Printed Page 4110, May 23
| Printed Page 4130, May 23
|
Printed Page 4110, May 23
| Printed Page 4130, May 23
| Rep. RISER moved to reconsider the vote whereby Amendment No. 24A was rejected.
Rep. FELDER moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. QUINN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Boan Brown, H. Cain Carnell Cato Clyburn Cooper Cotty Cromer Dantzler Easterday Felder Fulmer Gamble Harvin Herdklotz Jaskwhich Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Lanford Law Limbaugh Martin Mason McAbee McKay Rice Riser Sharpe Smith, R. Stuart Townsend Tucker Vaughn Walker Wells Whatley Wilkes Witherspoon Wofford Young-Brickell
Those who voted in the negative are:
Allison Anderson Breeland Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cave Cobb-Hunter Davenport Fleming Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Hines, J. Hines, M. Howard Hutson Inabinett Jennings Keyserling Kirsh Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Marchbanks McCraw McElveen McMahand Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Quinn Richardson Robinson
Sandifer Scott Seithel Shissias Simrill Tripp Trotter Waldrop Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkins Wright Young
So, the House refused to table the motion to reconsider.
The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider whereby Amendment No. 28A was rejected.
Rep. QUINN demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Allison Anderson Breeland Brown, J. Brown, T. Byrd Cave Clyburn Cobb-Hunter Davenport Fleming Hallman Harrell Harris, J. Hines, J. Hines, M. Howard Hutson Inabinett Keyserling Kirsh Lanford Limehouse Littlejohn Lloyd Loftis Marchbanks McCraw McElveen McMahand Meacham Moody-Lawrence Neal Phillips Quinn Richardson Sandifer Scott Seithel Shissias Simrill Townsend Tripp Trotter Waldrop Whipper, L. Whipper, S. White Wilder Wilkins Wright
Those who voted in the negative are:
Boan Brown, H. Cain Carnell Cato Cooper
Cotty Dantzler Easterday Felder Fulmer Gamble Harvin Herdklotz Jaskwhich Jennings Kelley Klauber Knotts Koon Limbaugh Mason McAbee McKay Rice Riser Robinson Sharpe Smith, D. Smith, R. Stille Stuart Tucker Vaughn Walker Wells Whatley Wilkes Witherspoon Wofford Young-Brickell
So, the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
The question then recurred to the adoption of the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. LANFORD proposed the following Amendment No. 29A (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\9430AC.96), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all funding appropriated to the Medical University of South Carolina is transferred to the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, hereinafter to be known as the South Carolina School of Medicine. Any future funding for the South Carolina School of Medicine must be appropriated to the University of South Carolina for the specific use of the South Carolina School of Medicine./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. LANFORD moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. HUTSON proposed the following Amendment No. 30A (Doc Name P:\amend\GJK\22920SD.96), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking SECTION 9 as contained on page 6 and inserting:
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. HUTSON explained the amendment.
Rep. BOAN spoke against the amendment.
Rep. HUTSON moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. HUTSON's remarks were printed in the Journal as follows:
I feel compelled to come forward to address the matter of a lease and affiliation agreements between MUSC and Columbia/HCA because they have such far-reaching implications to our State. The implications I think are on the order of the magnitude of restructuring state government.
I have watched this issue develop over the last two years and attended most of the hearings and participated in many. In fact, I take some responsibility for opening the process up when I suggested at one of the hearings early on that MUSC should consider other options.
I am as informed as anyone in this Chamber and yet I do not feel comfortable in making a decision while significant concerns remain unanswered. When I was the Army Staff Officer for SALT and worked on some of the most sensitive and highly technical strategic agreements, we worked until we eliminated the flaws, never leaving ambiguities that would place our country at risk. In fact, I remember one instance when we worked for two weeks to establish a strategic policy embodied in less than a sentence but that policy has prevailed for over 20 years and saved this country billions of dollars. I do not understand the necessity to rush the process when we may place our State at risk financially if it is determined through litigation that the affiliation and lease contain elements that are not legal. We can and should insist on safeguards.
We have at our disposal several means to provide those safeguards. For example, we could have the Attorney General seek a declaratory
I am not opposed to a lease and affiliation as long as they do not impact unfavorably on the long-term viability of the Medical School and the teaching environment; as long as they do not impact unfavorably on the access and cost to all South Carolinians for services that only the Medical Center now provides, such as the Burn Center and the Transplant Center; as long as the employees of the components involved get fair treatment and, most importantly, this lease and attendant affiliation agreement are constitutionally legal.
For example, I find especially troublesome major questions regarding the status of University Medical Associates. Is it a component of the state? How is it organized? Is it making distributions and on what basis? Or is it paying salaries for services rendered? Is the State involved in a quasi-private enterprise profit-making mechanism? Or is it operating truly as a 5.01C.3 entity?
I want to share some attitudes of the doctors in my district as well as my constituents in general.
In response to a survey I sent out to my constituents, 25% favored the lease and affiliation; 54% opposed them and 21% did not know enough or had no opinion.
Again, during a recent meeting of a medical society in Dorchester County, a straw poll was taken on the MUSC-Columbia/HCA lease and affiliation. Of the 35 doctors attending, 14 supported, 13 opposed and 8 did not vote.
These two recent polls indicate significant opposition to the lease and affiliation at this point.
Accordingly, I do believe that we should provide at least one fundamental safeguard (through a declaratory judgement) that our citizens deserve.
Rep. HUTSON proposed the following Amendment No. 31A (Doc Name P:\amend\GJK\22874AC.96), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION . Notwithstanding any provision of this act or any other provision of law, this act does not take effect until a final determination is made in a declaratory judgement action finding this act constitutional. However, if a court of competent jurisdiction finds any portion or provision of this act unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. HUTSON explained the amendment.
Rep. FELDER moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Rep. MARTIN proposed the following Amendment No. 3A (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\9415AC.96), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all before the enacting words and inserting:
/TO AMEND CHAPTER 7, TITLE 44, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO HOSPITALS, TUBERCULOSIS CAMPS, AND HEALTH DISTRICTS BY ADDING ARTICLE 25 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA (MUSC) TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS TO TRANSFER THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TO ONE OR MORE PRIVATE OPERATORS AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENTS AND AT DEFAULT OR TERMINATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS; AND TO DESCRIBE THE LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH AGREEMENTS. TO PROVIDE THAT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES (UMA) IS A PUBLIC BODY FOR PURPOSES OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT; TO REQUIRE HCA, UPON APPROVAL OF A SALE OR LEASE, TO CREATE AN EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE TERMINATION PROCEDURES FOR MUSC GRIEVANCES; TO REQUIRE THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD TO CONSULT WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION BEFORE AUTHORIZING TRANSACTIONS UNDER THIS ACT; TO PROHIBIT A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF MUSC OR UMA FROM PERSONALLY PROFITING FROM ANY TRANSACTION AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS ACT; TO REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF THE MUSC BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR ANY DISCONTINUATION OR TRANSFER OF ANY INPATIENT CLINICAL SERVICE OFFERED AT THE MEDICAL CENTER; TO PROVIDE THAT UMA AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYEES, AMONG OTHERS, ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE MUSC BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND MAY NOT CONFLICT
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
Rep. MARTIN moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
Reps. LANFORD, QUINN, SEITHEL, HERDKLOTZ and DAVENPORT proposed the following Amendment No. 11A (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\9432AC.96), which was tabled.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, SECTION 1, Section 44-7-3110, page 4, by adding immediately after line 37:
/Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the hospitals and other clinical facilities of the Medical University of South Carolina must be made available to all citizens of South Carolina and there must be no discrimination in access or pricing based on race, gender, religion, or affiliation or nonaffiliation with any healthcare network./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Rep. LANFORD moved to table the amendment, which was agreed to.
The Senate amendments, as amended, were then agreed to and the Bill ordered returned to the Senate.
The SPEAKER granted Reps. CLYBURN and BYRD a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
AND RETURNED TO THE SENATE
The Senate amendments to the following Joint Resolution were taken up for consideration.
Rep. WILKINS proposed the following Amendment No. 3A (Doc Name P:\AMEND\GJK\22918SD.96), which was adopted.
Amend the joint resolution, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/SECTION 1. The State Budget and Control Board shall conduct a study to determine the full costs and benefits of allowing members of the South Carolina Retirement System to retire at any age without penalty with at least twenty-five years of credited service. The study must address all actuarial issues raised by this proposal including the additional costs and options to meet those costs, and a thorough review of the potential benefits of the proposal, including any possible personnel expense reductions. The study should also include a review of other states' retirement benefit plans. The study shall address these issues with respect to both state and local government employers under the system. The study's findings and conclusions must be reported to the General Assembly no later than November 15, 1995.
SECTION 2. This joint resolution takes effect upon approval by the Governor./
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend totals and title to conform.
The Senate amendments, as amended, were then agreed to and the Joint Resolution ordered returned to the Senate.
The Senate amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration.
H. 3566 -- Reps. Harrison, Cobb-Hunter, Shissias, Quinn, Govan, Martin, Wright, Thomas, Kinon, Haskins, Allison, Neal and Limbaugh: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 20, CHAPTER 7, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 30 SO AS TO
Rep. MARTIN proposed the following Amendment No. 1A (Doc Name P:\amend\PFM\9413AC.96), which was adopted.
Amend the bill, as and if amended, Section 20-7-7420, page 20, by deleting lines 20 and 21 and inserting:
/and the court appoints counsel, the court may order the parents to reimburse the Indigent Defense Fund or pay the court-appointed attorney in an amount to be determined by the court./
Amend further, Section 20-7-7605, page 22, by inserting immediately after line 20:
/(10) If a child fourteen years of age or older is charged with an offense which, if committed by an adult, provides for a term of imprisonment of ten years or more and the child previously has been adjudicated delinquent in family court or convicted in circuit court for two prior offenses which, if committed by an adult, provide for a term of imprisonment of ten years or more, the court acting as committing magistrate shall bind over the child for proper criminal proceedings to a court which would have trial jurisdiction of the offense if committed by an adult. For the purpose of this item, an adjudication or conviction is considered a second adjudication or conviction only if the date of the commission of the second offense occurred subsequent to the imposition of the sentence for the first offense./
/Section 20-7-7807. (A) If a child is adjudicated delinquent for a status offense or is found in violation of a court order relating to a status offense, the court may suspend or restrict the child's driver's license until the child's seventeenth birthday.
(B) If a child is adjudicated delinquent for violation of a criminal offense or is found in violation of a court order relating to a criminal offense or is found in violation of a term or condition of probation, the court may suspend or restrict the child's driver's license until the child's eighteenth birthday.
(C) If the court suspends the child's driver's license, the child must submit the license to the court and the court shall forward the license to the Department of Public Safety for license suspension. However, convictions not related to the operation of a motor vehicle shall not result in increased insurance premiums.
(D) If the court restricts the child's driver's license, the court may restrict the child's driving privileges to driving only to and from school or to and from work or as the court considers appropriate. Upon the court restricting a child's driver's license, the child must submit the license to the court and the court shall forward the license to the Department of Public Safety for reissuance of the license with the restriction clearly noted.
(E) Notwithstanding the definition of a `child' as provided for in Section 20-7-6605, the court may suspend or restrict the driver's license of a child under the age of seventeen until the child's eighteenth birthday if subsection (B) applies.
(F) Upon suspending or restricting a child's driver's license under this section, the family court judge shall complete a form provided by and which must be remitted to the Department of Public Safety./
Amend further, Section 20-7-8510(C), page 35, line 1, by deleting /under criminal investigation/; by inserting immediately after line 9: /In addition, a juvenile under criminal investigation may be fingerprinted by a law enforcement agency upon an order from a family court judge for the offenses enumerated above./; and on line 10, after /juvenile/, by inserting /under criminal investigation or/.
Amend further, by adding an appropriately numbered SECTION to read:
/SECTION __. The Code Commissioner shall:
(1) place all appropriate provisions of acts dealing with juvenile justice enacted in the 1996 session of the General Assembly in the appropriate subarticle of Article 30, Chapter 7, Title 20 of the 1976 Code as added by
Printed Page 4110, May 23
| Printed Page 4130, May 23
|