of Trial Lawyers of America

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Who's Who in Practicing Attorneys (1989); Northside Baptist Church; Greenwood Literacy Counsel, Co-President; Greenwood Chamber of Commerce, Vice-Chairman Educational Committee; Emerald Sertoma Club, Secretary; Outstanding Young Man of America, 1984; Greenwood Museum Board of Trustees; National Senior Citizen 1988 Hall of Fame Award

41. In 1975 he obtained the honor of Eagle Scout. He was also in the top 13% on the Law School Admission Exam.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Leland P. Vaughan, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Drawer 608, Greenwood, SC 29648

(b) Larry A. Jackson, President
Lander College
Greenwood, SC 29649

(c) Ronald E. Davis, Pastor
North Side Baptist Church
409 Northside Drive, Greenwood, SC 29646

(d) Pat Darragh, Clerk of Court
Room 114, Greenwood County Courthouse, Greenwood, SC 29646

(e) Samuel P. Riley, Sheriff
Greenwood County
528 Edgefield Street, Greenwood, SC

Q AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. WE'VE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE GREENWOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THE GREENWOOD AND HODGES CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS, SLED, FBI, THE JUDGMENT ROLES OF GREENWOOD COUNTY -- OR IN GREENWOOD COUNTY -- AND APPELLATE COURT RECORDS. ALL, OF COURSE, ARE NEGATIVE.

OF COURSE, YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT?
A (NODS HEAD.)
Q OF COURSE, YOU HAVE PROPERLY FILED WITH US YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS. AS YOU ALSO KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU; AND OF COURSE, THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU HERE TODAY. MR. JOHNSON, ALSO, WE WANT YOU TO SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS IN REGARD TO TEMPERAMENT, OF COURSE, AND WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OF A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.
A WELL, AS A LEGISLATOR, I WAS SUCCESSFUL IN EACH RACE I RAN, AND DESPITE MY VIEWS ON CERTAIN ISSUES, I PROMISED THREE THINGS TO ALL THE PEOPLE: FAIRNESS, HONESTY, AND A WILLINGNESS TO ALWAYS LISTEN. AND I THINK THOSE THREE QUALITIES ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SERVE ON THE BENCH. THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN ENCOMPASSES PATIENCE, AND IT ENCOMPASSES HUMILITY; AND ALL OF YOU BEING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE TO SIT THROUGH THINGS THAT SOMETIMES YOU MAY NOT FINE PLEASANT. THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS WE'VE HAD TO SHOW IN OUR JOBS AS LEGISLATORS, AND THOSE ARE QUALITIES WHICH I THINK ARE NECESSARY TO SERVE ON THE BENCH. I'M PLEASED THAT THAT'S A CONCERN OF THIS BODY, AND IT WOULD BE PLEASING, I'M SURE, TO THIS GROUP TO KNOW THAT WHEN I FIRST DECIDED TO RUN FOR THIS JOB ALMOST A YEAR AGO, WHEN THE BELIEF WAS THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN, I DISCUSSED WITH MEMBERS MY DESIRES AND MY INTENT TO RUN, AND WANTED TO IMPRESS UPON THEM OR WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE TYPE WORK I HAD DONE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY -- AND I GUESS, BEING NON-LAWYERS -- WANTED TO FOCUS ON JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. SO FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THAT HAS BECOME ALSO A BENCHMARK, IF YOU WILL, FOR NON-LAWYER LEGISLATORS, AS WELL.
Q THANK YOU. AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, WE HAVE A NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A YES.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY QUESTIONS BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE? SENATOR POPE.

EXAMINATION BY CHAIRMAN POPE:

Q EXCUSE MY VOICE, MR. JOHNSON.
A YES, SIR.
Q WE'VE FREQUENTLY TALKED ABOUT THE TEMPERAMENT OF JUDGES, AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. WE'VE ALSO HEARD OF THIS THING CALLED 'ROBITIS,' WHICH IS A CONDITION THAT DEVELOPS WHEN A ROBE GETS TOO HEAVY ON THE PERSON SERVING, AND THEY MAY BECOME INTOLERANT, RUDE, SOMEWHAT ABUSIVE. I THINK THOSE INCIDENTS ARE ISOLATED, BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DO -- AGAIN, AS A YOUNG PERSON -- IF YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING TO THE BENCH, WHAT WOULD YOU DO, TO INSURE THAT YOU DO NOT CONTRACT ROBITIS?
A AS A YOUNG PERSON, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE ENERGY TO OFFER TO THE BENCH. WE HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH AS MUCH TROUBLING TIMES, IF YOU WILL, AS OTHER INDIVIDUALS MIGHT HAVE BEEN. I ALSO HAVE A BACKGROUND IN ENGINEERING, WHICH TAUGHT ME TO BE METICULOUS, THOROUGH IN WHAT I DO, AND STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH HOW I APPROACH AN ITEM OR A PROBLEM. AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PREDECESSOR OF THIS POSITION INDICATED TO ME THAT THAT WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM HE HAD -- WAS THE CONTINUOUS, MONOTONOUS, CRIMINAL COURT CASES OF DUI SECONDS, ET CETERA -- I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT MY BACKGROUND REQUIRED ME TO BE METICULOUS AND ALWAYS READY IS ONE THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO BE IN THAT SAME CONDITION, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE CASE CAME BEFORE ME. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CHANCE FOR MYSELF TO BECOME A VICTIM OF THAT DISEASE, IF YOU WILL. I HAVE NOT SEEN, IN MY PRACTICE, MANY OCCASIONS WHERE A JUDGE GAVE EVIDENCE THAT HE SUFFERED UNDER THAT. THERE'S OCCASIONS MORE OFTEN THAT I HAVE SEEN, WHERE JUDGES BECOME FLOOR-MATS -- AND I SAY THIS NOT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES SO MUCH; WE'VE BEEN BLESSED, IN OUR AREA, WITH GOOD CIRCUIT JUDGES. I SPECIFICALLY CANNOT RECALL AN INSTANCE -- I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH A JUDGE ON OCCASION ON HIS RULINGS, BUT I CANNOT RECALL AN INSTANCE WHERE I FELT LIKE HIS TEMPERAMENT OR HIS ROBITIS HAD GOTTEN IN THE WAY OF HIS OPINIONS OR HIS JUDGMENT. I CAN'T SAY THE SAME, NECESSARILY, FOR MY LAW PARTNER, WHO IS UNDER A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN I AM, BEING FEMALE; AND THERE'S BEEN OCCASIONAL COMMENTS MADE TOWARD HER, THAT WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE INFLAMMATORY BUT EASILY COULD BE TAKEN THAT WAY. BUT I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT SEEN WHAT YOU DESCRIBE, IN ANY GREAT MEASURE, AND I WOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT MORE SO TO THE FACT THAT OUR AREA HAS BEEN BLESSED, AS I SAID, WITH GOOD JUDGES.
Q MR. JOHNSON, TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NATURE OF YOUR LAW PRACTICE, THE NUMBER OF JURY TRIALS YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN.
A OUR PRACTICED IS VARIED. EVEN THOUGH GREENWOOD HAS A LITTLE OVER 60 ATTORNEYS IN THE BAR LISTS -- ABOUT 50 OF THOSE ACTIVE -- YOU STILL CAN'T SPECIALIZE, BASICALLY, IN GREENWOOD. YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THAT WALKS IN THE DOOR. SO WE TAKE -- WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CRIMINAL CASES. THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO A YEAR WE TAKE. BUT WE DO ALL CIVIL CASES THAT COME IN. I DO VERY LITTLE FAMILY COURT, AS YOU SEE FROM MY QUESTIONNAIRE; MY PARTNER DOES MOST OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALTHOUGH I DO OCCASIONAL FAMILY COURT WORK. THE CIVIL TRIAL, THOUGH, HAS VARIED FROM ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM TO THE OTHER: CONTRACT, AUTOMOBILE CASES, TORT CASES. I'VE REPRESENTED INSURANCE COMPANIES. WE USED TO RENT OUR OFFICE FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY; I DID SOME OF THEIR WORK FOR THEM, IN DEFENSE WORK. BUT PRIMARILY, OURS IS PLAINTIFF-ORIENTED.
Q APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CIVIL JURY TRIALS HAVE YOU TRIED?
A CIVIL JURY TRIALS --
Q HAVE YOU TRIED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, SAY?
A IN THE PAST -- IF YOU GIVE IT TWO OR THREE YEARS, PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE IN THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS. CIVIL JURY TRIALS.
Q AND YOU SAID CRIMINAL TRIAL WORK, YOU HANDLE ONE OR TWO PER YEAR?
A THE LAST CRIMINAL TRIAL I HAD, I BELIEVE WAS TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO. IT WAS A DUI CASE. WHILE OUR CIRCUIT -- OR WHILE WE HAVE A GREAT NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS IN GREENWOOD, WE GENERALLY HAVE A CLOSE-KNIT BAR; AND AN UNFORTUNATE RESULT OF THE INCREASED NUMBER OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS BEING BROUGHT IN COURT HAS RESULTED IN OUR LOSING NUMBERS OF WEEKS ON THE CIVIL DOCKET. AS I CAN BEST RECALL, LAST YEAR WE HAD SIX WEEKS OF CIVIL TRIAL IN GREENWOOD, AND I WOULD IMAGINE THE YEAR BEFORE THAT WAS SOMETHING SIMILAR, SO THAT THE OCCASION TO EVEN GET TO CIVIL COURT HAS BEEN LESSENED BECAUSE OF THAT BURDEN. WE DON'T EVEN PRINT THE ENTIRE DOCKET IN GREENWOOD NOW, FOR CIVIL COURT. AND AS YOU SEE FROM THE DOCUMENT I SUBMITTED, A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF MINE IS NON-JURY, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CASES I GO TO COURT ON -- THE 80 PERCENT THAT ARE NON-JURY ARE PRIMARILY BANKRUPTCIES, SOCIAL SECURITY, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. BECAUSE WE HAVE A SMALL FIRM, WE HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING, AND THE REASON THAT NUMBER IS 80 PERCENT FOR NON-JURY IS BECAUSE OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE HEARINGS. BECAUSE WE'RE IN COURT OFTEN, THE 20 PERCENT IS STILL A GOOD INDICATOR OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES OF CIVIL TRIALS.
Q COULD YOU TELL US WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE GREENWOOD COUNTY BAR IS ON THIS?
A WE'VE HAD TWO NOTICED HEARINGS ON THIS, AND AS I INDICATED, THERE ARE ABOUT 50 ACTIVE ATTORNEYS. IN EACH MEETING THAT WE'VE HELD, THAT I'VE ATTENDED, THERE WERE 12 TO 13 MEMBERS, AND WHAT WE BELIEVED -- THOSE IN ATTENDANCE -- WAS AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER TO DO ANYTHING. SO WHAT I THEN PROCEEDED TO DO WAS TO PREPARE A BLANK LETTER, WITH PLACES FOR ATTORNEYS TO SIGN. I'VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN THE LAST SIX WEEKS, IN WORKING FOR THIS POSITION, AND DURING THAT TIME I'VE ONLY HAD A COUPLE OF HOURS TO GO TO ATTORNEYS' OFFICES. I HAVE BEEN TO SIX FIRMS IN THE GREENWOOD AREA, AND AT LEAST ONE MEMBER FROM EACH FIRM HAS SIGNED THAT LETTER. I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME TODAY BECAUSE I WANT TO COMPLETE THAT PROCESS AND BE ABLE TO PRESENT IT IN JANUARY, WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Q HAS THE BAR TAKEN ACTION?
A TO MY KNOWLEDGE -- THERE WAS ANOTHER MEETING APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AGO OR TWO WEEKS AGO, THAT SOME ATTORNEYS -- MYSELF AND MY PARTNER, INCLUDED -- DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF. THE FIRST QUESTION PUT TO THE BAR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS WHETHER OR NOT TO ENDORSE ANY CANDIDATE. GREENWOOD BAR HAS HISTORICALLY NOT ENDORSED A CANDIDATE FOR ANY JUDICIAL POSITION. THE LAST TIME WE DID SO -- IN FACT, I WASN'T NOTIFIED OF THAT MEETING EITHER, BUT THE LAST TIME WE DID SO WAS FOR THE SUPREME COURT, AND THERE WAS -- I GUESS, WITHOUT BEING TOO GRAPHIC -- THERE WAS SOME FALL-OUT FROM THE POSITION THE BAR TOOK, AND A GREAT NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GREENWOOD BAR PREFER NOT TO BE INVOLVED AT ALL IN THE SELECTION OF JUDGES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT I THINK THEY COULD OFFER SOME INSIGHT. THEY PREFER TO REMAIN NEUTRAL BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL FALL-OUT. I HAVE ASSURED THEM THAT IN MY OPINION, SHOULD MY OPPONENT BE SUCCESSFUL, THERE WOULD BE NO ANIMOSITY BETWEEN HIM AND THE MEMBERS OF ANY BAR THAT SUPPORT HIS OPPONENT; AND THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR ME, FOR THOSE THAT SUPPORTED MY OPPONENT. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT, IF NOT 50 PERCENT, 40 PERCENT OF OUR BAR WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY JUDGESHIP RECOMMENDATION OF ANY TYPE, AND HISTORICALLY HAVE REFRAINED FROM DOING SO. BUT I WILL HAVE A LIST TO PROVIDE. I DON'T HAVE IT TODAY -- NOT WITH ME, ANYWAY.
Q BUT YOU SAY THE 40 PERCENT ARE NEUTRAL, BUT WHAT ABOUT --
A NO, NOT NECESSARILY NEUTRAL. I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY NEUTRAL. IN MY OPINION, THOSE 40 PERCENT PREFER NOT TO BE INVOLVED, IS THE WAY THEY'VE INDICATED TO ME. TO MY KNOWLEDGE --
Q HAS --
A EXCUSE ME.
Q HAS THE GREENWOOD BAR TAKEN ANY TYPE OF VOTE AT EITHER OF THOSE TWO MEETINGS YOU REFERRED TO?
A NO, SIR. IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE A VOTED-ON -- IT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE THAT "LET'S JUST WAIT AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MORE PEOPLE HERE."
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q I GUESS ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES TO SERVING IN THE LEGISLATURE WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR JUDGESHIPS IS WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEIR TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER. AND I THINK I COULD SAY, FOR BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN, THAT YOUR TEMPERAMENT IS NO QUESTION TO ME. I DO WANT TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT QUALIFICATIONS OF BOTH OF YOU, AND FOLLOW UP ON TOM POPE'S LINE OF QUESTIONING, JIM, ON THE GREENWOOD COUNTY BAR'S POSITION. JUDGE MOORE, I BELIEVE, IS FROM GREENWOOD, IS HE NOT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q I THOUGHT THE BAR DID TAKE A POSITION ON --
A THE BAR DID. I DIDN'T WANT TO BE SPECIFIC IN WHAT I INDICATED TO SENATOR POPE, BUT THE BAR DID TAKE A POSITION; AND THAT IS THE VOTE THEY TOOK WHICH CAUSED SOME FALL-OUT AMONG THE MEMBERS AND OTHER CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THAT POSITION, NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SUPPORTED JUDGE MOORE, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS UNANIMOUS. AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OTHER MEMBERS RUNNING -- OTHER ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES RUNNING FOR THAT POSITION, FROM OUR AREA OF THE STATE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD BE REAL SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED, BUT THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT OCCURRED THAT LED MEMBERS OF OUR BAR TO DECIDE THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO SUFFER WHAT THEY SUFFERED THE LAST TIME THEY SUPPORTED ONE PERSON OVER ANOTHER.
Q MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THERE WERE TWO LOCALS IN THAT RACE, WERE THERE NOT?
A OF MANY RUNNING, THERE WERE TWO LOCALS, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND I SUPPOSE THAT HAVING TWO LOCAL MEMBERS IN THE RACE WAS A PARTICULAR --
A I ARGUED THAT. I ARGUED THAT TO THE MEMBERS I WOULD SPEAK TO, WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE ON ONE OF THE TWO CANDIDATES RECEIVING THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S SUPPORT FOR JUDGESHIP, AND HAVING HAD SUPPORTED THE OTHER. DESPITE THE FACT THAT I ARGUED JUST WHAT YOU JUST ARGUED, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT I KNOW MYSELF AND MY OPPONENT WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THAT WOULDN'T OCCUR WITH EITHER ONE OF US, I GUESS THEY MIGHT HAVE ASSUMED THAT MY ARGUMENT WAS SELF-SERVING IN SOME RESPECT AND, REGARDLESS OF WHAT TRULY MIGHT HAPPEN, I WOULD TELL THEM THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH -- THAT THERE WOULD BE NO FALL-OUT, THAT NEITHER ONE OF US WOULD HOLD IT AGAINST THEM, THAT WE'RE NOT BOTH FROM GREENWOOD -- BUT THE WAY I TERM IT IS THAT THEY'RE GUN-SHY, ABOUT 40 PERCENT OF THEM, FROM DOING ANYTHING. SO WHAT I'VE TAKEN UPON MYSELF TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO SECURE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF NAMES AND ENDORSEMENTS WHICH WOULD EQUAL MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE BAR. AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE STARTED DOING THAT, BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN IN TOWN THE LAST SIX WEEKS TO FINISH.
Q BUT TO THIS DATE, GREENWOOD BAR HAS NOT TAKEN A POSITION. AND I SEE WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE LAURENS BAR, BUT THERE ARE TWO OTHER --
A THERE ARE FOUR COUNTIES.
Q ABBEVILLE AND NEWBERRY, NEITHER ONE OF THEM HAVE TAKEN POSITIONS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN OUR PACKET. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?
A WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT'S FAIR TO SAY, ON THE WHOLE. I HAVE SIGNATURES FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THE ABBEVILLE COUNTY BAR, BUT THE ONES THAT DID NOT SIGN INDICATED THE SAME THING THE 40 PERCENT FROM GREENWOOD INDICATED, THAT THEY GOT IN TROUBLE ON THE LAST ELECTION AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT CAUSE THEM SOME SUFFERING IN THE FUTURE.
Q OKAY. JUST FOR OUR PURPOSES, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS GOING TO BE A PLANNED EFFORT TO TRY TO RECEIVE ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE NEWBERRY COUNTY BAR, OR THE ABBEVILLE COUNTY BAR?
A I PLAN NONE, EXCEPT FOR WHAT I'VE ALREADY INDICATED, AND THAT IS TO SECURE A LETTER WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS SIGNING, AS OPPOSED TO A GENERAL ENDORSEMENT BY ANY PARTICULAR BAR ASSOCIATION.
Q SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEEK ANY RESOLUTION OF THE BAR OF THOSE COUNTIES?
A I RESPECT THEIR CONCERN FOR WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS GO TO THOSE THAT ARE WILLING TO MAKE A DECISION AND DO NOT HAVE FEAR FOR WHAT MIGHT BE THE FALL-OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND I WOULD FOLLOW UP ON WHAT REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS ASKED ABOUT THE THINGS WE COULD DO TO MAKE LEGISLATORS MORE INTERESTED IN READING THE JOURNAL. I BEGAN DOING THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT THE UNFORTUNATE PART IS THAT THESE APPLICATIONS AREN'T AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY, AND THE SECOND UNFORTUNATE PART IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC FROM THIS MEETING UNTIL TWO DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION; YET, WE'RE ALLOWED TO GET COMMITMENTS ON MONDAY, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THIS ISN'T MADE PUBLIC UNTIL THE JOURNAL IS PRINTED A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE VOTE. SO WE'RE OUT GETTING SUPPORT, LEGALLY, WHEN THIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WOULD NOT YET BE PRINTED. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT REMEDY THAT, I STILL DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE PEOPLE READING IT, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE MORE -- IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM IF THEY WANTED TO.
Q I JUST WANT TO ASK A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS, AND THEY'RE PRIMARILY REPEATS THAT I'VE ASKED SEVERAL CANDIDATES. ONE DEALS WITH THE FACT THAT YOU -- LIKE, I THINK, MS. HORNE -- HAVE A SPOUSE THAT IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN TRIAL PRACTICE. HAVE YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT, AND HOW YOU WOULD HANDLE --
A WE TALKED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MAKING THIS CHOICE, NOT JUST IN HER FUTURE. ABOUT A THIRD OF HER PRACTICE IS FAMILY COURT WORK, SO THAT WOULD BE UNAFFECTED; AND AS I ALREADY INDICATED, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, WE DON'T DO A LOT OF CRIMINAL COURT WORK. THE CIVIL SIDE OF IT IS, EFFECTIVELY, GREENWOOD IS SUCH A CLOSE-KNIT BAR THAT WE SETTLE A GREAT NUMBER OF OUR CASES. VERY FEW COME TO COURT. AND WE HAVE TO, WITH ONLY SIX WEEKS OF CIVIL TRIAL. AND THERE ARE TWO CIRCUIT JUDGES IN OUR CIRCUIT. SO WHAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF OUR RELATIONSHIP COULD EASILY BE HANDLED BY USING OR FACILITATING THE OTHER JUDGE'S SIGNATURE.
Q OKAY. AND THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED MR. COLE. YOU, LIKE I AND SEVERAL OTHERS IN THE ROOM, ARE PART OF THAT RULE 5 GENERATION WHERE WE HAD TO SIT IN, IN COURT, BEFORE WE GOT OUR TRIAL EXPERIENCE. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HOW MUCH HAVE YOU TRIED, ALONE? HAVE YOU GENERALLY BEEN CO-COUNSEL --
A NO.
Q -- OR LEAD COUNSEL?
A WELL, I'VE INDICATED ON THE DOCUMENT THAT 90 PERCENT IS SOLE COUNSEL. THE TIMES I HAVE BEEN CO-COUNSEL, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE -- THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS WITH OTHER COUNSEL -- GENERALLY, IT'S BECAUSE THE TWO OF US, MYSELF AND MY PARTNER, ARE CLOSELY RELATED; AND OCCASIONALLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SAME FAMILY REQUIREMENTS -- WHEN A CHILD GETS SICK, IN OUR LAW FIRM, ONE OF THE TWO BETTER LEAVE -- THAT WE'VE BECOME CO-COUNSEL OCCASIONALLY SO THAT THE OTHER PARTY CAN CARRY ON THE CASE. AND THERE ARE MANY OCCASIONS WE ALSO PLAN IT THAT WAY FOR STRATEGY IN COURT, FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES.
Q HAS THE MAJORITY OF YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE BEEN TRIED ALONE?
A RIGHT, 90 PERCENT HAS BEEN TRIED ALONE.
Q OKAY. ABOUT WHEN DID YOU START TRYING CASES?
A I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH DURING LAW SCHOOL TO WORK WITH AN ATTORNEY IN COLUMBIA HERE, WHO ALLOWED US TO DO EVERYTHING BUT SIGN DOCUMENTS AND ARGUE IN COURT, AND HE WAS KNOWN TO BE -- 90 PERCENT OF HIS WORK WAS CRIMINAL WORK, SO THAT IS WHAT ALLOWED ME TO BEGIN PRACTICING LAW AS SOON AS I LEFT LAW SCHOOL. I HUNG MY SHINGLE OUT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, MY GRANDFATHER WAS AN ELECTED JUDGE, AND I GREW UP IN A FAMILY OF LAWYERS. MY FATHER AND ALL HIS BROTHERS WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, SO IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS SHOWN TO ME FROM AN EARLY AGE, THAT THAT WAS A PROFESSION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME, AND I HAD THAT ADVANTAGE AS WELL.
Q OKAY. SO WERE YOU TRYING CASES ALONE, RIGHT OUT OF LAW SCHOOL?
A RIGHT.
Q THANKS.
A OKAY.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT, OR LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT?
MR. JOHNSON: NO, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU.
(WHEREUPON, JAMES C. JOHNSON STANDS ASIDE.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. JAMES W. JOHNSON, JR., PLEASE.
WHEREUPON, JAMES W. JOHNSON, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. JOHNSON, OF COURSE AS YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, YOU FILED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH US. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS YOU NEED TO MAKE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE?
A JUST ONE OR TWO. ONE -- EXCUSE ME FOR CLEARING MY THROAT. [TO CHAIRMAN POPE] SENATOR, I'VE GOT SOME OF THE SAME PROBLEMS I THINK YOU DO -- I HAD NOTIFIED MS. SATTERWHITE WHEN I RECEIVED THE SUMMARY, THAT ON THE SLED REPORT, WHERE THEY INDICATED MY DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, THEY HAD ACTUALLY PICKED UP MY VOTER'S REGISTRATION NUMBER; SO THAT, I THINK HAS BEEN CORRECTED. ALSO, ON MY ECONOMIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, I INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF MY LEGISLATIVE SALARY. I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD, OF COURSE, TO REFLECT THAT I AM PAID BY THE STATE AS A HOUSE MEMBER. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD AT THIS TIME, THERE'S REALLY NOT A PLACE TO PUT IN THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE. LAST YEAR'S WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, I CHAIRED A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HAD THE JUDICIAL BRANCH'S BUDGET UNDER IT, AND I HAVE ASKED, BECAUSE I'M A CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE, TO BE RELIEVED AS THAT SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP, AND I WANTED THAT TO BE ON RECORD, ALSO.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. James W. Johnson, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
208 York Street 102 Musgrove Street
Clinton, SC 29325 P. O. Box 744
Clinton, SC 29325

2. He was born in Clinton, South Carolina, on August 16, 1951. He is presently 40 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Jean Katherine Mangum on June 16, 1973. He has four children: Ryan William, age 14; Austin Michael, age 12; Katherine Marie, age 10; and Elizabeth Leigh, age 7.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1969-1973, B.S., Economics; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1973-1976, J.D.

7. At the University of South Carolina, 1969-1970, he was a floor representative (Dorm government) and a member of the Phi Eta Sigma Honor Society (Freshman Honor Society).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has complied with the continuing education requirements of the South Carolina Bar Association. Some of the courses he has taken include Property Law, Equitable Apportionment, Insurance Law, Ethics, Corporate Law and Auto Torts.

9. Courses taught or lectures given:
In 1981 he spoke at a continuing education seminar sponsored by the South Carolina Bar. The subject was Administrative Law, and his topic was the Administrative Procedures Act.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

August, 1976 - November, 1981
Assistant Attorney General for State of South Carolina. Consumer fraud, representation of public before Public Service Commission, representation of various state agencies, including Dairy Commission, Department of Consumer Affairs, and Parks Recreation and Tourism; civil litigation, including tort claims and highway condemnation throughout state

November, 1981 - February, 1983
Sole practitioner in Clinton, South Carolina, with a general practice, both civil and criminal, in all state courts

February, 1983 - December, 1988
Partner in firm of Blalock & Johnson in Clinton, South Carolina; general practice, both civil and criminal, in all state courts and federal courts

December, 1988 - present
Sole practitioner in Clinton, South Carolina, with a general practice

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 4
State - 55
Other - 24

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 37.5%
Criminal - 25%
Domestic - 37.5

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 20%
Non-jury - 80%

In all but three or four cases he acted as sole counsel. In others, he was associate counsel.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) White v. S. C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 245 SE2d 125, 271 SC 91 (1978). This case established the standard for defining "motor vehicle" for purposes of the South Carolina Governmental Tort Claims Act.

(b) Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. The Public Service Commission, et al., 244 SE2d 278, 270 SC 590 (1978). The Court upheld the Commission's basic denial of a rate increase request. The case established some factors that the Public Service Commission should include in establishing the rate base in rate requests by public utilities.

(c) Campbell v. Baldwin Motor Co., Inc., et al., 87-CP-30-22. This is not a reported case. Among many issues raised, the most interesting was whether an insurance company in South Carolina can be held liable under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices. His client, after an adverse verdict, settled while the case was being appealed.

(d) Beasley v. Boozer, et al., Richland County Court of Common Pleas, 1981. One of the issues raised by this case was whether a public employee (park superintendent) could be held liable for actions occurring on the job in spite of the fact that this state recognized the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The case was settled on appeal.

(e) State ex rel. McLeod, Attorney General v. Loeb, Rhodes, Hornblower & Company, et al., 267 SE2d 539, 275 SC 104 (1980). This case held that transactions regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission and by the South Carolina Uniform Securities Act are exempt from coverage of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. The Public Service Commission, Daniel R. McLeod, et al., 244 SE2d 278, 270 SC 590 (1978).

(b) In the Matter of Moore, 269 SE2d 771, 275 SC 280 (1980).

(c) State ex rel. McLeod, Attorney General v. Loeb, Rhodes, Hornblower & Company, et al., 267 SE2d 539, 275 SC 104 (1980).

(d) White v. S. C. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, 245 SE2d 125, 271 SC 91 (1978).

(e) Parker v. S. C. Dairy Commission, 262 SE2d 38, 274 SC 209 (1980).

20. Judicial Office:
He was appointed Assistant City Recorder for the City of Clinton, South Carolina in 1983-1984. Appointment was by City Council. The court had jurisdiction over violations of city ordinances and the penalty could not exceed $200/30 days.

22. Public Office:
He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in November, 1984, District 15, and has served in the capacity from then until the present.

25. Officer or Director: He has served on the Clinton Advisory Board of The Palmetto Bank since September, 1990.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He is a partner in a partnership that owns an apartment. If this partnership became involved in litigation, he would recuse himself.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was January 22, 1988, by Dr. James L. Walker, Jacobs Highway, Clinton, South Carolina 29325.

35. He wears either contact lenses or eyeglasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Laurens County Bar Association, President (January, 1991 - May, 1991), Vice-President (1990); South Carolina Bar Association; former member, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association and American Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Clinton Rotary Club, Board of Directors (1984-1986); Greater Clinton United Way, Board of Directors (1983-1984); Clinton YMCA, Board of Directors (1984-1987, 1990-present) and Chairman, Personnel Committee (1990-present); Piedmont Technical College, Board of Visitors (1983); Laurens County Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors (1984-1987), President's Award (1985); First Presbyterian Church, Board of Deacons (1984-1986), Chairman, Finance Committee (1985), Chairman (1986), Session (1987-1990, 1991-present).

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Mr. Charles T. Copley, Vice President
The Palmetto Bank
P. O. Box 513, Clinton, SC 29325

(b) A. Milling Blalock, Esquire
P. O. Box 724, Clinton, SC 29325

(c) Kenneth B. Orr, President
Presbyterian College
Clinton, SC 29325

(d) Joe W. B. Brooks, Pastor
First Presbyterian Church
P. O. Box 29, Clinton, SC 29325

(e) Claude A. Crocker
Clinton Mills, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 1215, Clinton, SC 29325-1215

Q THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU AT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. OF COURSE, THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THE LAURENS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND CLINTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, FBI RECORDS, JUDGMENT ROLLS AT THE LAURENS COUNTY COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL COURT RECORDS; ALL THOSE WERE NEGATIVE. OF COURSE, YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT?
A YES.
Q YOU, OF COURSE, FILED WITH US, AND PROPERLY SO, YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION. AS YOU KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, AND OF COURSE, NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY. OF COURSE, LIKE ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES, MR. JOHNSON, I WANT FOR YOU TO, OF COURSE, SHARE WITH US YOUR THOUGHTS ON TEMPERAMENT, OF COURSE, AND YOUR THOUGHTS IN THAT REGARD.
A MR. CHAIRMAN, I, AS SAID THIS MORNING -- IT'S DIFFICULT TO ADD TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. I WOULD CERTAINLY CONCUR, I THINK, IN ALL THE REMARKS. BUT I DO THINK THAT TEMPERAMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANYONE SEEKING TO BE A JUDGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY. THAT CHARACTERISTIC IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT GO INTO A COURTROOM SEE, BE THEY WITNESSES, BE THEY CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, BE THEY JURORS, BE THEY ATTORNEYS. ONE THING I'VE TRIED TO DO IN MY PRACTICE -- AND I'VE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE IN CLINTON NOW FOR TEN YEARS -- IS WHEN I'VE GOT A CLIENT WHO COMES IN WITH A PROBLEM, I CONSCIOUSLY TRY TO PUT MYSELF ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY DESK, AND TREAT THAT INDIVIDUAL AS I WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED IF I WERE THE CLIENT COMING IN TO SEE A LAWYER. AND I THINK THAT HAS WORKED WELL. I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CLIENTS WHO HAVE INDICATED TO ME, WHO HAVE SEEN OTHER ATTORNEYS, THAT THEY HAVE NOT HAD THINGS EXPLAINED TO THEM QUITE THAT WAY BEFORE. THE OTHER THING THAT SOME OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE MENTIONED, I KNOW SENATOR POPE A SECOND AGO MENTIONED ROBITIS. A JUDGE DOES HAVE TO REMEMBER HE IS A LAWYER; HE HAS TO REMEMBER WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A LAWYER. COMING FROM A ONE-MAN FIRM, WHICH I'VE BEEN NOW FOR THREE YEARS, IT IS HARD TO SCHEDULE; IT IS HARD TO JUGGLE SCHEDULES; IT IS HARD TO GET YOUR WITNESSES AND GET CASES PREPARED AND TO GO TO ROSTER MEETINGS, PARTICULARLY IF YOUR PRACTICE ENCOMPASSES MORE THAN ONE COUNTY AND YOU'VE GOT TO BE IN TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT PLACES AT ONCE: FAMILY COURT, OR CIRCUIT COURT. AND JUDGES HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT. I THINK THEY HAVE TO REMEMBER FROM WHENCE THEY CAME, AS PRACTICING ATTORNEYS. AND WHILE THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN DECORUM, THEY HAVE TO RUN THE COURTROOM, THEY HAVE TO TREAT EVERYONE FAIRLY AND HONESTLY, AND I THINK IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR JUDGES TO DO, WITH THE PRESSING CASE LOAD THAT THEY HAVE, PARTICULAR IN THE CRIMINAL SIDE BUT ALSO ON THE CIVIL SIDE, TO BALANCE THE PRESSURE TO RELIEVE THAT CASE LOAD, AND TO MOVE THE CASES -- TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE DEMAND TO GIVE EVERYONE, THE ATTORNEYS AND LITIGANTS IN COURT, THEIR DAY IN COURT AND TREAT THEM FAIRLY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE SACRIFICED AT THE EXPENSE OF SIMPLY MOVING CASES.
Q THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. ALSO, I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT WE, OF COURSE, HAVE THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A I'M IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? MR. HODGES.

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q MR. JOHNSON, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. LIKE THE OTHER MR. JOHNSON, I KNOW A LOT ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER, AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO YOUR QUALIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE. I NOTE YOU WORKED FOR THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT FOR A WHILE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND THEN MOVED ON TO GENERAL PRACTICE IN SOLE PRACTICE. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CIVIL TRIAL PRACTICE? CAN YOU ESTIMATE HOW MANY CASES YOU'VE TRIED, IN YOUR CAREER?
A WHAT I DID, WHEN I WAS FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, WAS WENT BACK THROUGH ALL OF MY FILES FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PERIOD THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESSED. MY FIRST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS OF PRACTICE, I WAS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WHEN DAN MCLEOD WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO, THEY HAD JUST ESTABLISHED THE CONSUMER FRAUD UNIT, WHICH DEALT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT. THAT UNIT ALSO REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC AT THAT TIME BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE DAYS OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. THEN, MCLEOD SENT ONE OR TWO PEOPLE OVER THERE -- [TO SENATOR LOURIE] SENATOR LOURIE, I KNOW YOU REMEMBER THOSE DAYS. AFTER THAT, I WAS TRANSFERRED AT MY REQUEST TO THE CIVIL LITIGATION SECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. AT THAT TIME, THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT HAD ONE OR MAYBE TWO IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HANDLED ALL OF THEIR LITIGATION, AND WE HANDLED IT BY COUNTY, THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND I THINK WHEN I LEFT IN 1981, I WAS HANDLING ALL OF THOSE CASES IN 11 DIFFERENT COUNTIES, INCLUDING CHARLESTON COUNTY. THE LAST CASES I HAD DOWN THERE WERE A COMBINATION FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. ALSO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION WORK AT THAT TIME. THE STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND DID NOT HAVE IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HANDLED ALL OF THAT WORK FOR THE CASES BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, ON THROUGH ANY APPEALS THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN. WHEN I LEFT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN '81, I WENT TO CLINTON, HUNG OUT A SHINGLE, AND WAS BY MYSELF FOR ABOUT 13 MONTHS; AND AFTER THAT, WENT INTO A TWO-MAN PARTNERSHIP. WE HAD A VERY GENERAL PRACTICE, HANDLING BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERS. AS MR. JOHNSON SAID, IN A SMALL TOWN, IN A ONE-MAN PRACTICE, IT IS HARD TO TURN ANYTHING AWAY, AND YOU TAKE JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR IF YOU FEEL COMPETENT TO HANDLE THAT MATTER. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE DONE, SINCE I'VE BEEN BACK IN CLINTON. WE AMICABLY DISSOLVED OUR PARTNERSHIP THREE YEARS AGO, DECEMBER 1, AND MY FORMER PARTNER WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I ASKED TO WRITE A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION. BUT I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF MY TRIAL WORK HAS BEEN ON THE CIVIL SIDE. I HAVE HANDLED A NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES IN PRIVATE PRACTICE ALSO. DID A LITTLE BIT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, BUT USUALLY IT WAS A DUI OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHEN THERE WAS A CONFLICT SOMEWHERE.
Q HAVE YOU GENERALLY BEEN THE LEAD COUNSEL OR SOLE COUNSEL ON THE CASES THAT YOU'VE TRIED CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY?
A YES, I WOULD SAY IN AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE CASES, IF NOT MORE THAN THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND MY LAST QUESTION DEALS WITH THE ENDORSEMENT. I SEE YOU HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF LAURENS COUNTY BAR. ARE YOU SEEKING EITHER INDIVIDUAL OR BAR ENDORSEMENTS FROM THE OTHER COUNTIES OTHER THAN GREENWOOD?
A THE LAURENS BAR DID ENDORSE ME. I WAS TOLD LAST NIGHT THAT THE NEWBERRY BAR HAD TAKEN SOME ACTION; I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THEM, AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I JUST DON'T KNOW.
Q OKAY. ISN'T THERE ONE OTHER COUNTY IN THERE?
A ABBEVILLE COUNTY. I'VE HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE ABBEVILLE COUNTY BAR. I THINK IT ONLY HAS ABOUT FIVE OR SIX ACTIVE RESIDENT MEMBERS OF THAT BAR.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. JOHNSON, IS THERE ANY STATEMENT OR COMMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO US?
MR. JOHNSON: NO, SIR. I DO APPRECIATE THIS COMMITTEE'S TIME AND THE EFFORT IT PUTS INTO SCREENING THESE CANDIDATES. THANK YOU.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.
(WHEREUPON, JAMES W. JOHNSON, JR., STANDS ASIDE.)
SENATOR LOURIE: MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEED TO BE EXCUSED FOR ANOTHER MEETING.
(SENATOR LOURIE DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THAT CONCLUDES THE CANDIDATES FOR THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. NOW, ON THE FAMILY COURT JUDGESHIP FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3, WE HAVE MR. R. WRIGHT TURBEVILLE.
WHEREUPON, R. WRIGHT TURBEVILLE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

EXAMINATION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY:

Q MR. TURBEVILLE, YOU HAVE THE DISTINCT PLEASURE OF BEING THE ONLY CANDIDATE IN THIS RACE. I KNOW YOU'RE PROBABLY REAL PLEASED WITH THAT SITUATION.
A I SURE AM.
Q AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. MR. TURBEVILLE, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, YOU FILED A PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE WITH US. ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THAT QUESTIONNAIRE?
A THERE'S A COUPLE OF CHANGES. ONE OF THE CASES THAT I SENT IN WAS LEFT OFF, I THINK PROBABLY JUST BY TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, AND IT WAS A DOMESTIC CASE, MITCHUM VS. CAUGHMAN, A CASE THAT INVOLVED GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION RIGHTS. AND I HAD LISTED THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT HAD SOME SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE FAMILY COURT. THE SLED REPORT REFERRED TO ME AS FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; I'M THE THIRD CIRCUIT. I THINK THAT WAS JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. AND LAST WEEK, I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE THAT I HAD BEEN NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN A 1983 ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN FLORENCE.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1. Ralston Wright Turbeville
Home Address: Business Address:
P. O. Box 11 P. O. Drawer G
Turbeville, SC 29162 Manning, SC 29102

2. He was born in Turbeville, South Carolina, on September 27, 1944. He is presently 47 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Dorothy Bowers on June 15, 1968. He is legally separated. Agreement approved in Richland County Family Court on July 5, 1991; Moving party - Ralston Wright Turbeville; Grounds - no fault. He has two children: Ellen Patrice, age 21, (senior, Wofford College); Ralston Wright, Jr., age 14 (ninth grade, Dreher High School).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Wofford College, 1962-1966, B.A. Degree; Emory University, 1966-1969, B.D. Degree; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1974-1977, J.D. Degree.

7. He was a member of The South Carolina Law Review, 1975-1977, and the Order of Wig and Robe, USC Law Center, 1976.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

SCB Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility, 1-12-90, 6 hours
PESI SC Workers' Comp., 2-21-90, 6 hours
SCB Domestic Practice: Hot Tips, 6-22-90, 6.25 hours
SCTLA Annual Convention, 8-16-90, 12 hours
SCB Evidence Law: The Use of Medical Evidence, 12-14-90, 6 hours
SCB Workers' Comp., 4-7-89, 6 hours
SCTLA Employment Law, 8-17-90, 1.5 hours
SCTLA Workers' Compensation and Social Security, 8-17-89, 2 hours
SCTLA Masters in Advocacy, 8-18-89, 4 hours
SCB Worker's Compensation, 3-11-88, 6 hours
SCB Understanding UCC Article 9, 9-30-88, 6.5 hours
SCTLA Social Security Seminar, 8-19-88, 2 hours
SCTLA Family Law, 8-19-88, 3.5 hours
SCTLA Workers' Compensation, 8-19-88, 2 hours
SCB Bench-Bar Conference Family Law, 6-12-87, 6.25 hours
SCB Handling the Big Case in a Small Firm, 8-28-87, 6.5 hours
SCB Criminal Law, 4-4-86, 6.5 hours

SCB New S.C. Probate Code, 9-5-86, 6.5 hours

9. Courses taught or lectures given: None

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He has been in private practice with Land, Turbeville, Parker & Reaves, P.A., from November 9, 1977 until present.
General Practice: Personal injury, family practice, real estate practice, workers' compensation practice, social security practice, and other areas of general practice

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 1 or 2 times per year
State - 7 or 8 times per month
Other - Magistrate's Court/Workers' Comp Commission/Social Security Administration- 3 to 4 times per month

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - approximately 40%
Criminal - approximately 10%
Domestic - approximately 50%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 10% to 15%
Non-jury - 85%

In most cases tried he was sole counsel or chief counsel.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Dozier v. Witherspoon - Wreck Case - contested as to liability and damages - no offer from defendant - reasonable verdict for plaintiff

(b) Adams v. Adams - Divorce Case - involved fault divorce; equitable division of property; and intentional destruction of one parties' personal property by the other party.

(c) Nelson v. Callaway Timber - Workers' Compensation - logging injury - single commissioner allowed 60% to leg based on claimant's testimony; highest medical rating 20%; upheld by full commission.

(d) Mitchum v. Caugham and Mitchum - Domestic Case - custody action between natural parents and grandmother; father obtained custody; grandmother obtained designated visitation rights.

(e) Elliott v. Elliott - Domestic Case - involved fault divorce; equitable division including minister's pension; alimony for terminally ill spouse.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Jenkinson v. Murrow Brothers Seed Co., Inc., 272 S.C. 148, 249 SE2d 780 (1978).

(b) Barbara G. Moore v. Peter Pan Atkinson and Barbara G. Moore as Guardian ad Litem for Davis Moore, a minor under the age of fourteen (14) years v. Peter Pan Atkinson, 86-MO-341 (9-22-86).

(c) Jack E. Hall v. Clarendon Outdooring Advertising Co., Inc., 89-CP-14-484 (appeal currently pending).

No domestic appeals.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Associate Minister, Buford Street United Methodist Church, Gaffney, South Carolina, 1964-1968 (part-time while student at Wofford College and Emory University); Minister, Chicopee Charge United Methodist Churches, Walhalla, South Carolina, 1969 (part-time while student at Emory University); Chaplin Intern, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, 1970 (full-time Clinical Pastoral Training); Minister, Chester Circuit United Methodist Churches, Chester, South Carolina, June 1970 - June 1972; Associate Minister, Trinity United Methodist Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina, June 1972 - August 1974; Minister, Mt. Pleasant-Pisgah United Methodist Churches, Columbia, South Carolina, June 1975 - June 1977 (part-time while student at University of South Carolina Law School).

33. His health is excellent. His last physical was in May of 1991 by Dr. Kate E. Smith, P. O. Box 206, Turbeville, South Carolina.

37. He attended some counseling with his wife during the breakup of their marriage in 1989 with Dr. Marvin Ballard, 533 Oxford Road, Sumter, South Carolina 29150.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Clarendon County Bar Association; The South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Clarendon County Mental Retardation Board (1977-present); Chairman, Clarendon County Mental Retardation Board (1987-1988); Turbeville Ruritan Club (President, Turbeville Ruritan Club, 1980-1982); United Way, Clarendon Campaign Vice Chairman (1979); Pine Grove United Methodist Church, Turbeville, South Carolina

41. A great deal of his practice has been in the Family Courts. He has a strong interest in the welfare of the family and the Family Court system. While he will most probably be getting a divorce himself in the near future, he believes that his own personal experience will make him more keenly aware of the problems litigants in the Family Court face and the need for the Family Court Judge to work diligently to do a good and fair job.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) G. Ray Coker, Chairman of the Board
The Citizens Bank
Box 8, Turbeville, SC 29162-0008

(b) Honorable John C. Land, III
P. O. Drawer G, Manning, SC 29102

(c) Marion S. Riggs, Esquire
P. O. Box 487, Manning, SC 29102

(d) Ralph F. Cothran, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 700, Manning, SC 29102

(e) Thomas C. Cooper, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 1292, Manning, SC 29102

Q PLEASE TELL US ABOUT THAT.
A YEAH. THE -- IT WAS BROUGHT BY A CO-DEFENDANT WITH MY CLIENT -- I REPRESENTED THIS CO-DEFENDANT'S BROTHER. THE PUBLIC DEFENDER REPRESENTED THE CO-DEFENDANT. IT WAS A CHILD MOLESTATION CASE, GENERAL SESSIONS COURT. THE TWO CO-DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED. THE CO-DEFENDANT HAS BROUGHT A SUIT AGAINST JUDGE RALPH KING ANDERSON, WHO WAS THE TRIAL JUDGE; THE SOLICITOR; ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN MANNING, WHO WAS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM; THE PUBLIC DEFENDER; AND MYSELF -- AND I WAS COURT APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM -- ALLEGING SOME CONSPIRACY TO -- AND I REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN THE COMPLAINT; ALL I'VE SEEN IS THE REPORT FROM THE MAGISTRATE, AND IT'S THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO FILE HIS COMPLAINT BUT THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PROCESS. SO I REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED; I JUST GOT A COURTESY COPY OF THAT FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATE, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THAT, TOO.
Q THANK YOU, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE?
A THAT'S ALL THE ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS.
Q ALL RIGHT. AS YOU KNOW OF COURSE, NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE. THE RECORDS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, CLARENDON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TURBEVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, FBI, THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF THE CLARENDON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ALL FEDERAL RECORDS -- EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YOU JUST MENTIONED TO US, OF COURSE -- ALL ARE NEGATIVE. YOU REPORT THAT YOUR HEALTH IS EXCELLENT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OF COURSE, YOU HAVE PROPERLY FILED YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS. YOU FILED YOUR FINANCIAL DECLARATION. AS YOU KNOW, NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED, OF COURSE, AND NO WITNESSES ARE HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY. WILL YOU PLEASE SHARE WITH US, MR. TURBEVILLE, YOUR THOUGHTS IN REGARD TO TEMPERAMENT? AND IN PARTICULAR, THE TEMPERAMENT OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE.
A ALL RIGHT. I THINK JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS IMPORTANT IN ANY COURT; I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THE FAMILY COURT. I THINK WHEN THE LITIGANT GOES TO FAMILY COURT THAT THEY HAVE SO MUCH AT RISK, THAT HAS SUCH EMOTIONAL IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES, THAT TO BEGIN WITH, THEY CAN AT LEAST BE TREATED WITH SOME DEGREE OF COURTESY. AND I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO ACT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS LITIGANTS TO COME INTO FAMILY COURT AND FEEL SOME SENSE OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY, BECAUSE THEIR INTEGRITY IS CHALLENGED BY WHAT IS GOING ON ANYWAY. I THINK THAT LITIGANTS IN THE FAMILY COURTS NEED TO BE LISTENED TO, AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF TIMES, PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH DOMESTIC PROCEDURES, NOBODY HAS LISTENED TO WHAT THEY HAVE HAD TO SAY. AND IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT, AND I CAN IMAGINE THAT THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN, BUT IF IT IS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, I THINK THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE NEEDS TO GIVE THE LITIGANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HIS STORY. I THINK THE SAME THING, IN TERMS OF RELATIONSHIPS TO ATTORNEYS. I DON'T THINK THAT ATTORNEYS EVER OUGHT TO BE EMBARRASSED IN PUBLIC, IN COURT. I THINK THAT ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE TREATED WITH SOME RESPECT AND INTEGRITY. AND IF YOU -- YOU KNOW, IF AN ATTORNEY NEEDS TO BE -- I NEVER HAVE MINDED A JUDGE TAKING ME BACK INTO CHAMBERS AND TELLING ME EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED TO TELL ME, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T LIKE FOR HIM TO TELL ME SOME THINGS IN FRONT OF MY CLIENT.
Q THANK YOU, MR. TURBEVILLE. AS YOU KNOW, ALSO, WE HAVE THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT RULE?
A YES, I AM.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, MYSELF. OF COURSE, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN PRACTICING SINCE 1977, I SEE, OF COURSE.
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND I KNOW YOU HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL PRACTICE. WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE A FAMILY COURT JUDGE?
A WELL, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INTERESTED IN THE FAMILY COURTS. WHEN I FIRST CAME OUT OF WOFFORD, I WENT TO SEMINARY, WENT TO EMORY UNIVERSITY AND DID SOME WORK THERE. MY MAJOR AREA THERE WAS IN PASTORAL COUNSELING, AND SO I HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THE FAMILY, THERE. AS I GOT INTO THE PRACTICE IN MANNING, WHILE WE HAVE A GENERAL PRACTICE, OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS I HAVE DONE THE MAJORITY OF FAMILY COURT WORK THAT OUR FIRM HAS DONE. I HAVE ENJOYED IT. I FEEL LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FAMILY COURT IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY HAS A GREAT BEARING ON OUR SOCIETY, AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT; AND THAT'S MY INTEREST. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN OPENING FOR THE CIRCUIT JUDGE IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT TOO, AND RIGHT AFTER JUDGE BELSER ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT, JUDGE LANEY ANNOUNCED HIS. BUT I HAVE WANTED TO BE A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, AND CHOSE TO RUN IN THE FAMILY COURT RACE.
Q I SEE. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. OF COURSE, I SEE WHERE YOU LISTED YOU'VE PRACTICED ABOUT 50 PERCENT IN FAMILY COURT, IN OTHER WORDS; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE HODGES:

Q WHEN DID YOU LEAVE THE MINISTRY? YOU WERE A METHODIST MINISTER FOR SOME TIME, I SEE?
A RIGHT. I LEFT SPARTANBURG IN 1974 AND CAME TO LAW SCHOOL, AND ACTUALLY WHILE I WAS IN LAW SCHOOL, I SERVED TWO LITTLE CHURCHES HERE IN COLUMBIA, IN THE OUTLYING AREAS. SO REALLY, 1977; I'VE NOT BEEN ACTIVE SINCE THEN.
Q HAVE YOU KEPT YOUR CREDENTIALS ACTIVE, OR DID YOU RESIGN FROM THE CONFERENCE?
A I HAVE KEPT MY CREDENTIALS ACTIVE. I'M UNDER WHAT'S CALLED VOLUNTARY LOCATION, WHICH MEANS I STILL HAVE MY CREDENTIALS IN GOOD STANDING, BUT I DON'T -- I'M NOT SUBJECT TO APPOINTMENT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

(NO RESPONSE.)

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. TURBEVILLE.
MR. TURBEVILLE: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
(WHEREUPON R. WRIGHT TURBEVILLE STANDS ASIDE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE, AND WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

(EXECUTIVE SESSION.)

(WHEREUPON, AT 1:00 P.M., THE WITNESSES WERE EXCUSED AND THE HEARING CONCLUDED.)

After the public hearing on December 5, 1991, the Committee received and solicited certain information through the following correspondence:

December 9, 1991
Senator Thomas H. Pope, III
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Pope:

Over the weekend I went into the attic and reviewed appointment books I had saved from 1980 to 1984. In some instances my notes were too cryptic to jog my memory, but I do now recall many more criminal cases and a couple more jury trials that I handled. I cannot account for my inability to remember on December 5th, except that these cases are more than ten years old.

The magistrates in Wellford and Gaffney do not have any records of cases going back to 1980-1984. The man charged with the traffic offense in Wellford was named Ike Foster. The other two cases I mentioned in my earlier letter were:

Hardin vs. Plumley, 83-CP-11-137; Berlin vs. Little, Hinson, Scott, JR#55999 (9/14/81)

This morning I spoke with Paula Benson and informed her that I was withdrawing as a candidate for a judicial seat in the Seventh Circuit.

Yours sincerely,
/s/ Barbara A. Machell

cc: Paula Benson, Esquire

December 9, 1991
The Honorable James C. Johnson
706 Windsor Road
Hodges, South Carolina 29653

Dear Representative Johnson:

The Joint Legislative Committee for Judicial Screening requests that you submit further information to clarify your testimony before the committee.

On December 5, 1991, you testified that you began handling cases as sole legal counsel as soon as you were admitted to the bar in 1983.

Rule 403, SCACR (formerly known as Rule 5B, Rules for the Examination and Admission of Persons to Practice Law in South Carolina) provides that:

An attorney, although admitted to practice, may not appear alone in the actual conduct and trial of a case until a certificate has been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court showing the attorney has had eleven (11) trial experiences.

The committee's investigation revealed that you had filed an affidavit certifying that you had completed the required trial experiences on May 3, 1989.

Please provide a full and complete written explanation of how you represented clients "in the actual conduct and trial of a case" from 1983 through May 3, 1989. Include any names of persons who associated with you in trying these cases and explain those persons' participation in the trials.

Your prompt reply to this inquiry will be much appreciated and will help to expedite the committee's report. If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Paula G. Benson

Enclosures
cc: Senator Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

December 9, 1991
Joint Legislative Committee for
Judicial Screening
Attn: Paula G. Benson
P. O. Box 142
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Dear Committee Members:

On the evening of December 5, 1991 I received a telephone call from Paula Benson, your legal counsel, indicating that you were concerned with an apparent discrepancy between the information I supplied in my application and again at screening as against the date on which I submitted my certificate of compliance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules of the South Carolina Supreme Court. In order to clarify this apparent discrepancy I offer the following.

First, I would never appear on behalf of a client in any matter unless I was competent to do so. As a direct result of my having had the benefit of clerking for the Columbia Law Firm of Furr and Delgado from approximately March 1980 through June of 1983, I felt sufficiently confident and qualified to represent clients in Civil and Criminal Court. This clerking experience of over two years was one in which the attorneys allowed me to be involved with all aspects of litigation. I effectively was the shadow of either of the attorneys during the entire duration of my employment with that firm. This of course is not in keeping with the general use of law students as law clerks, which is usually limited to researching, but it did prepare me for beginning my own practice in November of 1983.

Second, the question would then arise as to why my Rule 5(b) requirements had not been certified during my employment with Furr and Delgado since I often attended court with them. Prior to Spring 1983, while still in law school, consideration was given to practicing law in the State of Florida law firm begun by my grandfather and maintained by an uncle, and with a patent law firm in Charlotte, North Carolina. Of course, Rule 5(b) is a South Carolina requirement, and is not required in North Carolina or Florida. It was not until the Spring of 1983, during my last semester at law school, that a decision was made to remain in South Carolina for the practice of law.

At this time a decision was made that my wife, who was to graduate in the same law school class as I, would seek a job with a law firm near by while I began my sole practice in Greenwood, my home town. My wife received employment with the Law Firm of Epps and Krause in Anderson, South Carolina with the intention that she would come into practice with me when my practice could sustain us both.

Upon learning in the Fall of 1983 that we had passed the bar examination, I began searching for office space and equipment. At this time my spouse reconsidered her situation and decided to give up steady employment with the Anderson Law Firm and strike out with me on our own. During her employment with the Anderson Law firm, she was able to complete Rule 5(b). Because no Greenwood area law firms would hire a law clerk for the short duration of four to six months, I taught math at the local technical college during the summer of 1983. Teaching twenty-two hours of class did not allow time to complete Rule 5(b).

A review of my Rule 5(b) certificate verifies that all required trials, except for one equity trial and three General Sessions trials, were participated in or observed during late Fall of 1983.

Because the criminal trials were difficult to locate and to work into my schedule, I went so far as to gain one of the trials from Anderson County, South Carolina and another from Richland County. I even contacted John Delgado, the attorney for whom I clerked, to refresh my memory as to the names of the criminal trials I had attended with him to add these to my certificate. I did not pursue this diligently because on my one discussion with his office we could not come up with the names of the cases and even had we come up with those names the presiding judge, which would be required to attest to my appearance in Court, would likely have no memory of my being in attendance. A further hindrance to my securing the requirements of General Sessions participation or observation was that within fourteen months of being admitted to the bar I began actively seeking a position in the South Carolina House of Representatives. Being successful on that first attempt, my schedule became even more difficult with the requirements of that elected office. However, in the mid to late 1980's when my civil practice and my partner's practice began to become more and more active it then became more difficult for her to reschedule her court appearances and clients just to be able to sit in on my Court proceedings so as not to violate Rule 5(b).

As indicated in my judicial application, during the last five years of practice my approximate number of appearances in court have been: Federal, 50; State, 40; Other, 30; 80% of my litigation is civil; approximately 20% of my trial court cases have been jury cases, and of the total of approximately 120 appearances during the last five years I appeared as sole counsel 90% of the time.

In all cases which I handled prior to May of 1989, I acted as sole counsel 90% of the time, chief counsel 5% of the time, and associate counsel 5% of the time. For all cases on which I was sole counsel, for the purposes of not violating Rule 5(b), another attorney appeared in Court with me. Because that attorney had no knowledge or at the most limited knowledge of the facts of the cases, the witnesses, the prepared testimony, the documents to be submitted, or the law of the case, that second attorney appeared only as a "warm body." That attorney did not participate in any way in the trial of the matter, but was there only so that the requirements of Rule 5(b) would not be violated.

To the best of my knowledge and to the best of my memory, there was only one occasion in the cases I describe as ones where I was sole counsel, when this "warm body" was someone other than my law partner. The specifics of this event are described below.

If my law partner appeared solely for the purpose of satisfying the court that Rule 5(b) was not being violated and that partner had no active participation whatsoever in the preparation or trial of the case, then I always have considered, and so indicated on my application, that I was sole counsel in those matters. If however, and I can recall one occasion at this point, my partner took any active part whatsoever, regardless of how minimal, in the trial of the case, then I have always considered myself chief counsel of that case and indicated such on my application.

If you have some doubts as to the assertions I make on my signed application, or the statements I made under oath at the December 5 hearing or of the assertions made herein under my signature, then confirmation of these assertions by my law partner likely would not alter your opinion as to the validity of these statements. In which case the only way I foresee these statements being verified would be for the committee to contact the opposing counsel or my client. If you wish to pursue this method of confirmation I have provided to you specifics on how to contact these persons relative to each case described on my judicial application.

1. Haskins v. Breard

a. In this matter my client was Jack Haskins. My judicial application indicates that I was initially successful in receiving a not guilty jury verdict on criminal charges of malicious injury to property. This criminal trial occurred in November of 1986. Because this was the period of time during which my law practice and the law practice of my partner began to become more active, my partner's schedule would not allow her to break a commitment in order to spend a day sitting in Court for the purposes of my avoiding the violation of Rule 5(b). Approximately twenty-four hours prior to trial I was eventually able to locate another Greenwood attorney who was willing to "sit in" on the process. I assured this attorney that he would not be required to take any active part in the trial of the case but was there only to satisfy Rule 5(b) requirements. This attorney, W. H. Nicholson, III, agreed to attend. Outside of the jury's presence, I made known to the Court the fact that he was in attendance and the purposes for his appearance. During the entire trial of the matter Mr. Nicholson sat not at the attorneys desk but in fact sat in the first row available for spectators. He had absolutely no knowledge of the facts, circumstances, or law of the case. I had, as attorney for Jack Haskins, prepared all pleadings, legal documents, discovery documents, legal research, and trial preparatory material. I made all remarks, examinations, statements, arguments and motions in Court. No advise was sought from Mr. Nicholson and he offered none.

Subsequent to receiving a not guilty verdict, I thanked him for his time and offered to pay for his time away from his office. He indicated that he did not want any payment for his inactive appearance. Some time subsequent to the trial of this matter I forwarded to Mr. Nicholson $150.00 for what I considered to be a token of appreciation for his services and for not being able to see his clients during that day of trial. A copy of the letter I wrote to him which was enclosed with the check has been attached. As you see I thanked him for taking the time to "sit in" on the case. If this letter sent to him is insufficient to confirm my assertions of his lack of involvement with this matter, then his address appears on the letter and you may contact him at that location. My client, Jack Haskins is unavailable in as much as he died approximately one year ago. The prosecuting attorney on this criminal matter was Jim Anderson who is now a partner with Mr. Nicholson and can be reached at that same address.

The civil action of Haskins v. Breard is one which I considered myself lead counsel rather than sole counsel. My assessment was based on the fact that in Court my law partner took an active, although a limited role, in the trial of this matter. While I prepared all pleadings, interviews, witnesses and expert witnesses, discovery, took all depositions, did all preparations for trial, made all motions, and statements in court, my law partner did cross examine one witness, the Defendant. This was a decision I made the evening before the Defendant took the stand and was made for no other reasons other than strategic purposes. The knowledge my partner had of this matter was gained only from what she passively saw and heard in court. Despite her lack of knowledge with the case, I decided strategy dictated this move. I had been examining and cross examining witnesses for a day and a half and believed altering the approach as against this Defendant when she took the stand would be completely unexpected by her. It also would appear to the jury to be less argumentative/combative to have a female cross examine this particular female Defendant.

My client is unavailable to be contacted because of his death approximately one year ago. The opposing counsel, Mr. Jim Anderson, is available at 212 Oak Avenue, Greenwood, South Carolina, 29646.

2. IN RE: THE ESTATE OF GREENFIELD

I represented Mrs. Louise Gleber who at one time was the common law spouse of the Decedent Greenfield. My law partner appeared in Court so that Rule 5(b) would not be violated. My partner participated in no way in the preparation of this matter or in the trial of the case or in the subsequent appellate preparation and arguments. I had, as attorney for Mrs. Louise Gleber, prepared all pleadings, legal documents, discovery documents, legal research, and trial preparatory material. I made all remarks, examinations, statements, arguments and motions in Court. My partner had absolutely no knowledge of the facts, circumstances, or law of the case. My partner's sole purpose was to be a "warm body" in court so that Rule 5(b) would not be violated. My client's last known address is Cedar Lake Subdivision, Greenwood, South Carolina, 29646. The opposing counsel in this matter was Marvin R. Watson, 306 Grier Building, Greenwood, South Carolina, 29646.

3. Dunlap v. Marshall (companion case Smith v. Marshall)

In these cases I represented the Plaintiffs Deborah Dunlap and her son Theokie Smith. In order to avoid violation of Rule 5(b) my law partner appeared in Court at my request. I prepared and argued the entire case. I had, as attorney for Deborah Dunlap and Theokie Smith, prepared all pleadings, legal documents, discovery documents, legal research, and trial preparatory material. I made all remarks, examinations, statements, arguments and motions in Court. My partner had absolutely no knowledge of the facts, circumstances, or law of the case. My partner's sole purpose was to be a "warm body" in court so that Rule 5(b) would not be violated. Opposing counsel for this case was James B. Lybrand, 1704 Main Street, Columbia, South Carolina, 29202. My client's last known address is Apartment 4-A, Wisewood, Greenwood, South Carolina.

4. State v. Armstrong
In this matter I represented the Defendant, Zeno Armstrong. In order not to violate Rule 5(b) my law partner attended the trial of this matter. I had, as attorney for Zeno Armstrong, prepared all pleadings, legal documents, discovery documents, legal research, and trial preparatory material. I made all remarks, examinations, statements, arguments and motions in Court. My partner had absolutely no knowledge of the facts, circumstances, or law of the case. My partner's sole purpose was to be a "warm body" in court so that Rule 5(b) would not be violated. My client's last known address is DD7 Georgetown Apartments, Greenwood, South Carolina, 29646. The prosecutor was Mark Dillenger whose last known address was Ninety Six, South Carolina.

5. Hamm v. Ward

In this matter I represented Deloris Hamm. In order not to violate the provisions of Rule 5(b) my law partner attended the trial of this matter. I had, as attorney for Zeno Armstrong, prepared all pleadings, legal documents, discovery documents, legal research, and trial preparatory material. I made all remarks, examinations, statements, arguments and motions in Court. My law partner had absolutely no knowledge of the facts, circumstances, or law of the case. My partner's sole purpose was to be a "warm body" in court so that Rule 5(b) would not be violated. The opposing counsel was Charles M. Watson, Jr., 410 Main Street, Greenwood, South Carolina 29646 and subsequently Judson Ayers, Grier Building, Greenwood, South Carolina, 29646. My client's last known address is 113 Abbott Lane, Cary, North Carolina, 27513.

In all of these cases I considered myself "sole counsel" (except as described in the civil action of Haskins v. Breard) because the only input or involvement of any other attorney was to be a "warm body" at the respective trials. In the civil action of Haskins v. Breard I considered myself lead counsel because my partner's cross examination of one witness. Had I cross examined that witness then I would have considered myself sole counsel because, except for the actual cross examination, the only input or involvement of my partner was to be a "warm body" for the purposes of not violating Rule 5(b).

/s/ James C. Johnson

Attachment to Letter:

January 20, 1987
Mr. W. H. Nicholson, III
NICHOLSON & NICHOLSON
Attorneys at Law
212 Oak Avenue
Greenwood, South Carolina 29646

Dear Billy:

Enclosed you will find my check in the amount of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars. I am sorry this has been so late in coming to you. I appreciate your taking the time to sit in on my City Court case. Hopefully, I will have Rule 5 out of the way before the next term of Court.

Yours very truly,
James C. Johnson
Enclosure

December 11, 1991
William J. Dean, Esquire
Burns, McDonald, Bradford, Patrick & Dean
P. O. Box 1547
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648

Dear Bill:

After talking with you on the telephone today, I believe that it will be necessary for you to write me a letter and set forth the events surrounding the various meetings of the Greenwood County Bar relative to a Resolution which was considered endorsing James C. Johnson for a Circuit Court judgeship.

I hate to trouble you, but I believe the other Committee members will want to have the factual scenario in connection with our judicial screening. I hope this is not too much of an inconvenience and appreciate your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me in Newberry at 276-2532.

Sincerely,
/s/Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

December 18, 1991
Honorable Thomas H. Pope, III
Chairman
Joint Legislative Committee for
Judicial Screening
State of South Carolina
402 Gressette Building
P. O. Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Pope:

This letter responds to your letter dated December 11, 1991 in which you requested that I set forth the events surrounding the various meetings of the Greenwood County Bar relative to a Resolution which was considered endorsing James C. Johnson for a circuit court judgeship.

On Wednesday, October 23, 1991 my secretary attempted to contact all members of the Greenwood County Bar by telephone to advise the membership of a bar meeting called at the request of Mr. Johnson to consider endorsing Mr. Johnson for the subject judgeship. The meeting was scheduled for 3:30 P.M. on Friday, October 25, 1991. Based on discussions with my secretary I believe that substantially all of the members of the Greenwood County Bar had notice of the called meeting. The meeting was duly held at 3:30 P.M. on October 25, 1991 in Room 200 of the Greenwood County Courthouse. Nine (9) members of the Bar, including the candidate and his spouse, attended the meeting. Mr. Johnson addressed the membership and recited his qualifications for the judgeship. As president of the Bar, I announced that in the absence of a quorum, I would not sign any document purporting to be a consensus of the Bar. However, I did approve adjournment of the meeting to reconvene at 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday, October 29, 1991.

On the afternoon of October 25, 1991 and again during the morning of October 28, 1991, my secretary and another staff member in our office again contacted substantially all of the members of the Bar to advise of another meeting to again consider the endorsement of Mr. Johnson. The second meeting was duly held at 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday, October 29, 1991 in Room 200 of the Greenwood County Courthouse. Approximately seventeen (17) members of the Bar, including the candidate, attended this meeting. I again announced that it would be inappropriate for me to advise the Screening Committee concerning our meeting as we did not have a quorum of the Bar present.

On or about November 7, 1991 I received from Mr. Johnson a proposed Notice addressed to members of the Bar calling for another meeting to again consider his candidacy for the judgeship. Attached to the proposed notice was a Resolution prepared by the candidate. I telephoned Mr. Johnson to advise that it would be inappropriate for the candidate to call a meeting of the Bar, but that as President of the Bar I would be happy to do so. Accordingly, on November 18, 1991 I addressed a Notice of Bar Meeting to all members of the Greenwood County Bar. My secretary and another staff person in our offices addressed envelopes to each of sixty-five (65) members of the Greenwood County Bar. A copy of the Notice, together with the proposed Resolution prepared by the candidate, is enclosed herewith. The Notice, Resolution and proposed secret ballot were delivered by messenger to all of the attorneys maintaining offices in the greater uptown Greenwood area. The Notice was mailed to the insignificant number of Bar members who reside out of Greenwood or who do not maintain an office within close proximity to the Courthouse. I have checked with the messenger who delivered the notices, and he advises that copies of the notice were delivered to the offices of the candidate and his spouse. All of the notices were delivered on November 18, 1991.

The meeting was held as called on November 25, 1991 at 3:00 P.M. due to the number of attorneys attending, the meeting was moved from Room 200 of the Greenwood County Courthouse to the main courtroom. In order to allow the maximum attendance by attorneys, I presented other business of the Bar for the first fifteen minutes of the meeting. By approximately 3:20 P.M. thirty-six (36) members of the Bar were in attendance. This constituted a quorum. Neither Mr. Johnson nor his spouse were in attendance. I then announced the purpose of the meeting and distributed copies of the proposed Resolution as prepared by the candidate, and distributed ballots to each of the attorneys in attendance. Thirty-six (36) ballots were distributed, and thirty-six (36) ballots were returned. These ballots were counted twice by myself and Charles Watson, Esquire, of the Greenwood County Bar. Based upon the ballot totals I announced to the assembled members that the vote was in opposition to the proposed Resolution. The meeting was then adjourned.

I returned from the meeting to my office and immediately attempted to contact the candidate. I was advised he was out of town until Wednesday, November 27, 1991. On that date I again telephoned Mr. Johnson to advise him of the results of the meeting on November 25, 1991, and further advised that we would take no further, public action with respect to the Resolution he had proposed.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Respectfully yours,
/s/William J. Dean, President
Greenwood County Bar Association

December 20, 1991
The Honorable James C. Johnson
706 Windsor Road
Hodges, South Carolina 29653

Dear Representative Johnson:

In your testimony before the Committee, you stated that the Greenwood County Bar Association had not taken any action concerning the endorsement of a candidate for Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

William J. Dean, President of the Greenwood County Bar Association, has informed the Committee that the Greenwood County Bar voted to oppose a proposed Resolution to endorse your candidacy.

Please find enclosed a copy of the excerpt of your testimony, the letter sent by Senator Pope to Mr. Dean, and the letter received from Mr. Dean. The Committee requests that you provide a full and complete written explanation of your knowledge concerning the Greenwood County Bar's meetings and vote on the proposed Resolution.

Your prompt reply to this inquiry will be much appreciated and will help to expedite the Committee's report. If you have any questions about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you need to call me before December 27, the number will be 782-0257. I will be in the office on December 27 and then I will be gone until January 2, 1992.

Yours very truly,
/s/Paula G. Benson
Legal Counsel

cc: Members of the Committee

December 31, 1991
Joint Legislative Committee for
Judicial Screening
Attn: Paula G. Benson
402 Gressett Building
P. O. Box 142
Columbia, S.C. 29202

RE: Judgeship - Eighth Judicial Circuit

Dear Sirs:

In response to yours of December 20, 1991, I offer the following.

If any person or group opposed my candidacy for the Judgeship, they would have responded to the committee's public notice/media release of October 31, 1991, or would have submitted written statements of their concerns, or would have appeared at the screening held on December 5, 1991. None of these occurred.

If any members of the Greenwood County Bar Association or if the Association as a group opposed my candidacy, he, she or they would have acted as directed in the October 31 release. This too did not occur.

If the members of the Association interpreted their resolution vote of November 25, 1991 as a vote in opposition to my candidacy certainly they would have acted accordingly. In fact, as I testified on December 5, while at that time unaware of the specific language of the November 25 resolution, the vote represented, by only 6 votes, a desire of the County Bar to refrain from any endorsement of any candidate. Had the County Bar voted on any-either candidate the result would have been the same, just not as close.

It is noteworthy that the Greenwood County Bar Association has not indicated any concern with my candidacy, did not initiate this discussion of the November 25 vote, and did not contact this committee with any concerns or objections.

After receiving your letter of December 20 requesting an explanation of the November 25 resolution vote, I contacted Bill Dean, acting President of the Greenwood County Bar Association, explaining that some type of clarification might be needed because of a potential misinterpretation of the vote, as being against my candidacy and therefore in favor of my opponent. Bill stated such an interpretation would be inaccurate. He further stated that in fact no discussion was held on the resolution nor either candidate prior to the vote.

As I testified on December 5, approximately 40% of the practicing members of the Greenwood County Bar Association do not want to be involved with the endorsement of any candidate for any judgeship. This is primarily due to a situation in which the members were placed earlier this year when a dissatisfied candidate in another judicial race, after not receiving the endorsement of the association, made known his displeasure by contacting Bar members with complaints (members of the General Assembly have stated that this candidate also made unprofessional comments to them as well).

Indeed, in preparing my judicial application in September and October of 1991, I first contacted four attorneys whose endorsements I believed would be beneficial. Two, Jim Anderson, against whom I had my most involved trial, and G. P. Callison, Sr., former S. C. Senator, prepared letters of recommendation on my behalf with hesitation. (I included these two letters on my application. Because you did not include these in the record at the screening hearing, I am attaching each, as well as a letter of support from former Congressman William Jennings Bryan Dorn, for inclusion with the Committee's report.

The third attorney I contacted was Eighth Circuit Solicitor, Townes Jones, realizing in advance however, that his support was unlikely because first, it was his father W.T. (Bill) Jones, whom I defeated for the House seat I presently hold; second, I had not supported his sister when she ran for Family Court Judgeship against John Rucker, and third, the Solicitor is elected to this post by the citizens of the entire Eighth Circuit which includes my opponent's county of residence. Mr. Jones cited the third reason in response to my request and indicated he could therefore not support either candidate. The Solicitor's office and the law firm of Jones, Jones and Jones (the Solicitor's father and brothers) total seven attorneys, or 15% to 20% of the practicing attorneys in Greenwood County.

The fourth attorney I contacted was Bill Dean who is a member of the largest law firm in the Eighth Circuit, whom I had worked with and against on various cases, and who was acting President of the Greenwood County Bar Association. Bill indicated that because of the problems which developed with the disappointed candidate from earlier in the year, the members of his firm had met soon thereafter and agreed not to support any other judicial candidates. Bill Dean's firm represents 20% to 25% of the practicing attorneys in Greenwood County.

Despite the situation with these latter two groups, I requested that Bill Dean call a meeting of the Bar so that I could impress upon these attorneys and others similarly situated my desire that a choice between the candidates be made. In order to make this argument to the members at the bar meeting, it would be necessary for me to be in attendance. I attended the first two meetings, but did not have any knowledge or notice of the third meeting on November 25.

The first two meetings of the Greenwood County Bar Association in October were each attended by only a few members. I reluctantly agreed that a vote should not be had unless a majority were in attendance, while the attorneys in Greenwood are a close group, we do not often meet, as evidenced by the fact that to my memory we have never had a question at a meeting, that we historically do not endorse judicial candidates, and that no one, not even Bill Dean, knows how Mr. Dean became President.

After the second meeting, and because of the likelihood that a quorum would never be attained, I indicated to Dean that I would take a resolution to each member for their signature and use this signed resolution in their place at a third meeting. I gave a copy of this resolution to Dean. I also offered to arrange a suitable time for the third meeting and to deliver to each attorney a notice of the meeting, each of which Dean declined.

In my mind, the resolution was not as important as meeting with the members of the General Assembly. Traveling the state discussing my judicial desires with members of the House and Senate left me only two hours late one afternoon to visit local attorneys with a request to sign the resolution. In that two hours I visited ten attorneys. Seven (Joe Pracht, Ted Wyndham, Billy Tunstall, Judson Ayers, Charles Lober, Marvin Watson and LaDonna Johnson) signed the resolution. Two (Chuck Watson and Ken Fish) were unavailable but later agreed to sign. One declined saying that in his opinion both candidates were equally qualified. I explained to those who did sign that I would present their signed resolution at the next Bar meeting so that a Bar Resolution could be issued.

Presumably because I told them I would present their signed resolution on their behalf at the November 25 meeting, none of these members who had individually signed the resolution were in attendance. Had they been in attendance, a resolution in my behalf would have been issued.

Additionally, one member who voted against the November 25 resolution has stated on several occasions that he believed both candidates were equally qualified, and he did not believe a choice should be made by the Bar. He insists that to read the November 25 vote as opposition to my candidacy is wrong; and further that if the same resolution were voted on for the other candidate the vote would have been even more against the resolution.

Again, at the time of the December 5 judicial screening hearing, it was my understanding that the Greenwood County Bar Association voted not to endorse any candidate for this judicial position; and, while the actual resolution which was voted down is not specific as to this intent, the intent of the vote and the only fair reading of the vote is that the Greenwood County Bar chooses to not endorse any candidate.

In hindsight, because of this Committee's possible inaccurate interpretation of the resolution vote, it should have been requested that the Greenwood County Bar members vote for either of the two candidates or neither. Or, at the very least a better worded resolution that would properly indicate the intent of the Bar.

Yours,
/s/James C. Johnson

cc: Committee Members
Attachments to Letter:

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is written in support of James (Jim) C. Johnson of Greenwood and his candidacy for Circuit Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

I have known Jim and his family personally and politically for many years. I find him to be honest, fair, and hard working in everything he has done in his daily life. Jim possesses the highest moral and ethical values and does not shy away from tough jobs or great obstacles. I am certain he would bring these honorable characteristics to the bench and serve this Circuit and this State with distinction.

For these reasons and many others I am pleased to be able to recommend Jim Johnson to you as the next member of the Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

/s/The Honorable William Jennings Bryan Dorn

October 29, 1991
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This letter is written with regard to the candidacy of James C. Johnson for Circuit Judge here in the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

I have known Jim since November of 1983 when he began his practice here in Greenwood and have worked both with and against him in assorted legal matters. In my opinion he is a diligent and conscientious attorney and has always been thoroughly prepared in any dealings I have had with him. I have found him to be honest, very straight forward and candid - qualities that I appreciate in other attorneys, qualities which are indispensable to a judge.

I am happy to recommend James C. Johnson for the position of Circuit Judge.
Yours truly,
NICHOLSON & ANDERSON
/s/J. P. Anderson, Jr.

October 24, 1991
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to recommend Mr. James Clyde Johnson of Greenwood, South Carolina, for election as a Circuit Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit to succeed Honorable James E. Moore, present Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, who has been elected to the South Carolina Supreme Court, upon his advancement to the Supreme Court.

It has been my pleasure to know Jim since the latter part of 1983 or early 1984. He and his wife, LaDonna Johnson, are partners in the practice of law and have an office here in Greenwood, South Carolina. They have a good general practice and are highly respected. They make a good family and have three children, two boys and one girl.

Jim was elected by the people of his District to the House of Representatives where, among other things, he is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a person who likes to serve people and he has done a fine job as a person, as a lawyer, and as a Representative in the General Assembly.

Jim has a good background. His grandfather was or is a County Judge in the State of Florida and his uncle is an attorney in that State. His father and mother live in Greenwood and his father works at Monsanto. His father had two years in law and finished in History.

Jim is a graduate of Clemson and of the South Carolina School of Law.

I have observed James Clyde Johnson in his work as a lawyer and as a member of the General Assembly and as a person. He is a person of honesty and integrity. He is well qualified to serve in the capacity of a Circuit Judge.

Respectfully,
/s/G. P. Callison

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and unanimously found them to be qualified to serve:

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit;

Martha McElveen Horne, candidate for Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit;

Wade S. Kolb, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit;

Thomas E. Player, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit;

Martha P. Upshur, candidate for Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit;

The Honorable J. Derham Cole, candidate for Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit;

Thomas C. Dillard, candidate for Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit;

The Honorable James C. Johnson, candidate for Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit;

The Honorable James W. Johnson, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit; and

Ralston Wright Turbeville, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat #3.

Following the screening and prior to the issuance of this Report, Barbara A. Machell informed the Committee by letter dated December 9, 1991, that she was withdrawing as a candidate for Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit.

In the screening of the Honorable James C. Johnson, candidate for Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, two questions arose concerning Representative Johnson's testimony before the Committee. First, Representative Johnson testified that he began handling cases as sole legal counsel as soon as he was admitted to the bar in 1983. The Committee's investigation revealed that Representative Johnson was subject to the requirements of Rule 403, SCACR (formerly known as Rule 5B, Rules for the Examination and Admission of Persons to Practice Law in South Carolina). This rule provides that:

An attorney, although admitted to practice, may not appear alone in the actual conduct and trial of a case until a certificate has been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court showing the attorney has had eleven (11) trial experiences.

Representative Johnson filed an affidavit with the Clerk of the Supreme Court certifying that he had completed the required trial experiences on May 3, 1989. Upon request by the Committee, Representative Johnson submitted a detailed written account of how he represented clients "in the actual conduct and trial of a case" from 1983 to May 3, 1989. His account indicated that while he assumed full responsibility for the preparation and trial of his cases he was careful to associate an attorney who could be with him in all court appearances until he was certified to appear alone.

It is the finding of the Committee that in his detailed written account Representative Johnson clarified any inconsistencies in his testimony concerning how and when he represented clients in court as sole legal counsel.

Second, Representative Johnson testified that the Greenwood County Bar Association had not taken any action concerning the endorsement of a candidate for Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit.

The Committee contacted William J. Dean, President of the Greenwood County Bar Association, who responded that the Greenwood Bar had had three meetings to consider a Resolution prepared by Representative Johnson endorsing him for the judgeship. At the third meeting a quorum was present and voted by secret ballot to oppose the proposed resolution to endorse Representative Johnson. Representative Johnson was not in attendance at this meeting.

It is the finding of the Committee that Representative Johnson's absence from the meeting explains the discrepancy in his testimony. Upon review of the cumulative evidence presented to the Committee in regard to the screening of James C. Johnson, the Committee finds him qualified as a candidate for the Circuit Court.

The Committee asked and each candidate affirmed at the public hearing on December 5, 1991, that he or she was in compliance with the provision which prohibits a candidate from soliciting pledges from members of the General Assembly until the Committee has issued its report concerning the qualifications of that candidate.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas H. Pope, III, Chmn.
Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chmn.
Senator John A. Martin
Senator Isadore E. Lourie
Senator Glenn F. McConnell
Rep. Daniel E. Martin, Sr.
Rep. James H. Hodges
Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.

(On motion of Senator POPE, with unanimous consent, ordered printed in the Journal)

REPORT RECEIVED

TO: CLERK OF THE SENATE

CLERK OF THE HOUSE
FROM: THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE SCREENING COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119, of 1975, and Act 167 of 1979, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Isadore E. Lourie, Chairman /s/Rep. Lewis Vaughn
/s/Senator Sam Stilwell /s/Rep. John L. Scott, Jr.
/s/Senator Ed Saleeby /s/Rep. John Snow
/s/Senator Herb Fielding /s/ Rep. Harriet Keyserling

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, this Committee was organized to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. The Committee conducts such investigation of each candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

Four candidates who were under consideration at the time of the hearings are discussed in this Report. The candidates who appeared before the Joint Legislative Screening Committee for its consideration are as follows:
Samuel R. Foster
Cecil T. Sandifer
J. William McLeod
C. Lem Harper

HEARINGS OF DECEMBER 18, 1991

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this hearing is for the screening of the candidates for the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. We have files on each one of the candidates here. I think we ought to just ask them to introduce themselves.
MR. McLEOD: I'm Billy McLeod. On file it's probably John William
McLeod, and I'm presently serving on the Commission.
MR. SANDIFER: I'm Cecil Sandifer, presently serving on the
Commission, as well.
MR. HARPER: Lem Harper.
MR. FOSTER: Sam Foster. I'm with the House at the present time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Glad to have you gentlemen here. I'll ask the
members of the Committee to introduce themselves. John, why don't we start with you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I'm Representative John Scott, Richland County, House District 77.
SENATOR STILWELL: I'm Sam Stilwell, Senate District 6.
SENATOR FIELDING: I'm Herb Fielding, Senate District 42,
Congressional Candidate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And this is Hogan Brown who is Director of Senate Research and Counsel. I'm Isadore Lourie, District 21, Richland County.
REPRESENTATIVE SNOW: I'm Bubba Snow, House District l03. I
represent Williamsburg and Georgetown.
REPRESENTATIVE VAUGHN: Lewis Vaughn, Greenville County,
District l8, House Representative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just ... As you know, you all will be probably one of the first elections under the new Ethics Law, and I realize all of you have filed your economic interest statement prior to this hearing. Effective January l, l992, there will be new, more extensive requirements regarding the filing of economic interests. Since your election will not take place until after January l, the law will require you to file a statement ten days prior to your election which I believe probably will be held January 22nd. January l2, is that the date? The l0th is a Friday. Monday is the l3th. Which date is the ... Is there any particular legal problem about that, gentlemen? We're assured by the State Ethics Commission those forms will be ready by January 2nd. If they're not and you don't have enough time to get them ready, we might have to take you all off that election schedule the 22nd and put you sometime in February. As I understand it tentatively, Senator Pope, Chairman of the Judicial Screening Committee, has scheduled an election of judges on January 22nd, and we're trying to tag onto that resolution and have our elections on the same day. To assist you in meeting the economic interest disclosure requirements and other requirements proposed by the new law, I've asked the staff to provide each of you with a copy of the relevant portion of the law so you can begin to compile the necessary information in anticipation of receiving the form. There will be a logistical data meeting to talk about ... after the screening of the committee members ... on the issue as to what to do while awaiting the financial disclosure forms. My inclination is we ought to go ahead and have this hearing today and take the information that we have and make our decision on each candidate as to qualified or not qualified, reserving the right of the committee to reconvene if there's any concerns after we receive the expanded new financial disclosure forms. I think we ought to probably keep the process on track as we are. If any committee members decide otherwise after hearing testimony today, we can discuss that a little later. I have a letter dated November 20th, l99l, Marcia S. Porcel, who is Administrative Assistant to Chief Robert M. Stewart, addressed to me. "In response to your letter of November l3, l99l, I have caused a criminal history check to be made on the four candidates you submitted. All candidates are negative of any criminal activity and all have a valid clear driver's license with only minor traffic violations. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this or any other matter of mutual interest," please let us know. I'll have to make this letter part of the record.
(Committee Exhibit l was marked for identification.)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume, gentlemen, if there's been any mistake in that letter, you will let us know. Any matters to come before the committee before I call the candidates to come forward? Anybody have anything they want to take before the committee? Representative Foster, I believe ... Senator Fielding.
SENATOR FIELDING: I just want to inquire what is the general
procedure?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will hear testimony from each prospective
candidate, and then we'll ask them to be excused and the committee will see if there's anybody else who wants to testify. We haven't been notified that anybody else wants to testify; but if they do, we'll be glad to hear from them. Then they'll be excused and the committee will go in executive session to talk about the personnel matters and then after executive session, we'll announce the ...
SENATOR FIELDING: All the testimony then is in open session.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, unless it's requested otherwise. Then the committee will have to take that into consideration. So unless any of the candidates request it be executive session, then we will proceed in open session. Mr. Foster, I believe you are first alphabetically. Come around the front end. Madam Court Reporter will swear you in.
SAMUEL RUFUS FOSTER, having been duly sworn, testified as
follows:
MR. FOSTER - EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAIRMAN:
Q: Will you please give us your full name.
A: Samuel Rufus Foster.
Q: You have filed a Legislative Screening Committee form. I assume you have had a chance to look at that and there are no changes or corrections that need to be made to that form that you have filed.
A: No, sir.
Q: I assume that you have no criminal record.
A: No, sir.
Q: Will you just briefly tell us a little bit about yourself and why you aspire to this position?
A: All right, sir. I'm a native of Chester, South Carolina, now living in Rock Hill since l958, so I'm a native South Carolinian, having spent all of my years here for the most part, trained in the public schools in South Carolina and attended college in South Carolina. I majored in elementary education and have been involved in the public schools for thirty-two years, retired in l985, and have been a member of the General Assembly for eleven years. All of my life has been associated with public service. Part of my interest in pursuing the position of Commissioner is that that position represents a continued interest in public service and it's a very critical interest, in my opinion, to be served at this time with the state of the economy. I sought to hopefully have some impact upon what represents a critical area at this time and to provide me with a continuing interest in public service which I've done all of my life.
Q: We note, Mr. Foster, that you have filed a financial disclosure form and you have relative references. Do you understand, sir, that you will have to file a more comprehensive form after January 2nd?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you understand about the January l0th deadline?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If that deadline is not met, then the committee in its own wisdom can either postpone the election by some or decide that that candidate is not qualified.
A: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would urge all the candidates to have their financial information in on a timely basis. I now open the floor to questions. Representative Scott?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I'll pass.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Senator Stilwell?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR STILWELL:
Q: Just in general terms, Representative Foster, do you know of any particular business or other association that you may have at the current time that might present any conflict of interest in the duties that you would have on the board?
A: None whatsoever.
Q: You do receive retirement income from the state retirement, teacher retirement fund right now. Is that correct?
A: Yes, and the status of that is that if I were fortunate enough to win, both systems represent the same system and I would have to drop out of the system as is.
Q: I'm not too sure I really understand that. You mean you would cease receiving retirement payments?
A: Yes.
Q: But then you would be making normal contributions, based on your current salary in this position. Is that right?
A: No, sir.
Q: No?
A: They would not deduct ... As I understand it, they would not deduct any retirement benefits from that salary; but the system provides that if one drops out of the system and is gainfully employed for 48 consecutive months which is exactly what this term of office represents, then that provides an opportunity to buy in the four years, the 48 months of service of most recent interest which would have been the term that is represented here.
Q: I understand. That would simply be an addendum to ... basically.
A: Yes, I could have the option of buying in those years, could have the option of buying them in. It's not necessary.
SENATOR STILWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Senator Fielding, anything else? Any of my
colleagues over here?
REPRESENTATIVE SNOW: I have no questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. I see we have Mr. Jack David. We're
certainly glad to have you with us.
MR. DAVID: Thank you, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How bad is unemployment out there?
MR. DAVID: It's 5.8 percent. The National rate is 6.8, but we're putting the numbers together and most likely it will go up a little for the month of November.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Representative Harper. Former Representative.
Commissioner.
C. LEM HARPER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COMMISSIONER HARPER - EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAIRMAN:
Q: We're glad to have you with us, Commissioner Harper.
A: Thank you, sir.
Q: The letter of SLED on November 20th saying that you have no criminal record is correct?
A: Sir?
Q: You don't have any criminal record?
A: Oh, no, I thought you said I did. You know how to get my attention.
Q: You've had a chance, I assume, to look at the forms that we've received from the questionnaire that you filled out.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Everything is in order on that.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Tell us a little bit about your background, Mr. Harper, and why you aspire to this position again.
A: Well, I had the pleasure of serving in the House for three terms. I got to know something about the work and the good job that the Employment Security did and an opportunity I feel to be of service in helping people who have real serious problems. From the House I went to the Commission in l97l and my feelings haven't changed. It still affords a great opportunity to help people who have real concerns and at the same time protect those employers who make a contribution with taxes in order to operate. I say it with pride where we are with a great staff. They do a good job for us and we don't deserve all the credit. It's something I'd love to continue because I love it.
Q: How many employees are at the Commission now?
A: We have l252 active and a total of l360. Some of those are part-time, hourly employees. We have l252 full-time employees.
Q: On the average, how many claims do you process a month or a year?
A: Well, right now it's high, as you know. It's running about l8,000 a week, so ... Fortunately I think ... we haven't had that for long. We're talking about paying out anywhere from eight to fifteen million dollars a week.
Q: Thank you, sir. Representative Scott?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT:
Q: Mr. Harper, how much time are you putting in at the Commission on the average a week?
A: My time has been consistent. It's been full-time for me since I started in '7l. I say that with pride. I do open the office every morning. It's just not a hardship on me and it's voluntary on my part. I enjoy going to work and being there on a full time-basis.
Q: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Representative Scott. Senator Stilwell?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR STILWELL:
Q: Mr. Harper, how are you doing today?
A: Fine, Mr. Stilwell.
Q: Please allow me to ask the same question of you I asked of Mr. Foster which I intend to ask of everyone that comes up here today. Do you know of any outside association, business interest or any kind of affiliation which in your mind might even possibly give rise to any conflict of interest with you discharging the duties of this office?
A: No, sir.
Q: I don't ask you this in any way to attempt to embarrass you or your son, but I can't help but notice that you have a son who is employed by the Commission.
A: By the Commission? No, sir.
Q: Is that right? Quality Control.
A: Oh, yes, there is one, yes, sir. I thought you were talking about Lem. He works with you all.
Q: Maybe I read this wrong which is your handwriting which is almost as bad as mine. It says Quality Control. Is that South Carolina Employment Security Commission?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you taken a look at the new nepotism provisions of the Ethics Law and is there any problem there?
A: I can answer that. Would you permit ...
Q: That is a legal question. Believe me, I'm not trying to embarrass you at all.
A: I wanted to be sure that I was on safe ground and I have looked into that. If you'll permit Mr. Jack David our executive director to answer that?
MR. DAVID: Sir, we have always interpreted the law that ... The
nepotism law affected me as the head of the agency. Once they appoint me, I'm the head of the agency. They can fire me if they want to. They have that authority but the nepotism law affects me. It does not affect the Commission. That is as we interpret it now.
Q: Well, if I can follow up on that, I guess it is and I know there are other state agencies this way and I just haven't looked at the law. You are hired by the Commissioners and you then have the authority to hire and fire employees of the commission.
MR. DAVID: That's correct, that's correct.
Q: Do you have the authority to set their salary outside of any control or direction by the Commissioners?
MR. DAVID: No, I do not and the Commissioner sets the policy for the agency. We usually recommend to the Commission that they approve it. They are the approving authority for the policy and direction of the agency. They also are the Court of higher appeals in our agency and spend a great deal of their time hearing appeals.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Counsel for the committee, Mr. Brown, advises me they told him the new ethics statute requires disclosure. Any other questions? Senator Stilwell?
SENATOR STILWELL: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Senator Fielding?
REPRESENTATIVE SNOW: I would just like to make a remark. I
think, Lem, I met you September of l947. I think that's longer than the Senator has known you. We went to Carolina together and of course I met Lem there. I danced my way out of Carolina and I ended up at Clemson and of course my classmate became your best friend, Marion Smith. We go way back. I just want to say I was impressed with the national article wherein you made comments in a publication that was mailed out. I think that's an innovative idea.
A: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Senator.
SENATOR FIELDING: I guess you and I are the only two ...
A: I'm still Greenville.
J. WILLIAM McLEOD: having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COMMISSIONER McLEOD - EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAIRMAN:
Q: You've had a chance to look at the questionnaire form which you filed with the Committee and your answers. Are there any corrections or changes you want to make to that?
A: No, sir.
Q: You have no criminal record.
A: I sure hope not, no, sir.
Q: Tell us about yourself a little bit, why you aspire to be re-elected.
A: Okay, sir. Senator Lourie, of course, I served in the Legislature for eight years from Florence. That was my home until two years ago. After I got elected to the Commission, I felt like it being a full-time job which is the way I consider it, I moved my family, sold my farms in Florence and moved here to Columbia where I could come in every day. While serving in the Legislature, like all of you, I had an opportunity to work with several state agencies, being a legislator, and I felt like the Employment Security Commission was the one that I wanted to serve on if I was going to continue to be a public servant in the way that I wanted to in a full-time manner. That's when I offered four years ago in l988 and of course was successful in being elected to the Employment Security Commission, going on my first term. I finished my first term. I am Chairman now of the Commission and it was a great learning experience. I had help from my two colleagues who were both experienced as Commissioners. Of course, Jack David's leadership helped me, too. I think now I've gotten to the point in life where after having the first three or four years, it's kind of like graduating from college. I think now I've gained the knowledge and experience that I probably can contribute more to this agency now than I did when first elected so that's why I'm offering myself for re-election.
Q: Thank you, Commissioner. Representative Scott?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: No questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Senator Stilwell?
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR STILWELL:
Q: Mr. Commissioner.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: First of all, let me ask you ... Since you've been on it, our unemployment record has been going up. We're not supposed to blame you for that.
A: I certainly hope not. I was afraid that was going to come up.
Q: I don't believe it would be very fair to attribute that to you.
A: Thank you, I appreciate it.
Q: I don't have to repeat the question. You have heard it.
A: I heard it, yes, sir. I have nothing I know of that would interfere with it.
Q: Do you have any outside business interest that you remain active in?
A: Only I reckon I'm a sharecropper in such a way, when I moved up here, I sold my farms to an individual in Florence and I continue to farm with him just one particular crop during the summer, because that was part of the arrangement when I sold it. He was concerned about buying the farm and not having anyone to work it; so I had the understanding that when I sold it to him, I would provide my people that had farmed in my family, continue working, so I reckon I'm a sharecropper farmer that Bubba can relate to but that would be the only other business connections I have at all.
SENATOR STILWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think that's all
the questions I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, sir. Senator Fielding?
Gentlemen?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE SNOW:
Q: You didn't use the word tobacco.
A: I do, I'm a sharecropper in tobacco, Bubba, and am proud of it.
Q: Do you miss growing tobacco?
A: I don't miss some parts of it but I remember the battles we used to have every year with the issues that would come up about tobacco, but I'm glad to know that you're still there to carry on the cause. They're still over there and I appreciate your help over there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Is Representative Harwell here as a character witness for you?
A: Let's just call on him at a later time if we need him. I would use him if I have to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there's nothing further, we're delighted to have you with us, Commissioner, and you're excused.
A: Thank you.
MR. HARPER: Representative John Scott asked me a question. I don't think I properly answered it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, go ahead.
A: You mentioned did I have any outside interests with my giving full time to the Commission. Let me mention that for forty-six years I've been in continuous business in Columbia. I have a black lady who's a partner with me, Thomasina Reynolds. She operates that business totally one hundred percent for me and all of my time is with the Employment Security Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Sandifer.
CECIL T. SANDIFER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COMMISSIONER SANDIFER - EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAIRMAN:
Q: Mr. Sandifer we're delighted to have you with us, sir.
A: Thank you, sir.
Q: You are familiar with the questionnaire form submitted by the Committee that you have filled out and given the Committee. Any changes or corrections you would like to make to that, sir?
A: No, sir.
Q: You have no criminal record?
A: No, sir.
Q: Would you tell us some background about yourself and why you aspire to be re-elected?
A: Well, I appreciate being asked last. Being a funeral director, I'm the last man who will let you down. Sam knows something about this, talking about the farmers. I'm often ... and Herb is, too ... referred to as a southern planter so with that I will tell you a little bit about my background. I'm a graduate of Connie Maxwell Children's Home in Greenwood, South Carolina. Following my graduation from Connie Maxwell in Greenwood, I expressed a desire to be of service and I was placed in the Mackey Mortuary, and I served my apprenticeship in the Mackey Mortuary. After a time of service, I was able to obtain and buy my own firm which is known as the Sandifer Funeral Home which is in Westminster. During that period of time, I served as Mayor of Westminster for two years and I was able to serve as your representative for ten years and now I have been with the Employment Security Commission for twelve years so that somewhat gives a synopsis of my life. Of course, I'm the father of seven children, thirteen grandchildren. I do have an interest in the funeral home but I'm very fortunate to have two sons who operate the funeral home. Herb is very familiar with one of them. He is the general manager and full manager of the funeral home. I do have an apartment in Columbia here.
Q: And you've never had any criminal record of any type.
A: No, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Representative Scott?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT:
Q: How much time do you spend during the week ...
A: Well, John, it really varies. I come on Monday always. I'm always here on Thursday and perhaps Friday the majority of the time but many times I need ... I don't visit the local office like I ought to, but it's really full time. That's the reason I have an apartment here. I don't have a motel because it's necessary for me to be here many times five days a week.
Q: How many local offices are there?
A: Twenty-six. Thirty-six. Local offices.
MR. HARPER: Thirty-seven full time and the others are part time.
A: I might add ... it's of some interest to all of you, I'm sure, but, you know, we're in the process of owning all of our buildings and I stand to be corrected but we own three or four and I think our main building which cost a total of four million dollars will be paid for in the next year or so. When these buildings are paid for, they really become state buildings if there's any reason to vacate them or whatever.
Q: The money to pay for those buildings, where is the income generated from?
A: I stand to be corrected. Fifty percent is Federal funded and then of course normally fifty percent is bonded money.
Q: The title to those buildings will be in the state when you're through, with the Employment Security Commission?
A: Yes, sir.
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT:
Q: You brought up something pretty interesting. You said you don't visit the local offices.
A: I said I would like to visit them more because it's such a full time here. I would like to visit more than I do.
Q: I get real concerned in terms of making contact with those local offices.
A: Yes, sir, I agree with you.
A: Making sure those local offices function, and in the past I've been involved extensively with the Employment Security in my tenure with the Governor's office. I do know that the attitude of the Commission has to be expressed by the local offices to those people.
A: I couldn't agree with you more.
Q: And those people are treated fairly and in a good manner, especially if you try to generate the programs in place. In the past year how many of those local offices do you think that you probably have visited?
A: Most of them in my Piedmont area, practically all of them in the Piedmont area, and of course I think that the other Commissioners usually visit those in those other areas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Representative Scott. Senator Stilwell.
EXAMINATION BY SENATOR STILWELL:
Q: We have a fairly new and very nice new local facility in Greenville County. Let me repeat the question to you. Do you know of any business associations or any other affiliations you may have that might pose a potential conflict of interest with you in discharging the duties of this office?
A: No, sir, I do not. There's only one particular area I must address and you are very much familiar with being a former funeral business way back in your family. Occasionally as a funeral director we are called upon to service indigent families and of course that is indigent families paid out of local county funds but I did state that in my ...
Q: I saw that in there. Do you on occasion take some active role in the conduct of funeral services like on the weekend when you're in Westminster and so forth?
A: Yes, sir, when I'm there on the weekend when I can, you know.
Q: That's all I have.
SENATOR FIELDING: Is the Commission divided geographically? All the members are at large, aren't they?
A: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you. Glad to have you with us. Anybody here want to testify for or upon any of the candidates? If not, I'd like to go into executive session so we can talk about this.
WHEREUPON, the Committee went into executive session.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are ready to proceed.
SENATOR STILWELL: I make the motion I made in closed session and that is that this Screening Committee find each of the four candidates qualified to run for the office and if elected to serve in the office.
SENATOR FIELDING: I second the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: I second the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Of course, that motion is with the
understanding or the statement I made at the opening of the disclosures. The committee reserves the right to reconvene and study those disclosures and receive additional testimony and change our opinion if we so deem advisable. I would urge you to be sure those forms are filed timely. You've heard the motion, you've heard the second, all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.
WHEREUPON, the ayes were heard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed, nay.
WHEREUPON, no nays were heard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Unanimous vote. Good luck, gentlemen.
(There being nothing further, this hearing was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the Committee, by this report, respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

This Committee has investigated each of the applicants, conducted a public hearing on December 18, 1991, and duly considered the legal qualifications of each of the applicants. Based thereon, the Committee finds all of the nominees to be legally qualified as candidates for the South Carolina Employment Security Commission.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Isadore E. Lourie, Chairman /s/Rep. Lewis Vaughn
/s/Senator Sam Stilwell /s/Rep. John L. Scott, Jr.
/s/Senator Ed Saleeby /s/Rep. John Snow
/s/Senator Herb Fielding /s/Rep. Harriet Keyserling

READ THE SECOND TIME

WITH NOTICE OF GENERAL AMENDMENTS

H. 3834 -- Rep. Wilkins: A BILL TO ADOPT THE UNITED STATES CENSUS OF 1990 AS THE TRUE AND CORRECT ENUMERATION OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE, TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 2-1-15 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE ELECTED COMMENCING WITH THE 1992 GENERAL ELECTION, TO DESIGNATE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS THE SUBMITTING AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF THE HOUSE REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN CONTAINED IN THIS ACT TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND TO REPEAL SECTION 2-1-10, RELATING TO CURRENT ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ARE ELECTED SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent, the Bill was taken up for immediate consideration.

On motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading with notice of general amendments.

Recorded Vote

Senator WILSON desired to be recorded as voting against second reading of the Bill.

Statement By Senators WILSON And SHEALY

We voted "no" to the reapportionment plans passed today because they violated the Voting Rights Act mandate to create minority voting districts and because other plans are more in accordance with one-man-one-vote with smaller deviations of population.

Further, these plans disrupt communities of interest. In particular, in Lexington County, the communities of Chapin, Batesburg, Boiling Springs, Pelion, Gaston, and Swansea are unnecessarily divided from current Lexington districts.

Also, the Congressional plan produces a classic incumbent-protection plan with an atrocious district paralleling the Savannah River from the mountains to the sea.

CONCURRENCE

S. 313 -- Senators Setzler and Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-101-350 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION TO SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE STATE'S PUBLIC, POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.

The House returned the Bill with amendments.

Senator SETZLER spoke on the Bill.

On motion of Senator SETZLER, the Senate concurred in the House amendments and a message was sent to the House accordingly. Ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and the Act enrolled for Ratification.

HOUSE CONCURRENCE

S. 1058 -- Senators Passailaigue, Fielding, Washington, Martschink and McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE HONORABLE JOHN E. BOURNE, JR., FOR HIS DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NORTH CHARLESTON.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 1060 -- Senators Shealy and Martschink: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING EVELYN S. OSWALD OF LEXINGTON COUNTY FOR HER MANY YEARS OF DEVOTED SERVICE TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND WISHING HER HAPPINESS IN HER RETIREMENT.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

S. 1061 -- Senator Shealy: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING SOLICITOR DONNIE MYERS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY ON BEING NAMED THE 1991 TRIAL LAWYER OF THE YEAR FOR REGION IV BY THE ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ON CAPITAL LITIGATION.

Returned with concurrence.

Received as information.

Doctor Of The Day

Senator COURSON introduced Dr. Edward W. Catalano of Columbia, Doctor of the Day.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

The following were introduced:

S. 1144 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-9-180, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE INSURANCE STANDARD VALUATION LAW, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING OPINIONS OF QUALIFIED ACTUARIES FOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE AND PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF AGGREGATE RESERVES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1145 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-74-20, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE POOL, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE POOL TO CONTAIN INSURANCE COSTS, REQUIRE THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL BEFORE THE POOL MAY ISSUE INSURANCE POLICIES, AND DELETE DETAILED PROVISIONS REGARDING PAYMENT OF BENEFITS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1146 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-5-120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO INSURERS, SO AS TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSIONER MAY ISSUE CERTAIN ORDERS WHEN AN INSURER IS IN AN UNSOUND OR HAZARDOUS CONDITION.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1147 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NEWLY BORN CHILDREN, SO AS TO REQUIRE COVERAGE ON THE CHILD FROM THE MOMENT OF BIRTH AND DELETE THE REFERENCES TO FAMILY MEMBER.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1148 -- Senator Martschink: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-205 SO AS TO REQUIRE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENTS FOR PAP SMEARS AND RELATED LABORATORY SERVICES IN POLICIES OR CONTRACTS OF HEALTH INSURANCE AND REQUIRE THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO PROMULGATE RELATED REGULATIONS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1149 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 44 TO TITLE 38 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGING GENERAL AGENTS ACT.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1150 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-9-80, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT OR SECURITIES REQUIRED OF INSURERS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO REQUIRE DEPOSITS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS IN THE SECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-9-100, RELATING TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH DEPOSITS ARE NOT NECESSARY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO REQUIRE A DEPOSIT OF QUALIFIED INSURERS INSTEAD OF REQUIRING THE INSURER TO BE RELIEVED OF MAKING THE DEPOSIT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-33-130, RELATING TO SECURITY DEPOSITS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ORGANIZATIONS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO AN INSURER FOR THE RETURN OF DEPOSITED SECURITIES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1151 -- Senator Russell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-77-287 SO AS TO PROHIBIT AN INSURER, INCLUDING ANY AGENT OR ADJUSTER FOR SUCH INSURER, WHICH ISSUES OR RENEWS IN THIS STATE ANY POLICY OF INSURANCE COVERING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ONE OR MORE MOTOR VEHICLES FROM REQUIRING ANY INSURED UNDER THE POLICY TO USE A PARTICULAR COMPANY OR LOCATION FOR THE PROVIDING OF MOTOR VEHICLE GLASS REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR SERVICES OR PRODUCTS INSURED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE POLICY, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PROCEDURES WHICH MAY BE FOLLOWED AND FOR CERTAIN OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS, TO REQUIRE THE STATE INSURANCE COMMISSION, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, TO ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THIS SECTION AND PROMULGATE REGULATIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CRIMINAL FINE, AND TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS OR REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE, OR BOTH.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1152 -- Senator Drummond: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE FOR SIX YEARS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1153 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY AMENDING SECTION 38-77-30(1), RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE DEFINITIONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE A NON-OWNER INSURANCE POLICY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1154 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 38-13-10 THROUGH 38-13-60, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE EXAMINATION, INVESTIGATION, REPORTS, PENALTIES, AND REMEDIES OF INSURERS, SO AS TO REVISE CURRENT PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SCHEDULING OF FINANCIAL EXAMINATIONS OF INSURERS, METHOD OF CONDUCTING EXAMINATIONS, CONTENT, FILING, ADOPTION, PUBLICATION, AND USE OF EXAMINATION REPORTS, CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANCILLARY INFORMATION, COST OF EXAMINATIONS, AND IMMUNITY FOR STATEMENTS MADE OR CONDUCT ENGAGED IN IF PERFORMED IN GOOD FAITH WHILE PERFORMING A FINANCIAL EXAMINATION.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1155 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-71-730, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP HEALTH, GROUP ACCIDENT, AND GROUP ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE, SO AS TO DELETE THE "REASON OF AGE" REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTS OF ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DESIGNED TO SUPPLEMENT REIMBURSEMENTS UNDER MEDICARE.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1156 -- Senators Saleeby, Land, McConnell, Mullinax and Pope: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-75-375 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS OF ASSESSMENTS OR INTEREST BY MEMBER COMPANIES TO THE WINDSTORM AND HAIL UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION AND FOR PENALTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-370, RELATING TO DUTIES OF ASSOCIATION MEMBERS AND LIMITATION ON LIABILITY, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATION TO RELY ON A MEMBER COMPANY'S ANNUAL STATEMENT IN DETERMINING PARTICIPATION IN PROFITS AND LOSSES AND PROVIDE REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ESSENTIAL PROPERTY VOLUNTARILY WRITTEN IN THE COASTAL AREA; AND TO AMEND SECTION 38-75-410, RELATING TO APPEALS FROM ACTS, RULINGS, OR DECISIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE TIME OF APPEALS FOR CERTAIN ACTS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1157 -- Senator Reese: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-3-65 SO AS TO ALLOW THE CHIEF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO SUSPEND THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF A DRIVER, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY DAYS, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-3-102 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER MUST BE ELECTED AND PROVIDE FOR HIS TERM, CANDIDACY QUALIFICATIONS, AND VACANCIES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 38-73-458 SO AS TO PROHIBIT AN AUTOMOBILE INSURER FROM RAISING AN INSURED'S PREMIUM BASED UPON THE INSURED'S DRIVING RECORD OR ACCIDENT RECORD, OR COMBINATION OF BOTH OF THESE, OR FROM REMOVING AN INSURED'S SAFE DRIVER DISCOUNT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE INSURED COMPLETES AND PASSES A SAFE DRIVER COURSE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-467 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW A PERSON MAY HAVE HIS LICENSE TO DRIVE SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS IF HE IS CONVICTED OF, OR PLEADS GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO, FIVE TRAFFIC OFFENSES IN A ONE-YEAR PERIOD OR IS CONVICTED OF, OR PLEADS GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE TO, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS TWO OR MORE TIMES IN A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, AND PROVIDE THAT THIS SUSPENSION CAN BE WAIVED ONLY UPON A SHOWING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EXTREME HARDSHIP AND SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION; TO AMEND SECTION 38-3-60, RELATING TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO DELETE THE LANGUAGE EMPOWERING THE COMMISSION TO SELECT AND EMPLOY THE COMMISSIONER; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-450, RELATING TO FAIRNESS OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES OR PREMIUM CHARGES, BURDEN ON INSURER TO PROVE FAIRNESS, AND FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER, SO AS TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INVESTMENT INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES, ALL PROFITS FROM EVERY SOURCE, INCLUDING INVESTMENT INCOME, BOTH ACTIVE AND PASSIVE, AND EARNED INTEREST, PROHIBIT AN INSURER FROM CLAIMING REDUCED PROFIT BY DOING, OR FAILING TO DO, CERTAIN THINGS, REQUIRE THAT ANY PROFIT OF AN INSURER EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT PER ANNUM BE REFUNDED TO ITS INSUREDS UNLESS THE INSURER CAN DEMONSTRATE EXTREME AND COMPELLING HARDSHIP JUSTIFYING THE REFUND OF A LESSER SUM, AND PROVIDE THAT A REQUEST FOR ANY RATE INCREASE OR PREMIUM INCREASE MAY BE DENIED OR DISAPPROVED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AS A FACTOR THE INEFFICIENCY OF THE INSURER OR SUFFICIENT INSURER PROFIT; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-455, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-735, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PLANS FOR CREDITS OR DISCOUNTS TO AUTOMOBILE INSUREDS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE PLANS TO BE CEDED TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-750, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT AUTOMOBILE INSURERS FILE PLANS FOR ALLOCATING EXPENSES AND PROFIT, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCES TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-73-760, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO UNIFORM STATISTICAL PLANS FOR THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BUSINESS, SO AS TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, SO AS TO DELETE THE DEFINITION OF THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-285, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES FOR AN INSURED'S AUTOMOBILE MUST BE IN ONE POLICY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIREMENT TO APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES INSTEAD OF VEHICLES CEDED TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY; TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ELIMINATE THE MANDATE ON AUTOMOBILE INSURERS DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE TO WRITE INSURANCE FOR ALL OR FOR SELF-INSURED PLANS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO COMPLY WITH THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY STATUTES OF THIS STATE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO ELIMINATE COMPULSORY INSURANCE FOR ALL DRIVERS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY STATUTES; TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER TO APPROVE A TEN PERCENT REDUCTION IN RATE OR PREMIUM CHARGES USED BY AUTOMOBILE INSURERS; PROVIDE FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S 1994 ELECTION; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 38-3-100 RELATING TO THE COMMISSIONER, EFFECTIVE UPON HIS ELECTION, AND SECTIONS 38-73-1420, 38-73-1425, 38-77-920, 38-77-940, 38-77-950, AND 38-77-960 AND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 77, TITLE 38 RELATING TO THE REINSURANCE FACILITY.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Banking and Insurance.

S. 1158 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 59, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO EDUCATION, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 SO AS TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS FROM SUBJECTING STUDENTS TO DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS FOR CERTAIN FREE SPEECH CONDUCT.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.

S. 1159 -- Senators Lourie, Giese and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-37-251, SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAX THAT AMOUNT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY QUALIFYING FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WHICH REPRESENTS INCREASES IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OCCURRING AFTER THE PROPERTY FIRST QUALIFIES FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION AND TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO TAXING ENTITIES FOR TAXES NOT COLLECTED AS A RESULT OF THIS EXEMPTION.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1160 -- Senator Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-7-1213 SO AS TO ALLOW A SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXPAYER WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE FEDERAL EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT A REFUNDABLE STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE-FOURTH OF HIS FEDERAL CREDIT.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1161 -- Senator Reese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-430, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ADJUSTMENTS TO INCOME FOR STATE TAXABLE INCOME PURPOSES FOR INDIVIDUALS, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST PAID ON REVOLVING CHARGE CARDS AND ACCOUNTS AND PURCHASE MONEY LOANS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.

S. 1162 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-20-50, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REQUIRED STAMPS AND PERMITS UNDER THE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1991, SO AS TO DECREASE CERTAIN CHARTER VESSEL PERMIT FEES.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

S. 1163 -- Senator Reese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 52-7-310, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO REVISE THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT.

Read the first time and referred to the General Committee.

S. 1164 -- Senator Robert W. Hayes, Jr.: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 TO CHAPTER 13, TITLE 61 SO AS TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR DAMAGES AGAINST LICENSEES AND PERMITTEES TO SELL REGULATED BEVERAGES WHEN AN INJURY RESULTS FROM THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE BY SETTING FORTH DEFINITIONS, CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH CLAIMS ARE ESTABLISHED, THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF AUTHORIZED, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1165 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-3-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALTERNATE METHOD OF ANNEXATION BY PETITION OF SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF FREEHOLDERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE AN ELECTION ON ANNEXATION IF ONE OR MORE RESIDENT FREEHOLDERS OBJECTS AND FIFTY PERCENT OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION IS COMMERCIAL OR UNDEVELOPED AND REQUIRE NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A PETITION TO FREEHOLDERS OWNING PROPERTY IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1166 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-3-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALTERNATE METHOD OF ANNEXATION BY PETITION OF SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF FREEHOLDERS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE AREA REQUESTING ANNEXATION MAY INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL OR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, NOT BOTH.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1167 -- Senators McConnell and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 5-3-150, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ALTERNATE METHOD OF ANNEXATION BY PETITION OF SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF FREEHOLDERS, SO AS TO REQUIRE NOTICE OF THE FILING OF A PETITION TO FREEHOLDERS OWNING PROPERTY IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AND IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1168 -- Senator Saleeby: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY AND THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR NONJURY BENCH TRIALS IN CASES AT LAW WHEN THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR LESS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

S. 1169 -- Senators Giese, Moore, Fielding, Patterson, Wilson, O'Dell, Courson, Shealy, Drummond and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 7 IN CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 41, RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT AND COMMISSIONER OF LABOR SO AS TO CREATE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THE ATHLETIC REGULATION DIVISION AND TO DEVOLVE ON THE DIVISION THE DIRECTION, MANAGEMENT, CONTROL, AND SUPERVISION OF BOXING, WRESTLING, AND SPARRING EVENTS, EXHIBITIONS, CONTESTS, AND PERFORMANCES FORMERLY EXERCISED BY THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, INCLUDING CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 52-7-10, 52-7-15, AS AMENDED, 52-7-20, AS AMENDED, AND 52-7-30, AND 52-7-310, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CREATION, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION AND COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSIONS, SO AS TO REESTABLISH THE BODY AS ADVISORY TO THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR AND ELIMINATE THE OFFICE OF CHIEF ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER; AND TO PROVIDE THAT COUNTY ATHLETIC COMMISSIONERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR RATHER THAN THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY, TO PROVIDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL DESIGNATE THE FUNCTIONS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CURRENT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR TERMS; TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 52-7-25, 52-7-40, 52-7-50, 52-7-60, 52-7-70, 52-7-75, 52-7-80, 52-7-90, 52-7-100, 52-7-110, 52-7-120, 52-7-130, 52-7-140, AND 52-7-150, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF BOXING, WRESTLING, AND SPARRING BY THE STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

S. 1170 -- Senators Lourie, Giese and Passailaigue: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 13 TO CHAPTER 43, TITLE 44 SO AS TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS FOR CONSENT TO HAVE THE BODY OF A DEAD PERSON CREMATED.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

S. 1171 -- Senator Drummond: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD FOR NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS FOR THREE YEARS.

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.

S. 1172 -- Senators Waddell and Washington: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 23, TITLE 57, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 17 SO AS TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF U. S. HIGHWAY 17 IN BEAUFORT COUNTY AS "U. S. HIGHWAY 17-ACE BASIN SCENIC HIGHWAY".

Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.

S. 1173 -- Senators Rose, Bryan, Carmichael, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Fielding, Giese, Gilbert, Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Helmly, Hinds, Hinson, Holland, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Lourie, Macaulay, Martin, Martschink, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mitchell, Moore, Mullinax, O'Dell, Passailaigue, Patterson, Peeler, Pope, Reese, Russell, Saleeby, Setzler, Shealy, J. Verne Smith, Nell W. Smith, Stilwell, Thomas, Waddell, Washington, Williams and Wilson: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO INSTRUCT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE GENERAL WILLIAM C. WESTMORLAND A SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 43, CHAPTER 3 OF TILE 56 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, SO AS TO HONOR GENERAL WESTMORLAND BY ISSUING HIM THE SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE WITH THE WORDS "U.S. ARMED SERVICES, RETIRED" WHICH DISPLAYS THE NUMBER "1".

Senator ROSE spoke on the Joint Resolution.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.

Ordered To A Second And Third Reading

On motion of Senator ROSE, S. 1173 was ordered to receive a second and third reading on the next two consecutive days.

S. 1174 -- Senator Russell: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 36 OF 1967, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMISSION MUST BE MADE BY RESIDENT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE FROM SPARTANBURG COUNTY, AND TO DELETE AN OBSOLETE REFERENCE.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

S. 1175 -- Senators Pope, Martin, Lourie and McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO FIX WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1992, AT 12:00 NOON AS THE TIME FOR ELECTING SUCCESSORS FOR CERTAIN JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHOSE TERMS EXPIRE JUNE 30, 1992, JUNE 30, 1994, AND JUNE 30, 1995; AND TO ELECT A SUCCESSOR FOR A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT WHOSE TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30, 1995.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:

That the Senate and the House of Representatives meet in joint assembly in the Hall of the House on Wednesday, February 5, 1992, to elect a successor to The Honorable Dan F. Laney, Jr., Circuit Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit, whose term expires June 30, 1992; to elect a successor to The Honorable James Cleveland "Tee" Ferguson, Sr., Circuit Judge from the Seventh Judicial Circuit, whose term expires June 30, 1995; and a successor to The Honorable James Moore, Circuit Judge from the Eighth Judicial Circuit, whose term expires June 30, 1994; and to elect a successor to The Honorable S. H. Belser, Family Court Judge from the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 3, whose term expires on June 30, 1995.

Referred to the Committee on Invitations.

S. 1176 -- Senator Peeler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MARVIN EARLE (CHIP) MABRY, II, OF CHEROKEE COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1177 -- Senator Peeler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING MRS. KATE DEATON OF CHEROKEE COUNTY ON THE OCCASION OF HER ONE HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY ON FEBRUARY 27, 1992.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1178 -- Senator Peeler: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF LOYE W. MAYFIELD, SR., OF CHEROKEE COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1179 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS EXEMPLARY EFFORTS IN PROVIDING SUPERB STAFF TRAINING PROGRAMS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1180 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS EXEMPLARY TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR ITS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER BOARD MEMBERS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1181 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS INITIATIVE IN ESTABLISHING ALZHEIMER'S DAY TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1182 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds, and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND THAT AGENCIES OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, IN COOPERATION WITH THE STATE AGENCY OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, EMPLOY QUALIFIED PERSONS WITH HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS AS TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEES.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

S. 1183 -- Senators Bryan, Peeler, Fielding, Hinds and Giese: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS INNOVATIVE FUNDING TECHNIQUES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF CLOZARIL TO PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC SCHIZOPHRENIA.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered sent to the House.

H. 4060 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF DANIEL T. MATHIS OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4061 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE CITADEL REGIMENTAL BAND AND THE PIPE BAND FOR THEIR EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE IN THE ANNUAL, WORLD-FAMOUS EDINBURGH MILITARY TATTOO AT EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND DURING THE SUMMER OF 1991 AND FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE AND THE NATION.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4062 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING MAYOR H. ODELL WEEKS OF AIKEN FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEVOTED PUBLIC SERVICE AND WISHING HIM MUCH HAPPINESS IN HIS RETIREMENT.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4063 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF THE HONORABLE JOHN T. CAMPBELL OF COLUMBIA, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4064 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXTENDING CONGRATULATIONS TO DR. YAKIR AHARONOV, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ON BEING AWARDED THE ELLIOTT CRESSON MEDAL BY THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE OF PHILADELPHIA.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4065 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THE HONORABLE T. MOFFATT BURRISS OF RICHLAND COUNTY, FOR HIS FOURTEEN YEARS OF DEDICATED AND OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WHILE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND EXTENDING HIM BEST WISHES FOR HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS IN ALL OF HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4066 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MABLE FELDER HARVIN OF CLARENDON COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4067 -- Reps. Harvin, Baxley, G. Brown, McElveen and McLeod: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT SUMTER UPON COMPLETING ITS TWENTY-FIFTH YEAR AS A STATE INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4068 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE HONORABLE S.H. BELSER OF CLARENDON COUNTY, RESIDENT FAMILY COURT JUDGE OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, AND EXTENDING HIM BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY RETIREMENT.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4069 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE DEEPEST SYMPATHY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY OF JUDGE JAMES M. "MAC" MORRIS OF MANNING, ONE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S MOST DISTINGUISHED JURISTS, UPON HIS RECENT DEATH.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4071 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS EXEMPLARY EFFORTS IN PROVIDING SUPERB STAFF TRAINING PROGRAMS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4072 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS INNOVATIVE FUNDING TECHNIQUES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF CLOZARIL TO PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC SCHIZOPHRENIA.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4073 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS INITIATIVE IN ESTABLISHING ALZHEIMER'S DAY TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4074 -- Reps. P. Harris, Carnell, J. Harris and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR ITS EXEMPLARY TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR ITS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER BOARD MEMBERS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4076 -- Reps. Wilder, Baxley and Manly: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992, AS "CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES DAY", TO ENDORSE THE "B.A.C.-COFFEE DAY FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES" PROJECT AND OTHER OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS OF THE EASTER SEAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A JOINT SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT 12:00 NOON ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1992, AT WHICH TIME THE STATE EASTER SEAL REPRESENTATIVES OR AMBASSADORS AND THEIR PARENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4078 -- Aiken Delegation: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF MARGARET J. WESTON OF AIKEN COUNTY AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HER FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4079 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SORROW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT THE DEATH OF JOHN R. TURNBULL OF COLUMBIA AND EXTENDING SYMPATHY TO HIS FAMILY AND MANY FRIENDS.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4080 -- Rep. Rudnick: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND THANKING S. HUNTER HOWARD, JR., FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE STATE AS A MEMBER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION.

On immediate consideration, the Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.

H. 4042 -- Rep. Holt: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 440 OF 1949, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ST. PAUL'S FIRE COMMISSION IN CHARLESTON COUNTY, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR FOUR YEAR TERMS FOR ITS MEMBERS AND TO PROVIDE THAT CURRENT COMMISSIONERS SHALL CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS ARE APPOINTED AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT.

Read the first time and ordered placed on the local and uncontested Calendar without reference.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Senator MITCHELL, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 613 -- Senator Washington: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-17-65 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CANDIDATE FOR AN ELECTED JUDICIAL OFFICE MUST APPEAL A DECISION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS AGGRIEVED BY IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-17-60, RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE STATE BOARD OF CANVASSERS FROM THE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS BY A CANDIDATE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A DECISION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CANDIDATE FOR A JUDICIAL OFFICE SHALL NOT APPEAL TO THE STATE BOARD BUT INSTEAD TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator SHEALY, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 665 -- Senator Peeler: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-940, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF "PARDON", SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PARDON OF A CONVICTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CONVICTION RECORD FROM BEING CONSIDERED AS A PRIOR OFFENSE UNDER A STATUTE INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator McCONNELL, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 828 -- Senator McConnell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 6-7-710, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ZONING BY MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR MITIGATION WHEN INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE GRANTING OF A ZONING VARIANCE OR REGULATION AND PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 852 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 61-9-170 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE HODLER OF A RETAIL PERMIT TO SELL BEER AND WINE TO TRANSFER BEER AND WINE TO OTHER BUSINESSES, TO REQUIRE THE TRANSFEREE BUSINESSES TO HOLD A RETAIL BEER AND WINE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION AS THE LICENSE OF THE TRANSFEROR BUSINESS, TO REQUIRE TRANSFER OF BEERS TO CONFORM TO TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS, TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO TRANSFER BEER OR WINE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A RETAILER TO PURCHASE BEER OR WINE FROM ANOTHER RETAILER FOR RESALE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator STILWELL, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 875 -- Senator Macaulay: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 32-7-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN THE PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS, SO AS TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF `COMMON TRUST FUND'; AND TO AMEND SECTION 32-7-20, RELATING TO PRENEED BURIAL CONTRACTS, PAYMENTS, AND TRUST FUNDS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FOR A PRENEED BURIAL VAULT MUST BE HELD BY THE SELLER IN TRUST.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator SETZLER, from the Committee on Education, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

S. 1067 -- Senators Setzler and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-26-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE AREAS OF NEED WHICH JUSTIFY CANCELLATION OF THE STUDENT LOAN AT A SPECIFIED RATE AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING JULY 1, 1989, RECIPIENTS OF A SOUTH CAROLINA STUDENT LOAN MAY HAVE THEIR LOANS CANCELED AT AN ACCELERATED RATE IF THEY TEACH IN BOTH AN ACADEMIC CRITICAL NEED AREA AND IN A GEOGRAPHIC NEED AREA.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator SETZLER, from the Committee on Education, submitted a favorable report on:

S. 1080 -- Senators J. Verne Smith, Mitchell, Bryan and Stilwell: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 743 OF 1962, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE GREENVILLE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, SO AS TO ENLARGE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION TO INCLUDE AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE GREENVILLE HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator SETZLER, from the Committee on Education, submitted a favorable report on:

H. 3351 -- Rep. Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-111-320, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR PERSONS AGE SIXTY OR OVER TO ATTEND CLASSES AT STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TUITION, SO AS TO DELETE A PROVISION WHICH PREVENTS THE PERSON FROM BEING ENTITLED TO FREE TUITION IF HIS SPOUSE RECEIVES COMPENSATION AS A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

Senator BRYAN, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted a favorable with amendment report on:

H. 3603 -- Reps. Waites and Kinon: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 27-18-140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE HOLDING OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY FOR THE OWNER BY A COURT, STATE, OR OTHER GOVERNMENT, SO AS TO INCREASE FROM ONE TO FIVE YEARS THE HOLDING TIME FOR PROPERTY BEFORE IT IS DECLARED ABANDONED.

Ordered for consideration tomorrow.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.

AMENDMENT PROPOSED, OBJECTION

H. 3269 -- Reps. Kirsh, McTeer and D. Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-36-120, 12-36-910, 12-36-920, 12-36-930, 12-36-2120, 12-36-2560, AND 12-36-2650, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SALES AND USE TAX ACT, SO AS TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 12-36-560, 12-36-570, 12-36-1730, 12-36-1740, 12-36-2660, AND 12-36-2670, SO AS TO PROVIDE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS RELATING TO RETAIL LICENSES AND THE CASUAL EXCISE TAX, TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE MEMBERS OF THE TAX COMMISSION OR THEIR DESIGNEES TO ADMINISTER OATHS OR TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator MACAULAY proposed the following amendment (JIC\5721.HC):

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered section to read:

/SECTION ___. Section 4-10-20 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 317 of 1990, is amended to read:

"Section 4-10-20. A county, upon referendum approval, may levy a sales and use tax of one percent on the gross proceeds of sales within the county area which are subject to tax under Chapter 35 36 of Title 12 and the enforcement provisions of Chapter 54 of Title 12. The sale of items with a maximum tax levied in accordance with Sections 12-35-516, 12-35-518, and 12-35-510 and Article 11 of Chapter 35 of Title 12 Section 12-36-2110 are exempt from the local sales and use tax. Food items which may be purchased lawfully with United States Department of Agriculture food stamps are exempt from the local sales and use tax. The adopted rate also applies to tangible personal property subject to the use tax in Section 12-35-810 12-36-1310. Taxpayers required to remit taxes under Section 12-35-810 12-36-1310 shall identify the county or municipality in the county area in which tangible personal property purchased at retail is stored, used, or consumed in this State. Utilities are required to report sales in the county or municipality in which consumption of the tangible personal property occurs. A taxpayer subject to the tax imposed by Article 6, Chapter 35 of Title 12 Section 12-36-920, who owns or manages rental units in more than one county or municipality shall report separately in his sales tax return the total gross proceeds from business done in each county or municipality."/

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator MACAULAY explained the amendment.

Senator BRYAN objected to further consideration of the Bill.

SECOND READING BILL

WITH NOTICE OF GENERAL AMENDMENTS

The following Bill having been read the second time was passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1140 -- Senators Waddell, Leatherman, Gilbert and McGill: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-7-1245, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOCATED IN THIS STATE, SO AS TO REVISE THE CATEGORIES OF JOBS WHICH MUST BE CREATED TO QUALIFY FOR THE CREDIT, TO ADD ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TO QUALIFY FOR THE CREDIT, TO EXPAND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE CREDIT MAY BE CLAIMED, TO PROVIDE THE TAXABLE YEARS TO WHICH THE CREDIT APPLIES, TO REQUIRE RECAPTURE OF THE CREDIT IF STAFFING LEVELS ARE NOT TIMELY MET, TO ALLOW THE CREDIT WHEN A FEE IN LIEU OF TAXES ARRANGEMENT EXISTS, TO REQUIRE A REDUCTION IN THE INCOME TAX BASIS ONLY OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE CREDIT WAS CLAIMED, TO REVISE AND ADD ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS, AND TO ALLOW TAXPAYERS RELYING ON RULINGS FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FORMER PROVISIONS OF THE CODE SECTION TO CONTINUE TO RELY ON THE RULINGS AND ALLOW THE TAXPAYER TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION.

Senator BRYAN asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, the Bill was given second reading.

SECOND READING BILLS

The following Bills having been read the second time were passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1057 -- Senators STILWELL and J. VERNE SMITH: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-280, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES IN GREENVILLE COUNTY, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING THE BOUNDARY OF PRECINCT 56, PLEASANT GROVE, AND THE BOUNDARY OF THE NEW PRECINCT, NAMELY, 56A, RIVERSIDE, BY IDENTIFYING PART OF THESE BOUNDARIES PROPERLY AS THE PRINCESS CREEK, RATHER THAN THE ENOREE RIVER AS INCORRECTLY CONTAINED IN CERTAIN MAPS.

Ordered To A Third Reading

On motion of Senator STILWELL, S. 1057 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, January 16, 1992.

S. 1096 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURY AREAS FOR COUNTY MAGISTRATES' COURTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE JURY AREAS FOR ANDERSON COUNTY BY PROVIDING FOR ONE JURY AREA COUNTYWIDE.

Ordered To A Third Reading

On motion of Senator MULLINAX, S. 1096 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, January 16, 1992.

S. 1143 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 22-2-190, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO JURY AREAS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURT, SO AS TO REVISE THE AREAS FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY.

Ordered To A Third Reading

By prior motion of Senator WADDELL, S. 1143 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, January 16, 1992.

S. 1142 -- Senators Nell W. Smith, Robert W. Hayes, Jr. and Moore: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY IN FISCAL MATTERS, INCLUDING UNINTERRUPTED PAYMENT OF PERSONNEL, IN THE TRANSFER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO THE STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND.

Senator MOORE explained the Joint Resolution.

Ordered To A Third Reading

On motion of Senator GIESE, with unanimous consent, S. 1142 was ordered to receive a third reading on Thursday, January 16, 1992.

OBJECTION

H. 3775 -- Rep. Bennett: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1116, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE MARKING AND IDENTIFICATION OF NONGAME FISHING DEVICES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOATING MARKERS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1135, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSES FOR TAKING FRESHWATER NONGAME FISH WITH CERTAIN FISHING DEVICES, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TROTLINE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1145, RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DEVICES FOR FRESHWATER FISHING, SO AS TO REVISE THE NUMBER OF TROTLINE HOOKS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1150, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS AND FEES FOR RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FEE FOR NONRESIDENTS FROM FIVE HUNDRED TO SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1155, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO TAGS AND PERMITS FOR CERTAIN NONGAME FISHING DEVICES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE TAGS AND PERMITS FOR NONRESIDENTS TO FIFTY DOLLARS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1180, RELATING TO TROTLINES, SO AS TO REQUIRE TROTLINE HOOKS USED IN LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE TO HAVE A GAP AND PROHIBIT STAINLESS STEEL HOOKS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1192, RELATING TO THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF NONGAME FISHING DEVICES USED IN FRESHWATER, SO AS TO REVISE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TROTLINES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 50-13-1195, RELATING TO PENALTIES IN THE PROTECTION OF NONGAME FISH, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE FORFEITURE OF TAGS AND PERMITS AND PROVIDE FOR THE INELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER TAGS AND PERMITS UPON FORFEITURE.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the Bill. The question being adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.

Senator HINSON objected to further consideration of the Bill.

CARRIED OVER

S. 85 -- Senators McConnell and Rose: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-25-200 SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE SOLICITING OR CAMPAIGNING FOR VOTES WITHIN TWO HUNDRED FEET OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH A POLLING PLACE IS LOCATED AND PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF PERSONS VIOLATING THIS PROHIBITION.

Senator McCONNELL explained the Bill.

On motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Bill was carried over.

H. 3550 -- Reps. Cromer and Manly: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1970, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW ON HANDICAPPED PARKING, SO AS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES FOR FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES AND PROVIDE THAT, IN THE CASE OF A THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OF THE VIOLATOR MUST BE SUSPENDED FOR NINETY DAYS.

Senator LOURIE explained the Bill.

On motion of Senator LOURIE, the Bill was carried over.

THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.

CARRIED OVER

S. 417 -- Senators Waddell, Leatherman, Lourie and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-2726, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROOF OF LICENSING OF COIN-OPERATED MACHINES AND DEVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PROOF OF LICENSING IS THE CONSPICUOUS DISPLAY OF THE LICENSE AT THE MACHINE LOCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-2738, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF LICENSING LAWS FOR COIN-OPERATED MACHINES AND DEVICES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FAILURE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE LICENSES ON DISPLAY CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION AND THAT EACH MACHINE IN EXCESS OF THE APPROPRIATE LICENSE DISPLAYED IS A SEPARATE VIOLATION; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 12-21-2732, RELATING TO THE ATTACHMENT OF LICENSES TO MACHINES.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment (N05\7609.AL) proposed by Senators LAND, SHEALY and MARTSCHINK and previously printed in the Journal of May 22, 1991.

On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, the Bill was carried over.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.

MADE SPECIAL ORDER

(H. 3716 Subsequently Substituted For S. 799 On Calendar)

S. 799 -- Senators McConnell, Passailaigue, Fielding, Helmly, Rose, Martschink, O'Dell, Land, Pope, Washington and Williams: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-130-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO CREATE THE UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON AND PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION OF THIS UNIVERSITY.

Senator McCONNELL moved that the Bill be made a Special Order.

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 26; Nays 13

AYES

Bryan Courson Courtney
Fielding Giese Gilbert
Hayes, R.W. Helmly Hinds
Hinson Holland Martschink
McConnell McGill Mitchell
Mullinax O'Dell Passailaigue
Patterson Peeler Pope
Reese Rose Setzler
Washington Wilson

TOTAL--26

NAYS

Drummond Leatherman Leventis
Lourie Macaulay Moore
Saleeby Shealy Smith, J.V.
Smith, N.W. Stilwell Thomas
Waddell

TOTAL--13

S. 799 was made a Special Order.

(Subsequent to the Bill, S. 799, having been made a Special Order, at a later time during the Senate's business, H. 3716, by unanimous consent, was substituted for S. 799 on the Calendar in the status of Special Order.)

On motion of Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent, S. 799 was not to be taken up for consideration before Wednesday, January 29, 1992.

OBJECTION

Senator SETZLER asked unanimous consent to make a motion to substitute H. 3716 on the Calendar in the status of Special Order in the place of S. 799.

Senator WILLIAMS spoke on the motion.

Senator THOMAS objected to the motion.

MOTION ADOPTED

On motion of Senator MOORE, the Senate agreed to dispense with the remainder of the Motion Period.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE ADJOURNED DEBATE.

RECOMMITTED

S. 409 -- Senators Waddell and Giese: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO EXEMPT SUPPLIES, TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, AND ELECTRICITY SOLD TO MOTION PICTURE COMPANIES AND TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment (No5\7252.BD) proposed by Senator LAND and previously printed in the Journal of February 26, 1991.

On motion of Senator WADDELL, the Bill was recommitted to the Committee on Finance.

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE SPECIAL ORDERS.

CARRIED OVER

S. 249 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-232 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT REAL PROPERTY DOES NOT QUALIFY AS AGRICULTURAL REAL PROPERTY UNLESS THE TRACT IS FIVE ACRES OR MORE IN THE CASE OF TIMBERLAND AND TEN ACRES OR MORE FOR OTHER THAN TIMBERLAND, TO PROVIDE THAT THE TEN ACRE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OF GROSS FARM INCOME FOR AT LEAST THREE OF THE FIVE TAXABLE YEARS PRECEDING THE APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, TO MAKE NEW OWNERS OF LESS THAN TEN ACRES ELIGIBLE FOR AGRICULTURAL USE SUBJECT TO THE ROLLBACK TAX IF THEY FAIL TO MEET THE SAME INCOME REQUIREMENTS IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF OPERATION, TO AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSOR TO OBTAIN TAX INFORMATION AND THE AGRICULTURE STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE FARM IDENTIFICATION NUMBER TO VERIFY APPLICATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT LAND IDLE UNDER LAND RETIREMENT PROGRAMS QUALIFIES FOR AGRICULTURAL USE IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE CASE OF LEASE OPERATIONS, THE LESSOR OR LESSEE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, AND TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL USE OR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATIO FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY MEETS THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-43-340 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURAL USE AND THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATIO FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS AND PROVIDE A PENALTY; AND TO EXEMPT FROM THE ROLLBACK TAX LANDOWNERS MADE INELIGIBLE FOR AGRICULTURAL USE BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Finance.

Senator SHEALY spoke on the amendment.

On motion of Senator SHEALY, the Bill was carried over.

READ THE SECOND TIME

H. 3704 -- Reps. Felder, Foster, K. Bailey, Bennett and McCain: A BILL TO CHANGE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE TO SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1991.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the second reading of the Bill.

Senator SETZLER spoke on the Bill.

On motion of Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading with notice of general amendments, subject to a motion by Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent, that the Bill would not be taken up for consideration prior to Wednesday, January 29, 1992.

SUBSTITUTED, MADE SPECIAL ORDER

H. 3716 -- Reps. Whipper, D. Williams, Wofford, Barber, Fulmer, R. Young, Rama, Hallman, D. Martin, Gonzales, Snow, Altman, White, Keegan, J. Williams, G. Bailey and A. Young: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-130-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO CREATE THE UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON AND PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION OF THIS UNIVERSITY.

On motion of Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was taken up for immediate consideration.

On motion of Senator SETZLER, with unanimous consent, the Bill was substituted on the Calendar in the status of Special Order in the place of S. 799, not to be considered prior to Wednesday, January 29, 1992.

SET FOR CONSIDERATION AT A TIME CERTAIN

S. 362 -- Senators Holland, Moore, Matthews and Wilson: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-35, AS AMENDED, 7-13-40, AS AMENDED, 7-13-50, AS AMENDED, 7-13-60, 7-13-70, AS AMENDED, 7-13-610, 7-13-830, AS AMENDED, 7-15-420, AS AMENDED, 7-15-450, 7-17-510, 7-17-520, 7-17-530, 7-17-540, 7-17-550, 7-17-560, 7-17-570, AND 7-25-140, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ELECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS, PROVIDE FOR HEARING AND DECIDING PROTESTS AND CONTESTS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS OF THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE STATE LEVEL RATHER THAN AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, DELETE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW, AND CHANGE CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION; TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 13, TITLE 7, RELATING TO BALLOTS FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-611 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ARRANGEMENT OF EVERY "OFFICIAL COUNTY BALLOT" AND OF EVERY "OFFICIAL STATE BALLOT"; TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW MAY BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING POLITICAL PARTIES FROM CONDUCTING PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARIES; TO PROVIDE THAT, IN THE CASE OF ANY COUNTY WHICH OPERATES ITS ELECTIONS THROUGH AN ELECTION AND REGISTRATION COMMISSION COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS, THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION ARE NOT AFFECTED OR CHANGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 7-9-110, RELATING TO PERMITTING COUNTY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES TO ESTABLISH A COUNTY PARTY ELECTION COMMISSION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND 7-13-90, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS OF PRIMARIES; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PRIMARIES, EXCEPT MUNICIPAL PRIMARIES, MUST BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIONS ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JUNE OF EACH GENERAL ELECTION YEAR.

Senator PEELER asked unanimous consent to make a motion to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

Senator HOLLAND was granted leave to address brief remarks to the body.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, with unanimous consent, S. 362 was set for consideration at a time certain of 12:30 P.M. on Tuesday, January 21, 1992; provided, that if the Senate has not given final consideration to the reapportionment bill(s) pending, then S. 362 would be carried over to that time certain on subsequent days to be considered immediately upon final disposition of the reapportionment bill(s); and provided, further, that S. 362 shall give way to any message, conference report, or other matter pertaining to the reapportionment bill(s).

THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE CONTESTED STATEWIDE AND LOCAL CALENDAR.

AMENDED AND READ

S. 414 -- Senator Waddell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-1-220 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, COUNTY AUDITORS, ASSESSORS, AND COUNTY BOARDS OF TAX APPEALS, WHERE NOT PROHIBITED BY RULE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, TO PREPARE AND PRESENT CASES OR APPOINT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO PREPARE AND PRESENT CASES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, TO PROVIDE THAT A TAXPAYER MAY AUTHORIZE ATTORNEYS, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, APPRAISERS, OR OTHERS TO SPEAK FOR HIM IN ADMINISTRATIVE TAX PROCEEDINGS, TO REQUIRE THE TAXPAYER TO BE PRESENT AT ADMINISTRATIVE TAX PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT WHERE THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED A VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY NAMING AN ATTORNEY OR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE, AND TO REQUIRE CORRESPONDENCE AND NOTICES TO BE SENT TO THE TAXPAYERS EXCEPT WHEN HE IS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY OR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT FOR WHOM THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED A POWER OF ATTORNEY.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senator BRYAN proposed the following amendment (RES414.02), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 2 by striking lines 2 through 4 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

/(2) Taxpayers may have others speak for them during/.

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend title to conform.

Senator BRYAN moved that the amendment be adopted.

The amendment was adopted.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

RECOMMITTED

S. 411 -- Senators Waddell, Leatherman, Lourie and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 4-10-90 AND 6-4-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO ESTIMATING REVENUES AND CORRECTING ALLOCATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX AND THE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MISALLOCATIONS MAY BE CORRECTED ONLY BY ADJUSTING SUBSEQUENT ALLOCATIONS IN THE SAME FISCAL YEAR AS THE MISALLOCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 12-3-240, RELATING TO THE TAX COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO FURNISH INCOME TAX DATA TO MUNICIPALITIES WHICH LEVY A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, SO AS TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE THE DATA TO COUNTIES; TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-3-270 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM COLLECTING WARRANTS FOR DISTRAINT MAY NOT SUPPLEMENT TAX COMMISSION APPROPRIATIONS AND MUST BE DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-54-50 AND 12-54-120, RELATING TO FEES ON BAD CHECKS GIVEN TO THE TAX COMMISSION AND TAX LIENS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE FEE FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN DOLLARS, EXTEND THE FEE TO ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS NOT MADE BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, AND PROVIDE THAT A TAX LIEN OPERATES IN THE SAME MANNER AS A JUDGMENT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 12-54-420 AND 12-54-460, RELATING TO THE SETOFF DEBT COLLECTION ACT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT DEBT SETOFFS MAY BE MADE FOR PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING ONLY FOR STATE-AUTHORIZED STUDENT LOANS AND TO PROVIDE A NOTICE PROCEDURE BEFORE A SETOFF MAY BE MADE; AND TO AMEND THE 1976 CODE BY ADDING SECTION 12-54-495 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CLAIMANT AGENCIES UNDER THE SETOFF DEBT COLLECTION ACT MUST INDEMNIFY THE TAX COMMISSION FOR LIABILITIES ARISING UNDER THE ACT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

On motion of Senator WADDELL, the Bill was recommitted to the Committee on Finance.

AMENDED, DEBATE ADJOURNED

S. 385 -- Senator Macaulay: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 38-77-280, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COLLISION, COMPREHENSIVE, FIRE, THEFT, AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE, SO AS TO MAKE IT OPTIONAL FOR INSURERS TO OFFER COLLISION COVERAGE AND EITHER COMPREHENSIVE OR FIRE, THEFT, AND COMBINED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE; TO PROVIDE THAT ALL INSURERS WRITING SINGLE INTEREST COLLISION COVERAGE SHALL PROVIDE AN APPLICANT FOR THIS INSURANCE WITH A CERTAIN NOTICE THAT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL INSURERS SHALL SUBMIT RATE FILINGS WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT WHICH MUST REFLECT THE RATE DECREASES, IF ANY, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senators MACAULAY, WILLIAMS, DRUMMOND, HINSON, MULLINAX, MCCONNELL, THOMAS, BRYAN, GIESE, ROSE, O'DELL, SETZLER, COURTNEY, WILSON, HELMLY, PEELER, LEATHERMAN, MOORE, MARTSCHINK, PASSAILAIGUE, SHEALY, J. V. SMITH, STILWELL and ROBERT W. HAYES, JR. proposed the following amendment (BBM\9682.BD), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:

/SECTION 1. Section 38-77-280 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 113 of 1991, is further amended to read:

"Section 38-77-280. (A) Except as provided in subsection (B), all automobile insurers, including those insurance companies writing private passenger physical damage coverages only, shall make collision coverage and either comprehensive or fire, theft, and combined additional coverage available to an insured or qualified applicant who requests the coverage.

Collision coverage must have a mandatory deductible of two hundred fifty dollars, but an insured or qualified applicant, at his option, may select an additional deductible in appropriate increments up to one thousand dollars.

Comprehensive coverage or fire, theft, and combined additional coverages must have a mandatory deductible of two hundred fifty dollars, but an insured, at his option, may select an additional deductible in appropriate increments up to one thousand dollars. This deductible does not apply to auto safety glass. It is an unfair trade practice, as described in Sections 38-57-30 and 38-57-40, for an insurer or an agent to sell collision insurance, comprehensive coverage, or fire, theft, and combined additional coverages unless the insured is notified at the time of application of the savings which may be realized if the applicant or the insured selects a higher deductible. This notice is required only at the time of the initial sale and must be in a form approved by the Chief Insurance Commissioner. An insurer may offer insureds lower deductibles at the insurer's option.

(B) Notwithstanding subsection (A) and Sections 38-77-110 and 38-77-920, automobile insurers may refuse to write automobile physical damage insurance coverage, including automobile comprehensive physical damage, collision, fire, theft, and combined additional coverage, for an applicant or existing policyholder, on renewal, for a motor vehicle customarily operated by an individual, either the named insured or another operator not excluded in accordance with Section 38-77-340 and who resides in the same household, where one or more of the conditions or factors prescribed in Section 38-73-455 exist. In addition, automobile insurers may refuse to write physical damage insurance coverage to an applicant or existing policyholder, on renewal, who has collected benefits provided under automobile insurance physical damage coverage during the thirty-six months immediately preceding the effective date of coverage, for two or more total fire losses or two or more total theft losses. Automobile insurers may refuse to write for private passenger automobiles physical damage insurance coverage, including automobile comprehensive physical damage, collision, fire, theft, and combined additional coverage, for an applicant or existing policyholder, on renewal, for a motor vehicle customarily operated by an individual, either the named insured or another operator not excluded in accordance with Section 38-77-340 and who resides in the same household, which does not qualify for the safe driver discount in Section 38-73-760(e)."

(C) Notwithstanding Section 38-77-110, automobile physical damage coverage in an automobile insurance policy may be canceled at any time during the policy period by reason of the factors or conditions described in Section 38-73-455(A) or Section 38-77-280(B) which existed before the commencement of the policy period and which were not disclosed to the insurer at the commencement of the policy period.

(D) No policy of insurance which provides automobile physical damage coverage only may be ceded to the facility.

(E) Insurers of automobile insurance may charge a rate for physical damage insurance coverages different than those provided for in Section 38-73-457 if the rates are filed and approved by the Chief Insurance Commissioner. Any applicant or existing policyholder, to be charged this different rate, must be denied the coverage pursuant to subsection (B) at the rate provided in Section 38-73-457.

(F) A carrier may not cede collision coverage, comprehensive coverage, or fire, theft, and combined additional coverages with a deductible of less than two hundred fifty dollars. An insured or qualified applicant may select an additional deductible in appropriate increments up to one thousand dollars. However, the mandatory deductible does not apply to safety glass. Notwithstanding Sections 38-77-110 and 38-77-920, after September 30, 1992, automobile insurers may refuse to write or renew private passenger automobile physical damage insurance coverage, including automobile comprehensive physical damage, collision, fire, theft, and combined additional coverage for an applicant or existing policyholder. After September 30, 1992, no private passenger automobile physical damage insurance coverage may be ceded to the facility."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor./

Amend title to conform.

Senator MACAULAY explained the amendment.

Senator MACAULAY moved that the amendment be adopted.
The amendment was adopted.

Senator MACAULAY moved to adjourn debate on the Bill.

Debate was adjourned on the Bill.

CARRIED OVER

S. 268 -- Senator Mullinax: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 47 TO TITLE 43 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION; TO AMEND SECTIONS 43-41-10, 43-41-30, AND 43-41-40, RELATING TO THE GLEAAMS HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMISSION IN ANDERSON COUNTY; TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COMMISSION TO GLEAMS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTING ANDERSON COUNTY.

On motion of Senator BRYAN, the Bill was carried over.

S. 572 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 39-55-55, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MEMBERS OF THE CEMETERY BOARD, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR TWO MEMBERS TO BE APPOINTED FROM NOMINATIONS BY THE CEMETERY ASSOCIATION AND FOR INITIAL TERMS, PROVIDE FOR NOMINATIONS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL, A GROUP, OR AN ASSOCIATION, AND PROVIDE FOR APPOINTMENT AFTER A VACANCY; TO AMEND SECTION 39-55-95, RELATING TO LICENSES FOR THE OPERATION OF A CEMETERY, SO AS TO DECREASE THE REQUIRED EXPERIENCE FOR A GENERAL MANAGER FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE YEAR; TO AMEND SECTION 39-55-115, RELATING TO POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DUTIES REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF LICENSEES AND REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF LICENSES AND PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT TO RELATED PROCEEDINGS; TO AMEND SECTION 39-55-125, RELATING TO RECORDS AND REGULATIONS OF A CEMETERY, SO AS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN REGULATIONS, PROVIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FEES, DEFINE LABOR COSTS, AND PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, AMENDMENT, AND ABOLISHMENT OF REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT; TO AMEND SECTION 39-55-185, RELATING TO THE MERCHANDISE TRUST FUND, SO AS TO REQUIRE A FINANCIAL REPORT TO BE SIGNED BY A LICENSED ACCOUNTANT; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CEMETERY BOARD FOR FIVE YEARS.

On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Bill was carried over.

AMENDED AND READ

S. 554 -- Senator Pope: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 5, TITLE 22, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO MAGISTRATE'S POWERS AND DUTIES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, BY ADDING ARTICLE 11 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF A FIRST OFFENSE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE'S COURT MAY HAVE HIS CRIMINAL RECORD FOR THIS OFFENSE EXPUNGED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the third reading of the Bill.

Senators POPE and GIESE proposed the following amendment (JUD554.1), which was adopted:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 1, beginning on line 44, in Section 22-5-910, as contained in SECTION 1, by adding the following:

/After the expungement, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is required to keep a nonpublic record of the offense and the date of the expungement to ensure that no person takes advantage of the rights of this section more than once. This nonpublic record is not subject to release under Section 34-11-95, the Freedom of Information Act, or any other provision of law except to those authorized law or court officials who need to know this information in order to prevent the rights afforded by this section from being taken advantage of more than once./

Amend title to conform.

Senator POPE explained the amendment.

The amendment was adopted.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

Statement By Senator GILBERT

Senator GILBERT requested that his name be added as a co-sponsor of S. 554.

The PRESIDENT stated that under the provisions of Rule 9, that "co-sponsors shall not be added after a Bill or Resolution has been introduced."

Senator GILBERT requested that this be reflected in the Journal as a statement.

AMENDED AND READ

S. 261 -- Senator Fielding: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 2-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTO SPECIFIED HOUSE DISTRICTS AND SECTION 2-1-60, RELATING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE INTO SPECIFIED SENATORIAL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO DELETE A PORTION OF LAND FROM HOUSE DISTRICT 92 AND SENATORIAL DISTRICT 38 OF DORCHESTER AND BERKELEY COUNTIES AND ADD IT TO HOUSE DISTRICT 117 AND SENATORIAL DISTRICT 41 OF CHARLESTON COUNTY.

The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill. The question being the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

Senator FIELDING explained the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary.

The amendment as proposed by the Committee on Judiciary (JUD 261.1) was adopted as follows:

Amend the bill, as and if amended, beginning on line 9 of page 1, by striking the bill in its entirety and inserting therein the following:

/A BILL

TO ALTER THE COUNTY LINES OF BERKELEY AND CHARLESTON COUNTIES BY ANNEXING A CERTAIN PORTION OF BERKELEY COUNTY TO CHARLESTON COUNTY AND TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR LEGAL RECORDS AND TO AMEND SECTION 2-1-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTO SPECIFIED HOUSE DISTRICTS AND SECTION 2-1-60, RELATING TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE INTO SPECIFIED SENATORIAL DISTRICTS, SO AS TO DELETE A PORTION OF LAND FROM HOUSE DISTRICT 92 AND SENATORIAL DISTRICT 38 OF DORCHESTER AND BERKELEY COUNTIES AND ADD IT TO HOUSE DISTRICT 117 AND SENATORIAL DISTRICT 41 OF CHARLESTON COUNTY.

Whereas, an election was held in Berkeley County to determine if the qualified electors residing in that portion of Berkeley County below described desire to have the area annexed to Charleston County; and

Whereas, in that election more than two-thirds of the votes cast were in favor of the annexation; and

Whereas, an election was held in Charleston County to determine if the qualified electors of Charleston County desire to have that portion of Berkeley County annexed to Charleston County; and

Whereas, in that election a majority of the votes cast were in favor of the annexation; and

Whereas, the constitutional and statutory requirements for the annexation have been complied with. Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. The following described portion of Berkeley County is transferred and annexed to Charleston County:

That portion of Block B611, Tract 207.02 of Berkeley County commencing at an iron pipe on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, the point being 295 feet more or less in a northwesterly direction from the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78 and the northwesterly right-of-way line of Craven Road, the point also being the southwesterly property corner of Craven Subdivision and the point of beginning of this description: then along the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, north 45 27' 39" west, 91.03 feet to a point of transition width, being a concrete monument; then continuing along the right-of-way line, south 44 32' 21" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.16 feet in a southeasterly direction from a concrete monument; then continuing along the right-of-way line, north 45 27' 39" west, 312.94 feet to a point of curvature, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the right-of-way line, along the arc of a 11459.16 foot radius curve, curving to the left, having a chord length of 479.67 feet bearing north 46 39' 37" west, 479.70 feet to a point of tangency, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 538.49 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the right-of-way line, north 42 08' 26" east, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 180.63 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.14 feet in a northeasterly direction from a concrete monument; then continuing along the right-of-way line, south 42 08' 26" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 1665.96 feet to a point, being a bolt in pavement; then departing the right-of-way line, north 20 10' 15" east, along the easterly property line of lands of Otis R. Droze, 99.96 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the easterly property line, north 20 31' 24" east, 263.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the easterly property line of Katony Subdivision north 18 47' 06" east, 19.26 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 46' 59" east, 256.45 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 18' 11" east, 135.35 feet to an iron pipe; north 21 11' 36" east, 157.10 feet to an iron pipe on the southwesterly right-of-way of Camelia Street; then departing the property line, north 68 35' 47" east, along the southwesterly right-of-way line 154.01 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the southwesterly right-of-way line, south 20 01' 04" west, along the westerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 167.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the westerly property line south 37 37' 25" east, along the southerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 48.81 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the southerly property line, south 69 27' 18" east, 41.22 feet to an iron pipe; south 88 32' 29" east, 82.16 feet to an iron pipe; south 66 37' 25" east, 138.17 feet to an iron pipe, north 82 00' 31" east, 58.20 feet to an iron pipe; then departing the southerly property line, north 34 53' 20" east, along the easterly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 257.85 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the easterly property line, south 59 40' 57" east, along the southerly property line of F.M. Craven 224.51 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the southerly property line, north 32 11' 08" east, along the easterly property line of F.M. Craven 537.83 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the easterly property line north 00 59' 51" east, 39.03 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the easterly property line, north 57 27' 05" west, along the northerly property line of F.M. Craven 387.68 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the northerly property line, south 70 03' 33" east, along the southerly property line of Betty M. Craven 375.38 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then continuing along the southerly property line, south 69 10' 06" east, 347.30 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the southerly property line, south 00 59' 51" west, along a westerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 612.74 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; then departing the westerly property line, north 76 08' 19" east, along a southerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 130.71 feet to a point, being an old axle; then north 76 09' 03" east, along a southerly property line of land of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, Ronnie Smith, and Rachael Waring, et al., 1584.77 feet to a point, being an old axle; then departing the southerly property line, south 10 18' 53", along a westerly property line of lands of J. Roland Wright and Dilys M. Usry, 559.09 feet to a point, being a mark on a railroad rail; then departing the westerly property line, south 34 05' 57" west, along a northwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 1628.30 feet to a point, being an iron rod; then departing the northwesterly property line, south 73 21' 16" east, along a southwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 788.99 feet to a point, being an iron rod; then departing the southwesterly property line, south 40 22' 33" west, along a northwesterly property line of Craven Subdivision, 1322.59 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, being an iron pipe and the point of beginning of this description.

SECTION 2. Upon application, the clerk of court, register of mesne conveyances, sheriff, and probate judge of Berkeley County shall furnish certified copies of a judgment roll, entry on abstract of judgment book, will, record, execution, decree, deed, mortgage, or other papers signed or recorded in the office of the officers, upon payment of proper fees and when the certified copy is filed or recorded in the proper office of Charleston County, it shall have the same force and effect in Charleston County that it had in Berkeley County and a record not transferred continues in force and effect and each has the same force and effect in Charleston County as if it had been transferred and made a record in the proper office in Charleston County.

SECTION 3. Because the property transferred pursuant to Section 1 of this act is exempt from ad valorem taxes, Charleston County shall assume no indebtedness of Berkeley County.

SECTION 4. Section 2-1-10 of the 1976 Code, House District 92, is amended to read:

"92 Total Population: 26,27026,268

Dorchester County

Summerville Div.

Tract 106

B 101-118 666

B 238-239p 1,004

B 106-612 1,177

B 701-702 3,275

B 209, 609 434

6,556

Tract 105, B 106 24

Dorchester County Subtotal 6,580

Berkeley County

Goose Creek--Hanahan Div.

Tract 208

B 301-313 2,649

B 501-525 2,187

4,836

Tract 207.02

B 304 208

B 311-324 2,266

B 329 0

B 401-408 969

B 501-517 8,968

B 601-611 850

Less the following portion of B 611 (2)
Commencing at an iron pipe on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, said point being 295 feet more or less in a northwesterly direction from the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of U. S. Route 78 and the northwesterly right-of-way line of Craven Road, said point also being the southwesterly property corner of Craven Subdivision and the point of beginning of this description: thence along the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, north 45 27' 39" west, 91.03 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 44 32' 21" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.16 feet in a southeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 45 27' 39" west, 312.94 feet to a point of curvature, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, along the arc of a 11459.16 foot radius curve, curving to the left, having a chord length of 479.67 feet bearing north 46 39' 37" west, 479.70 feet to a point of tangency, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 538.49 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 42 08' 26" east, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 180.63 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.14 feet in a northeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 42 08' 26" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 1665.96 feet to a point, being a bolt in pavement; thence departing said right-of-way line, north 20 10' 15" east, along the easterly property line of lands of Otis R. Droze, 99.96 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line, north 20 31' 24" east, 263.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along the easterly property line of Katony Subdivision north 18 47' 06" east, 19.26 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 46' 59" east, 256.45 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 18' 11" east, 135.35 feet to an iron pipe; north 21 11' 36" east, 157.10 feet to an iron pipe on the southwesterly right-of-way of Camelia Street; thence departing said property line, north 68 35' 47" east, along said southwesterly right-of-way line 154.01 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southwesterly right-of-way line, south 20 01' 04" west, along the westerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 167.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line south 37 37' 25" east, along the southerly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 48.81 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 27' 18" east, 41.22 feet to an iron pipe; south 88 32' 29" east, 82.16 feet to an iron pipe; south 66 37' 25" east, 138.17 feet to an iron pipe, north 82 00' 31" east, 58.20 feet to an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 34 53' 20" east, along the easterly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 257.85 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, south 59 40' 57" east, along the southerly property line of F.M. Craven 224.51 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 32 11' 08" east, along the easterly property line of said F.M. Craven 537.83 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line north 00 59' 51" east, 39.03 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, north 57 27' 05" west, along the northerly property line of said F.M. Craven 387.68 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said northerly property line, south 70 03' 33" east, along the southerly property line of Betty M. Craven 375.38 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 10' 06" east, 347.30 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, south 00 59' 51" west, along a westerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 612.74 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line, north 76 08' 19" east, along a southerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 130.71 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence north 76 09' 03" east, along a southerly property line of land of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, Ronnie Smith, and Rachael Waring, et al., 1584.77 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence departing said southerly property line, south 10 18' 53", along a westerly property line of lands of J. Roland Wright and Dilys M. Usry, 559.09 feet to a point, being a mark on a railroad rail; thence departing said westerly property line, south 34 05' 57" west, along a northwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 1628.30 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said northwesterly property line, south 73 21' 16" east, along a southwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 788.99 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said southwesterly property line, south 40 22' 33" west, along a northwesterly property line of Craven Subdivision, 1322.59 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, being an iron pipe and the point of beginning of this description.

B 701-703 69

13,33013,328

Tracts 207.01

B 207 15

B 209 24

B 230, 232-244 651

B 301-304 469

ED 795 365

1,524

Berkeley County Subtotal 19,690 19,688

Total District No. 92 26,270 26,268"

SECTION 5. Section 2-1-10 of the 1976 Code, House District 117, is amended to read:
"117 Total Population: 24,893 24,895

Charleston County

Charleston-N. Charleston Div.

Tract 31.05 3,126

Less B 206-209,

216 (291)

2,835

Tract 31.04 3,941

Tract 31.03 6,135

Tract 31.01 8,956

Tract 32 MED X 55% 3,026

Add: Berkeley County (pt.)

Tract 207.02 (pt.)

B 611 (pt.) 2
Commencing at an iron pipe on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, said point being 295 feet more or less in a northwesterly direction from the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of U. S. Route 78 and the northwesterly right-of-way line of Craven Road, said point also being the southwesterly property corner of Craven Subdivision and the point of beginning of this description: thence along the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, north 45 27' 39" west, 91.03 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 44 32' 21" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.16 feet in a southeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 45 27' 39" west, 312.94 feet to a point of curvature, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, along the arc of a 11459.16 foot radius curve, curving to the left, having a chord length of 479.67 feet bearing north 46 39' 37" west, 479.70 feet to a point of tangency, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 538.49 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 42 08' 26" east, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 180.63 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.14 feet in a northeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 42 08' 26" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 1665.96 feet to a point, being a bolt in pavement; thence departing said right-of-way line, north 20 10' 15" east, along the easterly property line of lands of Otis R. Droze, 99.96 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line, North 20 31' 24" east, 263.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along the easterly property line of Katony Subdivision north 18 47' 06" east, 19.26 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 46' 59" east, 256.45 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 18' 11" east, 135.35 feet to an iron pipe; north 21 11' 36" east, 157.10 feet to an iron pipe on the southwesterly right-of-way of Camelia Street; thence departing said property line, north 68 35' 47" east, along said southwesterly right-of-way line 154.01 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southwesterly right-of-way line, south 20 01' 04" west, along the westerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 167.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line south 37 37' 25" east, along the southerly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 48.81 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 27' 18" east, 41.22 feet to an iron pipe; south 88 32' 29" east, 82.16 feet to an iron pipe; south 66 37' 25" east, 138.17 feet to an iron pipe, north 82 00' 31" east, 58.20 feet to an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 34 53' 20" east, along the easterly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 257.85 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, south 59 40' 57" east, along the southerly property line of F.M. Craven 224.51 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 32 11' 08" east, along the easterly property line of said F.M. Craven 537.83 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line north 00 59' 51" east, 39.03 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, north 57 27' 05" west, along the northerly property line of said F.M. Craven 387.68 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said northerly property line, south 70 03' 33" east, along the southerly property line of Betty M. Craven 375.38 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 10' 06" east, 347.30 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, south 00 59' 51" west, along a westerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 612.74 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line, north 76 08' 19" east, along a southerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 130.71 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence north 76 09' 03" east, along a southerly property line of land of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, Ronnie Smith, and Rachael Waring, et al., 1584.77 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence departing said southerly property line, south 10 18' 53", along a westerly property line of lands of J. Roland Wright and Dilys M. Usry, 559.09 feet to a point, being a mark on a railroad rail; thence departing said westerly property line, south 34 05' 57" west, along a northwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 1628.30 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said northwesterly property line, south 73 21' 16" east, along a southwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 788.99 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said southwesterly property line, south 40 22' 33" west, along a northwesterly property line of Craven Subdivision, 1322.59 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, being an iron pipe and the point of beginning of this description.

Total District No. 117 24,89324,895"

SECTION 6. Section 2-1-60 of the 1976 Code, Senate District 38, is amended to read:

"DISTRICT 38

Area Total
Population
Dorchester County (pt.)

Harleyville Division (pt.)

ED 604 954

ED 605 723

Ridgeville Division (pt.) 3,334

Less: ED 618 (603)

ED 619 (237)

ED 621 (326)

St. George Division (pt.)

ED 608 649

Summerville Division (pt.) 43,111

Less: Tract 105 (pt.)

Block Group 1 (615)

Berkeley County (pt.)

Tract 207.01 (pt.)

Blocks 235-240, 242-245 395

Tract 207.02 (pt.)

Goose Creek City (pt.) 4,710

Block 124 0

Blocks 212-214 0

Blocks 313-314, 319-324 328

Blocks 513, 516, 517 698

Block Group 6 0 850 848

Block 611 (pt.)

Less the following (pt.)(2)
Commencing at an iron pipe on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, said point, being 295 feet more or less in a northwesterly direction from the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of U. S. Route 78 and the northwesterly right-of-way line of Craven Road, said point also being the southwesterly property corner of Craven Subdivision and the point of beginning of this description: thence along the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, north 45 27' 39" west, 91.03 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 44 32' 21" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.16 feet in a southeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 45 27' 39" west, 312.94 feet to a point of curvature, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, along the arc of a 11459.16 foot radius curve, curving to the left, having a chord length of 479.67 feet bearing north 46 39' 37" west, 479.70 feet to a point of tangency, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 538.49 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 42 08' 26" east, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 180.63 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.14 feet in a northeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 42 08' 26" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 1665.96 feet to a point, being a bolt in pavement; thence departing said right-of-way line, north 20 10' 15" east, along the easterly property line of lands of Otis R. Droze, 99.96 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line, North 20 31' 24" east, 263.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along the easterly property line of Katony Subdivision north 18 47' 06" east, 19.26 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 46' 59" east, 256.45 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 18' 11" east, 135.35 feet to an iron pipe; north 21 11' 36" east, 157.10 feet to an iron pipe on the southwesterly right-of-way of Camelia Street; thence departing said property line, north 68 35' 47" east, along said southwesterly right-of-way line 154.01 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southwesterly right-of-way line, south 20 01' 04" west, along the westerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 167.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line south 37 37' 25" east, along the southerly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 48.81 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 27' 18" east, 41.22 feet to an iron pipe; south 88 32' 29" east, 82.16 feet to an iron pipe; south 66 37' 25" east, 138.17 feet to an iron pipe, north 82 00' 31" east, 58.20 feet to an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 34 53' 20" east, along the easterly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 257.85 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, south 59 40' 57" east, along the southerly property line of F.M. Craven 224.51 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 32 11' 08" east, along the easterly property line of said F.M. Craven 537.83 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line north 00 59' 51" east, 39.03 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, north 57 27' 05" west, along the northerly property line of said F.M. Craven 387.68 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said northerly property line, south 70 03' 33" east, along the southerly property line of Betty M. Craven 375.38 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 10' 06" east, 347.30 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, south 00 59' 51" west, along a westerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 612.74 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line, north 76 08' 19" east, along a southerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 130.71 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence north 76 09' 03" east, along a southerly property line of land of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, Ronnie Smith, and Rachael Waring, et al., 1584.77 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence departing said southerly property line, south 10 18' 53", along a westerly property line of lands of J. Roland Wright and Dilys M. Usry, 559.09 feet to a point, being a mark on a railroad rail; thence departing said westerly property line, south 34 05' 57" west, along a northwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 1628.30 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said northwesterly property line, south 73 21' 16" east, along a southwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 788.99 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said southwesterly property line, south 40 22' 33" west, along a northwesterly property line of Craven Subdivision, 1322.59 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, being an iron pipe and the point of beginning of this description.

Block 701 (pt.) 63

Tract 208 (pt.)

Blocks 113, 119-127,
148-149 389

Block 327 34

Block 341 0

Block Group 6 3,080

Tract 209 8,249

Tract 210 4,927

TOTAL: 70,713 70,711

% VARIATION: +4.20"

SECTION 7. Section 2-1-60 of the 1976 Code, Senate District 41, is amended to read:

"DISTRICT 41

Area Total
Population
Charleston County (pt.)

James Island Division (pt.) 27,719

Less: Tract 19.01 (pt.)

Blocks 902-903 (337)

Tract 19.02 (pt.)

Blocks 901-902 (480)

Tract 20.03 (4,531)

Tract 20.04 (1,478)

Tract 20.05 (pt.) (3,992)

Block Group 1 415

Blocks 206, 207,

255 88

Blocks 901, 909 10

Tract 20.06

Block Group 1 (806)

Charleston Division (pt.)

Tract 26.02 (pt.) 11,566

Less: Blocks 115-118,

122-123, 126-

128, 130-131 (2,181)

Tract 26.04 4,202

Tract 26.05 (pt.)

Blocks 401-405, 416,

421, 422, 428-

430 1,486

Blocks 613, 614, 616,

617 429

Tract 26.06 2,529

Tract 28 6,760

Tract 30 3,461

Tract 31.01 8,956

Tract 31.02 (pt.) 14,602

Less: Block Group 1 (240)

Block Group 4 (676)

Blocks 916-918,

909, 922 (2,486)

Tract 31.03 (pt.)

Block Group 1 1,049

Blocks 908, 911-913,

920, 921, 943-

945, 948 1,296

Tract 39 (pt.)

Blocks 201, 202, 206-

216 899

Block Group 3 873

Block 901 213

Bear Swamp Division (pt.)

Block Group 1 717

Block Group 2 767

Blocks 911, 989 410

Add Berkeley County (pt.) (2)

Tract 207.02 (pt.)

Block 611 (pt.):
Commencing at an iron pipe on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, said point, being 295 feet more or less in a northwesterly direction from the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of U. S. Route 78 and the northwesterly right-of-way line of Craven Road, said point also being the southwesterly property corner of Craven Subdivision and the point of beginning of this description: thence along the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, north 45 27' 39" west, 91.03 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 44 32' 21" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.16 feet in a southeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 45 27' 39" west, 312.94 feet to a point of curvature, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, along the arc of a 11459.16 foot radius curve, curving to the left, having a chord length of 479.67 feet bearing north 46 39' 37" west, 479.70 feet to a point of tangency, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 538.49 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 42 08' 26" east, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 180.63 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an unmarked point 0.14 feet in a northeasterly direction from a concrete monument; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, south 42 08' 26" west, 10.00 feet to a point of transition of right-of-way width, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said right-of-way line, north 47 51' 34" west, 1665.96 feet to a point, being a bolt in pavement; thence departing said right-of-way line, north 20 10' 15" east, along the easterly property line of lands of Otis R. Droze, 99.96 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line, North 20 31' 24" east, 263.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along the easterly property line of Katony Subdivision north 18 47' 06" east, 19.26 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 46' 59" east, 256.45 feet to an iron pipe; north 20 18' 11" east, 135.35 feet to an iron pipe; north 21 11' 36" east, 157.10 feet to an iron pipe on the southwesterly right-of-way of Camelia Street; thence departing said property line, north 68 35' 47" east, along said southwesterly right-of-way line 154.01 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southwesterly right-of-way line, south 20 01' 04" west, along the westerly property line of Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 167.86 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line south 37 37' 25" east, along the southerly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 48.81 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 27' 18" east, 41.22 feet to an iron pipe; south 88 32' 29" east, 82.16 feet to an iron pipe; south 66 37' 25" east, 138.17 feet to an iron pipe, north 82 00' 31" east, 58.20 feet to an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 34 53' 20" east, along the easterly property line of said Herbert E. Craven, Jr. 257.85 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, south 59 40' 57" east, along the southerly property line of F.M. Craven 224.51 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, north 32 11' 08" east, along the easterly property line of said F.M. Craven 537.83 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said easterly property line north 00 59' 51" east, 39.03 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said easterly property line, north 57 27' 05" west, along the northerly property line of said F.M. Craven 387.68 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said northerly property line, south 70 03' 33" east, along the southerly property line of Betty M. Craven 375.38 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence continuing along said southerly property line, south 69 10' 06" east, 347.30 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said southerly property line, south 00 59' 51" west, along a westerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 612.74 feet to a point, being an iron pipe; thence departing said westerly property line, north 76 08' 19" east, along a southerly property line of lands of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, 130.71 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence north 76 09' 03" east, along a southerly property line of land of Charles T., Jr. and Annette W. Blocker, Ronnie Smith, and Rachael Waring, et al., 1584.77 feet to a point, being an old axle; thence departing said southerly property line, south 10 18' 53", along a westerly property line of lands of J. Roland Wright and Dilys M. Usry, 559.09 feet to a point, being a mark on a railroad rail; thence departing said westerly property line, south 34 05' 57" west, along a northwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 1628.30 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said northwesterly property line, south 73 21' 16" east, along a southwesterly property line of lands of Coastal Carolina Flea Market, Inc., 788.99 feet to a point, being an iron rod; thence departing said southwesterly property line, south 40 22' 33" west, along a northwesterly property line of Craven Subdivision, 1322.59 feet to a point on the northeasterly right-of-way line of U.S. Route 78, being an iron pipe and the point of beginning of this description.

TOTAL: 71,24071,242

% VARIATION: +4.97"

SECTION 8. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Amend title to conform.

There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives.

RECOMMITTED

S. 579 -- Senator Drummond: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 40-75-105 SO AS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR THE LICENSURE OF PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, ASSOCIATE COUNSELORS, AND MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPISTS; TO AMEND SECTION 40-75-100, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE UNDER THE PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR, ASSOCIATE COUNSELOR, AND MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPIST LICENSING ACT, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LICENSURE APPLICANT RESIDE OR INTEND TO PRACTICE IN THIS STATE; TO AMEND SECTION 40-75-170, RELATING TO MISCONDUCT OF A LICENSEE, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR THE USE OF A SOLICITOR OR OTHER PERSON TO OBTAIN PATRONAGE; TO REPEAL SECTION 40-75-190 RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE ACT; AND TO REAUTHORIZE THE EXISTENCE OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR SIX YEARS.

Senator DRUMMOND asked unanimous consent to take the Bill up for immediate consideration.

On motion of Senator DRUMMOND, the Bill was recommitted to the General Committee.

MOTION ADOPTED
On motion of Senator POPE, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned in honor of the birth of a son, Clay Russell, to Senator and Mrs. RUSSELL.

ADJOURNMENT

At 1:05 P.M., on motion of Senator WILLIAMS, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 11:00 A.M.

* * *


This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 8:55 A.M.