Journal of the House of Representatives
of the First Session of the 111th General Assembly
of the State of South Carolina
being the Regular Session Beginning Tuesday, January 10, 1995
Page Finder Index
| 
Printed Page 1670, Mar. 14
| Printed Page 1690, Mar. 14
|
Printed Page 1680 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
H. 3793 -- Rep. Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2170, AS AMENDED, CODE
OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR COMMITTING A
JUVENILE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AFTER ADJUDICATED OR FOUND
DELINQUENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OLD OR OLDER MAY BE
COMMITTED FOR A DETERMINANT PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED NINETY DAYS TO A SECURE
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT FIRST COMMITTING THE CHILD
TO AN
EVALUATION CENTER.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3794 -- Rep. Wilkins: A BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 20-7-2205, CODE OF LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST COMMITTING STATUS
OFFENDERS AND JUVENILES IN CONTEMPT OF FAMILY COURT ORDERS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3795 -- Rep. Wilkins: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-2205, AS AMENDED, CODE OF
LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST COMMITTING
A
STATUS OFFENDER TO THE CUSTODY OF A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OR SECURE
EVALUATION CENTER OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, SO AS TO
PROVIDE THAT SUCH COMMITMENT MAY BE MADE FOR A DETERMINATE PERIOD NOT TO
EXCEED
NINETY DAYS WITHOUT FIRST TEMPORARILY COMMITTING THE CHILD TO AN EVALUATION
CENTER.
Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3796 -- Reps. Walker, Davenport, Phillips and Cato: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO
PROVIDE THAT, FOR THE 1994-95 SCHOOL YEAR, SCHOOL DISTRICTS ONE AND TWO IN
SPARTANBURG COUNTY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT SCHOOL DAYS
MISSED
MUST BE MADE UP AS A RESULT OF COMPLICATIONS RESULTING FROM A SEVERE WINTER
STORM.
On motion of Rep. WALKER, with unanimous consent, the Joint Resolution was
ordered placed on the Calendar without reference.
Printed Page 1681 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
S. 624 -- Judiciary Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF
THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, RELATING TO APPLICATIONS FOR
SELF-INSURANCE, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1842, PURSUANT TO
THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.
Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
The following was introduced:
H. 3797 -- Reps. T. Brown and Thomas: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING
THE ANDREWS YELLOW JACKETS BOYS BASKETBALL TEAM OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY ON
WINNING
THE 1995 STATE CLASS AA BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP AND COMPLETING AN UNDEFEATED
SEASON.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
ROLL CALL
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as
follows.
Allison Anderson Askins
Bailey Baxley Beatty
Boan Breeland Brown, G.
Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, T.
Byrd Cain Canty
Carnell Cato Cave
Chamblee Clyburn Cobb-Hunter
Cooper Cotty Cromer
Dantzler Delleney Easterday
Elliott Felder Fleming
Fulmer Gamble Govan
Hallman Harrell Harris, J.
Harris, P. Harrison Herdklotz
Hines Hodges Howard
Huff Hutson Inabinett
Jaskwhich Jennings Keegan
Kelley Kennedy Keyserling
Kinon Kirsh Knotts
Koon Lanford Law
Printed Page 1682 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
Limbaugh Limehouse Littlejohn
Lloyd Marchbanks Martin
Mason McAbee McCraw
McKay McMahand McTeer
Meacham Neilson Phillips
Quinn Rice Richardson
Riser Robinson Rogers
Sandifer Scott Seithel
Sharpe Sheheen Shissias
Simrill Smith, D. Smith, R.
Spearman Stille Stoddard
Thomas Townsend Tripp
Trotter Tucker Vaughn
Waldrop Walker Wells
Whatley Whipper, L. White
Wilder Wilkes Wilkins
Williams Witherspoon Wofford
Worley Wright Young, A.
Young, J.
STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Tuesday,
March 14.
Elsie Rast Stuart James S. Klauber
G. Ralph Davenport, Jr. Terry E. Haskins
B. Hicks Harwell Bessie Moody-Lawrence
Thomas N. Rhoad Jackson S. Whipper
Joseph H. Neal Michael L. Fair
C. Alex Harvin, III Joseph T. McElveen, Jr.
Total Present--124
DOCTOR OF THE DAY
Announcement was made that Dr. E. Conyers O'Brian of Florence is the Doctor
of the Day for the General Assembly.
HOUSE STANDS AT EASE
The House stood at ease subject to the call of Chair.
THE HOUSE RESUMES
At 12:29 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
Printed Page 1683 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
JOINT ASSEMBLY
At 12:30 P.M. the Senate appeared in the Hall of the House.
The President of the Senate called the Joint Assembly to order and announced
that it had convened under the terms of a Concurrent Resolution adopted by both
Houses.
ADDRESS BY CHIEF JUSTICE ERNEST A. FINNEY, JR.
The Reading Clerk of the House read the following Concurrent Resolution:
H. 3700 -- Reps. Harrison and Wilkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO INVITE THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE HONORABLE ERNEST A.
FINNEY, JR., TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN JOINT SESSION ON THE STATE OF
THE JUDICIARY AT 12:30 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995.
Chief Justice Ernest A. Finney, Jr. and distinguished party were escorted to the
rostrum by Senators Drummond, Stilwell, Washington and Cork and Representatives
HARRISON, CANTY, J. YOUNG and DELLENEY.
The President of the Senate introduced Chief Justice Finney.
Chief Justice Finney addressed the Joint Assembly as follows:
"Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I hope that the reception will be as
warm after I conclude my remarks on the state of the Judiciary as it is now...
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the General Assembly of South Carolina,
Justices of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Court of Appeals, other officials,
honored guests, ladies and gentlemen... I stand before you today, not as a
former legislator - though I draw upon the experience gained from my service in
this chamber. The last time that I had the privilege of speaking here was
probably 18 years ago and we were debating the tax measure and talking about
beer and whether Coors beer was an imported beer or not because it went over the
border and came back. So, I understand fully your problems and I understand the
problems with which you are constantly confronted. Neither do I voice the alarm
of a concerned citizen - though I am gravely apprehensive about the plight of my
fellow South Carolinians. But I address this Assembly as the Constitutional
head of and on behalf of the Judiciary, a separate and co-equal, integral branch
of the government which you and I have sworn to preserve, protect and defend.
Despite criticism, factual distortions, and
Printed Page 1684 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
waning support for your judiciary, your justice system has remained viable. As
you are aware, your courts are overextended, understaffed, and overwhelmed by
the sheer volume of the caseload. You may or may not be aware of the fact that
the judicial branch of South Carolina government is severely underfunded. But
despite the longstanding existence of these conditions, judges, attorneys, law
clerks, court reporters, court officials, administrators, and a legion of
support personnel continue to discharge their duties in the highest and best
tradition of american jurisprudence. Because of their belief that our system of
justice is the best defense against anarchy and is worthy of their allegiance,
year after year dedicated legislators devote endless hours in this chamber and
tireless efforts across the hall to provide the funding, legislation, and
overall backing that is the underpinning of the system's strength. I take this
opportunity to express our appreciation for your loyalty. Because of your
diligence, the task we face at this juncture is one of shoring-up the justice
system instead of salvaging the remnants of a government devastated due to
benign neglect. Like everywhere in society, the changing tides of time have
swept in upon the judicial system the resource-eroding forces of crime,
violence, and litigation mania that affects, either directly or indirectly, all
segments of the population. Your judicial system has effected fiscal austerity
and extended itself to combat the explosive growth of its workload. We have
realigned resources for maximum efficiency. Wherever feasible, we have
implemented cutbacks, freezes, and shifted court terms to reduce expenditures.
Judges have been restricted in their rotation to conserve travel funds. We are
currently integrating automated technology into the branch's operations to
increase productivity without hiring additional personnel. Likewise, we are
attempting to increase our efficiency. I have been your Chief Justice since
December 17, 1994, and in December, the Supreme Court conducted a survey of
judges, solicitors and public defenders. Their responses were insightful,
enlightening and will be helpful in formulating goals for the improvement of our
court system. In January, we initiated an in-house study of job descriptions
and employee performance as part of a structure, efficiency and compensation
review. Hopefully, this will have the immediate effect of improving employee
morale and retaining experienced employees. Presently under consideration is a
plan to broaden the scope of the commission created for review of judicial
compensation. Under the proposed plan, the judicial compensation commission
would be revamped as a judicial study commission composed of a broad cross
section of citizens. These commissioners would be authorized to conduct a
comprehensive study of the judicial branch and make recommendations
Printed Page 1685 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
pursuant to their findings. However, these steps are in the preliminary stages
and they cannot quell the cumulative effect of years of financial deficiencies.
Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the diverse components of the
judicial system - and particularly the court structure -are driven by outside
forces that will not readily adapt to revenue fluctuations and calls for
downsizing. Despite our best efforts, the problems continue to mushroom. A
recent study by the South Carolina Bar Task Force on Justice for All found that
for each day that court was in operation in 1994, on average, 560 criminal cases
were filed. An average of 263 civil cases were filed daily. Four thousand eight
hundred twenty five was the average daily filing in our Summary Court.
Considering the fact that a guilty plea can take from 30 minutes to several
hours, and a trial from 3/4 of a day to several weeks, and we are not in
California, it would be virtually impossible to dispose of such a volume of
cases. Just to keep up with new filings, the major trial courts would have had
to dispose of a case every 23 seconds. Adding to the existing backlog in
General Sessions, during 1994 alone, 102,705 new cases were filed. This figure
reflects in 1994 a decline in general sessions filings that is attributable to
the Sentencing Guidelines Commission's classification bill. Still at year's end
63,757 cases were pending in General Sessions Court - for disposition by 40
circuit judges. Fifty-one percent of these pending criminal cases were more than
six months old. The consequence: justice delayed for accused and justice
denied to victims. The sad state of too many of South Carolina's families is
reflected in the case load of our Family Courts, which received 100,000 new
cases in 1994. On December 31st, approximately 46 Family Court judges were
facing 35,208 cases with which to begin the new year. Equally disturbing is the
fact that in this court, which adjudicates such sensitive and emotionally
charged issues as child custody, divorce, division of marital property, and
juvenile offenders, a record number of these cases had been pending for more
than six months. Probate, Magistrate and Municipal Courts complete the
schematic: every court at all levels of the system experienced greater activity
and larger backlogs during 1994; a trend expected to become more pronounced as
new legislation is implemented. For instance, the 1994 Crime Bill is expected
to generate an additional 2,500 post conviction relief applications within the
next year. The ensuing groundswell of appeals from the trial courts combine with
appeals from administrative decisions to form a bottleneck at the appellate
level. On December 31, 1994, there were 190 cases ending (475 disposed of) in
the six-judge Court of Appeals, which has provided significant relief in
speeding up the appellate process by hearing appeals that would have been
decided by the
Printed Page 1686 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has continued to hear the appellate cases not
transferred to the Court of Appeals. In addition, we perform the administrative
duties of the judicial branch, hear motions (4,346 in 1994; 138 pending as of
December 31, 1994), attorney discipline matters (received 75; disposed of 73; 2
pending at year's end), judicial grievances (received 9; disposed of 7; 2
pending at end of 1994), petitions for certiorari in post conviction relief
(acted on 308; 206 pending at year's end), and original jurisdiction cases,
certified questions of law from federal courts (received 6; heard 2; 4 pending
at end of 1994), certiorari from Court of Appeals (acted on 140; 71 pending as
of December 31, 1994), as well as petitions for mandamus and certiorari. There
was a backlog of 1,185 cases pending on the Supreme Court docket at the end of
1994. The onus of this dilemma rests upon judges and other court personnel who
are charged with the responsibility of managing the system. But there is also a
substantial negative impact upon the lives of litigants and citizens whose cases
are held hostage by a court system in crisis. A two-year study of the task
force on justice and detailed research by other experts on crime, violence, and
the courts support the empirical data advanced by those who work within the
court system on a daily basis. Today, there is a consensus that the success of
the current initiative requires a three-prong approach. First: funding in
amounts and in a manner adequate to meet the current level of operations;
Second: appropriating additional revenue specifically to rectify the effects of
past budgetary constraints upon the courts; Third: fostering a better
understanding of the vital role that the justice system performs in addressing
problems in society. With regard to the first prong of maintenance level
funding, threshold funding should be balanced and ought to be allocated on a
recurring basis for fixed expenditures. Overcrowded dockets, outdated
facilities, obsolete equipment, and insufficient personnel require balanced
funding to simultaneously upgrade all segments of the system. With regard to
recurring appropriations: salaries, lease obligations and other fixed expenses
should be allocated on a recurring basis. Addressing the adequacy of
allocations, the system has actually regressed in some aspects due to lack of
funds. One such area is scheduling adequate court time. After being forced to
restrict judicial assignments to reduce travel expenses, we now find a direct
correlation between the availability of travel funds, the age of cases, and the
size of case backlogs. Clearly, adequate travel funds for judges, court
reporters, and law clerks is essential for the state's 46 counties and is the
only means by which to place judges in counties where the caseloads are
heaviest. Second: appropriating revenue to rectify the effects of past
budgetary
Printed Page 1687 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
constraints upon the judicial system. The court system has long functioned in
excess of maximum operating capacity. Once sufficient funds are budgeted to
maintain constitutionally mandated court functions, it is vital that the effects
of prolonged years of underfunding be rectified. One startling example of
underfunding is that for fiscal year 1984-85, the judicial share of the state
budget was .82%. Today - ten years later - our share has declined to .74% for
fiscal year 1994-95. Net decreases in appropriations from fiscal years 1986-87
through 1993-94, inclusive, have continued to the point where the allocation for
judicial travel for the current year is 25% less than in fiscal year 1986-87.
So with full funding for current operations only, the judicial branch will still
be burdened throughout by the effects of past underfunding. I am fully aware of
fiscal constraints on other vital areas of state government, but I am equally
aware of the degree to which the plethora of social ills that emanate from
malfunctions within the court system pervades society. I am, therefore,
compelled to request that this 111th General Assembly provide for the citizens
of South Carolina nine (9) judges and corresponding funding for support
personnel and facilities as follows: an additional panel of three (3) judges
for the Court of Appeals; three (3) additional Circuit Court judges; and three
(3) more Family Court judges. These judges would enable us to work on the
backlogs systemwide and help manage the current caseload. Third, and equally
important: promote a better understanding of the fundamental role of the
justice system in addressing the problems of society. In theory and in practice,
the justice system is interwoven with the entire fabric of life. From infancy,
Family Courts are called upon for orders of protection and asked to decide with
whom and under what conditions a child may live. During adolescence, courts are
required to pick up where parents leave off in providing guidance, correction
and detention for troubled teens. Probate Courts safeguard the rights of minors
and adults unable to direct their own lives or business affairs. The Civil
Court is the one forum in which citizens may civilly and lawfully settle
controversies and seek redress for wrongs committed against them. The criminal
courts strive to protect society while punishing offenders. This becomes
virtually impossible when the numbers overwhelm our ability to dispose of cases
within a reasonable period of time. Swift and sure punishment should be the
rule, not the exception. On the criminal side, society looks to the Judiciary
to dispense justice in the form of punishment and restoration; retribution and
restitution; incarceration and rehabilitation - and that is our constitutional
function. But in order to effectively discharge that duty, the Judiciary must
be knowledgeable and adequately equipped. I believe that our common goal is to
see that the
Printed Page 1688 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
impediments to an effective justice system are removed. Such a goal requires
cooperation among - and leadership from - the legislative, executive and
judicial branches. The present state of your Judiciary is but a culmination of
past events; and absent courageous, insightful, bipartisan leadership, the
present will represent a microcosm of the future state of our Judiciary. It is
imperative that these bodies receive data that is sufficiently current,
accurate, and comprehensive to allow each of you to make informed decisions on
the amounts and classifications of appropriations needed to pull your judicial
system out of its present quagmire. I, and the other members of the Supreme
Court, stand ready to supplement our submitted budget with whatever data,
explanations, or other material you deem necessary for further clarification of
our budget request. Additionally, I have had placed on your desks this morning a
schedule of dates and times that I am available to meet with legislators in
groups or individually to answer questions or address any concerns about our
judicial system. We feel that your knowledge and personal experiences in the
areas of crime, violence, and the court system, together with the need that we
are prepared to demonstrate, will show fully the necessity of budgetary
appropriations adequate to enable the judicial system to function effectively.
We, as state officials, can ill afford to withhold the resources that are
necessary to earn for our court system the trust and confidence of the South
Carolinians whom we are sworn to serve. I call upon you, the legislative branch,
to join hands with us, the judicial branch, in a concerted effort to give to the
figure of the lady justice new meaning and substance in the eyes of our fellow
South Carolinians. Again, thank you for allowing me to be here with you
today."
Upon the conclusion of his address, Chief Justice Finney and his escort party
retired from the Chamber.
JOINT ASSEMBLY RECEDES
The purposes of the Joint Assembly having been accomplished, the President
announced that under the terms of the Concurrent Resolution the Joint Assembly
would recede from business.
The Senate accordingly retired to its Chamber.
THE HOUSE RESUMES
At 1:10 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
Printed Page 1689 . . . . . Tuesday, March 14,
1995
Rep. SHARPE moved that the House recede until 2:15 P.M., which was adopted.
R. 2; S. 278--GOVERNOR'S VETO OVERRIDDEN
The following was received.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR March 7, 1995
The Honorable Robert L. Peeler
President of the Senate
State House
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I am hereby returning without my approval S. 278, R. 2, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 1093 OF 1966, RELATING TO THE GOOSE CREEK PARK AND PLAYGROUND
COMMISSION, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COMMISSION TO THE GOOSE CREEK
RECREATION COMMISSION.
This veto is based upon an informal opinion of the Attorney General's Office
dated March 6, 1995. The opinion states:
The act bearing ratification number 2 of 1995 would amend Act No. 1093 of
1966, relating to the Goose Creek Park and Playground Commission, so as to
change the name of the Commission to the Goose Creek Recreation Commission. A
review of the relevant acts shows that the Commission is located wholly within
Berkeley County. Thus, R-2 is clearly an act for a specific county. Article
VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides
that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts
similar to R-2 have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as
violative of Article VIII, Section 7.
For the above reasons, I am returning S. 278, R. 2, without my signature.
Sincerely,
David M. Beasley
Governor
| Printed Page 1670, Mar. 14
| Printed Page 1690, Mar. 14
|
Page Finder Index