South Carolina General Assembly
113th Session, 1999-2000
Journal of the Senate

Friday, January 14, 2000

(Local 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 ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator SETZLER.

REPORT RECEIVED

TO:       The Clerk of the Senate

The Clerk of the House

FROM:   Committee to Review Candidates for the

South Carolina Public Service Commission

DATE:     January 11, 2000

In compliance with the provisions of Sections 58-3-26 and 2-19-30(D), Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Donald H. Holland, Chairman

Pursuant to Act No. 181 of 1993, the Committee to Review Candidates for the South Carolina Public Service Commission (hereinafter "Committee") was organized to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Second District of the South Carolina Public Service Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), created by the resignation of Commissioner C. Dukes Scott on June 7, 1999, whose term expires on June 30, 2002. The Committee is composed of ten members, six of whom are members of the General Assembly, and four of whom are members of the public. While its statutory mission does not include selecting or nominating the most qualified persons for service on the Commission, the Committee has determined that it does bear responsibility to supply the General Assembly with findings regarding each candidate's capabilities, giving special attention to any issue or concern which might limit a commissioner's effectiveness. In making its findings, the Committee is charged with "find[ing] the best qualified people giving due consideration to their ability and integrity."

LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS

The determination of legal qualifications is limited to a determination of the candidate's residence in the appropriate Public Service Commission district as established by Section 58-3-20, the candidate's eligibility for election as determined by Section 58-3-24, and the candidate's compliance with constitutional provisions limiting election to those persons eligible to be electors of this State.

GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS

To fulfill its mandate to determine fitness beyond mere legal qualifications, the Committee conducted an intensive review of each candidate's (1) experience, (2) temperament, (3) sensitivity to legal and ethical constraints on public service, and (4) knowledge of Commission operations.

An explanation of these four benchmarks which the Committee used to judge the qualifications of candidates is as follows:

Experience

By statutory mandate, this Committee is charged with considering the knowledge and experience of potential commissioners "in such varied fields as business, government, accounting, law, engineering, statistics, consumer affairs, and finance." The Committee looked for persons who have excelled in these fields and those persons' capability to transfer this success and knowledge to the operations of the Commission. The transcript contained in this report contains each applicant's background and employment history.

Temperament

The Commission is neither a court, an executive agency, nor a legislative body, but a blend of all three. The Committee sought to determine if a candidate's sense of the role or roles he is to fill on the Commission is such that his work will be productive, proactive, and protective of the interests of all South Carolinians.

Compliance With and Sensitivity to
Legal and Ethical Constraints/Integrity

Each candidate carries a wealth of life experiences as well as business and personal relationships. The Committee realizes that there is little possibility of electing candidates with no pre-existing conflicts of interest. To do so would, in effect, be asking candidates to have totally disassociated themselves from the "real world" and would be a direct repudiation of this Committee's statutory mandate to find candidates with experience in business, law, and other fields. However, the Committee finds an important standard to be that a candidate recognizes when he may have a conflict of interest between his existing responsibilities and/or business interests and his future duties as a commissioner. The Committee strongly feels that a candidate should not only readily recognize these conflicts of interest, but should pro-actively and willingly offer to divest or divorce himself from such conflicts of interest. The Committee believes that the reluctance of a candidate to readily recognize or willingly divest or divorce himself of such interests during the intense public scrutiny of these screening hearings is a likely indicator of that candidate's future unwillingness to avoid conflicts of interest when called upon to do so in a less public forum--Public Service Commission deliberations.

The Committee also strongly feels that candidates for the Commission who serve or have served as public officials, public members, or public employees must have demonstrated high ethical standards through compliance with all laws governing ethical behavior, most notably those provisions of Title 8. In order to withstand public scrutiny and to gain public confidence, these candidates for the Commission must have conducted and comported themselves with the highest regard for ethics in their actions as public officials, members, or employees.

In this regard, and pursuant to Section 58-3-26, the Committee has made findings as to integrity.

The Committee's findings are designated as follows:

QUALIFIED

UNQUALIFIED

Substantive Knowledge of Commission Operations

The Committee acknowledges its statutory duty to recognize those candidates who are the most qualified in this regard. However, it would be patently unfair to require nonincumbents to have accumulated a wealth of knowledge about Commission operations specifically, or regulated utilities generally. Unlike incumbent commissioners, challengers have not had the benefit of a compensated opportunity to educate themselves in hearings or through conversations with Commission staff. The Committee expects that incumbents and others with substantial experience before the Commission should be able to discuss these matters with a greater fluency than those persons who have to date committed themselves to other employment. However, every candidate, whether incumbent or nonincumbent, must be required to demonstrate some basic understanding of the role of the Commission and its operations. The Committee emphasizes that the substantive knowledge findings contained in this report are merely a measure of a candidate's knowledge at the time of his candidacy and are by no means indicative of a candidate's ability to subsequently master Commission operations and the multitude of issues relating thereto.

The Committee adopted a written format to assist in judging the substantive knowledge of each candidate. In previous screenings, where substantive knowledge was examined solely in an oral format, candidates whose screenings occurred toward the conclusion of the hearings were at a decided advantage. Because the Committee's hearings are open to the public, the content of questions relating to substantive knowledge could be readily discerned from the screening of an earlier-scheduled candidate. The sequestration of candidates did little to remedy the unfairness.

For this round of screening, a written format was used to preserve the integrity of the process and to survey a candidate's general and specific knowledge of the workings of the Commission. Candidates were instructed to choose three discussion questions among the six provided. No candidate had the personal advantage of access to the questions prior to other candidates; nor did any candidate have the opportunity to divulge the nature of the questions to another candidate. Each candidate was given the choice of writing his or her answers or using a computer.

The Committee feels that the written format placed all candidates on a level playing field.

Miscellaneous

Candidates should also be generally aware of the time commitment necessary for productive service as a commissioner. Each candidate provided adequate assurance to this Committee of his or her commitment to meet the demands of the office.

Screening of Candidates

A transcript of the Committee's extensive oral examination of the ten candidates on November 15, 1999, as well as the mandatory written examination given on November 5, 1999, are appended to this report as required by law.

In consideration of these findings of fact, the Committee finds all ten candidates to be legally qualified for service as Public Service commissioners. The Committee makes the following findings of fitness and ability for individual candidates for the Commission:

James Blake Atkins
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   86/100

Dr. Atkins is currently a research Associate Professor with the Earth Sciences and Resources Institute of the University of South Carolina. Dr. Atkins' educational background includes a B.S. in Marine Science from the University of South Carolina, a M.S. in Environmental Systems Engineering from the Clemson University, and a Ph.D. in Marine Science from the University of South Carolina. He has worked as a senior scientist for SCDHEC's bureau of drinking water, as an engineer for the S.C. Water Resource Commission, and for the N.C. Department of Natural Resources. Dr. Atkins has served on a variety of committees which deal with environmental and water issues. He currently serves as a member of the S.C. Public Service Commission's Water Issues Steering Committee. Dr. Atkins has also been involved with a number of community and church organizations including the S.C. Section of the American Water Resources Association, the S.C. Wildlife Federation, and the S.C. Student Judicial Council.

Lynwood A. Avin
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   61/100

Mr. Avin currently owns and operates a Columbia collection agency. Mr. Avin served in the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1953. Mr. Avin received a GED from the University of North Carolina and attended the University of Miami for a year prior to accepting a position as Vice-President with the Peoples American Bank. His past work experience includes positions with the Greensboro Redevelopment Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Avin was recognized for outstanding production of assisted housing in South Carolina and for introducing the State to solar energy use in assisted housing. Mr. Avin is a member and past Master of the Richland Masonic Lodge #39. He is also public relations chairman of the Jamil Shrine Temple.

Michael L. Bell
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   64/100

Mr. Bell is currently a sales associate with Del Webb Communities, which sells homes to customers within the active adult community. His educational background includes a B.A. degree from Albany State College and some post-graduate study at Webster University's extension campus in Beaufort. His previous work experience includes consulting real estate developers and serving as Senior Planner of the Long Range Planning Division for the Town of Hilton Head. Mr. Bell has served on the Beaufort Jasper Water Sewer Authority since 1992 and has at various times served as secretary, treasurer, vice chairman, and chairman of the Water Sewer Authority. He has also been involved in a variety of community and church organizations including the Board of Directors for Leadership Hilton Head, Habitat for Humanity, and Hilton Head Island Recreation Center.

Darrell W. Boyd
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   64.5/100

Mr. Boyd is currently retired from Saudi Aramco Oil Company where he worked as a senior consultant. Mr. Boyd has also worked for the Public Service Company of Indiana as a senior engineer. His educational background includes an associates degree in Electrical Engineering Technology from Indiana University at Kokoma, and a B.S. in Electrical Technology from Purdue University in Indianapolis. Mr. Boyd is a member of several professional organizations including the American Businessmen's Association and Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers. He was recognized in the 1999 Who's Who in Engineering Science and will be recognized in the 2000 issue of Who's Who in the World. His community service activities have included managing a little league team and being president of a golf club.

Jonathan W. Brown
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   52/100

Mr. Brown currently works as an assistant supervisor for the Naval Hospital in Beaufort. Mr. Brown served in the United States Navy for twenty years including service in the Vietnam War. After retiring from the Navy, he returned to school and received a degree in Management and Health Care from Park College. Mr. Brown is a member of the NAACP and BIG (Black in Government). He is also involved in the King Solomon Lodge #10 in Beaufort and the Beaufort Multicultural Association.

David Gibson
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   77/100

Mr. Gibson was CEO of the Coalition for Trucking Deregulation from 1993-1998. His educational background includes a B.A. from San Jose State University, a M.A. from Washington State University, as well some post graduate study at Washington State University. His past employment history includes working with the New York State Department of Transportation and the Illinois Commerce Commission (Public Utilities Commission). He is a member of numerous professional organizations including the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and the American Management Association. Mr. Gibson's involvement with community activities includes the Young Men's Christian Association and the American Heart Association.

John A. McAllister
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   72.5/100

Mr. McAllister is currently the owner and Broker-in-Charge of Valley Properties, a real estate consulting and brokerage firm. He is also a consultant with the Strategic Development Center of the South Carolina National Guard and Reserve. Mr. McAllister's educational background includes a B.S. in Business Administration from the Citadel and some post-graduate study at the University of North Carolina and the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government. His past work experience includes serving as the Southeast Power Administrator for the U.S. Department of Energy and as an Engineer Officer in the South Carolina National Guard. Mr. McAllister has been involved in a variety of community and church activities including the Citadel Board of Visitors, County Chairman of the Friends of Scouting, and a member of the Employer Support Committee for the Guard and Reserve.

Kaye H. O'Neil
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   60/100

Ms. O'Neil is currently the account manager for Hilton Head Vacation Rentals and serves on the Board of Directors for the Home Owners Association of Forest Beach Villas in Hilton Head. She graduated from high school in Candor, North Carolina, and attended one year of college at Charlotte College (North Carolina) before accepting a position with Southern Bell. In 1992, Ms. O'Neil retired from BellSouth Communications where she was an administrator of customer sales and service. Ms. O'Neil is a member of the Daybreak Homeowners Association and the Southern Bell Pioneers.

Sidney F. Thomas
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   70/100

Mr. Thomas is currently the President of Sid Thomas and Associates, Inc. which is a city planning management consulting firm. His educational background includes a B.F.A. degree from the University of Georgia and a M.D. in City Planning from Georgia Tech. Mr. Thomas served in the United States Army for two years. His employment background includes working as the Executive Director of the Central Midlands Regional Planning Council (now the Central Midlands Council of Government). Mr. Thomas has received several honors and awards including The Order of the Palmetto by Governor Campbell and the Public Manager of the Year by the S.C. Chapter of the American Society of Public Administration. Mr. Thomas is involved in several community and church activities including the Advisory Board of the Columbia Salvation Army and the Board of Directors of the Columbia YMCA. He is also a member of the American Legion Post 182 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Jo Anne C. Wessinger
SCORE ON WRITTEN EVALUATION:   84.5/100

Ms. Wessinger is currently an associate attorney with Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter, Robinson, P.A. in Columbia, South Carolina. Her educational background includes a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of South Carolina and a J.D. from the University of South Carolina School of Law. Her past employment includes working as Staff Counsel and Research Director for the South Carolina House of Representatives Labor, Commerce, and Industry Committee and as Assistant Legal Counsel to Governor and Deputy Director for Division of Ombudsman and Citizen Services. Ms. Wessinger is a member of a variety of professional organizations including the South Carolina Bar Association and the South Carolina Women's Lawyers Association. She has also been involved in church and community organizations including the Zonta International Club and a staff member of the Legislative Committee to Review the Consumer Finance Industry.

Respectfully submitted,

SENATE MEMBERS:
/s/The Honorable Donald H. Holland, Chairman
/s/The Honorable C. Tyrone Courtney
/s/The Honorable Darrell Jackson

SENATE PUBLIC MEMBERS:
/s/Mr. J. Stephen Bilton
/s/Mr. Richard H. Darby

HOUSE MEMBERS:
/s/The Honorable Timothy C. Wilkes, Vice-Chairman
/s/The Honorable Kenneth Kennedy
The Honorable Richard M. Quinn, Jr.

HOUSE PUBLIC MEMBERS:
/s/The Honorable Dave C. Waldrop
/s/Mr. Henry Swink

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Monday, November 15, 1999
10:00 a.m.
Gressette Building, Room 105
Columbia, South Carolina

COMMISSION MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:

THE HONORABLE DONALD H. HOLLAND, Chairman

THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILKES

THE HONORABLE C. TYRONE COURTNEY

THE HONORABLE DARRELL JACKSON

J. STEVEN BILTON

RICHARD H. DARBY, SR.

THE HONORABLE KENNETH KENNEDY

HENRY SWINK

THE HONORABLE DAVE C. WALDROP
ALSO PRESENT:

MICHAEL N. COUICK, Attorney to the Committee

DEBRA D. HAMMOND, Administrative Assistant

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: I'm going to call the meeting to order. This is the committee to review candidates for the South Carolina Public Service Commission. This committee screens those candidates who have applied for consideration by the General Assembly in election of the seven commissioners for the Public Service Commission.

Our basic duties are set out by statute. Not only are we to inquire as to the legal qualifications of the candidates, but we are also required to determine their fitness to serve based upon their experience, knowledge of utility regulation, and personal character. Today, we are screening candidates for the Second Public Service Commission District to fill the vacancy that was created by Commissioner Dukes Scott's resignation of June 7, 1999.

This hearing will basically be conducted by the Chief Counsel for the Judiciary Committee, Mike Couick, and later the members of the committee will ask any questions they have of the candidates.

I understand from Mr. Couick that there are certain questions that we must discuss in executive session before we start this meeting; is that right?

MR. COUICK: Yes, sir, there are some questions.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Are you going to bring each candidate individually in here?

MR. COUICK: Yes, sir. What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is have a brief executive session to discuss the candidates that may have concerns that we have been able to identify.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: We'll now go into executive session.
(Public session adjourned.)

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: You're Mr. Jonathan W. Brown?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Mr. Brown, would you raise your right hand.

JONATHAN W. BROWN, being first duly sworn by The Chairman at 10:12 a.m., testified as follows:

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Please have a seat over there if you want to, if that's agreeable with the Committee.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK

Q.     Mr. Brown, while you are being seated I want to read into the record that your driver's license indicates that you live on St. Helena Island; is that correct?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     It's my understanding that you're a resident of the Second Congressional District?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     And I believe that we have consulted with the Election Commission and they have confirmed that your address is within the Second Congressional District. What is your current employment, Mr. Brown?
A.     I am assistant supervisor at the Naval Hospital in Beaufort.
Q.     And how long have you been in that position?
A.     Just over three years.
Q.     What are your responsibilities in that position?
A.     I maintain all the housekeeping equipment and order all the roll in stock as well as assist the supervisor or fill in when they are not present.
Q.     And I believe you have a military background as well; is that right, Mr. Brown?
A.     Yes. I have a 20-year military career.
Q.     Briefly tell the Committee what your history is in the military and where you are now with that.
A.     I was drafted in 1970. However, I never entered the military until 1973 because I was still in high school. From there I went to California and departed thereafter to Vietnam, returning back to the States after a nine-month deployment.   Then from there I spent three years in the California area and then moved to Virginia where I then went over into the European *theater and back and forth in the European theater with various shore commands in-between along the Eastern seaboard. And retired from the Naval station at Charleston in 1993.
Q.     Thank you. Mr. Brown, we have reviewed your SLED report for criminal convictions of a recent nature, civil judgments. We've also reviewed a credit report. I would like to enter on the record now that we found no negative entries, nothing that would weigh against your candidacy.   You've been given a copy of your personal data questionnaire summary today. Have you had an opportunity to review it?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Do you feel the need for there to be any corrections or changes made prior to it being entered in the record?
A.     They are all correct, sir.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Committee to have the personal data questionnaire summary made a part of the record of these proceedings.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: No objection.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Brown, what are the reasons that you would like to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     Well, after retiring from the military my challenging goals have been limited. I think this would be a very challenging process for me because I like a challenge. I feel that I can serve as a commissioner because either, one, I believe in following rules, regulations, and I have a very strict, disciplinary lifestyle. As a commissioner I think I would be able to fulfill that job in the best of my ability, which I know I could learn in a very short manner.
Q.     Okay. Do you have -- have you taken any public position on the issue of electric deregulation, for or against it, Mr. Brown?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Are you currently a member of or have you ever been a member of any organization that was politically active on the question of electric deregulation?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Have you been approached or contacted by any organization that advocates the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power for your support if you would be elected to the Public Service Commission?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     No utilities have contacted --
A.     None.
Q.     Do you have any financial relationship or have you had a discussion of any potential financial relationship with any lobbyist or lobbyist principals?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock?
A.     No, sir.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for Mr. Brown at this time.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Any questions by any members of the Committee for Mr. Brown? Thank you so much, Mr. Brown. We appreciate you coming by.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. Jonathan W. Brown

Home Address:           Business Address:

27 Ernest Drive           Naval Hospital - Beaufort

St. Helena Island, SC       1 Pinkney Blvd.

29920                   Beaufort, SC 29902

2.     He was born April 19, 1955, in Beaufort, South Carolina.

4.     He married Jeannette Lue Brown on May 22, 1976, and has two

children: Jonathan Brown, Jr., age 20; and Jermaine Brown, age

14.

5.     He served in the United States Navy from 1973 - 1993, retiring

with an honorable discharge.

6.     He graduated from Park College in June 1999, with a degree in

Management/Health Care.

26.   He is a member of the following professional organizations:

(BIG) Black In Government

NAACP

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

King Solomon Lodge #10, Beaufort, SC

Multicultural Association, Beaufort, SC

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Jay Boulware

Navy Federal Credit Union

1 Pinkney Blvd.

Beaufort, SC 29902

2)     Mayola Jenkins

Beaufort County School District

P.O. Drawer 309

Beaufort, SC 29902

3)     Herbert Simmons

Simmons Tile Co.

P.O. Box 1264

St. Helena Island, SC 29920

4)     James Aikens

154 Warsaw Rd.

St. Helena Island, SC 29920

5)     LCDR(sel) Gloria Russell

6 Beau Circle

Beaufort, SC 29902

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     12/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The telephone system, Rail Road industries, electric industries, water industries, gas, cargo carriers, mast communications. These industries are regulated for the safety of the people. The telephone system so that they would not charge what ever they wish. The Rail Road industries so that they provide for the need of all people, and there safety. The water industries, because of the area in which we live require us to have quality water to drink. That the water companies don't charge balloon rates for non-quality service. The gas companies won't be able to hike their rates when they wish. Carrier of good on the state highways can't just buy a truck and go, they must be approved by the commission. The Television and radio industries would have to have guidelines as to what to broadcast, and where. All other that fall under this Commission would be required to meet all standards set by the state and the Commission.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

The South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S. C. Public Service Commission are; that no Commissioner should except any favors/gift from any company seeking the approval within the state of South Carolina. That no Commissioner should be affiliated with any company that is seeking approval form the Commission.

6.     Briefly describe the circumstances in which the Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities. Are there Constitutional or other legal limits on such disallowances?

The Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities, when that utilities of it's own and it fall within a reasonable, but safe compliance with the Public Service Commission. No! I don't think that they should be disallowed to do anything if it effects the public without some kind of regulation. We all have guidelines to follow.

* * *

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Mr. Sidney F. Thomas?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Hold up your right hand, please, sir.

SIDNEY F. THOMAS, being first duly sworn by The Chairman at 10:20 a.m., testified as follows:

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: You might want to sit there, Mr. Thomas, and that would be a little bit more comfortable for you. Mr. Couick is going to ask you some questions.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Thomas, we have your driver's license indicates that you reside on Longbrook Road here in Columbia; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     It's my understanding that this residence is within the Second Congressional District and the Election Commission has confirmed that to us?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     You have been able to vote in the past in the Second Congressional District?
A.     For about 31 years. At the Arcadia precinct.

MR. COUICK: All right. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed SLED reports from Mr. Thomas. They indicate there are no criminal convictions, no civil judgments. His credit report is clean. There were no negative entries.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Could you outline for the Committee your employment experience, Mr. Thomas?
A.     Okay. Just in South Carolina or historically?
Q.     Just whatever you think is relevant to the task today.
A.     Well, following my graduation from Georgia Tech in 1956 I worked in upper east Tennessee in Johnson City, Tennessee for a little over two years. I worked with a consulting firm back in Atlanta for a couple of years. Went to Rome, Georgia and worked there from '58 to '66, I believe. I came to South Carolina -- in Georgia I was the director of the first Multi-County Area Planning and Development Organization in the state of Georgia. When I left there in '66 I came to Columbia and worked as the executive director of the Richland and Lexington Counties Joint Planning Commission and as director of planning for the City of Columbia. In 1969 the Central Midlands Regional Planning Council was created. That's now known as the Central Midlands Council of Governments. I was the executive director of that organization from its inception until I retired in 1987.
Q.     And since that time you've done some consulting work; is that correct?
A.     When I retired in June of 1987 I established a city planning management consulting firm, which I have operated since that time.
Q.     Mr. Thomas, you have a daughter that, I believe, works with Alltel; is that correct?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     Could you tell us where she's employed and what her responsibilities are?
A.     She lives in Goshen, New York. She was working in Little Rock, Arkansas, but she's married to a Presbyterian minister. And he took a church in Goshen, New York. They've moved up there. And the company has her working out of her home. Now, when I was filling out this form I had to call her to find out what she did. She is an instructional designer, I believe, is the title. She has some sort of an unintelligible graduate degree that trains her to provide -- to develop training programs for various and sundry folks. That's about all I know about what she does.
Q.     But her responsibilities would not be so broad as to bring her into South Carolina before the Public Service Commission to any extent you're aware?
A.     No.
Q.     You were given a copy of your personal data questionnaire summary today, I believe. Were you able to review it, Mr. Thomas?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Do you have any corrections or changes that you would like to have made to it?
A.     No, sir, that's fine.
MR. COUICK: With your permission then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that entered into the record as part of this proceeding.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Thomas, what is the reason or reasons you would like to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     Well, I've spent most of my life in public service. I still believe that I have some contribution to make. I think the Public Service Commission is a rather important operation in South Carolina. I believe that the challenges that are going to be faced by the Public Service Commission in the future, the deregulation of the telecommunications with the deregulation of electric service, is going to present a challenge. I believe I have -- folks that know me seem to think that I can discern the wheat from the chaff fairly easily and get to the heart of an issue. And I think that the principal prerequisite, in my judgment, for a Public Service Commission is judgment and being able to separate out the real from the imagined and deal with the facts accordingly.
Q.     Mr. Thomas, have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation, either for or against it?
A.     No.
Q.     Are you currently a member of any organization, whether it be charitable or otherwise, that has been politically active on the question of electric deregulation?
A.     Not that I know of, no.
Q.     Have you ever been approached or contacted by any organization that either advocates the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Have you had a financial relationship with any lobbyist or lobbyist principal that has included a discussion of your future relationship with them?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     What would you continue by way of your employment if you were to be elected, Mr. Thomas?
A.     Well, I have been for the last three or four years in the process of winding down my consulting business. My plan was to not -- was to be out of business about four years ago, but I haven't made it yet. If I am elected as a member of the Public Service Commission, I would plan to close down my consulting program completely.
Q.     So your employment as a commissioner would be full-time?
A.     Full-time, yes, sir.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Any questions by any member of the Committee for Mr. Thomas? Thank you so much, Mr. Thomas, for coming by.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Thank you very much.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. Sidney F. Thomas, Jr.

Home and Business Address:

4012 Longbrook Road

Columbia, South Carolina 29206

2.     He was born on August 16, 1931, in Clarke County, Georgia.

4.   He married Jean Elizabeth Cathcart Thomas on July 31, 1954. He

has three children:

Mary Elizabeth Thomas Markell Kingsley, 41, Instructional

Designer

Carol Cathcart Thomas Meadows, 39, Business Representative

Dr. Sidney Franklin Thomas, III, 34, Optometrist

5.     He served in the United States Army and received an honorable

discharge in 1954.

6.     He graduated from:

Winterville High School, 1948, Winterville,Georgia

University of Georgia, 1952, BFA Degree

Georgia Institute of Technology, 1956, Masters of City Planning

Degree

7.     He has held the following positions in public office:

Director of Planning-City of Columbia and Richland and

Lexington Counties Joint Planning Commission, 1966-1968

Executive Director, Central Midlands Regional Planning Council

(now Central Midlands Council of Governments) 1969-1987

8.     He was an unsuccessful candidate for Richland District Two

School Board in 1990.

9.     He has worked as:

City Planning Consultant, 1987-1999

President, Sid Thomas and Associates, Inc., 1987 to present

26.   He is a member of the following professional organizations:

American Planning Association

S. C. Chapter, American Planning Association

South Carolina City-County Management Association-Life

Member

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Advisory Board, Columbia Salvation Army

Columbia YMCA Board of Directors

American Legion Post 182

Veterans of Foreign Wars

Forest Lake Presbyterian Church

Wildewood Country Club

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Lori J. Roberts

Carolina First Bank

P.O. Box 12249, Columbia, SC 29211

4875 Forest Drive

2)     Dr. James I. St. John

Forest Lake Presbyterian Church

6500 North Trenholm Road

Columbia, SC 29206

3)     Mr. Dennis E. Daye

232 Northlake Road

Columbia, SC 29223

4)     Mr. Harold S. Wrenn

6669 North Trenholm Road

Columbia, SC 29206

5)     Mr. G. C. Robinette, Jr.

3644 Deerfield Drive

Columbia, SC 29204

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     16/20

DISCUSSION:
1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The Public Service Commission regulates investor owned utilities, i.e. Electric, Gas, Water, Sewer, Gas Transmission Line Safety of publicly owned gas systems, propane serving ten or more customers, railroad safety, the elements of the telecommunications industry not pre-empted by federal law, and transportation provided for people and goods in South Carolina.

These industries are regulated because they started out as monopolies. The Public Service Commission is responsible for protecting the public interest from the excesses of a monopoly. The Public Service Commission is responsible for implementing the functions assigned by the laws and policies enacted by the General Assembly.

The Public Service Commission is responsible for making the judgement, on behalf of the public, for a fair rate of return which will keep the utilities viable to generate capital at reasonable costs. This return should be comparable to other industries facing similar risks.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.
The 1996 Federal Communications legislation which brought the concept of competition into play has changed the role and responsibility of the S.C. Public Service Commission. This federal law has required the PSC to unbundle services to separate regulated from unregulated activities. These roles and responsibilities are still being worked out and it appears that good progress is being made. The concept of residential telephone service being available to every home at a reasonable cost must be an important consideration of the South Carolina Public Service Commission.

The prospect of electric deregulation will be a major factor to be worked through by the Public Service Commission in the future. This will be a tedious process that will require attention by the Public Service Commission.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

The Public Service Commission is covered by the S.C. Ethics law. All actions of the members of the Commission must be in accord with all the provisions and requirements of the law. During my many years of public service I was guided by the principle that my actions should not only be right, they must look right as well.

* * *

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: You're Mr. James Blake Atkins?

THE WITNESS: I am, sir.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Hold up your right hand.

JAMES BLAKE ATKINS, being first duly sworn by The Chairman at 10:30 a.m., testified as follows:

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Have a seat over there.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Atkins, I would like to run through some basic questions with you. And then the Committee will have a chance to ask you questions as well. Our review of your records, including your driver's license and your voter registration record, indicate that you live in the Second Congressional District. Is that your understanding?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     That fact has been confirmed by the Election Commission. You're a resident of Columbia; is that correct?
A.     I am.
Q.     We have reviewed your SLED report to determine if there were any criminal convictions and civil judgments. There were none. Your credit report has been reviewed and there are no negative entries. You've been given an opportunity this morning to review your personal data questionnaire summary. Is there any correction that needs to be made to it prior to it being entered into this record?
A.     In regards to the personal data questionnaire, it is fine. I do -- I don't know if you'll get to this or not. In terms of the financial statement, I do have an amendment to that.

MR. COUICK: Well, let's do the summary first and, Mr. Chairman, unless there's an objection, have that entered on this record.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     If you would like to then tell us about the correction to your financial statement?
A.     It is in regards to stock. My wife kind of summarily failed to tell me that she owned 100 shares of Alltel Communications. So being a regulated stock, certainly if I were elected to the Commission, we would have to go ahead and dispose of that and sell it, but I did not find that out until last week when she received her statement and I just happened to be looking over her shoulder. So that's something that needs to be added.
Q.     What would be your plans in terms of if you were to be elected for divesting yourself of that stock, Mr. Atkins?
A.     I think, you know, she would probably go ahead -- at first indication that I might potentially be elected I think she would go ahead and sell that stock. Certainly not replace with it with any other --
Q.     Would you keep it for any duration, any period of time, if you were to serve on the Commission?
A.     No.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Did she have it before you were married?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. As part of her retirement plan when she was in private practice up until last year she had kind of an investment portfolio with Smith Barney. And it was bought and she bought it as part of that investment and just failed to tell me.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Atkins, you've given money to two members of the South Carolina Senate and to the South Carolina Democratic Caucus within the last several months. I believe you indicated that you gave $100 to the Senator from Aiken, Senator Moore, and $100 to the Senator from Orangeburg, Senator Matthews, that you had given $250 to the Senate Democratic Caucus within the last month or two. Can you tell us the circumstances of those donations? Were those made by you or by your wife or --
A.     Those donations were made by me. The donations to Senator Moore and Senator Matthews were made at a little fund-raiser they had right at the end of the session. So I guess that was May. And just again it's a good opportunity to go talk to people. Of course, I wasn't running as a candidate at that time, but I knew that Commissioner Scott was seeking the A.L.J. and there was a good opportunity that he might be elected. And I just wanted to go have an opportunity to meet people. So I made those donations having known both those Senators for quite some time. The Senate Democratic Caucus was about a month and a half ago. And that was the infamous Dick Harpootlian roast. So that was where the Caucus contribution came in. That was the ticket price of 250 to get in to see Dick Harpootlian roasted.
Q.     The question I was going to ask -- you're not a member of the Commission now and at one point you were actually not even a candidate at some point. What would be your view of what you could and could not do once you are elected to the Commission?
A.     Once I am elected to the Commission?
Q.     Right.
A.     Well, certainly under the General Ethics Act I can't do anything that would bring any benefit, monetary benefit, to my immediate family or including myself.
Q.     But in terms of the campaign contributions, would you see yourself in a role of being politically active once you began to serve on the Commission?
A.     No. I think my -- in deference to Senator Holland and Representative Wilkes, I think my campaign contributions are over. Being a university professor I don't make that much. So I don't think I can afford that. So, no, I would not plan to be.
Q.     I noticed there were no contributions to the Senator from Darlington on this sheet. Does he know about these others?
A.     He does. He does. His is all in kind.
Q.     We have discussed that your wife does own some utility stock and you've gone through what you would intend to do on that.
Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     I have not. I have followed the issue, but certainly have not taken any position.
Q.     Are you a member of any organization that has taken a position on that issue either for or against deregulation?
A.     I am not.
Q.     Have you been approached by any organization, any company, any group asking you to advocate either the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     I have not been approached formally in terms of anything having to do with my current position or, I think, even my potential candidacy.
Now, having gone to and attended a lot of receptions the last year and previously when I ran for the at-large position last time, of course, people talk to you a lot, whether it's Municipal Power people or Duke or SCANA or whoever, and bend your ear and give you their positions, but other than that, no, I've had no outside formal meetings. I have taken no position. I don't want to, don't desire to, but I've heard their views. They've told me what they think obviously just in the course of conversation at these receptions.
Q.     Have you formed an opinion about deregulation, Mr. Atkins?
A.     I have not. I think in some situations looking at some of the economic benefits to the companies and to some of the larger consumers I think there are some definite benefits there. And I understand where some of the larger companies that are in favor of energy deregulation are coming from. I understand that, but at the same time as a consumer myself I've got a lot of concern about how all this would work out. I think in terms of what the Commission would do if energy deregulation legislation was passed by the General Assembly and came to fruition, I think it's going to be somewhat nightmarish for the staff and commissioners out there. It is going to be a phenomenal undertaking to implement a horizontal regulation of those markets. So that gives me a lot of concern, but, no, I'm not leaning either direction.
Q.     Do you have a financial relationship or have you discussed any future financial relationship with any lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Any questions from any members of the committee? Representative Wilkes.

MR. WILKES: Dr. Atkins, good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

MR. WILKES: Congratulations on having completed your Ph.D. since we last met with you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. About a year and a half ago I finally was able to do it.

MR. WILKES: Back to the political contributions. Would it be fair to say that they probably could be classified more as an admission fee to get into these functions rather than as a contribution to the candidate themselves?

THE WITNESS: I think so. You know, obviously if I'm going to be out and about, you've got a lot of these things that are free that are put on. And I go and I normally drink a Coca-Cola, but don't imbibe in the benefits of the food and those kind of things. But on some of these things where there are a lot of folks gathered, the regulative committee, other people who you want to have an opportunity to talk to, that's about the only way you can do it. And I think by the end of the session last time -- certainly by virtue of my father-in-law being in the Senate I kind of get admission to some of those things, but I kind of feel like I ought to kind of pay my way a little bit and be able to have some of that -- I hate to use the word access because that sounds kind of bad, but I would say that would be a true statement.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Atkins.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     James Blake Atkins, Ph.D.

Home Address:           Business Address:

2 New Grant Court         Earth Sciences & Resources Institute

Columbia, SC 29209       Sumter St., Rm 401 Byrnes Center

USC, Columbia, SC 29208

2.     He was born on July 5, 1954, in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

4.     He married Holly Saleeby Atkins on   October 7, 1989, and has one child, James Caleb Atkins, age 16.

6.     He graduated from:

University of South Carolina, 1976, B.S. (Marine Science)

Clemson University, 1981, M.S. (Environmental Systems

Engineering)

University of South Carolina, 1998, Ph.D. (Marine Science)

8.     He was an unsuccessful candidate for the Public Service

Commission, At-Large Seat, in 1998.

9.     He has worked with:

Earth Sciences & Resources Institute, University of South

Carolina, Sept. 1996 - present

Lower Richland High School, October 1999 - December, 1999

SCDHEC, Bureau of Drinking Water Protection, July 1995 -

August 1996

SCDHEC, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, July 1994 - July

1996

SC Water Resources Commission, April 1985 - June 1994

NC Dept. of Natural Resources & Community Development, May

1984 - March 1985

NC State University, July 1981 - April 1984

Clemson University, August 1979 - June 1981

US Geological Survey, SC District, October 1977 - August 1979

SCDHEC, Central Midland Health District, March 1977 - Sept.

1977

22.   He has spent $81 for postage and $21 for office supplies in

seeking office.

23.   He has made the following contributions since his announcement

to seek election:

Senator Tom Moore, $100

Senator John Matthews, $100

SC Senate Democratic Caucus, $250

26.   He is a member of the following professional organizations:

American Water Works Association

Technical Educational Council of the American Water Works

Association

Vice Chair, Surface Water Committee, Water Resources Division

Member, Source Water Protection Committee, Water Resources

Division

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

American Water Resources Association, President of SC Section

(1994)

Member, University of South Carolina Student Judicial Council

Member, SC Wildlife Federation

Member, Dreher High School PTO Board (1997-98)

Member, Shandon United Methodist Church

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Dr. Donald Englehardt, Research Professor

Earth Sciences & Resources Institute

University of South Carolina

901 Sumter St., Rm 401, Byrnes Center

Columbia, SC 29208

2)     Mr. Brian J. McCrodden, P.E., Vice President

Water Resources Management, Inc.

811 Mordecai Drive, Suite 200

Raleigh, NC 27604

3)     Dr. Benjamin Dysart

Dysart and Associates, Inc

224 Broadland St., N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30342

4)     Mr. Robert L. Tapp

8 New Grant Court

Columbia, SC 29209

5)     Ms. Sharon Golden (SC 3288)

Wachovia Bank

1426 Main St.

Columbia, SC 29226

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     18/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The industries regulated and supervised by the PSC include:

The rates, charges, services, practices, facilities and accounting of investor-owned electric utilities; This includes administration of the Territorial Assignment Act and the Utility Siting and Environmental Protection Act. Certain municipal electric extensions are also regulated.

The rates, charges, services, practices, facilities and accounting of investor owned water and wastewater utilities, gas utilities and street railway; Regarding gas, the PSC is also responsible for administration of the Gas Safety Act for the Office of Pipeline Safety regarding all gas utilities, both investor-owned and public.

Radio Common Carriers, except those regulated by the FCC.

The rates, charges, services, practices of For Hire Motor Carriers for passengers, household goods and hazardous waste.

The services and facilities of railroad and railway companies; As a practical matter, this now focuses mostly on safety issues.

As these utilities were first created during the 1800's and early 1900's, adequate capital and resources were not available to insure a competitive market. Therefore, these utilities evolved as natural monopolies. The PSC was created by the General Assembly to regulate these monopolies to insure adequacy of service and consumer protection. This regulatory structure was promoted to avoid duplication of expensive capital facilities and services. In turn, the utilities were required to provide service to all customers within their respective territories. Despite efforts to de-regulate various markets, the PSC regulatory framework of rate of return remains mostly intact, with the exception of some alternative forms of regulation allowed under the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for regulating energy-related resources and utilities which overlap or pre-empt PSC oversight. In particular, the FERC is responsible for regulating and permitting the sale and transmission of gas from interstate gas pipelines. FERC controls the prices which can be charged for this gas, particularly gas originating from federal lands and offshore gas reserves. This pricing regulation has a major impact on the availability and price of gas sold by investor-owned gas utilities in SC which are regulated by the PSC. In addition, the PSC administers the Gas Safety Act for the Office of Pipeline Safety.

The FERC also permits and licenses hydroelectric facilities which are owned and operated by investor-owned electric utilities in SC regulated by the PSC. Hydroelectric generation, for most utilities, is the principle method to generate peak power. Peak power is the most valuable to the utility and the most expensive component to the consumer. Under Integrated Resource Plans, which investor-owned utilities are required to submit to the PSC, least-cost generation scenarios must be considered. Hydropower production, within the utilities generational mix, is a critical cost and capacity consideration in the rate base calculation to evaluate a utilities rate of return. However, the PSC has no direct jurisdiction over or input into hydroelectric relicensing by the FERC. As has occurred in numerous cases, operating rules and FERC license requirements have resulted in significant losses in peak power production, and in some cases, peak power capacity for the utility. To insure adequacy of supply and reliability within the current vertical, regulated market, losses to peak hydropower production will eventually have to be replaced. Replacement of hydropower with gas/internal combustion turbines is an expensive proposition both in terms of capital and significantly higher fuel costs compared with water (a renewable resource). Therefore, the FERC actions may result in increased rates to SC consumers since increased operating/capital costs can be passed on to consumers following PSC approval.

6.     Briefly describe the circumstances in which the Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities. Are there Constitutional or other legal limits on such disallowances?

The fundamental rules regarding cost recovery are that such costs must be justified, are considered reasonable, and that prudent measures have been utilized regarding the incurement of costs. Within the rate base consideration, capital associated with existing facilities minus depreciation, current construction, a working capital allowance, plant held in future use minus operating reserves, accumulated deferred taxes, customer deposits, and operating costs may be allowed.

Because of changing technologies, the net or marginal benefit of various capital and operations (management) alternatives are now considered positive. As a result, what may not have been considered feasible or prudent in the past, may now be considered "state of the practice". For example, in Hamm v. PSC, an investor-owned utility conducted maintenance at one of its nuclear plants. Although the PSC allowed these costs to be passed on to the consumer, the court agreed with Hamm and disallowed these costs because the utility failed to follow standard practices which would have minimized the total time of the plant outage, thereby reducing the ultimate cost.

Clearly, allowances for costs associated with operations and maintenance can lend themselves to much interpretation, as well as professional (technical) and legal disagreement. What should the "state of the practice be" is a constant question for regulators of highly technical utilities. In contrast to Hamm v. PSC case, the court supported the PSC position in another case (cite unknown) when the PSC allowed a utility to pass along higher costs associated with a plant. In this case, the normal maintenance outage was extended to enable other plant work to be conducted simultaneously with the planned maintenance---clearly, consistent with good and standard engineering practice.

In another case (in believe regarding Seabrook Utilities), the idea of the test year regarding the rate base calculation was modified. Instead of the previous 12 month period, as is normally used, the court found that some "historical year" was to be used. Because of the significant annual (temporal) variability in water use, and therefore resultant cost of service and revenues, the court's decision allowing a change in the test year further prescribed the allowance of cost recovery within the investor-owned water utilities.

* * *

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: You're Mr. Michael Bell?

THE WITNESS: I most certainly am. Good morning.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Let me swear you, please. You're Mr. Michael L. Bell?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Hold up your right hand.

MICHAEL L. BELL, being first duly sworn by The Chairman at 10:40 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Good morning, Mr. Bell. I'll ask you most of the questions. We have your driver's license indicates that you live in Bluffton, South Carolina; is that correct?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     And a resident of the Second Congressional District as confirmed by the Election Commission?
A.     Yes.
Q.     We have reviewed your SLED report for criminal convictions and civil judgments. No entries that have not been previously dealt with by this Committee. On your credit report, Mr. Bell, there was one entry for Romac Financial Services for $123 for an unpaid Alltel bill. Have you had an opportunity to resolve that?
A.     Yes, I have. Per our conversation I have certainly taken care of that.
Q.     Thank you very much. You were given a copy of your personal data questionnaire summary today. Have you had an opportunity to review that?
A.     I was just handed that and I'm going through it now. So it looks correct thus far. Yes, it's fine.
Q.     Would you have any objection to that being made a part of these proceedings?
A.     No, not at all.
Q.     Thank you very much. Could you briefly describe your work experience, employment experience, to the Committee, Mr. Bell?
A.     Most certainly. Thank you for the opportunity. My experience -- or at least I will start with my undergraduate education. I attended Albany State College, which is now Albany State University in Albany, Georgia. My undergraduate degree is in sociology. I have a dual minor, gerontology and criminal justice. From that I basically began to work in the arena of planning. Basically you know them in South Carolina as local councils of government. I worked in Georgia in what is now called Rural Development Commissions. My experience there was working as county planner for several counties and with city officials. Since then I have -- I moved to Metter, Georgia where I worked in a public agency or a semi-quasi public agency which received federal monies. And from there I moved to a position in South Carolina, in Beaufort, South Carolina, with St. Mary Human Development Center, which is now Lowcountry Human Development Center, as a data analyst basically putting together a client tracking system and doing some computer programming stuff and justifying the program primarily. From there I went back into planning with the Town of Hilton Head, which is basically an agency that I stayed with for about 12 years, close to 12 years, maybe a little bit more than 12 years, somewhere thereabouts, at which point I -- well, at that time I basically came aboard. I was about the sixth employee with the newly created town. Helped to write most of the zoning ordinances that are still on the books today and had the opportunity to drive the island three different times doing windshield surveys and put together an enhanced 911 system that is now in place. So my experience has primarily been work experience, hands on experience. And I've garnered that or supplemented that with a lot of community involvement, a lot of activities in which I've worked with various organizations, some of which have included the Island Recreation Center, on their board of directors. I've worked with numerous other agencies, Habitat for Humanity, and had the occasion to serve on the board for the Beaufort Jasper Water Sewer Authority for awhile, quite a number of years now. I'm into my second six-year appointment where I currently have moved through the process of working and serving as secretary treasurer, chairman of the Capital Projects Committee, to vice-chair, and now I am into my -- going on my probably third term. I will be probably reappointed on this Thursday for my third term as chairman. So that has given me quite an insight or intraspective view of what goes on in the industry of providing service to the public and making sure that all factions of the community, and I say that, use that term as a descriptive term, but everyone is taken care of. One of the goals that I have striven and I believe that we are on the verge of conquering is providing water and sewer to folks who can't otherwise afford a system where their septic tanks have failed. So I think that has really given me an insight and supplemented my experience. So that's in a nutshell of my work history and some of my educational history. And I'll be glad to --
Q.     Mr. Bell, would you be planning on resigning from the Beaufort Jasper Water Service Authority if you were elected?
A.     Most certainly. I believe they call that dual office holding.
Q.     Okay. You do not own any utility stock; is that correct?
A.     Do not.
Q.     And no member of your household owns any utility stock?
A.     Now, let me also say this. Because I have monies invested through the ICMA, which is an investment vehicle where I've put my savings for the last few years when I was with the Town in particular. And it's in various funds which I have no control of. You just choose a growth fund or an aggressive fund and that's where the monies are placed. So not to my knowledge do I own any utility stock.
Q.     Okay. Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     I have not.
Q.     Are you currently a member of any organization that has taken a position on deregulation of electric power?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you ever been approached or contacted by any organization that advocates either the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Do you have any financial relationship or have you had a discussion of a future financial relationship with any lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No.
Q.     Why do you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     I believe I can bring a very fresh perspective to the table, very understanding perspective. As I like to say, I'm not smart, but I am resourceful, which means I can take the information and digest it and come out with an answer that is usually fair, equitable, and something that I believe can benefit all involved. My experience, as I said, is in planning. My experience, as I said, is in crunching numbers and basically looking at those sorts of things, making a fair judgment, letting information speak for itself. I believe that my experience and my desire to serve the community has been demonstrated through things that I've been involved in. And this is but another step to do that.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Vice-Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Do any members of this Committee have any questions for Mr. Bell? If not, thank you so much, Mr. Bell. And you may be excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. Michael L. Bell

Home Address:           Business Address:

19 Willow Run           Del Webb Communities

Bluffton, SC 29910       Sun City Hilton Head

P.O. Box 1869

Bluffton, SC 29910

2.     He was born on August 18, 1957, in Baxley, Georgia.

4.     On September 27, 1981, he married Gail R. (Williams) Bell. He

has two children: Justin William Bell, age 15; and Bryson Lee

Bell, age 5.

6.     He graduated from Appling County Comprehensive High School,

Baxley, Georgia, in 1975; received a BA degree from Albany

State College in 1979; and attended Webster University's MBA

program, leaving before graduation.

7.     He was appointed to the Beaufort Jasper Water Sewer Authority,

serving from 1992-1998; and reappointed to serve January 1999 -

December 2005.

8.     He was an unsuccessful candidate for the Public Service

Commission in 1997, for District Seat #2.

9.     He has worked with:

November 1997 to Present - Sun City Hilton Head - Del Webb

Communities, Bluffton, SC

July 1996 to November 1997 - BCS, Inc., Bluffton, SC

Nov. 1994 to July 1996 - Town of Hilton Head Island, SC

Oct. 1982 to Oct. 1984 - St. Mary Human Development Center,

Ridgeland, SC

July 1981 to Oct. 1982 - Genesis Housing & Community

Development Corp., Metter, GA

13.   He was arrested in 1994 on assault charges. All records have been

expunged.

15.   A federal tax lien was imposed by the IRS for taxes and penalties.

The lien was satisfied in 1995.

22.   He has spent $11.00 for postage since seeking office of Public

Service Commissioner.

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Central Oak Grove Baptist Church, Hilton Head Island SC

Leadership Hilton Head, Board of Directors

Strategic Planning Committee, Beaufort County Schools

Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Xi Gamma Lambda Chapter

Habitat for Humanity, Board of Directors, Hilton Head Island, SC

Michael C. Riley Elementary, School Improvement Council,

Bluffton SC

Hilton Head Island Recreation Center Board of Directors

Michael C. Riley Elementary School, Bluffton, SC

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Mr. Jim Carlen

Carlen Investments

P.O. Box 7154

Hilton Head Island, SC 29938

2)     Mr. Gerald H. Guyer

39 Lake Somerset Circle

Bluffton, SC 29910

3)     Mr. Benjamin M. Racusin

300 Woodhaven Dr

Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

4)     Mrs. Carol K. Maroska

First Union - South Carolina

Greenville, SC 29601

5)     Mrs. Charlotte Marsala

87 Port Royal Drive

Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     14/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The industries regulated by the PSC are Utilities (water, sewer, electric, telephone, gas) and Transportation (rail, public transportation carriers, intrastate transportation carriers.) The PSC was merged in 1934 for the specific purpose of setting rates and providing for the regulation of these activities through the imposition of penalties. These industries are regulated for the expressed purpose of ensuring fair and equitable treatment of consumers in the areas of rates and service.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.

One federal agency, which also regulates one or more of the PSC regulated industries, is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). This federal agency has the role of setting national safety standards for highway transportation carriers as well as for rail passenger carriers. The specific oversight dictates the nationally required safety features that should are considered minimum standards for the industry. An example of such standards is the requirement of specific features on common carriers such as lighting, seat belts, loading and etc. The PSC can of course, impose more stringent requirements over and above these minimums however the federal requirements must be met.

A second example is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which deals with regulating the safety of nuclear power plants while the PSC governs the establishing of rates for the cost of the power. This commission also sets the rates for wholesale power in cases of interstate sales.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

The South Carolina statutory provisions prohibit PSC officials from dual office holding or from having interest in any business or activity through which they might benefit financially. It also prohibits the acceptance of gifts or other 'favors' from any regulated agency or from anyone whom is knowingly employed or affiliated with a regulated agency. Each commissioner is required to submit statements of economic interest annually as well as disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

* * *

MR. WILKES: Good morning, Mr. Avin. Mr. Couick, counsel for the Committee, will swear you in and we'll have some questions for you.

MR. COUICK: If you'll raise your right hand.

LYNWOOD A. AVIN, being first duly sworn at 10:46 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Avin, you have supplied to us your driver's license and your voter registration card. Both indicate you are a resident of the Second Congressional District; is that right?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     You have property in other parts of the state, but you reside here in Columbia, South Carolina; is that right?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Your property is located where, Mr. Avin?
A.     My home is at 2008 Dalloz Road, Columbia. And I have property in Kershaw County, sort of an outing place, 40 acres and a lake. And we used to go up there quite often, but the kids are all grown now and I'm not much of a fisherman.
Q.     So your residence is in Richland County now?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     You have had an opportunity, I believe, to review your personal data questionnaire summary this morning?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Is it correct, Mr. Avin?
A.     Yes, sir, I think so. There was one change that -- I'm retired from the federal government. And I just glanced over it, but anyway, the majority of it is correct, yes, sir.
Q.     Okay. And you're talking about in Question No. 9, the answer there, or where would you like to have the entry made?
A.     Served with the U.S. Army, retired 1953. 1953 is when I was discharged, honorably discharged from the service.
Q.     We'll put discharged in '53. Any other corrections to the entry?
A.     No, sir.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, with that correction I would like to enter that into the record of these proceedings.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     We have reviewed the SLED report for criminal convictions and civil judgments. And one matter has come up to the Committee's attention. We'll discuss that in one moment. We've also reviewed your credit report. And any matters that came up we've resolved, including surprisingly there was a very small financial matter that you were not even aware of that you agreed to resolve. The one matter that remains is the matter of David J. Cooper versus Lynwood Avin and Columbia Collection Agency and Gordon S. Avery and Microprice Incorporated.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, this is in your notebook under Tab 8. It appears right after Mr. Avin's personal data questionnaire summary. You'll see there a fairly long letter from Mr. Avin to a Ms. Patricia M. Warrick (phonetically), who is Mr. Avin's attorney.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Is that correct, Mr. Avin?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     And attached to that you'll find a cover sheet for the complaint and then the summons and complaint from John Hardaway on behalf of David J. Cooper, Jr., suing Gordon Avery and Microprice, which is a computer company; is that correct?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     And Mr. Avin and Columbia Collection Agency. If I could attempt to summarize this, perhaps, Mr. Avin. It's my understanding that you had purchased certain things from Microprice and had a business relationship with them. They then turned to you and asked you to represent them in collections, which you do for a living. One of the collections they wanted you to handle was David J. Cooper, Jr.; is that correct?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Mr. Cooper apparently had paid them to do certain work. He was dissatisfied with that work. To the extent you were aware of that I'm not sure, but you attempted to contact Mr. Cooper and did not have much success. On the one time you did have success I believe you contacted him at his place of business; is that right?
A.     That's right.
Q.     And after he asked you not to call him back there you chose, in your words, to not ever contact him there again; is that right?
A.     That's right.
Q.     I believe you stated in your letter that you did tell him that you were going to have to file a lawsuit because that was the next step left available; is that right?
A.     That's right, sir.
Q.     Mr. Hardaway brought the lawsuit alleging as it relates to the computer company that the computer was never fixed appropriately. They also included a cause of action for -- under the Unfair Trade Practices Act that related to Microprice. The cause of action against you and the Columbia Collection Agency was for unfair and unlawful debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; is that correct?
A.     That's correct, sir.
Q.     There they say that you were trying to collect a bill that was inflated. There's perhaps some allegation that you should have been aware that it was inflated. They said that you attempted to collect the bill by making a phone call to his place of business. Were there any other matters that they brought under the Fair Debt Collection Act other than perhaps that you threatened a lawsuit? Was there anything else, Mr. Avin?
A.     The only part about the lawsuit that was filed, that we had promised a lawsuit. And under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if you promise a lawsuit, chances are you better go ahead and do it. And we did with the Richland County Small Claims Court. And we attempted to serve him, but he had moved from one address to another address. We were not able to serve him. And I believe that's in his complaint that we said we were going to do it, but we didn't do it. And we did. And we had that certification from the court saying that we had attempted to serve him, but didn't because of not able to reach him.
Q.     The complaint was filed on September 14, 1999, by Mr. Hardaway. This is just beginning the process of being in court; is that right?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Have you had a mediation or arbitration hearing at all?
A.     No, sir, we haven't. I know that Microprice, just to get rid of things and so forth, you're talking about $375, they simply just washed it out. And that's the end of that. We haven't heard any more about it.
Q.     So has the suit been dismissed, Mr. Avin?
A.     No, sir. No, sir, it has not.
Q.     So it's still pending against you and the Columbia Collection Agency?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Has there been an attempt to resolve it?
A.     We are waiting now for them to set up a mediation hearing. And that's really up to their attorney, but we understand that Mr. Cooper is having difficulty with the attorney that he's got and he would like to get another attorney. And so they are sort of going through that right now.
Q.     Is he still represented by Mr. Hardaway, do you know?
A.     I don't know if he is or not.
Q.     Is there anything else about this suit that you feel like would be important to share with the Committee at this time?
A.     Regarding my background and --
Q.     No. Regarding this lawsuit, Mr. Avin, is there anything else about the lawsuit that they need to know?
A.     No, sir. Nothing that I can think of.
Q.     Okay. Please tell the Committee about your background, your employment background, your service background.
A.     All right, sir. I suppose that 1968 or 1969 was when I joined HUD as a business relocation specialist because of my background in the banking business for ten years. I was able to help a lot of small businesses being displaced from urban renewal action. And I served in that capacity for, oh, I guess about seven, eight years. And then with Hurricane Camille on the Mississippi coast we -- Gulfport, Mississippi, we attempted to rehouse families that was being displaced from the hurricane. And I just sort of got tied in with the federal government for the first time providing housing for disaster victims. We seemed to have a pretty good hand at it so we -- I stayed in the disaster business until the last, I guess, seven or eight years of my service with the government. The biggest undertaking that we ever had was in 1972 flooding in the southern tier of New York and the Wyoming Valley section of Pennsylvania. And I was part of a group of gentlemen from the South that were sent to help the folks in the North as it were. And we housed 57, 000 families in 90 days. That was -- I received an award from Mr. George Romney (phonetically), who was the director of HUD at that time, the secretary of HUD and member of President Nixon's cabinet. But, you know, from that we learned through trial and error a great deal of things that we ought to be doing to helping disaster victims. President Carter came along and reorganized the government and set up FEMA. And, well, we all know about FEMA, but I was not a part of that. I went over into -- back to HUD's housing program. And I guess the government kind of looked upon me as an expediter. And we were ten years behind housing in South Carolina. And I was sent here, my favorite place, to straighten that out. And so we -- in a two-year period we had taken care of a ten-year delay in housing. And we spent, I believe it was, $88 million in doing that, but we put housing not in Columbia and Spartanburg and Greenville and Charleston, but my thing was to go into the smaller areas like Pinewood and Rimini and other areas, Eastover, Fort Mill and so on, and put in housing and something that was new to the government, and I believe that the Committee refers to it as green fuel, I suppose, but we had heating, both hot water as well as heating of the unit, using solar. We did the first project in '96. We were able to get in 42 units. The savings versus the ones across the street, we were saving 50 percent on money that we would be spending on electricity or gas, whatever. And so we went over and did 84 units in Newberry and then we did some in Fort Mill. And it was sort of a new thing of trying to save the taxpayer a little bit of money by using the sun that's going to come up every day. And it worked out very well. It had never been done before and no one really wanted to get into it because there was a chance of failure, but we succeeded. And that's one of the reasons that I'm here today is I'd like to be able -- if all of you think it would be the right thing to do, I would like to see us -- because the time is coming, and it won't be long, where the fuels that we're using to generate electricity and so on are going to be running out. And why not, if possible -- just in Columbia alone I think we've got something like 3,600 units of housing that's taken care of 100 percent by the federal government. It would be easy to convert those to heating with solar, hot water in the unit as well. And I just -- it works so well that I'd like to see it spread through South Carolina.
Q.     Thank you very much. Are there any other reasons you would like to serve on the Public Service Commission other than what you've expressed?
A.     Well, yes, sir, there is. My daddy was a sharecropper and we were kind of poor. And when I was 11 years old I couldn't read or write my name, but the people of South Carolina have been good to me. And I would like to show other people that were in the same situation that I was in that the state, the government, does care about you. And if they ask for help and assistance and so forth, there are a lot of ways that we can be of aid and assistance to them. I wanted to use the wind to generate electricity on the units that I put on Myrtle Beach. Never got anybody to agree to that, but it was something that we should have tried, but we didn't. I have a lot to say of South Carolina. I'm not fixed as it were with money and so forth, but I have enough to be comfortable. And coming from the situation that I was in at one time to where I am now I've got a lot to say thank you to South Carolina.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock, Mr. Avin?
A.     No, sir. I have some mutual fund stock, a company called Windsor, but that's the only stocks that I own.
Q.     Are you aware -- does your spouse or any member of your immediate household own any utility stocks, to your knowledge?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No, sir, I have not.
Q.     Are you currently a member of any organization that has taken a position on electric deregulation?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Have you been approached or contacted by any organization that advocates the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power in asking for your support should you be elected?
A.     No, sir.
Q.     Do you have any financial relationship or have you had a discussion with anyone about a financial relationship in the future with a lobbyist or a lobbyist principal?
A.     No, sir.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Mr. Couick. Any members of the Committee have any questions for Mr. Avin?

SENATOR COURTNEY: In your collection business have you ever done business for any utilities or any companies regulated by the Public Service Commission?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, we don't. We put in a bid about a year ago with SCANA, but we were not successful.

SENATOR COURTNEY: And in the collection business have you done collection business for anybody who is a lobbyist principal before the General Assembly or who hires lobbyists?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

SENATOR COURTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Anyone else have any questions for Mr. Avin? If not, thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. Lynwood A. Avin

Home Address:             Business Address:

2008 Dalloz Road   2311     Gervais Street

Columbia, SC 29204         Columbia, SC 29204

2.     He was born May 26, 1931, in Sumter County, South Carolina.

4.     He married Lelia Marie Avin on February 7, 1953. He has three

children:

Douglas L. Avin, 42 - Computer Clean Room Engineer

Griffin L. Avin, 34 - Mechanical Engineer

Linda Marie Avin, 30 - Student

5.     He received an honorable discharge from the United States Army

in 1953.

6.     He graduated from Edmunds High School in 1948; received his

GED from the University of North Carolina in 1953; attended the

University of Miami in 1954 and left the University to accept an

employment opportunity as Vice President of six national banks.
7.     He ran as an unsuccessful candidate for the Florida Legislature in

1963.

9.     He has served in/worked with:

U.S. Army, Discharged 1953

Midland Finance Company, 1953 - 1954

Peoples American Bank, Senior Vice-President, 1954 -1964

Greensboro Redevelopment Authority, 1964 - 1968

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), 1968

- 1987

Columbia Collection Agency, 1987 - Present

11.   He has owned and operated Columbia Collection Agency since

1987.

16.   He is a co-defendant in Civil Case 375.00.

(No details provided)

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Past Master of Richland Masonic Lodge # 39

32 Degree Scottish Rite Mason

Shriner - Jamil Shrine Temple as Public Relations Chairman

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Ms. Gayle Rabon

Bank of American

Devine at Millwood Avenue

Columbia, SC 29205

2)     Mr. R. J. Kobylak, Attorney

P.O. Box 4497,

West Columbia, SC 29171

3)     Mr. C. C. Fogle

1711 Risley Street

Columbia, SC 29223

4)     Mr. Michael Fields, State Director of NFIB

1122 Lady Street

Columbia, SC 29201

5)     Ms. Patricia M. Wark, Attorney

167 Broken Arrow Trail

West Columbia, SC 29170

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     14/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?
electrical utility , gas utilities, telecommunicaties, radio common carriers, rail way and rairoad, household movers, hazardous waste movers, saftety regulations for inverstor owned gas, munici[paltie owned natural gas ,, assignment of territories for utilities, water and waste water provders, intrastate household movers. The reason for the regulation of these utilities is in order tgat the PSC can become the substitue competetor for legal monopolities . the state policy makers decided that a monopoly of this kind , if regu;ated by the PSC woukd result in the the utilities providing good service at reasonable cost to the consumer as well as providing a reasonable profit to the provider.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

PSC commissioners are not permitted to engage in any activity that would compromise a commissioners ability to make those decisions that are in the best interest of our South Carolina consumers . Regulations to that effect have been passed by our General Assembly.

6.     Briefly describe the circumstances in which the Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities. Are there Constitutional or other legal limits on such disallowances?

All cost that are not directly related to the expense of producing the product for the consumer can be dissallowed. There are no limits that our PSC must adhere to in this regard.

* * *

MR. WILKES: Good morning, Mr. Boyd. How are you?

THE WITNESS: Good morning. Thank you. Very well. And you?

MR. WILKES: Fine. Thank you, sir. This is Mr. Couick. He is the counsel to the Committee and will swear you in and then will have a few questions to ask you.

MR. COUICK: Good morning, Mr. Boyd. If you will raise your right hand, please.

DARRELL BOYD, being first duly sworn at 11:10 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Boyd, you supplied the Committee staff with a copy of your driver's license and voter registration, both of which indicate that you reside in the Second Congressional District. Is that true?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And the Election Commission has confirmed that. We have reviewed your SLED report for criminal convictions and civil judgments and found there to be no entries. You have no negative entries on your credit report. I believe you've been given a copy of your personal data questionnaire summary this morning. Have you had an opportunity to review it?
A.     Yes, I just looked at it.
Q.     All right. Are there any corrections that need to be made prior to it being included in this record?
A.     On Item 9 where it says 1977 to 1999, I actually retired in December 1998. So I don't know if the '99 should become '98.
Q.     All right. Anything else?
A.     Nothing on this. On the personal data questionnaire, I guess, the detailed one?
Q.     Right.
A.     You have the other entry that I mailed to you?
Q.     Yes, sir. And I'll get into that in just one second.
A.     Okay.
Q.     So there are no other corrections that need to be made prior to this being made a part of the record?
A.     Not on this sheet.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, with no objection I'd like to have that made a part of the record of these proceedings.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Boyd was just indicating that within the last several weeks on his way -- I believe you were visiting a relative; is that right?
A.     Yeah. It was my mother's 85th birthday.
Q.     And traveling through -- is that Lowdon or London, Kentucky?
A.     London.
Q.     Was stopped by their police and charged $131.15 for a speeding ticket. That is in excess of our dollar limit that has to be reported by, I believe, about $6. So he has reported that to this Commission. The charge there was simply speeding; is that correct?
A.     Yes, that's correct.
Q.     Okay. Could you please tell the Commission a little bit about your work and education experience?
A.     Yes. Basically I grew up in Kokomo, Indiana and went to Kokomo High School. Attended Indiana University, Purdue University thereafter in Kokomo and then went to Indianapolis to complete my bachelor's degree. I have an associate's in electrical engineering technology and I have a bachelor of science in electrical technology. During the time in college I was on the cooperative education program. Money was very tight in my family so I worked my way through college essentially during nights. And then the cooperative education program the last two years afforded me the opportunity to go to school full-time one semester and then work the next semester. And then after education, of course, I went to work with the company that had originally employed me on the cooperative education program.
Q.     And your work experience then thereafter?
A.     Okay. I joined the Public Service Company of Indiana and worked in their electrical transmission design and substation design department. I began there as an engineer and worked my way to senior engineer or project engineer at that time. That was fairly quick for a young man. In those days tenure was the basic premise for moving forward in the company. So as time moved on I tried to find alternative means to satisfy some of my job requirements. They did offer me the opportunity to do educational recruitment for them. So I did go out to various Midwest colleges and recruit cooperative education students for the company as well as hire long-term full-time employees. That was good for a couple years and then after that I moved on. I then sent my resumes out to various companies and was hired by Ramco Services Company out of Houston and spent two and a half years assigned to the Houston office. I started an electrical design unit which was basically responsible for contracting small work jobs with various companies to Saudi Arabia during those two and a half years of time. I spent almost a year and a half in Arabia. Because of the tax consequences it was to my benefit to become a full-time employee in Arabia. So at that time in December of 1979 I then transferred to Saudi Arabia as an Engineer 1 and had worked my way from an Engineer 1 to a manager and then to a senior consultant before I retired in 1998.
Q.     And so for that 19- or 20-year period you were in Saudi Arabia?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     You mentioned during the course of our interview that you actually ran a power production plant, a generating plant at one time; is that correct?
A.     Yes. I was involved with everything from transmission, distribution underground to generation. We had small units, 501-D's and GE frame 7's, which normally would be peaking units here, but because of our high gas availability we were running those almost full-time.
Q.     How many megawatts of production did you have while you were in Saudi Arabia that you were responsible for?
A.     Responsible for down south was probably in excess of -- well, one unit was a major unit, which was 1,100 megawatts. The other units were, as I mentioned, anywhere from between 75 and 125 megawatts.
Q.     In comparison to the size of an electric power plant here in South Carolina, is that about the same or more, the 1,100 megawatts?
A.     1,100 megawatts would be about the same here. That's two units that you would have. I believe South Carolina uses their gas units more for peaking. And they probably use fossil fuel and nuclear as their main source of supply.
Q.     But you had experience in about the same size of plant as SCANA or someone else would?
A.     Yes.
Q.     Why do you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission, Mr. Boyd?
A.     I guess there's a couple of reasons. One, I'm a fairly young man to be retired. I've spent the last six or seven months doing some renovation on my house in Sea Pines and now it's time to move on. I think that this job would offer me a challenge, No. 1. And, No. 2, it would be a fun job to do, something that I would want to do. And, No. 3, my qualifications and experience and knowledge and past work, whether it's electrical, gas or oil, would serve, I believe, the state of South Carolina very well.
Q.     You are a recent immigrant to South Carolina; is that correct?
A.     Well, yeah, living full-time. I actually bought here in 1990. And then my children who were born overseas, my oldest son, they only go to the 9th grade there. So we had to come back into the country in 1997. I was obviously not old enough to retire early at that time. So my family came back in 1997 from Arabia and became full-time residents of South Carolina.   Of course, I had some obligations to the company beyond August of '98, which I had agreed to as I was working on a project. I then extended my stay until December of 1998 and then actually came into South Carolina in January of 1999.
Q.     What would you point out to this Committee's benefit as experiences you've been able to garner to learn about the socioeconomic status of all South Carolinians since you've been here?
A.     Well, I guess living in Sea Pines and reading the newspapers you can see a diverse economic social system from our poorer people to our richer people and those people who take advantage, of course, of living near the beach there who are not full-time residents versus those people who are in our local neighborhoods trying to work and serve the community itself. Those people basically are the backbone of most countries and most societies. They are working people and those are the type of people that we need.
Q.     Is there anything in your background that you would say gives you empathy for those folks in those positions?
A.     Well, I think I can empathize with anyone in those positions. If you work hard and you're very honest in your work, then I think you will progress forward.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock, Mr. Boyd?
A.     Directly own utility stock, no. I do own some mutual funds which have some utility stocks in them. I believe one of the bond funds has South Carolina Electric & Gas in it.
Q.     Okay. Does your spouse or any member of your household own any utility stocks?
A.     No, they own no stocks.
Q.     Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No.
Q.     Are you a member of any organization that has taken a public position on electric deregulation?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you ever been approached by any organization that advocates the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     No.
Q.     Do you have a financial relationship with any lobbyist or lobbyist principal or have you discussed a future financial relationship with a lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Do any members of this Committee have any questions for Mr. Boyd? If not, Mr. Boyd, thank you for your time. And you can be excused.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. Darrell W. Boyd

Home Address:

8 Surf Scoter

Hilton Head, SC 29928

2.     He was born August 2, 1948, in Rose Bud, Arkansas.

4.     He married Sandra Earlene Boyd on March 5, 1980. He has two

children: Derek J. Boyd, age 17; and Jason R. Boyd, age 15.

6.     He graduated from:

Kokomo High School; Kokomo, Indiana, 1966

Indiana University, Kokomo, IN, 1969, AAS Elect. Eng. Tech.

Purdue University at Indianapolis, IN, 1972, BS Electrical

Technology

9.     He has worked with:

1977-1998 - Saudi Aramco - Retired December, 1998.

1972-1977 - Public Service Company of Indiana

26.   He is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic

Engineers.

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Saudi Arabia:   Past President of Ain Nakhl Golf Club

Manager Little League

Board Member Saudi Aramco Employees

Association

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Eric Magnin

Manager Bank of America

Pope Avenue, Hilton Head, SC 29928

2)     Michael Kaup

6 Kinglet Lagoon

Hilton Head, SC 29926

3)     Mark Hershinger

6 Old Fort Lane

Hilton Head, SC 29926

4)     Rick Murray

29 Baynard Cove Road

Hilton Head, SC 29926

5)     Joseph Tobin

96-B Main Street

Hilton Head, SC 29926

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     13/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The industries regulated by the PSC are the privately (investor) owned electric, gas, water and wastewater companies, the telecommunications companies, for hire private motor vehicles that move household goods, hazardous products, and taxis which operate outside of the cities. The railroad industry (mainly safety) and assigning territory for the cooperatives and electric uti.ities. They also regulate the safety aspects of the gas industry.

These entities are regulated by the PSC so as to protect the private consumer from the possibities of price gouging and to ensure that each and every customer who desires service can receive this service at a fair price. The Commission is to also ensure that these monopolies provide adequate, safe and reliable services to its consumers.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

These would be Title 8 and Title 13 and various sections thereof. These provisions basically state that a Public Service Commissioner cannot receive any items of value, be it monetary, gifts or free memberships in clubs or other organizations which have fees.
The Commissioners are to be objective and fair in their rulings as well as current in the fields they are dealing with.

They must not own any South Carolina utility stock or any funds that have possible conflicts of interest with their work.

The Commissioners must not receive any items from Primary Lobbyists or individuals representing companies that the Commissioner may ultimately have to make a decision on a pending or future case.

They may, however, receive honorary degrees from universities or colleges and /or plaques that do not exceed a value of $150.00.

6.     Briefly describe the circumstances in which the Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities. Are there Constitutional or other legal limits on such disallowances?

Using the electric industry as an example, the Commission may disallow costs which are not directly associated with the generation and transmission of power. They may also disallow the costs of subsidiaries that are not directly associated with the generation and transmission of power.

The legal limits on the industry may only occur when there is a dispute over what lost costs or unrecoverable costs can be allowed in the rate. All associated costs for capital, maintenance and operations must be reasonable based on historical data provided by the companies.

Each and every regulated Company must have a rate which allows a reasonable rate of return.

* * *

MR. WILKES: Ms. Wessinger, do you know Mr. Couick, counsel for the Committee?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. Good to see you, Mike.

MR. WILKES: He's going to swear you in and ask you a few questions.

MR. COUICK: Raise your right hand, if you will.

CECILIA JO ANNE WESSINGER, being first duly sworn at 11:20 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Ms. Wessinger, you supplied the Committee staff with a copy of your driver's license and your voter registration certificate, both of which indicate that you live in Columbia and particularly live in the Second Congressional District; is that right?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     We have received information from the Election Commission that confirms you're a resident in the Second Congressional District as well. You've been given a copy of your personal data questionnaire summary today. Have you had an opportunity to review it?
A.     I have.
Q.     Are there any corrections or changes you would like made at this time?
A.     None.

MR. COUICK: Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that summary entered as a part of the record of these proceedings.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Ms. Wessinger, briefly go over your work and education experience for the Committee, if you would. Briefly describe your education and work experience.
A.     Okay. I'll start from most recent and work my way down. How about that? I am a May 1990 graduate of University of South Carolina School of Law. Also attended the University of South Carolina for an undergraduate degree in business administration, majoring in finance and economics, and I received that in May of 1987. And if you would like me to go into my high school, I am a high school graduate here locally in the Columbia area, Columbia High School graduate of 1983.
Q.     How about your work experience that would be relevant to the position you applied for?
A.     Currently I have been employed as an associate with the law firm in Columbia, South Carolina known as Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter and Robinson since July of 1998. Prior to that I was -- well, I'll explain to you a little bit what I do there. As an associate I practice in the areas of Workers' Comp defense, regulatory law, administrative law, legislative law, and some appellate law. Primarily our base is dealing with business clients, although it does vary to -- depending on who it is, it can be individual clients, being primarily a defense firm. Prior to that I was the staff counsel or research director for the South Carolina House of Representatives, Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. And I did that from January 2, 1995, to December 5, 1997. In that capacity that's where I'm more familiar with most of the members on the panel. As staff counsel for the House L.C.I. Committee I was responsible for all the legislative functions, legal interpretations of all pending matters that were underneath the jurisdiction of the House L.C.I. Committee. That varied from Public Service Commission matters all the way to small matters dealing with business and employment law, Workers' Comp, things of that nature. Prior to that from February '94 to January '95 I was both a deputy division director for the office of Governor Carol Campbell in the Division of Ombudsman and Citizen Services as well as a legal -- assistant legal counsel to Governor Campbell. In that purview the job responsibilities would have included not only monitoring legislation for the Governor's office, but also developing policy, also running as a deputy director a division of, I believe, four separate offices and a staff of in excess of 17. That meant you dealt with budget matters, personnel matters, and also served as since I was an attorney -- at that point in time a lot of agencies had come underneath the direction and the cabinet form of government underneath Governor Campbell's office and served as legal counsel to various agencies that prior had been independent agencies that did not have legal counsel such as the Division On Aging and also Victims' Assistance. Prior to that I was staff counsel or staff attorney for the House L.C.I. Committee in their second research slot from January of 1991 to February 1994. Basically the same functions as I had performed as staff counsel in '95 to '97 except I was in the senior slot and I was responsible for everything instead of being assigned certain particular matters of jurisdiction. And previously various other jobs and including working as a law clerk for local firms here in Columbia.
Q.     Thank you. You, as you mentioned, are currently with Richardson, Plowden. While there you represent certain unregulated clients, meaning they do not appear before the Public Service Commission. You list four of those clients in your personal data questionnaire. One is the South Carolina Association of Auto Insurance Agents.
A.     Okay. I believe you're talking about legislative work that I've done for the firm?
Q.     Right. And Voyager Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Voyager Life Insurance Company and the South Carolina Pawnbrokers Association; is that correct?
A.     That's right. And, in fact, for Voyager Property & Casualty and Voyager Life Insurance, represented them on legislative matters pending before the General Assembly in the area of credit insurance. And with the South Carolina Association of Auto Insurance Agents on behalf of the law firm represented their legislative work here dealing with automobile insurance issues primarily in January and February of this year. And then for the South Carolina Pawnbrokers Association legislative matters monitoring that would affect their business.
Q.     Does Richardson, Plowden represent any regulated entities regulated by the Public Service Commission? Not yourself necessary, but the firm?
A.     The firm does have numerous clients. And, yes, I would have to say that several of the firm's clients or past clients have been or could have been entities regulated by the Public Service Commission, yes.
Q.     Could you briefly give an overview of who those would be?
A.     I do know that the firm -- I work directly on Mr. Steve Hamm's -- Mr. Hamm's team. And, of course, it depends on which partner that you work with, which team, and his client base because even though it's the firm's client, it's the team person that you work under, the senior partner. Mr. Hamm has done work for several regulated entities by the Public Service Commission or would have -- or issues that would come before the Public Service Commission such as electric co-op and, I do believe, one or two telephone communication companies.
Q.     Would you continue your employment with Richardson, Plowden if you were to be elected?
A.     At this time I'm not planning to do so. The Executive Committee for the firm, we have not discussed any options beyond the running of the -- for this candidacy. So at this point in time I would say, no, I'm not planning to do so.
Q.     If you were for some reason to continue, would you see it as being important that you resolve the matter of regulated clients being represented by the firm while you served on the Commission?
A.     Yeah. And that's probably one reason why I don't think that would be an option for me.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock, Ms. Wessinger?
A.     Yes, I do.
Q.     What is that?
A.     That is, I believe, 25 shares in SCANA.
Q.     And what would be your plans for that stock if you were to be elected?
A.     That was a -- I plan to as soon as I'm elected, immediately upon election and prior to taking office I would sell or divest myself of that stock. And it was -- primarily the reason I did purchase that, it was a recommendation of my broker.
Q.     What is the reason or reasons you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     I believe that having worked in both the legislative branch of state government as well as the executive branch of state government and given with my legal experience and having studied, worked in various levels and forums of the matters that are pending before the Public Service Commission, that that would make me a very good candidate to help serve and be able to carry out the legislative intent and the duties and responsibilities of the Commission in order to protect the interests of the state of South Carolina.
Q.     Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Are you currently a member of any organization which has taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No, sir, not that I'm aware of.
Q.     Has anyone approached you or contacted you asking you to advocate the deregulation of electric power or to advocate the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     No.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Ms. Wessinger.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Ms. Wessinger. Do any members of the Committee have a question for Ms. Wessinger?

SENATOR COURTNEY: Ms. Wessinger, you did say that your law firm has represented companies that were regulated?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

SENATOR COURTNEY: I think you said maybe present and past. Are there present clients that your team is representing at this time that are regulated by the PSC? I really don't need to know who they are, but what would be your position as a member of the PSC should one of those that are presently active that you are presently working on that came before you? Would you feel the need to recuse yourself of the decision-making?

THE WITNESS: Currently the projects I'm working on in my team I'm not aware of any that we're currently doing. Clients, as you're aware of, coming up get -- you're hired on a project basis sometimes, but if something like that would come up, I would recuse myself so as not to give the impression of any impropriety whatsoever.

SENATOR COURTNEY: Are there any insurance companies that your firm represents that insure any entities regulated by the PSC?

THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware of. The Voyager Life Insurance Company and Voyager Property & Casualty, those insurance companies that I'm most intimately familiar with, they regulate or only sell credit insurance products, credit life, and mostly in the consumer finance side of it. I'm not aware of any current insurance company that would have any impact.

SENATOR COURTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Ms. Wessinger, let me ask you this question. In your capacity as an employee with the South Carolina House of Representatives did you at any time in your capacity have any dealings with the legislation that has been drawn up for deregulation?

THE WITNESS: The current legislation that's pending in the General Assembly that was introduced, I believe, early this year was not something that I have dealt with as a staff member. Now, the legislation that was pending in 1997 that was introduced by Representative Doug Smith I had some dealings with, but it's to my best knowledge -- and I have not sat down to compare the 1997-'98 bills versus the 1999-2000 bills to see what their similarities or differences are, but it's my knowledge that they are different legislation. And to your question, no, sir, I have not.

MR. KENNEDY: So to follow up on that questioning, tell me in what capacity did you work on that legislation, the first one that I think that you were saying that you had some dealings with, and at what capacity or what level did you deal with that legislation?

THE WITNESS: The 1997 legislation was introduced by Representative Doug Smith. And I believe that was the only legislation, to my recollection, that dealt with deregulation other than maybe one or two other bills, but the ones that were primarily debated or discussed. As the staff counsel for the House L.C.I. Committee part of my duties was to staff the subcommittees of that committee. And one of the subcommittees was the House Public Utilities Subcommittee. And I was the primary and chief staff person responsible for the research needs and legal needs of that particular subcommittee. And the things that I would do -- that bill was pretty much studied. There was -- and debated. I, of course, did do some help and assist in the gathering of information. I did attend all subcommittees and public hearings on the bill while I was staff up until November of 1997, which was the last meeting that I can recall that was on that particular bill before I tendered my resignation and left. So I was there and did hear all the input. And on that one I do not believe that any amendments were drafted by me or any were pending at that time.

MR. KENNEDY: And in that capacity you didn't draw any?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. As a staff member there is a rule and, I believe, House Rule 3.19 or 3.17 which prohibits any staff member of the House to take any position of any manner pending before the General Assembly. So, no, sir, I never took a position on any piece of legislation.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Representative Kennedy. Anyone else have a question? If not, thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Miss Cecilia Jo Anne Wessinger

Home Address:                 Business Address:

1125 Gladden Street             1600 Marion Street

Columbia, SC 29205             Post Office Drawer 7788

Columbia, SC 29202

2.     She was born on August 9, 1965, in Columbia, South Carolina.

4.     She is single.

6.     She graduated from:

Columbia High School, 1983

University of South Carolina, College of Business Administration,

1987

University of South Carolina School of Law, 1990, Juris Doctor

Degree

8.     She was an unsuccessful candidate for the Public Service

Commission At-Large Seat in 1998.

9.     She has worked with:

July 1998 - Present, Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter, and

Robinson, P.A.

January 1995 - December 1997, SC House of Representatives,

Labor, Commerce, and Industry Committee

June 1998 - August 1998; June 1997 - November 1997; Talbot's

Store

February 1994 - January 1995, Division of Ombudsman and

Citizen Services, Office of the Governor of South Carolina

January 1991 - February 1994, SC House of Representatives,

Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee

July 1993 - January 1994, Dillard's Department Store

August 1989 - April/May 1990; November 1990 - December

1990; Rothwell Law Firm

May 1989 - September 1989, Coleman Karesh Law Library, USC

Law Center

May 1988 - August 1988, McCants and Green Law Firm

18.   She has been employed as a Lobbyist as follows:

January 1999 to present: currently registered as a lobbyist for four

legislative clients for the law firm of Richardson, Plowden,

Carpenter, and Robinson, P.A., with whom she is employed: (1)

S.C. Association of Auto Insurance Agents, Inc.; (2)&(3) Voyager

Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Voyager Life

Insurance Company; and (4) S.C. Pawnbrokers Association.

26.   She is a member of the following professional organizations:

South Carolina Bar Association

Young Lawyers Division

S.C. Women Lawyers Association

Richland County Bar Association

Executive Women's Golf Association, Columbia Chapter

27.   She has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Mt. Horeb Lutheran Church, Chapin, SC

University of South Carolina Alumni Association

Zonta International -- Zonta Club of Columbia, SC

University of South Carolina Semester Program Internship

Candidate Review Board

Member, Governor Beasely's Committee on Health (Care)

Staff Member, Legislative Committee to Review the Consumer

Finance Industry

Member: Ad Hoc Plan of Operation Editorial Board for SC

Associated Auto Insurers Plan

Delta Sigma Pi Business Fraternity

Tau Beta Sigma Social and Service Sorority

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Mr. David Barry "Buddy" Nidiffer, Sr.

4441 Reamer Avenue

Columbia, SC 29206

2)     Mr. Ellis R. Lesemann, Esquire

P. O. Box 10888

Greenville, SC 29603

3)     Miss Amye L. Rushing, Esquire

3412 Blossom Street

Columbia, SC 29205

4)     Ms. Susan B. Hoag, Senior Vice President

South Trust Bank

201 W. McBee Avenue

Greenville, SC

5)     Ms. Katie M. Bolden

Customer Representative/Personal Banker

Wachovia Bank, N.A.

Post Office Box 750

Columbia, SC 29226

30.   She is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     17/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The State Public Service Commission ("PSC") is granted via the General Assembly with the regulatory authority as follows, bearing in mind that these functions of the PSC must comply within the authority allowed by state utility agencies from the federal government via its administrative regulatory agencies (i.e, FERC, FCC, ICC, NERC, etc).

There have been numerous changes in the regulating authority of the PSC during its more than 70 year existence. It was originally thought that the types of services as provided by utilities were more economically provided to the people (or consumers requesting service) through a regulated monopolistic existence due to the significant capital investment in generating facilities, use of resources, and the potential for overlapping equipment by varying suppliers (i.e., lines, poles, etc.). To this end, the PSC was created to regulate these entities or utilities through such powers as territorial assignment, types of services, setting of rates, business practices (accounting, etc.) and the like. Recent years have seen de-regulation of the natural gas industry, modification in regulating the telecommunications industry (long-distance, etc.), and the de-regulation of sale of wholesale electricity.

The PSC has the duty to regulate to the rates, practices, assets, accounting, services, territories, policies, and functions of investor-owned utilities or investor-owned business in the areas of electricity, water, waste water disposal (sewage), gas, telephone, radio common carriers, transportation of household goods (movers) and hazardous waste, rail and railroads, except as limited below. Such investor-owned utilities do not include entities deemed to be public utilities such as Santee Cooper, and municipally-owned utilities (i.e., most water and waster water (sewage) utilities are owned and operated by municipalities). Nor can the PSC regulate the rates and such of electric cooperatives operating in South Carolina except in the matters concerning territorial assignment, authorization to operate in the state, and any arbitration of certain contractual agreements between an electric cooperative and other electric utility.

(1)   investor-owned electrical utilities are those utilities which are publicly held or owned by investors and that may be owned through such forms of preferred or common stock. Currently, there are four (4) investor-owned electrical utilities owned and operating in the State of South Carolina. The PSC does not have the authority to set wholesale rates.

(2)   water and waster water (sewage) investor-owned utilities are regulated by the PSC through the setting of rates, practices, accounting, services, and the like. However, very few water related utilities are investor-owned utilities. The majority of them are publicly or municipally owned and governed by city's or county's (municipality's) governing body. It is important to note that water and waster water (sewage) utilities are also regulating through SCDHEC (ie., water quality standards, disposal standards, etc.).

(3)   investor-owned gas utilities may be regulated by the PSC within the limitations of FERC or federal laws (no rate, service, accounting, or practices regulation by the State Public Service Commission). The PSC does have the authority to enforce compliance with the Gas Safety Act (or pipeline safety) to all providers and sellers of natural gas or gases regardless whether investor-owned, municipally-owned, publicly-owned or otherwise.

(4)   rails and railroads are primarily regulated through federal regulatory agencies and the PSC is limited its ability of regulation to that of compliance with safety measures and requirements as provided by state and federal laws. For example, the PSC must inspect rails and railroads for safety compliance; however, the PSC does have the authority to set, establish, or regulate the rates, procedures, services, accounting or practices of this industry except as may be provided by federal regulatory agencies.

(5)   radio common carriers and transporters of people, household goods and hazardous waste: This area was deregulated on the federal level and the jurisdiction of the PSC as to rates and the like has changed. The PSC is restricted by the ICC and federal acts from regulating or setting rates, practices, and procedures of such entities. However, the PSC still continues to have the ability to regulate (set, or establish) the rates, practices, accounting, and procedures by carriers who transport people, household goods, and hazardous waste. Any certificate of need and necessity for a carrier operating (or wishing to operate) in this area must be issued by the PSC. Licensing is a function maintained by the PSC.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.

One federal agency which regulates one or more the industries regulated by the PSC is the FCC (Federal Communication Commission). The FCC regulates the telecommunications industry in South Carolina also. For example, in 1996 the federal government made changes in the telecommunications market to allow competition for basic telephone services (similar to the competitive changes in the long-distance area). Likewise, similar changes were made on the state level as mandated by the federal government. Now a telecommunications entity can enter and compete for the offering of basic services to customers, as well as allow providers of local or basic service to apply for alternative rate regulation. However, any application for alternative rate regulation or entrance of a new competitor into the market must approved by the FCC following the approval by the PSC after a hearing process. The FCC can pre-empt the approval of the PSC allowing entrance in the market by denying its approval of the action suggested by the PSC.

The PSC must enforce compliance with any FCC orders regulating inter-state connecting agreements between carriers and the other guidelines or regulations or charges collected by incumbent LECs. Such fees can be interconnection fees between LECs, PTAS agreements, as well as tariffs. Often, the PSC serves as an enforcement arm working with the FCC. Generally, the PSC maintains its power to regulate the practices, rates, services, and policies of the publicly-owned telecommunications industry in the interests, safety and welfare of South Carolinians. There are more areas in telecommunications area upon which the FCC may over-lap or pre-empt the PSC. However, the two regulatory entities work together.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

Under Title 8 of Chapter 13, there are specific statutory provisions enacted by the General Assembly prohibiting certain inappropriate conduct that is deemed unethical or inappropriate. A Public Service Commissioner cannot own any portion of any corporation or business entity regulated by the Commission. It could be commonly known as a no personal interest or personal gain rule. For example, the Public Service Commission (PSC) cannot own stock of Duke Power (a/k/a Duke Energy), which is an investor-owned utility having its rates, practices, accounting, and assets related by the PSC.

A PSC Commissioner is also deemed a public official to which the state ethics act does apply. It would be inappropriate for a Commissioner to accept anything of value from a lobbyist or lobbyist principal. Overall, the state ethics laws are intended to prohibit activities in which the public official (i.e., PSC Commissioner) cannot accept or receive anything which he or she believes is intended, provided, offered, or given due the position held in exchange for some action, favor, vote, decision, or in action on the part of the public official. The state ethics act, as enforced by the State Ethics Commission, would be the regulating entity monitoring the actions of a Commissioner. By this statement, this is the state agency where complaints can be lodged and investigated, disclosure reports filed, and the like, in the same fashion as applicable to other public officials.

There are other ethical conduct rules which could or would apply. For example, candidates for the PSC cannot directly seek the pledge or commitment of any member of the General Assembly until the candidate has been screened and the screening report issued (and disclosed). Generally, the screening report provides the beginning or start time upon which such commitments can be sought from the members of the General Assembly. Furthermore, there may be professional rules of ethical conduct which may apply to the PSC Commission in general. For example, any commissioner who is a current licensed attorney.

* * *

MR. WILKES: Good morning. You know Mr. Couick, Mr. McAllister. He will swear you in and ask you some questions.

MR. COUICK: If you will, raise your right hand.

JOHN ANDREW MCALLISTER, JR., being first duly sworn at 11:35 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATIONBY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Have a seat.
A.     Thank you.
Q.     You might want to introduce who is with you today before you have a seat.
A.     Yes. I have with me my wife, Judge Carolyn Matthews.
Q.     Mr. McAllister, you supplied Committee staff with a copy of your driver's license and your voter registration card. Both indicated that you live here in Columbia; is that correct?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     And within the Second Congressional District?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     And we have confirmed your residence with the voter registration office. You've also had an opportunity, I believe, to review your personal data questionnaire summary today?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Are there any corrections that you would like made to it?
A.     Mr. Couick, I see no additions, corrections, or deletions to the questionnaire.

MR. COUICK: Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Committee enter that into the record of these proceedings today.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Could you briefly tell the Commission about your educational and work experience?
A.     Yes, I would be delighted to. I grew up in Mount Carmel, South Carolina in McCormick County. From there I graduated from Cambridge Academy in Greenwood, South Carolina. Went on to The Citadel where I received a degree in business administration. Was Commissioned into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and continued to serve in a military capacity through the South Carolina Army National Guard. In 1989 I had the opportunity to develop and assist in the promotion of Savannah Lakes Village, a recreational retirement village in McCormick County, South Carolina. While I was working on that particular project I was appointed the federal power administrator for the Southeast. I served as the federal power administrator from 1989 to 1995. I was the chief executive officer of that organization. My principal responsibilities were to develop policy and to repay the over $1.4 billion in assets that the federal government has in 22 hydroelectric power projects throughout the Southeast. I had over 293 customers. They were from southern Virginia over to Illinois, Mississippi, back into Florida. In 1995 my tour of duty ended with the Southeastern Power Administration. I opened my own real estate brokerage and consulting business, Valley Properties, and I am the broker in charge.
Q.     Okay. And you continue with that business today; is that correct?
A.     That is correct.
Q.     Would you envision having any continuing employment outside your role as a Public Service Commissioner if you were to be elected, Mr. McAllister?
A.     I would certainly maintain my real estate brokerage license and maintain that professional license, but I would not foresee that I would have other outside employment other than the Public Service Commission.
Q.     Do you actively represent any regulated entities in your brokerage business? Do you sell properties for any companies such as Crescent Land and Timber or anyone else that is affiliated or associated with a utility company?
A.     Certainly I've had contact with those entities, but I do not represent them.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock, Mr. McAllister?
A.     No, I do not.
Q.     Does your spouse or any member of your household own any utility stocks?
A.     My daughter has a Uniform Gift to Minors Act stock that was -- account that was gifted from my father. And in that account there is some electric utility stock. If elected to this position, then I would divest myself of that particular holding.
Q.     Why do you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     Members of the Committee, Mr. Couick, Ms. Musser, I have actively pursued public service my entire life. From the time I was growing up I served on the Bicentennial Commission back in 1976 and have been continually involved with public service since that time. I served on The Citadel board of visitors for 11 years. And I feel public service is very important. I feel that my knowledge, skills, and abilities of dealing with people, of dealing in a regulated environment being the federal power administrator for the Southeast, my military and business experience all qualify me for this very important public position.
Q.     Thank you. You have a statement prepared that's in the books, Mr. McAllister, which you may or may not have addressed in part. I would be glad for you at this time to include that in your remarks, either directly or indirectly, however you would like to accomplish that statement. Please go right ahead.
A.     Thank you. Chairman Holland, distinguished members of the Committee, I come before you today to express my interest in running for election to the South Carolina Public Service Commission. I believe my life experiences and sincere interest to serve South Carolina make me well qualified for this important public position. Having military, government and business experience differentiate me from those who have announced for this vacant seat. After graduating from The Citadel I chose the path of citizen-soldier; working as general manager of my families' timber, cattle, and real estate operations and serving as an engineer officer in the South Carolina National Guard. Having the opportunity to go into the financial services field, I became associated with a New York Stock Exchange member firm, The Robinson Humphrey Company. After this successful career, I had the privilege of assisting in the development of Savannah Lakes Village on Lake Thurmond. While working on this project I was named administrator of the Southeastern Power Administration. Southeastern is one of five hydroelectric power marketing administrations of the Department of Energy. Southeastern markets over three million kilowatts of installed generating capacity from 23 federally owned hydroelectric generation projects. The power is marketed to 293 customers in ten southeastern states of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina. I was responsible for the recovery and repayment of over $1.4 billion in assets. I led the agency in the areas of integrated resource planning, strategic planning, total quality management, various hydroelectric project studies, and associate and customer programs. I was instrumental in establishing the Southeastern Federal Power Alliance and Team Cumberland. These two partnerships continue to improve the relationship between Southeastern, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and power customers in the southeast. As administrator I served as the chief executive officer of the agency and was responsible for the overall development and administration of all policies, programs, and procedures for marketing hydro power resources. Those responsibilities included providing leadership, incentive, empowerment to the staff necessary to achieve the objectives of the Public Power Program established in law and the general objectives of the secretary of energy. My duties were carried out in close cooperation with the Department of Energy, the Congress, power customers, other federal agencies, state and local governments, the general public, and the electric utility industry. I was a member of the Southern States Energy Board, and served on the executive committee of the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council and the Virginia-Carolinas Electric Reliability Council. While administrator, I completed the Executive Program of Professional Management at The Keenan-Flagler School of Business, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Program for Senior Managers in Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am currently the owner and broker-in-charge of Valley Properties, a real estate consulting and brokerage firm that serves clients throughout the Southeast. I am active in civic and community affairs. Among my activities, I served for eleven years on The Citadel Board of Visitors. I am a member of the State Committee for Employer Support of The Guard and Reserve, the Executive Board of the Blue Ridge Council, Boy Scouts of America, the Abbeville Historic Preservation Commission, and an Elder in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. I am happily married to Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge. We have three daughters and reside at 420 Aiken Hunt Circle in Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a family that has a tradition of public service to the community, state and nation. I would like to continue my service as a member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission. I will be glad to answer any questions that you or any other committee have for me at this time.
Q.     Mr. McAllister, a couple brief questions about electric deregulation. Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Are you currently a member of any organization that has taken a public position on electric deregulation?
A.     No, I am not a member of any such organization.
Q.     Have you been approached by anyone or any organization that advocates the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power to lobby you as to your position if you were to be elected to the Public Service Commission?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     And do you have any financial relationship that currently exists with any lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No, I do not.
Q.     Have you been approached by anyone about a future financial relationship with a lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No, I have not.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Mr. Couick. Is there a question for Mr. McAllister from the Committee?

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. McAllister, let me ask you this. Maybe you read it during your presentation. The Army Corps of Engineers, which you are a member or was a member or are a member, which one?

THE WITNESS: I am a commissioned officer in the South Carolina National Guard. And my branch of service, my military skill is that of Army engineer.

MR. KENNEDY: Can you give me a brief overview of what do you do as an Army Corps of Engineers member? What is your --

THE WITNESS: My branch specialty includes that of anything that would relate to civil engineering. While in the Army Reserve I was the power systems operator, operations officer for the only combat electric generation battalion in the world. And so being an Army engineer there are many facets of that. My present duty assignment with the South Carolina National Guard, I am a consultant with the Strategic Development Center. And our objective is to help the effectiveness of organizations throughout the military department of South Carolina, which include the Army Guard, the Air Guard, and the Emergency Preparedness Division of the state of South Carolina. Did that answer your question?

MR. KENNEDY: Sort of, yeah.

MR. COUICK: Mr. McAllister, you have no relationship with what's publicly known as the Army Corps of Engineers as they work with Santee Cooper rediversion, any of those things; is that right?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

MR. COUICK: So what's more commonly known as the Corps of Engineers you're not affiliated with?

THE WITNESS: I am branched in the United States Army Corps of Engineers. If you are referring to the civil side of the Army Corps of Engineers, no, I am not involved with that particular entity.

MR. WILKES: Any other questions from the Committee for Mr. McAllister? If not, thank you very much, Mr. McAllister.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the Committee.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. John Andrew McAllister, Jr.

Home Address:   '               Business Address:

420 Aiken Hunt Circle           100 Main Street

Columbia, SC 29223             P. O. Box 168

Mount Carmel, SC 29840

2.     He was born on July 8, 1958, in Abbeville, South Carolina.

4.     He divorced in 1998, and married Carolyn Cason Matthews on

July 3, 1999. He has three children: Martha Austin Adams,     full-time student, age 20; Anne Leigh McAllister, age 9; and Sarah

Elizabeth McAllister, age 4.

5.     He is a Major in the South Carolina Air National Guard, serving

since 1980.

6.     He graduated from/attended:

Cambridge Academy, 1976, High School Diploma

The Citadel, 1980, Bachelor of Science in Business

Administration

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Kenan Flagler School

of Business, 1991 Certificate

Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, 1992

Certificate

7.     He served as Southeastern Power Administrator from 1989-1995,

appointed by the United States Secretary of Energy. He served as

a member of the Citadel Board of Visitors from 1988-1999.

8.     He withdrew his candidacy for reelection to the Citadel Board of

Visitors.

9.     He has worked with:

1980-1983: Blue Branch Farms, General Manager

1983-1988: The Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., Vice-

President of Investments

1988-1989: Cooper Communities, Inc., Home Site Consultant

1989-1995: U. S. Department of Energy, Southeastern Power

Administrator

1995-present: Valley Properties, Broker in Charge

11.   He manages the following business:

Owner and Broker of Valley Properties; a real estate brokerage

and consulting firm.

16.   He has been sued in his official capacity as the Southeastern

Power Administrator   and as a member of The Citadel Board of

Visitors.

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Elder, Abbeville Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church

Friends of Scouting, County Chairman

Executive Committee, Blue Ridge Council

Abbeville County Historic Preservation Commission

Employer Support Committee for the Guard and Reserve

The Citadel Board of Visitors

The Citadel Alumni Association

29.   Five letters of reference.

1)     Rev. Randall T. Ruble

P. O. Box 171

Due West, SC 29639

2)     Walter H. Deierlein

Republic Contracting Corporation

869 Pepper Street

Columbia, SC 29209

3)     Andy Timmerman

First Citizens Bank

201 N. Main Street

Abbeville, SC 29620

4)     William Cliff Moore, III, Esquire

P. O. Box 2285

Columbia, SC 29202

5)     Colonel Frank H. Chapman

5446 Sunset Boulevard

Lexington, SC 29072

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     15/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

The industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission are the electric utilities (investor owned or private) the telecommunications utilities, street railways, water and sewage (waste water utilities) the safety of gas pipelines and propane distributors with more than 10 subscribers. House hold goods movers, transporters of hazerdous waste private and contract, radio controlled carriers and transporters of people. Also PSC is charged with the responsibility of territorial assignments between investor owned utilities and cooperatives. Municipalities extending service into cooperative operating territory is also covered under 58-27-1220 & 1230 rail roads and railway safety is also under PSC jurisdiction acting as an agency for the Federal Railroad Commission.

There are several reasons these industries are regulated. Eary policy maker thought it was more efficent for utilities to operate in a monopoly enviornment. They belived that under this arrangement costly duplication of plant and equipment would be avoided. The Public Service Commission was formed to act as competion and avoid the abuses of monopoly enterprises.

The state belived that the health and safety of its citizens was paramount. The responsibility of monitoring the safety of dangerous venturs such as rail roads, railways, gas pipe lines, hazerdious waste hauling was vested with the Commission. The Commission in recent years has settled territorial disputes between various electrical utilities, cooperatives and municipalities.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.

There are many Federal agencies which regulate one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. A good example would be the Federal Rail Road Commission (FRC). The SC PUC acts as an agent for the F.R.C. in safety matters concerning the railroad and railways. The SCPSC has employees charged with safety resposibilities. The SCPSC does not have regulatory authority over the rates of competitive issues involving the railway industry. The SCPSC relinquished much of it's responsibility through earlier Federal legislation.

3.     Briefly outline and discuss the current status of: a) local, b) intra-lata toll, and c) inter-lata toll telephone competition in South Carolina.

The Commission as a result of the modified final judgement by Judge Green ordering the dissilution of the Bell operating companies and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 major change has taken place in local intra-lata toll, and interlata toll telephone competition. Serious local competion has not materalized for the local exchange carriers. This is the most labor and equipment intensive part of the business and therefore less profitable. The S.C.P.S.C. is commited to insuring universal service for all South Carolinians especially those in rural areas. A fund has been set up by the PSC to offset the costs incured by the LEC's to offset the cost differential. Intra-lata toll service is now very competitive along with the extremely competative inter-lata toll companies. Several hundred companies have received certificates of convenience and necessity to enter the toll markets in South Carolina. As competition continues to increase the PSC will continue to regulate and monitor all three aspects of the telephone industry in South Carolina.

* * *

MR. WILKES: Good morning, Mr. Gibson. This is Mr. Couick, who is counsel for the Committee. And he will swear you in and then follow with some questions.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Gibson, if you would raise your right hand.

DAVID N. GIBSON, being first duly sworn by at 11:50 a.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Gibson, you have supplied the Committee with a copy of your driver's license and your voter registration certificate, both of which indicated that you live on Hilton Head Island; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And that you reside in the Second Congressional District?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     Thank you very much.

MR. COUICK: We've also confirmed his residence in the Second Congressional District with the Election Commission, Mr. Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     You have had an opportunity, I hope, this morning to review your personal data questionnaire summary?
A.     Yes, I have.
Q.     Are there any corrections that need to be made to it, Mr. Gibson?
A.     No, it's fine.

MR. COUICK: Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to have that entered as part of these proceedings at this time in the record of these proceedings.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Mr. Gibson, during the course of your interview with staff we went over certain financial information. And you've been most helpful in following up on that. In particular there was one charge-off of bad debt for a fairly small amount of money from a company called Val-Pak. Could you describe for the Commission or Committee your relationship with Val-Pak?
A.     Val-Pak is a corporation that prepares coupons that are sent in the mail. You probably receive them at your home. And I had contracted with Val-Pak to do some coupon mailing for me. Now, it's my understanding after talking to my attorney in California that the Val-Pak debt was discharged as part of the overall bankruptcy proceeding last year. And I faxed the appropriate information to your office to show that.
Q.     In fact, you did send that you had -- it was listed as one of the unsecured creditors. What was the date of your bankruptcy, do you recollect?
A.     The bankruptcy was discharged October 28, 1998.
Q.     Do you recall the ratio of what was charged off as to what was paid at that point? What cents on the dollar were you prepared to pay, do you remember?
A.     I don't recall. I would have to calculate that for you. A lot of debt was paid off before I actually filed.
Q.     I'm looking at a Schedule F, creditors holding unsecured non-priority claims. That indicates there's a total of $136,889 of those types of claims. Do you recall what money was available for distribution under Chapter 7?
A.     There was -- I recall about $20, 000 to $25, 000 that was available.
Q.     Your son works for a telecommunications company in New Hampshire; is that correct?
A.     Yes, he does.
Q.     And you indicated it was called Bay Ring Communications. Could you describe for the Committee his work and what type of company it is?
A.     Bay Ring Communications does business in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It's a relatively new startup local telecom company. And his duties are he's manager of new business development for the corporation. And he's been with Bay Ring for about a year and a half now.
Q.     Are you aware of any contact Bay Ring has with the state of South Carolina and any work that would be perhaps done before the Public Service Commission?
A.     I am not aware of any.
Q.     Could you please briefly describe to the Committee your educational and work experience as it is relevant to this position?
A.     Yes. The summary that you have here pretty well gives an overview as to my background, but more specifically I have six years of graduate training in public utility economics, public policy, and public administration. I left graduate school in 1970 and accepted a position with then Governor Nelson Rockefeller to look at public utility regulation in the state of New York. Took a position with the State. Was involved in a number of regulatory reform issues that the Governor and the legislature had initiated. Following a stint there I went to the Illinois Commerce Commission and had various senior level positions. They are all in the area of public utility transportation regulation. Did a number of things with the Illinois Commission; major reorganization, rebudgeting, initiated and succeeded in getting a number of capital projects through to the State. Basically in a matter of six or seven years accomplished everything that I wanted to accomplish with the Illinois Commission. Left the Commission in 1988 to go to California to be with my mother, who was dying of cancer, and in California was approached by a private political action organization seeking to terminate or revise -- substantially revise trucking regulation within the state. Stayed with them. Fully accomplished the mission of the organization in a few years. And then left to take up another cause. I've always wanted to get into the food business. So I got into the food business through Fast Trak Development Corporation, became its CEO, and here I am.
Q.     You were last employed, I believe, in 1998; is that correct?
A.     Yes, sir.
Q.     Could you describe for the Committee what your work has been since then?
A.     My wife and I have been working on the creation of a new company that's been under research and development for the last 16 months. It's a pet treat company, pet treats for dogs, birds, and cats. The product up until a few weeks ago was going to be made in California, but the plant there had a change of heart and decided this is not something they wanted to get into. So we're in the process of finding a place to manufacture the product here in South Carolina. We decided to relocate to South Carolina for health reasons, my wife's health reasons. We decided that Southern California was something that we wanted to get away from. And we had visited South Carolina. We were very impressed with the area, the business climate, and decided to relocate to Hilton Head. And we did so mid-March of this year.
Q.     What reasons do you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     You know, as I know all of you know, public utility regulation these days is in a state of flux. The industries that are regulated by the PSC here are undergoing change that some 20, 25 years ago would have been unheard of. It's my firm belief that regulation as an institution needs to be as dynamic and flexible as the industries that it regulates. Now, as I said before, I have the training, the skills, the accomplishments, public utility regulation. I've created regulatory policy. I've implemented it. I've managed programs. I've seen a lot of real good legislation not succeed in its legislative objective because when it came time for the Commission to actually implement the legislation there wasn't an awful lot of forethought, and poor planning, poor administration, poor funding, poor staffing. And the upshot of all this was that the Commission was unable to produce the outcome that the legislature sought or expected when they passed the legislation. I believe -- in fact, I know that accumulation of my kind of experience and skills, temperament, energy, commitment can be a very vital part of making sure the decision-making at the Commission is dynamic, is forward-looking, is proactive, it responds to the public interests and to the legislative interests as well.
Q.     Mr. Gibson, you have said you've resided in the state for less than a year. What experiences have you had since then to kind of bring to your notice and attention the full range of South Carolina citizens' socioeconomic needs?
A.     I've done some research locally on the Island about current issues here in the state. Focused primarily on the issues pertaining to public utility regulation. I mean, I was delighted when I came across the notice that candidates were being sought for the Commission. In most states someone like me would not have an opportunity to apply for a commissioner level position. So when I found that your procedures here would allow an ordinary citizen like myself to apply I started doing some research. I got some basic understanding as to what this Commission does and compared it with my experience in other commissions, California, Illinois, and New York. I should also say that what wasn't reflected in the summary is that through various assignments that I have been given primarily in Illinois and California -- or Illinois and New York, I've had direct experience with regulatory commissions in some 38 states. So I've had a real good opportunity to see the lay of the land insofar as public utility regulation is concerned, the good and bad points of state regulation. And so based on that, I see that South Carolina, like most other states, particularly in the fixed utility area, is really at a crossroads. And the quality of public utility regulation coming from this state is going to have a major impact in terms of what the people and you as legislators expect as the fixed regulated industries are restructured, reorganized, and reregulated.
Q.     Thank you. Do you own any utility stock?
A.     No, I do not.
Q.     Does any member of your household own any utility stock?
A.     No.
Q.     Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Are you a member of any organization that's been politically active seeking deregulation of electricity?
A.     No, I am not.
Q.     Have you been approached or contacted by any organization advocating the deregulation of electric power or the continued regulation of electric power?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Do you have any financial relationship with a lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No, I do not.
Q.     Have you discussed any future financial relationship with a lobbyist or lobbyist principal?
A.     No, I have not.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Mr. Couick. Mr. Gibson, it's obvious from your test scores that you have a good knowledge of what the Public Service Commission does. One of the other attributes of a good commissioner is judgment. And could you explain to this Committee what went wrong at Fast Trak Development that it would end up in bankruptcy with a debt to the state of California?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. The Fast Trak Development Corporation is a franchisee company. And what it did, it franchised very upscale cafes. When I took over the company -- when I was asked to lead the company we had like 18 stores in five states.
I believed so much in the concept behind this franchise that I bought a franchise myself. The reason I joined the company as CEO was the company was having major internal problems. And I believed based on my experience in government problem-solving, turn-around situations, that I could help turn the company around. During my tenure there we made progress. I had arranged for a solution to the corporation's problems. The board of directors wanted to go in a different direction. I had meanwhile purchased a franchise. I left the company to start construction of a cafe in Santa Barbara. And if you know or understand franchising, what you're buying into is a stream of products and services. Now, there's certain expertise that I did not have as a franchisee, but the attraction of the franchise was that what I didn't have would be provided to me by the corporation. Shortly before the store actually opened in November of '96 the franchise was sold to another company in California. And all promised products and services that were going to be provided to me were not given. So it's my belief that, I think through no fault of my own, I opened that store expecting certain services and products, but not getting them, putting in doubt -- I mean, I had some real strong reservations from the day it opened as to whether this could be pulled out because I wasn't prepared financially to go out and hire people to provide the kind of services and advice that was going to be given to me free of charge by the franchisee company. And I stayed with it for a year and a half. In that time I took three days off. I was at that business every single day trying to make a go of it. And it finally got to the point where I was just beating my head against the wall. The situation wasn't going to change. California had a major winter season. Santa Barbara is a very tourist oriented town. I was right in the middle of downtown. My tourist business was falling off. The City was about to tear up the street and put in a new sidewalk. So I wouldn't have passerbys coming before the cafe for like six months. So looking forward, I can't afford to do it. In the meantime I had decided to create this spin-off, this pet food business. And that's what I worked on, have worked on.

MR. WILKES: Was your service as CEO of Fast Trak Development Corporation, was that related in any way to this franchise that you had?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. The Fast Trak is a franchising company. And what it did is sell franchises.

MR. WILKES: So, in other words, you bought a franchise in the company you were --

THE WITNESS: I believed in the company and I believed very strongly that as CEO I could turn the company around and package it, position it such that it could provide products and services to all franchisees, including myself.

MR. WILKES: Did the company survive, Fast Trak?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. WILKES: So both your franchise and the company are no longer?

THE WITNESS: The corporate entity no longer exists. Now, there are still individual franchisees in five states doing business. They are all struggling because they are all basically in the same position I was. They were depending on services provided by the corporation. What made my situation even more difficult is that in all the other stores one or more of the owners of the franchise had positions elsewhere where they were generating income and that income was used to subsidize the cafes. In my case I didn't have an outside income and neither did my wife. So, you know, the fast food business is very, very difficult under the best of circumstances. And a new business very, very seldom, no matter how well run it is, turns a profit or generates much in the first couple of years. So I think I had a double whammy in that services weren't being provided to me. Plus I didn't have an opportunity to go outside the business, work generating a separate income that would be used to subsidize and support the business.

MR. WILKES: And this new business that you and your wife are contemplating is a spin-off you said from what you were doing?

THE WITNESS: It's a spin-off, yes.

MR. WILKES: Was the business in California a pet restaurant or a --

THE WITNESS: It's not a restaurant. I was in the bagel business in California. And what I've decided and, as I say, I've been in research and development for the last year and a half, is I've discovered that there is an enormous market for bagels for pets, dogs, birds, and cats. So for the last year and a half I've been refining that concept, attending trade shows, doing a lot of market research, getting customers lined up. I have in Europe, Japan, and throughout this country. And at the 11th hour the place that was going to manufacture this for me in California decided that they were no longer interested in it. So I've had to essentially put my sales activities on hold to try to find another place to make this product. Hopefully I can find something here in South Carolina to be closer to where I'm actually located.

MR. WILKES: Any other questions for Mr. Gibson from any of the Committee members?

MR. KENNEDY: One more question. Mr. Gibson, I see where you lived in California and in a number of other states. Any of those states have electrical deregulation are you familiar with?

THE WITNESS: I know that -- I suspect that all of them are basically faced with the same sort of issues, electric deregulation issues that South Carolina faces. I know that in California they are very deep into actually implementing the restructuring process in the state and they've had a couple false starts, but they are well along the way of allowing customers to decide for themselves where their electricity was going to be supplied from.

MR. KENNEDY: And that's out in California?

THE WITNESS: Sorry?

MR. KENNEDY: You said that's in California?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, sir.

MR. WILKES: Mr. Gibson, I wasn't being facetious. I have a Taco Bell franchise myself so I know how difficult the fast food business is. And we have a Chihuahua that eats chalupas.

THE WITNESS: So you can relate.

MR. WILKES: I was just trying to draw some kind of connection there with the bagel business. Southern people, you know, are just really being introduced to bagels now. And I don't know whether the southern pets have developed that taste or not, but it's an interesting concept.

THE WITNESS: I learned a lot agonizing as to how I was going to make my business profitable. And you know based on your own experience being in the food industry that you have a lot of competition. I was able to sort of reflect the creativity that I've interjected in my utility regulatory background to be the first ever to create a totally new use for a product that has been around for years. And what I found in market research is that people's propensity to spend on their pets is substantially different than what they would spend on themselves. And I give you an example of just a plain ordinary bagel would be sold in my store for 60 cents. And a percentage of my customers would complain and bellyache about spending 60 cents for a piece of bread like that. Whereas if I bake that same amount of dough in the shape of a bone and put a ribbon on it, these are going to sell for $2.99 in a store. And I have Petco, PetsMart, I have major distributors in Europe and Japan wanting this product. So while it's tough to go through bankruptcy and it's very hard to -- difficult to fail, out of the ashes of that came a very, very viable and, I think, very dynamic product that has just an incredibly good future to it.

MR. WILKES: Thank you. Any other questions?

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: How long have you been living in South Carolina?

THE WITNESS: We moved here mid-March of this year.

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: Are you registered to vote?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WILKES: Any other questions for Mr. Gibson from the Committee? If not, thank you, Mr. Gibson. Very interesting conversation.

THE WITNESS: Well, thank you. And I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for giving me the opportunity to be here. I appreciate it.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Mr. David N. Gibson

Home and Business Address:

5 Fallen Arrow Court

Hilton Head Island, SC 29926-2526

2.     He was born on July 25, 1942, in San Francisco, California.

4.     He has had two divorces (1979 and 1990) and married Karen Lee-

Gibson on December 21, 1991. He has three children: David H.

Gibson, age 26, Director of New Business Development, Bayring

Communication Company; Kiley L. Gibson, age 17; and Lauren

L. Gibson, age 13.

6.     He graduated from/attended:

San Jose State University, BA, 1964

Washington State University, MA, 1968

Washington State University, Post Graduate Studies, 1970
9.     He has worked with:

The California Coalition for Trucking Deregulation, San

Francisco, California - December 1988 to June 1993

Fast Trak Development Corporation, Pasadena, California -

March 1994 to December 1997

New York State Department of Transportation, Albany/New York

City, NY - June 1970 to December 1977

Illinois Commerce Commission (Public Utilities Commission) -

January 1978 to June 1987

Currently relocating privately held business from Southern

California to South Carolina. Product line is scheduled to be

launched by January, 2000. To date, no operating income to

report.

15.   He owned a bakery/café operated in California and filed for

bankruptcy in 1998. All debts were discharged by the bankruptcy

court October 28, 1998.

Back federal employment taxes, and California sales taxes are

currently being repaid under a payback plan. These taxes were

reported elsewhere in the Confidential Financial Statement.

16.   He was sued by the contractor who built his bakery/café for cost

overages. All amounts due (nearly $24,000) have been paid in

full.

26.   He is a member of the following professional organizations:

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

National Regulatory Research Institute

Mid-America Regulatory Commissioners

Mid-Atlantic Conference of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners

Western Conference of Public Service Commissioners

National Conference of State Transportation Specialists

Association of American Railroads

Public Utility Security Analysts of New York City

National Association of Manufacturers

American Bar Association

National Governors' Association

American Trucking Associations

American Bus Association

American Economics Association

American Management Association

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

New York, Illinois, and California Teamsters' unions

Consumer Federation of New York

Governor's Office for Consumer Affairs (Illinois)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Interstate Commerce Commission

27.   He has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Young Men's Christian Association

InterHigh School Student Advisor

Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce

Downtown Association

Blackhawk Association

American Heart Association

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Ms. Michelle Erwin (Banker)

Wachovia Bank

75 Mathews Drive

Hilton Head Island, SC 29926

2)     Mr. Joe Matalone

316 Southhampton Drive

Geneva, IL 60134

3)     Dr. Ira Klain

Blackhawk Galaries

Blackhawk Plaza

Danville, CA 94506

4)     Mr. Rod Ernst

70 Dartmouth Drive

Rancho Mirage, CA 92220

5)     Ms. Susanne Hand

1600 Vancil Street

Fortuna, CA 95540

30.   He is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     16/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

Industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission (PSC) include: Investor-owned telephone, electric, gas, intrastate motor carriers of people, intrastate motor carriers of household goods, railways, railroads (safety only), movement of water/wastewater, radio common carriers (those not exempted by federal law), gas pipeline/propane safety, gas safety, hazardous waste transport.

Fundamentally, all of the above industries have been subject to regulation (economic and/or safety) because either the company needed protection from other carriers (as was the case, for example for regulation of the for-hire trucking industry in the 1930's), or to protect coonsumers from the actual or potential from "natural" monopolies or oligopolies.

Generally speaking, a public interest finding has been made by the legislative branch stating that certain industries are so essential to the economic well-being of a state as to justify state regulatory oversight. With respect to economic regulation (ie., regulation of rates), the regulatory objective is to produce prices for services that roughly would approximate prices charged if the market for such services were competitive.

Over time, due largely to federal deregulation and state preemption, state regulatory jurisdiction has shifted from control of rates to control of safety only. Regulation of railroads provides an example. An example of total preemption of state jurisdiction by federal preemption is found in the for-hire trucking industry.

In summary, our historical experience with respect to regulatory policy
(federal and state) is that public policy, and the forms of regulation needed to protect and promote the public interest is dynamic, constantly changing.
The key to effective and successful regulation, to a large extent, is a direct function of how well regulatory policy-makers stay abreast and informed of evolving economic, social, political and tecnological issues. Regulatory policies and programs that are as dynamic and forward-looking as the industries being regulated is essential if regulation is to accomplish its legislative mandate.

2.     Select one federal agency which regulates one or more of the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission and specifically describe its oversight and how that oversight overlaps or pre-empts the Public Service Commission oversight and regulation.

Until recently, the SCPSC had broad authority to regulate the operations of truckers and railroads operated within South Carolina. State control, as stated earlier was based on depression-era policy of stabilyzing fierce competition between the truck and rail industries. Railrorad were considered more or less. Natural monopolies providing critically important transport services. The infant trucking industry, with very low start-up costs, was able to offer head-to-head competition - usually in the form of cheap rates. The resulting competion between the two, caused instability. The remedy to "level the playing field" was regulate the trucking isdustry.

In addition to a rather tight form of rate regulation, these two modes were also subject to a comprehensive form of safety regulation (roadway, track, equipment, etc. for railroads, and equipement inspection for truckers), and more recently public oversight of employees as to fitness to operate transportation equipment.

State control over truckers and railroads remained pretty much the same til the late 1980's and early 1990's. The support for state regulation of these two naturally competitive industries came into question, and eventually resulted in the passage of federal rail and truck regulatory reform.

The key federal transportation regulatory agency was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). New federal laws had the objective of replacing rate regulatory control with competitive market-drivenrates. To achieve the objective, federal control over interstate trucking rates was esentially removed, and to prevent the states (including the SCPSC) from "stepping in", the same federal law took state regulation over intrastate trucking away from the state commissions.

With respect to railroad regulation, federal economic regulatory controls were largely removed, as was that of the state commissions. The result: active and dynamic market competition, producing adequate and cost-based prices to the benefit of shippers and eventually to consumers nationwide.

SCPSC truck jurisdiction is currently confined to the intrastate for-hire transportation of people, and the intrstate, for-hire of transportation of household goods. Safety regulation of South Carolina's trucking industry rests, to a large degree, with the public safety/transportation departments.

The SCPSC still retains jurisdiction over the safety of railroad operations within the state. Track inspection, including right-of-way, grade crossing inspection, equipment inspection are at the heart of SCPSC's rail regulatory program.

In addition to preempting state economic regulatory jurisdiction over railroads and trucking, new federal laws consolidated federal oversight of these two industries by eliminating the ICC, and transferring remaining federal programs to a newly-created Surface Transportation Board within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

Statutes, rules and regulations, policies, programs and procedures concerning to ethical conduct of Public Service Commission employees (including commissioners) exists fundamentally for the purpose of protecting, and promoting public confidence in the workings of public institutions. Public confidence is particularly important for the Public Service Commission. This is so because the PSC, unlike most government agencies, have the combined legislative branch powers (by promulgating rules and regulations), executive branch powers (by administering programs, and enforcing, if necessary), and judical branch powers (by hearing PSC decisions on appeal, rehearing, etc.).

Rules and regulations covering ethical conduct typically include prohibitions over owning stocks, bonds, etc of companies regulated by the PSC. Rules also require full disclosure, and submitting financial statements on a regular basis. If there is an apparent conflict of interest, then it becomes that person's responsibility to take those steps necessary to eliminate the conflict, or the appearance of a conflict.

Rules also exist regarding ex parte communications, and restrictions over access to decision-makers. All regulatory actions, decisions, etc., must take place in open, with no party or person having undue infleunce. Rules of practice are designed, then, to further define and establish procedures that constitute proper practice.

In summary, rules regarding what constitutes ethical behavior and conduct are absolutely critical if the PSC is to successfully regulate in a manner that will protect and promote the public interest. When the public loses "faith" in the objectivity of the regulatory process, including the unbiased nature of regulatory decisions, then no regulatory program, however well-crafted and implmented will fulfill its legislative imperative to regulate in such manner to protect and promote the "people's business."

* * *

MR. WILKES: Ms. O'Neil, this is Mr. Couick. He is the staff counsel and attorney for this Committee. And he will swear you in and then we'll have some questions for you.

MR. COUICK: Good morning. If you will raise your right hand.

KAYE H. O'NEIL, being first duly sworn at 12:30 p.m., testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Ms. O'Neil, while you're being seated, you supplied the Committee staff with a copy of your driver's license and also with your voter registration card indicating that you live on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina; is that correct?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And that you are a voter in the Second Congressional District. Is that correct as well?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     And the Election Commission does confirm that. You, I believe, read this morning your summary of your personal data questionnaire?
A.     Yes, I did.
Q.     Is there anything that needs to be corrected on that summary?
A.     It looks fine to me.

MR. COUICK: Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter that summary as a part of the record of these proceedings before the Committee.

EXAMINATION BY MR. COUICK:

Q.     Could you please briefly review for the Committee your educational and work experience backgrounds, Ms. O'Neil?
A.     Yes. I started to work with BellSouth right out of high school. And I worked full-time and went to school part-time in what was then Charlotte College. And because of some opportunities I had to advance with Bell I stopped my college education and continued my career with Bell for 30 years. And throughout those 30 years I worked at various departments. Actually I feel I've worked at public service all my life basically, but I retired from Bell in '92. So I have been away from the telephone industry for seven years. And because of that I've tried some other ventures. I worked at a bank in Hilton Head. I've also worked a little bit in real estate. And right now I'm working for a property management company.
Q.     What is your job at the property management company? What do you do?
A.     What I do now is I don't do the accounting work for the company itself. What I do is managing records. We manage for about approximately 180 properties. I do the accounting work by keeping up with the rentals, the expenses that it cost us to maintain these properties. I cut checks for the owners every month and send them statements, that type of thing.
Q.     Do you have any relationships with any regulated utilities at this point aside from being a retired employee of BellSouth and AT&T?
A.     No, sir, I do not, but I do maintain a social contact with BellSouth people in that they have a retired club. It's called the Pioneer Club. I wanted to especially point that out because I still am a member of that club, but it's mostly for personal and social reasons, to keep up with former workers and things like that. I've had my membership moved to Charleston. And because of the distance and their night meetings many times I don't really participate. I don't get an opportunity to.
Q.     Are there any financial benefits that flow to you from being a member of that organization that flow from BellSouth or AT&T?
A.     No.
Q.     Do you own any utility stock?
A.     No, sir, I don't.
Q.     Does any member of your household own any utility stock?
A.     Not to my knowledge, no.
Q.     Why do you wish to serve on the Public Service Commission?
A.     Well, as I said, I've worked with public service most of my life. And I'm a very goal oriented person. Since retiring from Bell I have sought other means of employment and tried to educate myself in other areas. I feel that the Public Service Commission job would be a real challenge for me. And I would like to meet that challenge by educating myself to the Commission's responsibilities and also being able to study the issues that come before the Commission and making good decisions, informed decisions for all the people.
Q.     Ms. O'Neil, when you worked with AT&T and BellSouth you resided in Charlotte, North Carolina?
A.     Actually I lived in Tega Cay, South Carolina, which is right out of North Carolina. It's probably about 15 miles.
Q.     So how long have you been a resident of South Carolina, whether at Hilton Head or Tega Cay?
A.     I lived in Tega Cay for 13 years.
Q.     And then you've lived in Hilton Head since 1994; is that correct?
A.     Right. I've lived here five years.
Q.     So most of your adult life you've lived in South Carolina?
A.     That's correct.
Q.     Have you taken a public position on the issue of electric deregulation, either for or against it?
A.     No, I have not.
Q.     Are you a member of any organization that's taken a public position on electric deregulation?
A.     No, sir, I am not. I do have Palmetto Electric serves, you know, the electricity where I live, which is a co-op, and occasionally do get mailings, but I've been really not informed on those issues as to what they were doing with that right now. I know there's a lot of things going on.
Q.     All right. Have you been approached by any organization advocating the deregulation of electric power or advocating the continued regulation of electric power other than your own co-op?
A.     No, sir, I have not.

MR. COUICK: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILKES: Thank you, Mr. Couick. Do any members of the Committee have any questions of Ms. O'Neil? Hearing none, thank you so much for your time?

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY

1.     Kaye Harris O'Neil

Home Address:

323 Forest Beach Villas

Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

2.     She was born on November 15, 1942, in Montgomery County,

N.C.

4.     She is widowed with one child, Brian Ray O'Neil, age 32,

Assembly Foreman, Bosch Corporation, Charleston, SC.

6.     She graduated from Candor High School, Candor, NC, in 1961.

She attended Charlotte College, Charlotte, NC, from 1962-1963,

and left to accept a full time position with Southern Bell.

9.     She has worked with:

1961-1992 - AT&T Corp, Bell South Communications, Charlotte,

NC (retired 1992)

1994-1996 - Atlantic Bank-Customer Service Representative

1996-1997 - Prudential - Hilton Head Properties

1997-1999 - Hilton Head Vacation Rentals

11.   She served on the Board of Directors for the Home Owners

Association, Forest Beach Villas, Hilton Head, S.C.

27.   She has served on the following civic, charitable, etc.,

organizations:

Daybreak Homeowners Assoc., Tega Cay, SC

Forest Beach Villas Homeowners Assoc., Hilton Head, SC

Southern Bell Pioneers, Charleston, SC

29.   Five letters of reference:

1)     Ms. Cynthia Sprouse

Wachovia

PO Box 5069

Hilton Head Island, SC 29938

2)     Mrs. Connie Lemmond

Behavioral Health Center

501 Billingsley Road

Charlotte, NC 28211

3)     James K. Carlin

Mayor Pro-Tem

Councilman Ward 3

34 Gloucester Road

Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

4)     Mrs. George Efthymiou

Coastal Cleaning and Maintenance

PO Box 7006

Hilton Head, SC 29938

5)     Mr. Pat Varney

Associated Services, Inc,

7 Pope Avenue Mall

Hilton Head Island, SC 29928

30.   She is seeking the position of Public Service Commissioner for the

Second Congressional District.

CANDIDATE'S WRITTEN ANSWERS

MULTIPLE CHOICE RAW SCORE:     14/20

DISCUSSION:

1.     What are the industries regulated by the South Carolina Public Service Commission? Why are these industries regulated?

Water and Sewage

Telephone Companies

Trucking Industry

Gas and gas pipe lines

Electric Utilities

Railroads

All of the above companies, provide services to the citizens of S. C. The Public Service Commission regulates and monitors this service to assure the people are getting the quality of service at an affordable rate and that safety standards are also being met.

5.     Briefly describe South Carolina statutory provisions governing the ethical conduct of the S.C. Public Service Commission.

The conduct of a Public Service Commissioner is closely monitored. Because they set rates for utilities, etc. they are not allowed to invest, hold stock or any position with these companies. Any holdings would be considered a conflict of interest.

6.     Briefly describe the circumstances in which the Public Service Commission can disallow costs in setting rates for utilities. Are there Constitutional or other legal limits on such disallowances?

The Public Service Commission in setting rates may disallow expense incurred by an unregulated area of a utility. The regulated entity of the company may not support the unregulated.

* * *

CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: The meeting is adjourned.
(Public session ended 12:40 p.m., November 15, 1999.)

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

REPORT RECEIVED
Judicial Merit Selection Commission
Report of Candidate Qualifications

Date Draft Report Issued:   10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 11, 2000
Date and Time
Final Report Issued:   10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 13, 2000
Judicial candidates are not free to seek or accept commitments until 10:00 a.m. Thursday, January 13, 2000

Introduction

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the judiciary. This report details the reasons for the Commission's findings, as well as each candidate's qualifications as they relate to the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission is operating under the law which went into effect July 1, 1997, and which has dramatically changed the powers and duties of the Commission. One component of this law is that the Commission's finding of "qualified" or "not qualified" is binding on the General Assembly. Furthermore, the Commission is required to submit no more than three names for any particular judicial race; therefore, for one race the Commission was required to pare the number of candidates presented for consideration by the General Assembly. The Commission is also cognizant of the need for members of the General Assembly to be able to differentiate between candidates and, therefore, has attempted to provide as detailed a report as possible.

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

In assessing each candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions, the Commission had the option of placing candidates in either the "failed to meet expectations" or "met expectations" category. The Commission feels that these categories accurately reflect the candidate's performance on the practice and procedure questions.

As in previous years, the Commission considered judicial temperament in its evaluation of each candidate. An estimated 510,000 cases are tried each year in South Carolina, with over 276,000 jurors summoned to serve in State Court. The judiciary interacts with a great number of our state's citizens and it is important that each candidate demonstrates the ability and willingness to properly address the concerns of the large volume of people who come into contact with the Court each year.

The Commission has also used the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications as an adjunct of the Commission. The Commission was concerned that since the decisions of our judiciary play such an important role in people's personal and professional lives, all South Carolinians should have a voice in the selection of the state's judges. It was this desire for broad-based grassroots participation that led the Commission to create the Citizens Committees on Judicial Qualifications. These committees composed of people from a broad range of experience (doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and advocates for varied organizations; members of these committees are also diverse in their racial and gender backgrounds) were asked to advise the Commission on the judicial candidates in their regions. Each regional committee interviewed the candidates from its assigned area and also interviewed other individuals in that region who were familiar with the candidate either personally or professionally. Based on those interviews and its own investigation, each committee provided the Commission with a report on their assigned candidates based on the Commission's evaluative criteria. The Commission then used these reports as a tool for further investigation of the candidate if the committee's report so warranted. Each committee's general findings have been included in the Commission's report for your review.

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

While the law provides that the Commission must make findings as to qualifications, the Commission views its role as also including an obligation to consider candidates in the context of the judiciary on which they would serve and, to some degree, govern. To that end, the Commission inquires as to the quality of justice delivered in the courtrooms of South Carolina and seeks to impart, through its questioning, the view of the public as to matters of legal knowledge and ability, judicial temperament, and the absoluteness of the Judicial Canons of Conduct as to recusal for conflict of interest, prohibition of ex parte communication, and the disallowance of the acceptance of gifts. However, the Commission is not a forum for reviewing the individual decisions of the state's judicial system absent credible allegations of a candidate's violations of the Judicial Canons of Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or any of the Commission's nine evaluative criteria that would impact on a candidate's fitness for judicial service.

The Commission expects each candidate to possess a basic level of legal knowledge and ability, to have experience that would be applicable to the office sought, and to exhibit a strong adherence to codes of ethical behavior. These expectations are all important, and excellence in one category does not make up for deficiencies in another.

This report is the culmination of weeks of investigatory work and public hearings. The Commission takes its responsibilities seriously as it believes that the quality of justice delivered in South Carolina's courtrooms is directly affected by the thoroughness of its screening process. Please carefully consider the contents of this report as we believe it will help you make a more informed decision. If you would like to review portions of the screening transcript, which includes the personal data questionnaires, or other public information about a candidate before it is printed in the Journal, please contact Mike Couick at 212-6610.

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

Karen F. Ballenger
Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Ballenger meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Ballenger was born on July 15, 1957. She is 42 years old and a resident of West Union, South Carolina. Ms. Ballenger provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1987.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Ballenger.
Ms. Ballenger demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Ballenger reported that she has made $56.10 in campaign expenditures on letters and postage.
Ms. Ballenger testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Ballenger testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Ballenger to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Ballenger described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts, S.C. Bar, 1993;
(b)   Advanced Workers' Compensation in S.C., National Business Institute, Inc., 1993;
(c)   Serving the Best Interests of Children, S.C. Bar, 1993;
(d)   Auto Torts XVI, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1993;
(e)   Appellate Practice in S.C., 1993;
(f)   Domestic Practice: More Hot Tips, S.C. Bar, 1994;
(g)   Basic Probate Procedures and Practice, National Business Institute, Inc., 1994;
(h)   Auto Torts XVII, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1994;
(i)   The Continuing Saga of "Hot Tips," S.C. Bar, 1995;
(j)   Marital Litigation, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(k)   Auto Torts XVIII, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1995;
(l)   Domestic Practice: Hot Tips from the Experts, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(m)   Auto Torts, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1996;
(n)   Domestic Practice - Hot Tips from the Experts, S.C. Bar, 1997;
(o)   The Case of the Silent Alarm, Oconee County Bar, 1997;
(p)   Auto Torts, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1997;
(q)   Child Protective Services Act, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(r)   Family Court Bench/Bar, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(s)   Governor's Youth Council, 1998.
Ms. Ballenger reported that she was an Instructor in Family Law at Columbia Junior College (Paralegal Program) in the Summer of 1988.
Ms. Ballenger reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Ballenger did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Ballenger did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Ballenger has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Ballenger was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Ballenger reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Ballenger appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Ballenger appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Ballenger was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1987. She described her legal experience as follows:
"At the time of my graduation, I was a law clerk for the firm of Kennedy, Price & Dial, Columbia, South Carolina. My duties included research and drafting of pleadings and other legal documents; assisting in trial preparation; maintaining client contact; and a limited amount of real estate work.
When I was admitted to the bar, I became an associate with Kennedy, Price & Dial, Columbia, South Carolina. I was employed with this firm until June of 1988. My duties expanded after I became an attorney. Areas of major emphasis included domestic litigation, civil litigation, real estate; probate and estate planning.
In June of 1988, Judge Carol Connor offered me a position as her law clerk. She needed a clerk until September of 1988. She had recently been elected as circuit court judge and she needed a clerk for the summer. She was the resident judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. My duties as a law clerk consisted of overseeing the docket, legal research, writing and reviewing orders. After clerking for Judge Connor, Judge Marion H. Kinon asked me if I would serve as his law clerk for approximately 6 weeks (to the best of my knowledge) while his law clerk was in training with the South Carolina National Guard.
In October 1988, the Honorable William Howard Ballenger, Resident Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, offered me a position as his law clerk. My duties as a law clerk consisted of overseeing the docket, legal research, assisting with the language of the jury charge; writing and reviewing orders. During my tenure with Judge Ballenger, he presided over two death penalty cases. I was employed as Judge Ballenger's law clerk until January 1990.
In January 1990, I became an associate with the law firm of Ross, Stoudemire & Awde, P.A., Seneca, South Carolina. I had a general practice which included domestic; civil litigation; criminal; workers' compensation and social security. I would estimate that 60% of my practice was in the jurisdiction of the family court. In July of 1992, I became a named partner in the firm - Ross, Stoudemire, Ballenger & Sprouse, P.A. I was with this firm until December 31, 1994.
I then began my practice in Walhalla, South Carolina. I had a solo practice for a short period of time and then I became a principal/partner in the firm of Ballenger, Fedder, Cain & Norton, L.L.P. until July 1998. My practice included domestic; personal injury; workers' compensation; probate; social security; civil litigation and a limited amount of real estate.
From July 1998 to the present, I have had a solo practice in Walhalla, South Carolina. As a small town attorney, I have handled a wide variety of cases. However, in the last few years, I have streamlined my practice and, now by choice, I primarily handle family court matters. My domestic practice is approximately 90 to 95% of my caseload."
Ms. Ballenger described her Family Court experience as follows:
"Divorce - I have handled many, many divorce cases during my years of practice. Even though most divorce cases are uncontested, I have handled a number of contested divorce cases.
Equitable division of property - I have litigated many equitable division of property/debts cases. I have handled small cases that involved dividing the marital debts among the parties and also large cases where there were thousands and thousands of dollars of assets and division of pension and retirement accounts.
Child Custody - I have been involved in many custody cases both as an attorney for one of the parents and also as a guardian ad litem for the minor child(ren).
Adoption - This is an area which is of special interest to me. When I was practicing in Columbia, I worked for a firm who handled private adoptions. After working for the firm for a short period of time, I became the attorney who primarily handled the adoption cases. Even though I do not have the opportunity to handle as many private adoptions in Oconee County, I have handled several cases. I have done many step-parent adoptions and family adoptions.
Abuse and Neglect - I have been involved as an attorney for the parents, attorney for the guardian and guardian in abuse and neglect cases. In approximately 1993, I became the attorney for the Oconee County Guardian ad Litem program.
Juvenile Justice - I have represented juveniles in charges as serious as criminal sexual conduct with a minor. I have been involved in cases which resulted in contracts and others that had to be resolved by the family court. I am also on the Governor's Task Force for Juvenile Justice."
Ms. Ballenger reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   approximately 1 case per year
(b)   State:     average of 312 cases per year (as of Aug 12, 1999, 205 appearances)
Ms. Ballenger reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     6%
(b)   Criminal:   2%
(c)   Domestic:   90%
(d)   Other:     2%
Ms. Ballenger reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%
(b)   Non-jury:   95%
Ms. Ballenger provided that she most often serves as sole counsel or co-counsel.
The following is Ms. Ballenger's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Erby McCall v. Carol A. McCall, Gary Gordon and Mark Kubinetz. A two-day equitable division of property case. The interesting issue in the case was the determination of the status of the property. The wife had transferred all the marital property to her two sons a year before the separation. There were two legal arguments - whether there was a resulting trust and whether she conveyed the property with a fraudulent intent to deprive the spouse of his equitable interest in the property. There were other issues in the cases which included fault of the marriage that affected the economic circumstances of the marriage and alleged debts between the spouses. During the litigation, my client became terminally ill so there was the very serious concern that he would die before the final hearing. In order to preserve his testimony, a video deposition was taken of my client. At trial, the opposing party objected to the introduction of the video deposition. This case took three years to get to trial due to my client filing bankruptcy; the opposing party changing attorneys; and the difficulty in getting service on the two sons. My client was able to attend the final hearing but he was in a wheelchair and very fragile. The trial judge contacted my client's doctor who substantiated my position that my client was too ill to testify. The wife was to pay to my client a lump sum for his interest in the marital property or market the property for sale. When she did not do either, I, on my client's behalf, filed a rule to show cause. My client died the day before the contempt hearing. The contempt hearing was continued until a personal representative was appointed to act in my client's behalf. There is presently a rule to show cause pending in the Oconee County Family Court;
(b)   Wanda Waldo v. Stuart Waldo. A contested custody case. The final hearing lasted four days. I was guardian ad litem for the minor child. During the entire case, I was called on many times to make recommendations as to issues regarding the child, i.e., visitation issues. The time I spent in serving as the guardian was 83.85 hours (which was very conservative number). This time did not include telephone calls. At the trial, I was an active participant. I called witnesses including expert witnesses;
(c)   Dorothy W. Todd v. William Todd. This case involved equitable division of marital property, alimony, and attorney's fees. The reason that this case is significant to me is that I was involved as an advocate for my client for two years before the Complaint was filed. Both parties wanted to resolve the issues prior to the family court becoming involved. Both parties did not want the embarrassment of having their marital issues decided by the Court. Therefore, the parties and their attorneys negotiated and renegotiated this case for approximately two years before a settlement was reached. Because of the value of the marital property and the tax issues, experts were hired by both parties to assist with the case. When the case was filed in the family court, the Complaint requested approval of an agreement. The marital property was sold and divided among the parties before the filing of the Complaint. As the attorney for the wife, I had to prepare two qualified domestic relation orders (QDROs) in order for the wife to receive her interest in the husband's pension account and his 401(k)/retirement account;
(d)   Anthony N. Martuccio v. Helen Evelyn Martuccio. A contested case involving the issues of divorce, equitable division of marital property, alimony, and attorney's fees. The parties had been married 32 years. The issues were not complex, but the Plaintiff was very uncooperative which made the case difficult. He refused to cooperate with the pre-trial discovery. At trial, the husband contested the issue of divorce. By the testimony of the private investigator, there was no doubt that the husband had opportunity to commit adultery. However, the husband denied the adultery allegation stating that he had undergone implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis and that he was having difficulty with the prosthesis. The wife was totally disabled. Expert testimony was introduced at the hearing. This case also involved the request by my client for lump sum alimony. My client was successful and was awarded lump sum alimony. The final disposition of the case involved my preparing a QDRO for the Plaintiff's civil retirement. Although the preparation of the QDRO itself was not difficult, the process in getting the QDRO approved took approximately one year;
(e)   State of South Carolina v. Michael Rogers. A juvenile case involving a minor who was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree with a minor. This case was interesting because the minor had committed a sexual act (an act which by definition constituted sexual battery) with his cousin (who is 3 years younger than he) when he was 9 years of age. Charges were never filed against the minor and law enforcement never became involved. When the minor was fourteen years of age, the minor fondled his cousin. The juvenile was then charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor (1st Degree) alleging the incident when the defendant was 9 years of age in order to establish the legal requirements of CSC 1st. This case was very interesting to me in that the minor if found guilty would be charged with filing in the Sexual Offender's Registry for a crime that he committed when he was 9 years of age (too young to be committed). Another issue that surfaced during the hearing was the Defendant had been sexually abused himself at the age of six (6) years of age. In this case, I had to employ two experts - a counselor and a clinical psychologist."
The following is Ms. Ballenger's account of the civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Oconee County Department of Social Services v. Brenda Guy. I was the attorney for the guardian ad litem in this matter. This matter is presently pending before the S.C. Court of Appeals. I filed a Reply and Memorandum in Response to the Appellant's Return. Trial Court Case No. 96-DR-37-948;
(b)   I handled an appeal very early in my practice. The attorney representing the appellant was Randy Chastain. I was successful in getting the case dismissed because the appellant did not comply with the appellate court rules. To the best of my memory, the appellant did not file his brief timely."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Ballenger's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Ms. Ballenger was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Ms. Ballenger is married to William Howard Ballenger, Jr. She has one child, Courtney Lenore Ballenger, age 8.
Ms. Ballenger reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
Oconee County Bar Association, President - 1996;
S.C. Trial Lawyers Association.
Ms. Ballenger provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Paul Hayne Circle (women's literary circle in Walhalla). Offices held include treasurer and international affairs chairperson;
(b)   Oconee County Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse. Offices held include director and president;
(c)   Family Friends (a civic organization whose goal is to provide a mentor in the home of families in Oconee County with at-risk children). Offices held include director;
(d)   Governor's Task Force for Juvenile Justice;
(e)   Oconee County Community Theater. Offices held include director;
(f)   Walhalla Elementary PTA. Offices held include director and membership chairperson.
Ms. Ballenger additionally provided, "I feel that I have many years of experience in the family court area. I have handled a wide range of cases including complex cases and cases involving novel legal issues. But just as important, I have handled cases for the average Oconee County resident who is going through a difficult time in his or her life and feels that his or her case deserves the same attention as the cases involving millions of dollars in assets. Through my experience, I have a thorough knowledge of the law in the family court area.
I feel that it is safe to say that I am appointed to the greatest majority of cases that need a guardian ad litem in Oconee County (except in cases where I am involved or have a conflict). I feel that serving as a guardian has helped prepare me for looking at the cases involving children and making those difficult decisions.
Even though I have been practicing in family court for many years, I have tried to never lose sight that to my client that their case is one of the most important events in his or her life. Also in cases involving children, the stakes and the results are even greater. I feel that I am a person with insight and compassion. I truly feel that this is the most important characteristic and trait that a judge, especially a family court judge, needs. I feel that I will have the judicial temperament that conveys to the litigants that I have listened to their position and have rendered a decision that is fair to both parties."

J. Michael Baxley
Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Baxley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Baxley was born on August 24, 1956. He is 43 years old and a resident of Hartsville, South Carolina. Mr. Baxley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1982.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Baxley.
Mr. Baxley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Baxley reported that his campaign expenditures have consisted solely of costs incurred by preparing and posting his letter of intent to the Commission.
Mr. Baxley testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Baxley testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Baxley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Baxley provided that his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years has centered upon changes in South Carolina's automobile insurance laws, discovery tactics, evidentiary matters, advocacy, and workers' compensation because of the civil emphasis in his law practice. In addition to these courses, all continuing education credits in ethics have been obtained.
Mr. Baxley reported that he has appeared on panel programs at the U.S.C. School of Law, at various trade associations, and at attorneys' association conferences over the years to discuss legislative changes and proposals. These appearances were in relation to his role as a legislator and not as an attorney with expertise in any particular area of law.
Mr. Baxley reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Baxley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Baxley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Baxley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Baxley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Baxley reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Mr. Baxley was elected to and served in the South Carolina House of Representatives, Seat No. 65, from 1987 through 1998 for a total of six two-year terms.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Baxley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Baxley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Baxley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1982. He described his legal experience as follows:
"I have practiced with only one firm during my legal career, Driggers, Baxley & Moyd of Hartsville, S.C. Although this firm is a small town, general practice firm, over the years all three attorneys in the practice have maintained an emphasis on tort claims representing claimants.
For the first four years (1982-1986), my practice involved numerous areas of law including real estate, probate, workers compensation, domestic, criminal, corporate and business, and civil claims. During this time, for two years I served as chairman of the Darlington County Public Defender Corporation and also served for three years as prosecutor for the City of McBee Municipal Court.
It was my privilege to be elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1986, commencing service in January of 1987, which significantly changed my practice. Time constraints required that I withdraw from practice in the Family and Criminal Courts, and all other areas of practice were curtailed in favor of civil practice. The nature of my civil practice also changed, switching from the general administration of tort claims to handling matters in litigation, representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants. This has further developed into litigation referrals from other attorneys of cases that involve governmental claims, unusual liability theories, and difficult damages issues."
Mr. Baxley provided the following description of his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"As briefly discussed above, early in my career I represented numerous clients with a variety of charges in the Court of General Sessions and the Magistrate's criminal court. Since 1987, my involvement in criminal cases has been limited, generally arising only in the context of an accompanying or related civil claim. At the present time, I am representing only one client in the Court of General Sessions, an eighty-year-old gentleman who is charged with first degree arson in the burning of his residence. Tragically, his wife died in this fire, but my client has not yet been charged with additional crimes arising from the fire. We now await the scheduling of the preliminary hearing in the arson case.
My civil practice has allowed me the opportunity over the years to represent clients in numerous challenging litigation cases. The primary emphasis of these cases has been personal injury, but I have also handled matters in contract litigation, business litigation, breach of warranty claims, actions to quiet title to real property, declaratory judgment actions with respect to insurance coverages, and intentional torts.
At present, I have approximately 40 litigation cases pending in the state circuit courts, federal district court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Even though my civil experience has been primarily obtained while representing Plaintiffs, if appointed to the Bench I commit to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission that I will work diligently to be fair to all parties in the cases that come before me, and administer the law fairly and equally without regard to a party's designation as Plaintiff, Defendant, Cross-Claimant, or Intervenor.
I have only limited experience in criminal matters. It is my hope that working both as a prosecutor and with the public defender corporation early in my career has given me some insight into both sides of the General Sessions Court. To compensate for this lack of experience, it is my intention to diligently study the criminal code and circuit court rules pertaining to criminal procedure, to review advance sheets relating to criminal cases; and, should I be so fortunate as to be selected as a judge of the circuit court, to associate myself with and ask for assistance from jurists with extensive experience in the criminal court."
Mr. Baxley reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Limited, with only 2 or 3 on the docket at any one time
(b)   State:     Numerous appearances
Mr. Baxley reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     90%
(b)   Criminal:   5%
(c)   Domestic:   5%
Mr. Baxley reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     75%
(b)   Non-jury:   25%
Mr. Baxley provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Baxley's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Phillip Byrd, as Adm. of the Estate of Kirlenze Byrd v. The Darlington County School District, C/A No. 85-CP-16-308 and 309. This case, brought shortly after the abolition of sovereign immunity, established liability against a school district for the death of a child occurring after school and away from school grounds. Nine-year-old Kirlenze Byrd was detained after school by the principal and missed his bus as a result. Kirlenze's older siblings rode the bus with Kirlenze each day, thus being present to supervise his activities until their parents arrived home. The principal took Kirlenze directly home in his personal vehicle, beating the bus to the premises, and left Kirlenze in the yard with no supervision. While attempting to crawl into the house through a back window, the window slammed shut, killing Kirlenze. Plaintiffs were able to overcome numerous legal defenses based on sovereign immunity theories in recovering for wrongful death;
(b)   William L. Hammon v. Brown, Case No. 4:85-2268-2, Federal District Court. An automobile accident claim in which the Plaintiff was totally deaf, requiring the case be tried through a sign language interpreter. This presented a challenge in submitting the case to the Court and jury. The case involved a difficult issue of damages in which Plaintiff was required to impeach a treating doctor who had misunderstood information concerning Plaintiff's injuries conveyed to the witness shortly after the collision occurred. As a result of the misunderstanding, the witness formed the opinion that Plaintiff was not injured as he claimed. Interestingly, with a hearing doctor testifying against him to a hearing jury, the deaf Plaintiff gave up all hope of victory, thinking that he would not be believed by the jury. Verdict for the Plaintiff of $160,054;
(c)   Sue Northam, Adm. of the Estate of Allen Lee Northam v. Carolina Assembly and Distribution Company, C/A 85-CP-16-307. First dram shop action brought against a retail liquor package store in the Pee Dee region of S.C. Plaintiff's son died in an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver and Plaintiff alleged that the drunk driver had been intoxicated at the time he purchased liquor from the retail location and that the liquor then caused the driver's further intoxication, resulting in Plaintiff's death. This case extended the dram shop theory of liability from a traditional bar setting to retail package sales;
(d)   The Estate of English, et al. v. Delonghi Italia, C/A No. 4:92-0985-2, Federal District Court of S.C. A complex products liability claim arising from the death by fire of six children caused by a defective space heater manufactured by a foreign company. Because the heater in question was destroyed in the fire, archaeological sifting of the fire site was required to obtain fragmentary evidence from which an insufficient internal electrical system was eventually proved. This case was significant in that it led to numerous suits against the manufacturer who had widely distributed the defective product throughout the southeastern United States. Settled immediately prior to trial;
(e)   R. Snyder, as GAL for Claimants v. Darlington County, et al. (96-CP-16-339) This case is still pending and involves governmental liability under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. I represent thirty minor Plaintiffs in a suit against the County of Darlington, S.C., Court Administration, and other Defendants arising from the theft of approximately $800,000 in conservatorship funds from accounts controlled by the former (now deceased) Darlington County Probate Judge. The former judge's estate is bankrupt. This case presents some very challenging Tort Claims Act issues in attempting to fix civil liability against a governmental entity for the criminal act of a third party. Jurisdiction has been retained by Hon. James E. Lockemy as complex litigation, with trial expected in November of 1999."
The following is Mr. Baxley's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Rogers v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, et al., 464 S.E.2d 330 (1996). Established the duty of a state agency to warn an individual of potential harm when a threat had been made by a prisoner against a particular individual who would otherwise be unaware of the danger. Under the Supreme Court's holding, the duty to warn arises upon the release of the prisoner. Prior to this ruling, the Department of Corrections had no responsibility for injuries to third parties committed by released inmates;
(b)   Leviner v. Sonoco Products Company, Case No. 96 CP 16-526A, Appeal pending. Workers' compensation action in which Claimant was awarded lifetime benefits for brain injury after appeal from Commission to Circuit Court. Remanded for trial de novo by Court of Appeals, petition for certiorari presently pending before Supreme Court;
(c)   Kelly v. S.C. Farm Bureau, 450 S.E.2d 59 (1994). Altered state law with respect to insurance policy language interpretation and the duties imposed by law upon the insured. In this case for the first time our Supreme Court held that a policyholder was not bound by the written terms of an insurance policy if an agent of the carrier had made an oral representation inconsistent with the written language. This reversed longstanding rulings by the Court that the written coverage language in a policy always controlled the agreement between the parties due to the policy total integration clause. Prior to this ruling, the insured was charged with having read and understood the policy language, notwithstanding any oral promises an agent may have made. Because of the complex and legalistic nature of the wording of insurance policies before Kelly, consumers were at a distinct disadvantage when disputing the terms of an insurance policy;
(d)   Cline v. Nosredna Corporation, 352 S.E.2d 291 (1986). In this workers' compensation case, our Supreme Court first held that a heart attack due to pre-existing pathology is fully compensable if coupled with unusual exertion or strain in the workplace. Prior to that ruling, heart attack claims were generally disfavored in a workers' compensation context, and a pre-disposition to heart attack caused by non-work related factors was dispositive of claimant's case;
(e)   Billy Thomas v. Hi-Way Dispatch and Van Leer, N.C. Court of Appeals 97-805. This appeal and the trial below handled in association with W. James Chandler, Esq., of Charlotte, N.C. This case arose from the collision of two tractor-trailer vehicles near Monroe, N.C. The Plaintiff's vehicle struck the rear of Defendant's vehicle and Defendant denied liability. Plaintiff sustained brain injury in the collision and had no recollection of events. Through circumstantial evidence Plaintiff was able to prove that Defendant's vehicle swerved into the path of Plaintiff's vehicle, thereby causing the collision. Verdict for Plaintiff of $839,000 resulted in Defendants filing three separate appeals, all of which were ultimately decided for Plaintiff."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Baxley's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Committee is of the opinion that Mr. Baxley is qualified for the position of Circuit Court judge. As a result of its investigation of and interview with Mr. Baxley, the Committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Mr. Baxley is not married. He does not have children.
Mr. Baxley reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1982 - present);
(b)   Darlington County Bar Association (1982 - present);
(c)   American Bar Association (1982 - present);
(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association (1981 - present);
(e)   American Association of Trial Lawyers (1981 - 1994).
Mr. Baxley provided that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   S.C. League of Women Voters;
(b)   S.C. Wildlife Federation;
(c)   Wildlife Action;
(d)   Butler Heritage Foundation;
(e)   Homes for Hartsville;
(f)   Darlington County Mental Health Association;
(g)   Planting Citizens for Tomorrow (Educational);
(h)   Junior Achievement;
(i)   Hartsville Branch NAACP;
(j)   Darlington County Task Force for Progress;
(k)   Prestwood Country Club;
(l)   Christmas in April.
Mr. Baxley expressed his gratitude for the Commission's consideration of his application to stand for election to the circuit court bench and for the opportunity to seek this position of public service to his fellow citizens. Mr. Baxley provided, "South Carolina and its citizens have been very good to me and to my family for many generations, and I hope through this judicial position, should you choose me to serve, that in some small way a portion of this great generosity might be returned."

Donald W. Beatty
Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Beatty meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Beatty was born on April 29, 1952. He is 48 years old and a resident of Spartanburg, South Carolina. Judge Beatty provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1979.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Beatty.
Judge Beatty demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Beatty reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Beatty testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Beatty testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Beatty to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Beatty described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as exceeding CLE requirements each year.
Judge Beatty reported that he has taught Business Law at Limestone College.
Judge Beatty reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Beatty did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Beatty did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Beatty has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Beatty was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Beatty reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Judge Beatty reported that he never requested a rating and was unaware of any existing rating.
Judge Beatty provided that he served in the U.S. Army on Active Duty from 1974 - 1976 and in the Reserves from 1976 - 1981. He received an Honorable Discharge in 1981 as a Captain.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Beatty appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Beatty appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Beatty was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1979. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1979-1981: Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program - Civil Practice
1981-1989: Sole practitioner - General Practice
1989-1991: Beatty, Vick & Tullis - General Practice
1991-1995: Beatty Law Firm - General Practice."
The following is Judge Beatty's account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Treasured Arts, Inc. v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, et al.;
(b)   Elliot v. Richland County, et al.;
(c)   United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, et al.;
(d)   State of South Carolina v. Eddie Lee Arnold;
(e)   Henry E. Ingram, Jr. v. J&W Corporation for Greenwood, Inc. and Vick Scurry."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Beatty's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Beatty was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Judge Beatty is married to Angela Chestnut Beatty. He has three children: Brandon, age 20; Austine, age 10; and Morgan, age 6.
Judge Beatty reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Spartanburg County Bar Association;
(c)   National Bar Association.
Judge Beatty provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Progressive Men's Club;
(b)   Omega Psi Phi Fraternity.

Mary E. Buchan
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED, NOT NOMINATED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Buchan meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Buchan was born on September 9, 1952. She is 47 years old and a resident of Marion, South Carolina. Judge Buchan provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1980.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Buchan.
Judge Buchan demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Buchan reported that she has incurred minimal campaign expenditures for postage, telephone, and resumé printing costs.
Judge Buchan testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Buchan testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Buchan to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Buchan described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as attending various seminars through the South Carolina Bar and other approved providers. Judge Buchan reported that she also engages in independent reading.
Judge Buchan reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Bridge the Gap, 1996, Handling Family Court Appointments;
(b)   Chief Judges' Seminar, 1997, Scheduling Problems;
(c)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1998, Race and Gender Sensitive Issues;
(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, co-panelist, 1998, Valuation of a Professional Practice;
(e)   S.C. Bar Winter Meeting, co-panelist, 1998, Joint Custody Considerations;
(f)   Family Court Judges Annual Meeting, 1999, Post-Trial Motions in Juvenile Hearings.
Judge Buchan reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Buchan did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Buchan has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Buchan was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Buchan reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Buchan appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Buchan appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Buchan was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1980. She described her legal experience as follows:
"For a brief period after graduation, I continued to work with Kennedy, Price, Kosko & Coffas, Attorneys, for whom I clerked during law school. From my admission to the Bar until March 1982, I was employed with Timothy G. Quinn, Esquire, and was primarily involved in preliminary office work in his Columbia office and management of his Marion office. In March 1982, I began practicing with Edward W. Whittington, Jr., in Mullins under the name of Whittington & Buchan, Attorneys. Beginning in 1982, my practice was primarily domestic, although I handled some civil, real estate and commercial work. In May 1992, I was appointed as a Family Court judge and have served in that capacity since."
Judge Buchan reported the frequency of court appearances during the last five years of her practice, prior to serving on the bench, as follows:
(a)   Federal:   2 cases
(b)   State:     remainder of cases
Judge Buchan reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years of her practice, prior to serving on the bench, as follows:
(a)   Civil:     14%
(b)   Criminal:   1%
(c)   Domestic:   85%
Judge Buchan reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years of her practice, prior to serving on the bench, as follows:
(a)   Jury:     less than 1/2%
(b)   Non-jury:   remainder
Judge Buchan provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Buchan's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App, 1989) This case was handled from inception through a remand hearing and subsequent appeal. It involved establishing a common law marriage, fault grounds for divorce, and the need for alimony;
(b)   Marion County DSS v. Rowell. I was appointed as counsel for Ms. Rowell in this action for termination of her parental rights. The case is significant to me because Ms. Rowell both retained her parental rights and received assistance to improve her living skills;
(c)   Turner v. Turner. This divorce case was important and difficult because my client suffered from residual injuries and disabilities as a result of a closed head injury;
(d)   Riad v. Diamond. I was the Court-appointed Guardian ad Litem in the Dillon case, which involved a custody dispute for three children between two families. The children's mother was killed by their father, who was incarcerated;
(e)   Rabon v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, et al. This case was significant because it was a wrongful death action where the Plaintiff's son had died when his dirt bike hit a guy wire. The case settled prior to trial."
The following is Judge Buchan's account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 87-MO-08 (Ct. App., filed January 28, 1987);
(b)   Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E.2d 114 (Ct. App, 1989)."
Judge Buchan reported that she has not personally handled any criminal appeals.
The following is Judge Buchan's five most significant orders or opinions she has handled:
"(a)   Poston v. Poston, 331 S.C. 106, 502 S.E.2d 86 (1998);
(b)   Dixon v. Dixon, Opinion No. 3013, June 21, 1999;
(c)   Branham v. Branham, 99-UP-334, filed June 1, 1999;
(d)   Eagerton v. Eagerton, This case was significant because it dealt with a relatively large estate and each of the parties had substantial difficulties. Each side called several experts, and every possible issue (divorce, fault, alimony, equitable division, attorneys' fees, etc.) was contested;
(e)   Eisenmann v. Eisenmann, This case was significant because it was so tragic. Two professionals were involved in a contested divorce and a custody dispute. The parties, both of whom are admirable people, separated after one of them was in a horrible car accident and suffered a closed head injury, which left some permanent disability. The accident and the resulting events from same made for one of the saddest cases I have heard."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Buchan's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Committee is of the opinion that Judge Buchan is qualified for the position of Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. As a result of its investigation of and interview with Judge Buchan, the Committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Buchan is married to Ernest McCray Graham. She has three children: David McCray Graham (stepson), 28 years old, medical illustrator; Rebecca Earl Graham (stepdaughter), 24 years old, office manager; and Martha Alison Graham, 12 years old.
Judge Buchan reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1980-present);
(b)   Marion County Bar Association (1980-present);
(c)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1997-present).
Judge Buchan provided that she was not a member of any civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations.
Judge Buchan additionally provided, "I have the desire, the work ethic, and the intelligence to handle a position on the Appeals Court."

Perry M. Buckner
Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Buckner meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Buckner was born on May 9, 1949. He is 50 years old and a resident of Walterboro, South Carolina. Mr. Buckner provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Buckner.
Mr. Buckner demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Buckner reported that he has made less than $100 in campaign expenditures on postage and stationery.
Mr. Buckner testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Buckner testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Buckner to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Buckner described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
5-6-94   Domestic Practice: More Hot Tips From the Experts;
6-9-94   How to Draft Wills and Trusts in South Carolina;
7-29-94   Rules, Rules, Rules;
10-21-94   The Secrets of Successful Civil Litigation: Hot Tips From the Experts;
10-27-94   Defending the DUI;
11-16-94   Professional Responsibility in Pretrial Litigation (ALPS);
9-29-95   S.C. Tort Law Update;
11-17-95   Ethics;
4-12-96   Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Offenses & Penalties for "Serious" and "Most Serious" Crimes & Repeat Offenders;
11-08-96   Auto Insurance Update;
11-22-96   The Masters in Trial;
4-24-97   Practical Defense of DUI and DUI Accidents;
6-26-97   67th Annual Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, "The Independent Counsel Process: Is It Broken and How Should It Be Fixed?";
9-28-97   1997 Annual South Carolina Solicitors' Association Conference;
6-26-98   68th Annual Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, "The Legal Profession in the 21st Century";
8-13-98   1998 Annual S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention;
9-27-98   1998 Annual S.C. Solicitors' Conference;
6-25-99   69th Annual Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, "Brave New World: The Telecommunications Act of 1996";
7-16-99   Orientation for Attorneys to Assist Disciplinary Counsel Internet Basics Seminar;
8-5-99   1999 Annual S.C. Trial Lawyers Convention;
At the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention on August 6, 1999:
(a)   Jury Innovations by Judge William L. Howard, Sr.;
(b)   What's Admissible: Medicaid/Medicare Payments and the Collateral Source Rule by Judge Diane S. Goodstein;
(c)   Trial and Post-Trial Motions by Judge James R. Barber, III.
Mr. Buckner reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   1981 or 1982, S.C. Bar CLE Seminar on "Extraordinary Writs" at the U.S.C. School of Law;
(b)   May 18, 1984, Seminar on "Condemnation Law and Practice" at the U.S.C. School of Law (moderator);
(c)   October 21, 1994, CLE seminar, "Calling as a Witness An Expert Who Was Engaged but not Called by Opposing Party" at the U.S.C. School of Law.
Mr. Buckner reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Buckner did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Buckner did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Buckner has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Buckner was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Buckner reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Mr. Buckner was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant at graduation from Wofford College through the ROTC Program. He was on active duty from October 13, 1971 to January 13, 1972. The branch of service at this time was the Quarter Master Corps. After his discharge from active duty, he continued in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1972 until approximately 1979 and was transferred to the Judge Advocate General Corps. He received his discharge from the reserves in about 1979 at which time he believes he had attained the rank of Captain. His current status is inactive. He has an Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Buckner appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Buckner appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Buckner was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1975-1979     South Carolina Attorney General's Office as a Staff Attorney, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, S.C.
1979-1981     Partner in the Law Firm of Wise and Cole, P.A., in Charleston, S.C.
1981-1986     Partner in the Law Firm of Smoak, Moody, Buckner and Siegel in Walterboro, S.C.
1986-Present   Private Practice, Law Office of Perry M. Buckner, in Walterboro, S.C.
From 1975 to 1979, I was a staff attorney in the Attorney General's Office during the first two years. My duties included prosecuting criminal cases in Magistrate and the Circuit Courts of South Carolina. I also handled criminal appeals to the South Carolina Supreme Court on behalf of the State of South Carolina during my initial two years with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office.
From 1977 to 1979, I moved to the Civil Division of the South Carolina Attorney General's Office and I handled civil litigation for the State of South Carolina including representation of the South Carolina Wildlife Department, the South Carolina Highway Department, the Medical University of South Carolina, The Citadel, and the South Carolina Forestry Commission.
From 1979-1981, I did insurance defense work as a partner with the law firm of Wise and Cole in Charleston, South Carolina. During this time, my practice consisted of almost entirely civil defense work.
From 1981-1986, as a partner with the law firm of Smoak, Moody, Buckner, and Siegel in Walterboro, South Carolina, I handled primarily Plaintiff's personal injury cases and Workmen's Compensation cases. This was a general law practice so I also handled both Plaintiff and defense cases in both magistrates and circuit court.
From 1986 to the present, I handled Plaintiff's personal injury cases, Social Security cases, Probate Court/estate work. I also handled both Plaintiff and Defendant litigation in Civil Court, and I handled criminal defense work in the Court of General Sessions of South Carolina.
In 1997, I became part-time Assistant Solicitor for the 14th Judicial Circuit prosecuting cases for the Solicitor's Office in the Court of General Sessions of Colleton County."
Mr. Buckner provided the following description of his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"I began handling criminal cases in the South Carolina Attorney General's Office in 1975 by handling criminal appeals from the Circuit Court to the South Carolina Supreme Court. I also was assigned by the Attorney General to various weeks of General Sessions Court throughout the state to prosecute criminal cases in the Court of General Sessions if the solicitor was ill or had a conflict. From 1981 until 1997, my private practice included criminal defense work in both Magistrate and Circuit Court. In 1988, I was Court appointed to handle a death penalty criminal trial in the Colleton County Court of General Sessions. In 1997, I became part-time Assistant Solicitor in the Court of General Sessions for Colleton County prosecuting cases for the State of South Carolina in the Colleton County Court of General Sessions.
I have had extensive experience in handling civil matters in my practice. I began trying condemnation cases for the South Carolina Highway Department, particularly in the Charleston area during the construction of what is known as the "Mark Clark Expressway" while employed with the South Carolina Attorney General's Office. After leaving the Attorney General's Office and entering private practice, I have represented landowners in condemnation cases in counties throughout the State of South Carolina. My civil trial practice covers most areas of civil practice. I am the attorney for the city/county airport commission. Giving a brief written description of my civil court experience would be difficult. I have handled cases for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas. I have handled matters involving automobile accidents, both Plaintiff and Defendant, subrogation claims, third party claims arising out of Worker's Compensation accidents, Social Security claims, Probate Court litigation and claims, premises liability cases, unfair trade practice cases, and State Tort claims cases. I feel fortunate that I have had a very active trial practice and have been trying cases in both criminal and civil court for over 24 years."
Mr. Buckner reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   5%
(b)   State:     90%
(c)   Other:     5% administrative
Mr. Buckner reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     60 %
(b)   Criminal:   30 %
(c)   Domestic:   10 %
Mr. Buckner reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     75%
(b)   Non-jury:   25 %
Mr. Buckner provided that he most often served as sole counsel or chief counsel.
The following is Mr. Buckner's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   George v. Empire, Shearouse Advance Sheets Opinion No. 2906, November 23, 1998 and June 10, 1999. Case is presently pending in the S.C. Court of Appeals and deals with reformation of an insurance contract. It is significant because it deals with the unusual situation of under what circumstances an automobile insurance policy can be reformed. This case involves issues concerning reformation, the effect of an invalid exclusion in an automobile insurance policy, and matters of policy interpretation;
(b)   In Re: Estate of Fabian, 326 S.C. 349, 483 S.E.2d 474 (S.C. App. 1997) Case involves the construction of a Will and whether or not the word "brother" in a Will constitutes a latent ambiguity. I represented the personal representative, Paul Fender, of this estate, who was the Respondent in this case;
(c)   Upchurch Timber Co., Inc., et al. v. Southeast Timberlands, Inc., et al., Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-082, March 22, 1993, S.C. Court of Appeals. Case is significant because it involved the construction of a timber contract and dealt with the issue of an "advance" on the cutting of timber. I represented Upchurch Timber Co., Inc. who was the Respondent in this case;
(d)   The State v. Charles E. Brown, Jr., Supreme Court of S.C., 267 S.C. 311, 227 S.E.2d 674 (1976) Case involved the question of construing evidence to determine what evidence was sufficient in order to prove constructive possession of marijuana. I represented The State in this case;
(e)   The State v. Carlos Elliott. I was appointed to represent Mr. Carlos Elliott who was charged with murder and this case was tried in the General Sessions Court for Colleton County in 1988. This case was significant in that I was a sole practitioner at the time, and I recall closing my office for approximately four weeks in order to prepare for this case and try it in both the guilt phase as well as the penalty phase."
The following is Mr. Buckner's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   George v. Empire, Shearouse Advance Sheets Opinion No. 2906, November 23, 1998 and June 10, 1999. Case involves issues concerning reformation, the effect of an invalid exclusion in an automobile insurance policy, and matters of policy interpretation;
(b)   In Re: Estate of Fabian, 326 S.C. 349, 483 S.E.2d 474 (S.C. App. 1997) Court of Appeals, Decision February 11, 1997;
(c)   Upchurch Timber Co., Inc. v. Southeast Timberlands, Inc., et al., Unpublished Opinion No. 93-UP-082, March 22, 1993. S.C. Court of Appeals."
The following is Mr. Buckner's account of criminal appeals he has handled in the South Carolina Supreme Court:
"(a)   The State v. Brewington. 267 S.C. 97, 226 S.E.2d 249 (1976) I represented the State in this case involving whether the evidence constituted the offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature;
(b)   The State v. Earl L. Miller. 266 S.C. 409, 223 S.E.2d 774 (1976). My first case before the Supreme Court of S.C. I represented the State. This case involved whether or not the admission of an out-of-Court statement of the co-defendant violated the confrontation clause of the Constitution;
(c)   The State v. Lambert. 266 S.C. 574, 225 S.E.2d 340 (1976). I represented the State in this case. This case was significant because it involved the appeal of a guilty plea, and the circumstances under which the Court should determine that a plea is voluntary and intelligent."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Buckner's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Buckner meets the constitutional qualifications and is possessed of the requisite character, reputation, ability, fitness, experience, and temperament. Mr. Buckner is highly recommended."
Mr. Buckner is married to Janet Hobbs Buckner. He has two children: Daniel Graham Buckner (age 15); and Perry McPherson Buckner, IV (age 13).
Mr. Buckner reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   House of Delegates of the S.C. Bar Association, July 1, 1993 to June 30, 1995;
(c)   Colleton County Bar;
(d)   American Bar Association;
(e)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;
(f)   Association of Trial Lawyers of America;
(g)   S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys Association;
(h)   S.C. Bar Judicial Qualifications Committee, July 1995 through June 1996.
Mr. Buckner is a member of the following civic, charitable, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
a)   Director, Local Advisory Board of BB&T Bank, Walterboro, S.C.;
b)   Board of Visitors of Medical University of S.C.;
c)   Board of Directors of Colleton Preparatory Academy, Walterboro, S.C.;
d)   Received the 1997-1998 Readers' Choice Award for "Best Legal Service" in Colleton County as chosen by the readers of The Press and Standard, Walterboro, S.C.;
e)   Received the 1998-1999 Readers' Choice Award for "Best Lawyer" and "Best Legal Service" in Colleton County as chosen by the readers of The Press and Standard, Walterboro, S.C.;
f)   Pastor Parish Relations Committee of Bethel U.M. Church, Walterboro, S.C.;
g)   U.S.C. Law School Alumni Association Board of Directors;
h)   Past member of the Board of Habitat for Humanity of Colleton County, Walterboro, S.C.;
i)   Past member of the Board of Directors of the Children's Hospital of the Medical University of S.C.

E.C. Burnett, III
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 5

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Justice Burnett meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Justice Burnett was born on January 26, 1942. He is 57 years old and a resident of Pauline, South Carolina. Justice Burnett provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1969.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
Since Justice Burnett's previous screening in 1995, the Commission's investigation did not reveal any incidents of unethical conduct by Justice Burnett.
Justice Burnett demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to Justices, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Justice Burnett reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Justice Burnett testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Justice Burnett testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Justice Burnett to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Justice Burnett described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as exceeding minimal requirements every year.
Justice Burnett reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, Spartanburg-Cherokee Legal Secretaries Association;
(b)   Legal Motions Practice, S.C.T.L.A.;
(c)   Expert Witnesses and State v. Council, S.C.T.L.A.;
(d)   Presenter of various topics, Conference of Chief Justices for Administrative Purposes of Circuit and Family Courts;
(e)   Director of Conference of Chief Justices for Administrative Purposes of Circuit and Family Courts.
Justice Burnett reported that he has published the following:
(a)   The South Carolina Appellate Courts - Metamorphosis is Good, Vol. XXIX, August 1996, Spotlight (Publication of S.C. Association of Legal Secretaries).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Justice Burnett did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Justice Burnett did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Justice Burnett has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Justice Burnett was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Justice Burnett reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Justice Burnett served in the U.S. Army from August 1964 to August 1966, serving as a First Lieutenant. He later served in the U.S. Army Reserves Control Group as Captain. He received an Honorable Discharge at the rank of Major.
(6)   Physical Health:
Justice Burnett appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Justice Burnett appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Justice Burnett was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1969. He described his legal experience as follows:
"Private Practice, individual, 1969-1976, with experience before Magistrate, Family, County, Civil and Criminal, Common Pleas and General Sessions Court; S.C. Probation and Parole Board and S.C. Industrial Commission
1976-5/1/80   Spartanburg County Probate Judge
5/1/80-9/17/81   Judge, Family Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit
9/17/81-4/10/95   Judge, Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit
4/10/95-Present   Associate Justice, SC Supreme Court."
The following is Justice Burnett's account of his five most significant orders:
"(a)   Prescott v. Farmers Telephone Coop. Inc., 1999 WL 350588 (June 1, 1999);
(b)   State v. Donney Council, ___ S.C. ___, 515 S.E.2d 508 (1999);
(c)   Meyer v. Paschal, 330 S.C. 175, 498 S.E.2d 635 (1998);
(d)   Ross v. Medical University of S.C., 328 S.C. 51, 492 S.E.2d 62 (1997);
(e)   Payton v. Kearse, 329 S.C. 51, 495 S.E.2d 205 (1998)."
Justice Burnett reported that he has held the following judicial offices:
(a)   Elected as Spartanburg County Probate Judge from 1976-May 1980;
(b)   Elected as Judge of the Family Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit from May 1981-September 17, 1981;
(c)   Elected as Judge of the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit from September 17, 1981-April 10, 1995;
(d)   Elected as Associate Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court from April 1995-Present.
Justice Burnett served in the S.C. House of Representatives from 1973 to 1974.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Justice Burnett's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Justice Burnett was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Justice Burnett is married to Jami Grant Burnett. He three children: E.C. Burnett, IV (34, Milliken and Company); Sharon Burnett West (31, School Teacher); and Jeffrey Grant Burnett (27, City of Spartanburg).
Justice Burnett reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1969 - present);
(b)   Spartanburg County Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association.
Justice Burnett provided that he is not a member of any civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations other than his church.

Timothy M. Cain
Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Cain meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Cain was born on January 16, 1961. He is 49 years old and a resident of Walhalla, South Carolina. Mr. Cain provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Cain.
Mr. Cain demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Cain reported that he has made approximately $288 in campaign expenditures for postage, paper and envelopes for correspondence announcing his candidacy.
Mr. Cain testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Cain testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Cain to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Cain described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Limited Liability Companies & Limited Liability Partnerships, S.C. Bar, 1994;
(b)   The Secrets of Successful Civil Practice, S.C. Bar, 1994;
(c)   Ethical Issues in Law Firm Departures and Breakups, S.C. Bar, 1994;
(d)   Limited Liability Companies & Limited Liability Partnerships, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(e)   Elder Law, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(f)   Auto Torts XVIII, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1995;
(g)   The New S.C. Uniform Limited Liability (LLC/LLP) Act, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(h)   Lawyers Title Underwriting Seminar, 1996;
(i)   Everyday Ethics Problems Facing Practitioners, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(j)   The Case of the Silent Alarm- A Study in Professionalism, Oconee County Bar, 1997;
(k)   Lawyers Title Underwriting Seminar, 1997;
(l)   Working with Older Clients and Others with Special Needs, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(m)   Annual Meeting, S.C. Association of County Attorneys, 1998;
(n)   Current Developments in Real Estate, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(o)   S.C. Circuit Court Arbitration, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(p)   Lawyers Underwriting Seminar, 1998;
(q)   Family Court Bench/Bar, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(r)   Auto Torts XXI, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1998;
(s)   Sexual Harassment Law Update, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(t)   County Government Financing, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(u)   Rules of Order, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(v)   Petition/Initiative and Referendum, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(w)   Federal Law Update, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(x)   TIF Litigation/Economic Development Update, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(y)   Reassessment, S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting, 1999;
(z)   Hot Tips in Domestic Law, S.C. Bar, 1999.

Mr. Cain reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
The Case of the Silent Alarm- A Study in Professionalism. Further, Mr. Cain reported that he assisted in the presentation of an Ethics Program for the Oconee Bar. The program was based on a seminar approved by the State of Georgia and involved a videotaped presentation and panel/participant discussion. Mr. Cain was one of the moderators for this program and provided proof of compliance to the S.C. Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization on behalf of the Bar. The program was attended by 21 Bar members.
Mr. Cain reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cain did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Cain did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Cain has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Cain was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Cain reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Cain appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Cain appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Cain was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986. He described his legal experience as follows:
"Since graduation from law school, I have engaged in the general practice of law, including practice in the areas of criminal law, family law, real estate, corporations and partnerships, wills and estates, personal injury, workers compensation, social security disability, and government and administrative law.
During the first two years, while working with the Law Firm of Miley & Macaulay, my practice primarily involved trial work in the areas of domestic relations, criminal law and personal injury, as well as an office practice which included real estate and wills. During this time, I was fortunate to work closely with and learn from an experienced attorney who had been in practice for several years. While working with this Firm, I also became a part-time Assistant Public Defender for Oconee County for approximately one year during 1987, and was responsible for representing all juveniles charged with crimes and offenses in Family Court who were not represented by private counsel. During this time, I represented juveniles in Family Court charged with a variety of offenses ranging from criminal sexual conduct, assault and battery, malicious damage to property as well as status offenses. I was also responsible for representing defendants in General Sessions Court. My work with juveniles included representation at each stage of the legal process, including intake interviews, pre-trial conferences and court appearances, including trials in Family Court.
In January 1988, while still working with Miley & Macaulay, I was offered a position as a part-time Assistant Solicitor for the Tenth Judicial Circuit (Oconee and Anderson Counties). My primary responsibility in this position was to represent the Oconee County Department of Social Services in child abuse and neglect proceedings in Family Court, as well as in Adult Protective Services cases in the Family Court. At that time, all such matters were handled by the Solicitor's Office.
In July 1988, I accepted a full-time position as Assistant Solicitor and served in this capacity until December 1989. During my two years as an Assistant Solicitor, I prosecuted numerous child abuse and neglect cases in the Family Court and Court of General Sessions and handled cases through each stage of the legal process and worked with various agencies involved in these proceedings. These agencies included the Guardian ad Litem Program, Department of Mental Health, Department of Juvenile Justice, Victim-Witness Assistance Program, school officials, as well as numerous professionals such as physicians, psychologists, therapists and others involved in the process.
Cases I handled in the Family Court included physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, educational neglect and mental injury. I also represented the Department in several adult protective services cases brought before the Family Court involving elderly clients and persons with special needs and prosecuted juvenile cases in Family Court.
During my time as Assistant Solicitor, I also prosecuted cases, including abuse and neglect cases, in the Court of General Sessions and tried cases in Anderson and Oconee Counties. I prosecuted many types of cases, including cases involving homicide, assault and battery with intent to kill, burglary and other cases involving crimes against persons and property. In General Sessions cases, I have represented the State of South Carolina at each stage of the legal process, including bail hearings, preliminary hearings, motion hearings, and trials.
In 1990, I joined the Law Firm of Brandt and Fedder, with offices in Walhalla and Seneca. My primary office was located in Seneca, and I have practiced at this location since January 1990. In 1991, this firm became Brandt, Fedder, Graham & Cain. When I went back into private practice in January 1990, my primary areas of practice included domestic relations, criminal law and real estate law. I also assisted in representing several governmental entities which were clients of the firm, including Oconee County and two municipalities.
In late 1992, Mr. W.J. Fedder, who has been in practice since 1956, and whose primary areas of practice included estate planning, corporations, partnerships and other business formations, real estate, and workers compensation, expressed a desire to limit his practice. As a result, and in an effort to maintain these areas of practice and the client base of the firm, I began to devote more attention to these areas of law. Again, I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to work with other attorneys with a wide variety and depth of legal experience.
In 1992, I was also appointed as County Attorney for Oconee County after the resignation of Larry C. Brandt from this position, and I have acted as County Attorney since that time.
In 1993, after the dissolution of the Firm of Brandt, Fedder, Graham & Cain, I formed my own Professional Association, Timothy M. Cain, P.A., and practiced under the style and name of Fedder and Cain, with Mr. Fedder acting in an "of counsel" position with the firm. At that time, Mr. Graham moved to the Seneca location where we had an office-sharing arrangement and were associated on a case by case basis.
In January 1996, I, along with attorneys Bradley A. Norton and Karen F. Ballenger, formed the Law Firm of Ballenger, Fedder, Cain & Norton, L.L.P., with offices in Walhalla and Seneca. Mr. Fedder and William H. Ballenger were "of counsel" to the firm. Mr. Norton primarily worked with me in the Seneca office, and in July 1998, upon the dissolution of that firm, we formed the firm of Fedder, Cain & Norton, L.L.P.
I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to handle many types of matters in the Family Court.
During my practice, I have handled divorce cases for Plaintiffs and Defendants on the grounds of adultery, physical cruelty, habitual drunkenness or dependence on drugs and/or alcohol, and one year's separation, as well as many actions for separate maintenance. These cases have often involved issues of child custody and adoptions, visitation, child support, equitable division of property and alimony. Cases involving equitable division of property have included the valuation and division of real property, tangible personal property and intangible personal property, including securities, stock and pension plans and interests in closely held corporations. I have also handled many adoptions and have been court appointed as Guardian ad Litem in many cases involving child custody. In addition, I have been appointed to act as attorney for the Guardian ad Litem in abuse and neglect proceedings in Family Court and have also represented Defendants in abuse and neglect proceedings in the Family Court in actions initiated by the Department of Social Services.
In recent years, the Oconee County Department of Social Services began to employ the services of a contract attorney to represent DSS in child abuse and neglect matters as well as adult protective services. In December 1998, I was asked to serve as a backup attorney for the primary contract attorney for DSS. Mr. Bradley A. Norton and I have served as contract attorneys for the Department since that time. In this capacity, I have represented DSS in several actions, including temporary hearings, merits hearings and termination of parental rights proceedings.
As for my civil practice, I have handled cases in Magistrate's Court and the Court of Common Pleas, in both jury and non-jury matters, and have appeared before the Master-in-Equity. I have handled cases involving personal injury, property damage, automobile accidents, slip and fall, trip and fall, mechanics liens, contract disputes, boundary line disputes, rights-of-way and easements, condemnations, mortgage foreclosures, and have handled matters in the Probate Court involving actions for the appointment of conservators, guardians and disputes concerning the validity of testamentary documents and the administration of estates. I have handled four medical malpractice cases, one of which involved a claim against the United States Army. I have also handled workers compensation and Social Security disability cases.
While most of my civil practice has involved representing Plaintiffs, I have also represented Defendants in cases involving automobile accidents, workers compensation claims, mechanics liens, contract disputes, boundary disputes, and have represented local governmental entities in several lawsuits involving various matters. I have also represented landowners as well as governmental entities in condemnation trials.
I feel that my experience in handling many types of cases in the Family Court, as well as my work in criminal law and general civil practice, which has included the formation and valuation of business entities such as corporations, partnerships, and limited liability companies, as well as my experience in real estate matters, would assist me as a Family Court Judge. Often, a Family Court Judge is required to make decisions concerning valuations and equitable divisions of these types of business interests, and some understanding of these types of business entities and the methods of formation and valuation is helpful.
As my practice has developed over time, I have had the opportunity to represent people from all walks of life in a variety of types of cases. Additionally, I understand the everyday challenges that members of the Bar face as they try to represent their clients in a competent and professional manner while trying to earn a living practicing law."
Mr. Cain reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Approximately 5 cases total
(b)   State:     Approximately 250 - 300 cases total
Mr. Cain reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     65 %
(b)   Criminal:   10 %
(c)   Domestic:   25 %
Mr. Cain reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     30 %
(b)   Non-jury:   70 %
Mr. Cain provided that he most often served as sole counsel or chief counsel, and occasionally served as associate counsel or co-counsel.
The following is Mr. Cain's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Oconee County Department of Social Services v. Rowland (1988). As Assistant Solicitor, I represented DSS in this abuse and neglect action brought after two children were taken into protective custody by law enforcement officers. The report which resulted in the investigation included allegations that the children, ages 13 and 17, had been subjected to verbal abuse, intimidation and threats by their father, who had threatened to kill himself, the family, and law enforcement officials. There was no evidence of physical abuse and the mother would not corroborate the information given by the children. It was determined to prosecute the case on the basis of mental injury and threat of harm to the children. This was a contested case, and both parents were represented by separate legal counsel. There were also two Guardians ad Litem. I represented DSS throughout the proceedings, including the temporary hearing and merits hearing. The trial, which lasted for two days, involved testimony from both lay and expert witnesses, as to the effect of the actions of the parents on the mental state of the children. The Family Court made a finding of mental injury and continued threat of harm to the children and awarded custody to DSS. To my knowledge, this was the first abuse and neglect case in Oconee County which went to trial on the basis of an alleged mental injury without allegations or evidence of actual physical abuse;
(b)   Bowen v. Bowen (1988). I represented the husband at the temporary and final hearings in this divorce action initiated by the wife after nineteen (19) years of marriage. The wife sought a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty. My client counterclaimed on the grounds of adultery. The issues before the Court included the grounds for divorce, property division, division of debts, child custody and support and alimony. The assets deemed marital property included the marital home, securities and retirement funds. Testimony included that of a private investigator hired by the husband. While child custody was settled at trial, all other issues were litigated. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court denied the wife's prayer for a divorce on the ground of physical cruelty and awarded the husband a divorce on the ground of adultery. My client received a favorable division of marital assets. Aside from being significant to the parties involved, this case was significant to me, in part, because it was my first contested case which went through a full trial involving these issues;
(c)   Conyers v. Nimmons (1992). My firm represented the Plaintiff in this medical negligence action. The Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and was treated by the Defendant. The allegations included that the Defendant physician had improperly and prematurely removed a cervical collar and restraints placed on the Plaintiff at the accident scene by emergency medical personnel and that this incident was indicative of a pattern of similar conduct. The Plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic as a result of his injuries. This lawsuit involved extensive discovery and depositions over a period of approximately two and one-half years, as well as the preparation and use of expert witnesses, including emergency physicians, neurosurgeons, economists, and life care planners. I was one of the principal trial attorneys in this case. The trial, which lasted for two weeks, resulted in a favorable verdict for the Plaintiff, which was the largest jury verdict ever rendered in Oconee County. The Defendant filed an appeal. However, a favorable settlement was reached while the case was on appeal. It is my belief that as a result, in part, of this case, the hospital which was involved thereafter implemented changes in its emergency care procedures;
(d)   Trice v. Trice (1996). A contested custody case in which I was appointed by the Court as Guardian ad Litem for the minor children. I conducted numerous interviews with the parties and minor children over a five-month period of time. The trial lasted approximately two days during which I examined witnesses and presented my report to the Court. The Court followed my recommendations as to custody and support, as well as my recommendation that the parties be required to successfully complete the P.A.C.T. program;
(e)   Uden v. Uden (1998). I represented the husband in this divorce action involving the dissolution of a thirty-four year marriage and the issues of grounds for divorce, property and debt division and alimony. There were significant assets, including my client's medical practice. Some assets were accumulated and/or located within and outside of the U.S. and required the use of an expert witness to determine values and conversions. This case went through mediation for approximately two days wherein each side presented its arguments and evidence to the mediator, including information as to the nature and valuations of the assets of the parties, as well as the needs, income and income-producing potential of the parties. Mediation did not resolve the case, but it was settled on the day of trial."
Mr. Cain reported that he has handled an appeal through the memorandum stage but has not handled a domestic appeal.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Cain's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Cain was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Cain is married to Peggy Renee Patterson Cain. He has one child, Martin Emerson Cain, 4 years old.
Mr. Cain reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1986 - Present);
(b)   Oconee County Bar Association, 1986 - Present; President, 1995;
(c)   S.C. Association of County Attorneys 1997 - Present; elected secretary, 1999.
Mr. Cain provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   St. Luke U.M. Church, Walhalla, S.C.; Chairman, Finance Committee (three of the last five years); member of the Administrative Council for one year; former member of the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee;
(b)   Board of Directors, Carolina-Georgia Blood Center, January 1989 - December 1994;
(c)   Board of Directors, Oconee Public Defender Corporation;
(d)   United Way of Oconee County, member, Budget and Allocations Committee and Board of Directors.
Mr. Cain reported the following additional information:
"In April 1984, I received a Citation from the Faculty at the University of South Carolina College of Criminal Justice for academic excellence in scholarly writing. Since graduation from Law School, I have also served as a member of the Budget and Allocations Committee for the United Way of Oconee County and the Board of Directors for the United Way of Oconee County.
In 1993, I received an award from the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 22, for service to the law enforcement community in Oconee County. I was also appointed by the President of the Oconee County Bar Association to serve as the Bar's representative on the Magistrate Selection Advisory Committee and have previously served as a member of the Oconee County Family Court Bench-Bar Liason Committee. Since I was admitted to the Bar, I have represented numerous indigent persons on a pro bono basis, and have attempted to make a positive contribution to my community. Oconee County is governed by the Council-Supervisor form of local government. The County supervisor is also the Chairman of the Council. Since I became County Attorney in 1992, I have represented both Democratic and Republican Supervisors, as well as Councils comprised of a majority of Democrats and Councils comprised of a majority of Republicans.
I was raised in rural Oconee County. I have two sisters. My family had a small farm and we grew much of our own food. My parents both retired from the local textile mill, where I also worked for four summers while in college and law school. During most of my time in college and law school, I was employed in part-time positions. While in college, I tutored students in math and was a Residence Hall Advisor at the University of South Carolina. During my first year of law school, I was the Director of Men's Residence Hall, supervising six staff members and two hundred forty-three students. I also clerked for the Law Firm of Kligman & Fleming, where I learned how to examine real estate titles in Richland and Lexington Counties, and later worked as a Law Clerk in the Fifth Circuit Solicitor's Office (Richland and Kershaw Counties).
My wife, Renee, has been a great blessing and inspiration to me throughout our marriage. As a licensed MSW, she has been very involved in children's issues in our community and coordinates a program in two of the local high schools known as HUGS (Help, Understanding, Guidance and Support) to help pregnant teenagers stay in school to complete their education. She is also a member of the Board of the Anderson-Oconee Council on Teen Pregnancy Prevention.
I was fortunate to grow up in an environment in which I learned important values by following the examples set by my parents as they faced the challenges of everyday life and am hopeful that I will set the same example for my own son.
If given the opportunity to serve on the Family Court, I will devote my energy and efforts to improving the legal system as well as the practice in Family Court."

Gary E. Clary
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Clary meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Judge Clary was born on January 5, 1948. He is 52 years old and a resident of Gaffney, South Carolina. Judge Clary provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1975.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Clary.
Judge Clary demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Clary reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Clary testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Clary testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Clary to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Clary reported that during the past five years he has exceeded the minimum legal and judicial education requirements annually. Since his election as a Circuit Court judge, he has attended a three-week general jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College, as well as a course on Capital Case Trials. He was selected by the Chief Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court to attend the National Mass Torts Conference in 1994. He also attended and participated in the University of Minnesota Sentencing Workshop (1997).
Judge Clary reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Limestone College, Gaffney, S.C., with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law;
(b)   Moderator/Panelist for Circuit Judges Forum at the S.C. Defense Attorneys Annual Meeting (1994, 1997);
(c)   Instructor, Criminal Law, S.C. New Judges School (1996 - Present);
(d)   Lecturer, S.C. Chief Administrative Judges School (1997, 1998);
(e)   Lecturer, S.C. Solicitors Conference (1996);
(f)   Participant - Panel Discussion of S.C. Courts System, S.C. Educational Television Network (1993);
(g)   Judge for S.C. Defense Lawyers Trial Academy (1997);
(h)   Lecturer, S.C. Attorney General's Capital Litigation Seminar (1997);
(i)   Lecturer, Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar Mid-Winter Meeting (1998);
(j)   Lecturer, S.C. Circuit Judges Association Seminar, The Capital Trial (1999).
Judge Clary reported that he has published the following:
(a)   Co-author, Criminal Trial Notebook for S.C. Circuit Judges (1998);
(b)   Author, The Capital Trial Bench Book for Circuit Judges (1999);
(c)   Co-author, Criminal Trial Bench Book, School for New Circuit Court Judges (1999).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Clary did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Clary did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Clary has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Clary was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Clary reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV".
Judge Clary served in the United States Air Force Reserve and received an Honorable Discharge in 1969.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Clary appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Clary appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Clary was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1975. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1992-Present   Circuit Court Judge for the State of South Carolina, at Large, Seat #5;
1991-92   Gary E. Clary, Attorney at Law, P. A. Engaged in the private practice of law as a sole practitioner. Areas of emphasis included administrative, workers compensation, insurance, public utility, hospital and healthcare, corporate and real estate law. Experienced in complex contract drafting and negotiation, construction arbitration, and trial and appellate practice in state and federal courts. In the hospital and health care field, I was experienced in certificates of need, physician contracts, and medical staff/peer review issues. Extensive experience in the areas of workers compensation and insurance matters as plaintiff and defense counsel. Counsel for a public utility and experienced in regulatory matters concerning wastewater and water with appearances before the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and the United States Environmental Protection Agency;
1980-91   Hall, Daniel, Winter & Clary, Attorneys at Law, P. A. Engaged in the private practice of law with areas of emphasis in administrative, workers compensation, hospital and health care law, corporate and real estate law;
1976-80   Gary E. Clary, Attorney at Law, P. A. Engaged in the general private practice of law in criminal and civil areas as a sole practitioner.
1975-76   Associate, J.P. Askins, Attorney at Law, Hemingway, S.C. Engaged in the general private practice of law as an associate.
1976-86   Adjunct Professor of Business Law, Limestone College, Gaffney, S.C. with teaching responsibilities in general business and commercial law;
1974-75   Minority Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security and Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Strom Thurmond, Washington, D.C. Duties included legal counsel, management of all Judiciary Committee responsibilities and preparation of speeches and position papers;
1972-74   Law Clerk, South Carolina Attorney General, Columbia, S.C. As a law student, my duties included legal research and preparation of opinions for staff attorneys. (Part-time law school employment)."
Judge Clary reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   5%
(b)   State:     95%
Judge Clary reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     65%
(b)   Criminal:   5%
(c)   Domestic:   30%
Judge Clary reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     30%
(b)   Non-jury:   70%
Judge Clary provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Clary's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Tanner, Williamsburg County Court of General Sessions; In 1976, I served as co-counsel for the Defendant who was charged with night hunting of deer. Due to the serious penalties involved regarding the confiscation and forfeiture of property used in connection with the charge, this case is significant in that the not guilty verdict was my first trial and resulted in a not guilty verdict;
(b)   Thomas v. Bryson Chevrolet Olds, Inc.; 80-CP-11-82; An action wherein the Plaintiff alleged misrepresentation in the purchase of an automobile from the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that he signed a blank installment contract and related documents which resulted in him paying substantially more than the parties had agreed upon. As attorney for Defendant, I relied upon the case law of the State which does not allow an individual to avoid a contract upon the ground he did not read the contract or that he took another party's word as to what it contained. This case was significant in that the Defendant received a directed verdict at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case;
Sossamon Construction Company v. General Signal, a Division of BIF Corporation; 81-CP-11-304; JR 15, 74; A very complicated case in which the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant had failed to supply in a timely manner certain valves and related equipment in the construction of an elevated water tank. The Defendant counterclaimed alleging that all equipment had been properly supplied and that any delays were the fault of the Plaintiff. The Defendant's counterclaim further alleged that the Plaintiff had not paid for the equipment received. During the course of the trial, the officers of the Plaintiff corporation admitted on cross examination that they owed the Defendant for the goods delivered. This case is significant in that the small verdict returned for the Plaintiff due to delays in shipment was offset by the Defendant's counterclaim, and resulted in my client obtaining a $12,000 judgment against the Plaintiff;
(d)   Hambright v. Peeler; 82-CP-11-68; JR 15, 810; A boundary line dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The case is significant in that the line in question had been in dispute for a number of years and involved a tremendous amount of work and research in preparing for trial. The jury verdict affirmed my client's position as to the true location of the property line;
(e)   Newton v. Clement Brothers; 84-CP-11-84; In representing the Plaintiff in this worker's compensation case, a novel issue was presented to the Court. Plaintiff contended that a severe leg injury was causally related to his subsequent heart attack five days after surgery to his leg. A single commissioner held there was no causal relationship. The full commission overturned the single commissioner's decision. The matter was appealed to Circuit Court where the Circuit Court affirmed the full commission's decision in favor of the worker. This matter was appealed to the Supreme Court but was settled prior to arguments."
The following is Judge Clary's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Roper Hospital v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, 410 S.E.2d 558, 306 S.C. 138 (1991);
(b)   In re: Zaman, 329 S.E.2d 436, 285 S.C. 345 (1985);
(c)   National Health Corporation d/b/a National Health Care Center of Charleston, Appellant v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, North Charleston Convalescent Center, Inc., and Cadam Corporation d/b/a Southeastern Geriatric and Rehabilitation Hospital, Respondents. (S.C. Ct. App. Not reported) (87-CP-40-4387) Settled prior to hearing."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
Defense attorneys Christopher Gill Olson and John Delgado provided testimony regarding Judge Clary's temper and impartiality during criminal trials.
Mr. Olson testified that he questioned Judge Clary's impartiality and complained that Judge Clary "fussed" at him in open court. Mr. Olson further testified that Judge Clary is "prosecution oriented." Mr. Olson provided as an example of Judge Clary's partiality the fact that Judge Clary required the defendant's expert witness to make a special trip (the day before he was scheduled to testify) to appear before the court for a motions hearing. Mr. Olson complained that this was unnecessary and particularly burdensome on the defendant because of the cost of paying the expert for an additional day. Judge Clary responded that although he does not normally require an expert to appear before the court on a day prior to the scheduled time of testimony, he did require it in this case because he wanted more time to consider the motion than would have been available had the motion been heard on the same day as the expert was scheduled to testify. Mr. Olson also complained that Judge Clary gave him only five minutes to provide case law to dispute a motion made by the prosecution and that Judge Clary threatened to require the defendant's expert to remain in court all day when Mr. Olson objected to the prosecution excusing one of its expert witnesses.
Mr. Delgado testified concerning Judge Clary's impatience and temper. Mr. Delgado noted an incident that occurred in Judge Clary's chambers when Judge Clary was upset when Mr. Delgado's client, the defendant, was late for court. Judge Clary, at Mr. Delgado's request, had allowed the defendant in the murder trial to remain out on bond. When the defendant had not appeared at the designated time, Judge Clary requested to see all lawyers in chambers. Mr. Delgado testified that: "when we went back into his chambers, his tone of voice, his mannerism, his facial gestures, his finger-pointing, I've never been treated like that before in my 24-odd years [of practicing law]." Mr. Delgado also testified that he felt Judge Clary was "partial to the State."
Another attorney, James Donald Willingham, who represented the State in the trial Mr. Delgado was involved in and who is a former law clerk of Judge Clary, testified that Judge Clary did not lose his temper with Mr. Delgado while they were in the Judge's chamber. Judge Clary responded that he was angry during the meeting in his chambers but that he tries "each and every day to keep from, in any way, doing anything that would be offensive to any lawyer or anyone else for that matter."
Judge Clary testified: "I wouldn't sit here and tell you that I have not lost my patience, that I have not become angry, because I have. I think as a human being, that's something that all of us acknowledge. But I have to work on that because I am a very intense person." Judge Clary also testified that he has taken steps in the last few years to address his temper and his reaction to stress through a variety of techniques ranging from breathing exercises to taking relaxation breaks during his day. When asked if he has a habit of castigating attorneys, Judge Clary responded that he does not. He also testified that he may have chastised attorneys in the past but that he has changed his habits and makes every effort not to offend the attorneys who appear before him. Judge Clary stated that "patience is something I work on every day" and that he has a "sense of compassion for each and every defendant as well as each and every victim that comes into my courtroom."
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Clary was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria. The past screening uncovered judicial temperament as a possible problem area for Judge Clary. The current round of interviews brought a unanimous response that Judge Clary's judicial temperament has improved. Some interviewees indicated that Judge Clary is still sometimes impatient on the bench. During his personal interview, Judge Clary indicated that he has worked on patience on the bench, and also believes that he has improved. He stated that he has to work on patience when attorneys come to court unprepared."
Judge Clary is married to Patricia Mae Brumbach. He has two children: Adair Clary Pederson, Age 23, Teacher, Pickens High School; and Lawson Brumbach Clary, Age 19, Sophomore, Furman University.
Judge Clary reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   American Bar Association;
(b)   S.C. Bar Association;
(c)   American Academy of Hospital Attorneys;
(d)   National Health Lawyers Association;
(e)   Cherokee County Bar Association (President 1983-85);
(f)   S.C. Circuit Judges Association.
Judge Clary provided that he is also a member of the Boy Scouts of America, Palmetto Council, Kattan District.

Jasper M. Cureton
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Cureton meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Judge Cureton was born on April 26, 1938. He is 61 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Cureton provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1967.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Cureton.
Judge Cureton demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Cureton reported that he has made $180.32 in campaign expenditures on stamps, stationery, typing, and supplies.
Judge Cureton testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Cureton testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Cureton to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Cureton stated, "I believe I have attended all judicial continuing legal education seminars offered during the last five years. Additionally, I have attended several lawyer continuing legal education seminars during the same period."
Judge Cureton reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Lecturer, Fourth Annual Ethics CLE, Richland County Bar, October 23, 1998;
(b)   Lecturer, "Error Preservation," S.C. Defense Trial Attorneys Association, July 8, 1998;
(c)   Lecturer, S.C. Family Court Bench/Bar Update, S.C. Bar CLE. Div., December 5, 1997;
(d)   Lecturer, S.C. Family Law Update, S.C. Bar CLE. Div., May 30, 1997;
(e)   Lecturer at Criminal Law Seminar, S.C. Bar CLE. Div., November 1, 1996;
(f)   Lecturer at Appellate Court Judges Seminar, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, May 1-2, 1996;
(g)   Lecturer at S.C. Appellate Practice Seminar, April 28, 1995;
(h)   Presented the Masters-In-Equity portion of the Bridge the Gap Program, S.C. Bar, for several years including 1981-1985;
(i)   Participated in several seminars presented by the Military Law Section of the S.C. Bar;
(j)   Lecturer, Appellate Practice CLE, August 24, 1984;
(k)   Lecturer, Proceedings before Master-In-Equity Seminar, S.C. Bar, December 21, 1984;
(l)   Lecturer, Basic Elements of Proof in the Family Court, S.C. Bar, August 23, 1985;
(m)   As Staff Judge Advocate of the 120th Army Reserve Command, Fort Jackson, I coordinated, arranged for, and moderated the yearly two-day JAG CLE Seminar for Reserve and National Guard JAG officers in N.C., S.C., and parts of Tennessee for the years 1989-1991;
(n)   Lecturer, Appellate Practice, Spring 1984, S.C. Black Lawyers Association;
(o)   Panel participant, Appeals, Administrative Procedures & Related Topics CLE, October 23, 1987.
Judge Cureton reported that he has published the following:
(a)   Co-author of the S.C. Appellate Practice Handbook;
(b)   Editor of Marital Litigation in South Carolina, 1993;
(c)   Author of Coming of Age: The South Carolina Court of Appeals, S.C. Reports Col. 333, Jan. 1999.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Cureton did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Cureton did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Cureton has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Cureton was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Cureton reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Cureton reported that he served on active military duty from February 28, 1961 to February 27, 1963, and attained the rank of First Lieutenant. In June 1990, he retired from the U.S. Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel in JAG Corps.
Judge Cureton reported that he served on the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Columbia from 1972 to 1976, appointed by the Columbia City Council. Judge Cureton also reported that he served as Appeals Agent for the Selective Service System by appointment of the President of the United States during the years 1970-1971.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Cureton appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Cureton appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Cureton was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1967. He described his legal experience as follows:
"June 1967 to December 1968 - Legal Aid Service Agency, Staff Attorney, practiced civil poverty law.
January 1969 to February 1976 - General practice of law, solo practitioner with heavy emphasis on property and business matters.
February 1976 to September 1982 - Master-In-Equity for Richland County (during the period 1980-1981, I was also appointed as special circuit court judge by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court).
September 1982 to September 1983 - Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit.
September 1, 1983 to present - Associate Judge, South Carolina Court of Appeals."
Judge Cureton lists his legal employment as follows:
(a)   June 1967 to December 1968 - Legal Aid Service Agency, Staff Attorney, practiced civil poverty law;
(b)   January 1969 to February 1976 - general practice of law, solo practitioner with heavy emphasis on property and business matters;
(c)   February 1976 to September 1982 - Master-In-Equity for Richland County (during the period 1980-1981; he was also appointed as special circuit judge by the Chief Justice of the S.C. Supreme Court);
(d)   September 1983 to September 1983 - Family Court Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit;
(e)   September 1, 1983 to present - Associate Judge, S.C. Court of Appeals.
Judge Cureton reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Two or three times a year
(b)   State:     Six to eight times monthly
Judge Cureton reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     50%
(b)   Criminal:   15%
(c)   Domestic:   35%
Judge Cureton reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     20%
(b)   Non-jury:   80%
Judge Cureton provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Cureton's account of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Guinyard v. State, 260 S.C. 220, 195 S.E.2d 392 (1973). In this post conviction relief proceeding, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of a state statute which prohibited sexual intercourse with a patient of a state hospital whether the patient was in the hospital or unlawfully off premises. The basis for the challenge was that under the statute a defendant could be convicted although he or she lacked knowledge of the victim's status as a patient in the state hospital. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed, holding knowledge the victim is a patient in a state hospital was not an element of the offense charged. I represented the defendant;
(b)   United States v. Poston, 317 F.Supp. 587 (D.S.C. 1970). Poston was charged with violating Title 50, U.S.C. App. Section 462 alleging he refused to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. The district court found Poston not guilty because the Selective Service Board's opinion did not indicate a basis for its decision to deny Poston conscientious objector status. I represented the defendant;
(c)   Holder v. City of Columbia, 771 Lab. Cas. (BNA) 53, 128 (1971) (Not reported in F. Supp.). Holder sought an injunction against the City of Columbia to enjoin the City from prohibiting certain officers in the Columbia Fire Department from joining a labor union. The district court issued the injunction. I represented David Holder;
(d)   Cope v. Penn Community Serv. Inc., and Isaacson v. Penn Community Serv., Inc., 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 331, 67 Lab.Cas (CCH) 32, 608 (1970). Involved the question of whether Penn Community Center violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum wages to conscientious objectors for alternative service performed with the Penn Community Center (our client). The court held the center violated the Fair Labor Standards Act."
Judge Cureton indicates that he has not personally handled any civil appeals.
The following is Judge Cureton's account of a criminal appeal he has personally handled:
"(a)   Guinyard v. State, 260 S.C. 220, 195 S.E.2d 392 (1973)."
Judge Cureton indicated that he has held the following judicial offices:
He was appointed Master-In-Equity by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate and held office from February 1976 to September 1982. Masters hear non-jury civil cases referred to them by Circuit Court judges.
Judge Cureton received an interim appointment as Family Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in September 1982 and served until elected by the Legislature the first of 1983. Thereafter, he served until September 1, 1983. Jurisdiction of the Family Court is outlined in S.C. Code Ann., Section 20-7-420 (1976).
Judge Cureton was elected to the S.C. Court of Appeals in July 1983 and has served since September 1, 1983. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is detailed in S.C. Code Ann., Section 14-8-200 (1976).
The following is Judge Cureton's account of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Hussey v. Hussey, 280 S.C. 418, 312 S.E.2d 267 (En Banc, Ct. App. 1984). Established the doctrine of transmutation of nonmarital property by allowing consideration of husband's inherited property in determining an equitable division;
(b)   Chavous v. Brown, 299 S.C. 398, 385 S.E.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1989), rev'd, 302 S.C. 208, 396 S.E.2d 98 (1990), and judgment vacated, 501 U.S. 1202 (1991). This case extended Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (holding equal protection clause in Fourteenth Amendment prohibits exercise of peremptory challenges to eliminate jurors solely because of race) to private litigants in civil cases;
(c)   Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 269, 388 S.E.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1989). Precluded summary judgment where disputed existed concerning whether railroad abandoned its right-of-way by removing tracks and conveying right-of-way to city for road construction purposes (exceeding purpose set forth in charter and authorized by statute), thereby entitling original landowners/heirs to reverting interest;
(d)   Bishop Logging Co. v. John Deere Ind. Equipt. Co., 317 S.C. 520, 455 S.E.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1995). Extended economic loss rule developed in product liability cases, to determine whether tort or contract law is applicable to commercial arena, thereby barring recovery for losses resulting from a products failure to meet a purchaser's expectations."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Cureton's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Jasper M. Cureton is a highly respected and well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends Judge Cureton for the position he seeks."
Judge Cureton is married to Vessie Jean Burkins Cureton. He has two children: Indira Cureton Cummings, age 32, high school drama teacher, Chapin High School, Chapin, S.C.; and Jason Marshall Cureton, age 13, student.
Judge Cureton reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Richland County Bar Association;
(b)   S.C. Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association.
Judge Cureton provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Board of Directors of Glenforest School, Cayce, S.C.;
(b)   Board of Directors of Boys & Girls Clubs of the Midlands;
(c)   U.S.C. Law School Minority Advisory Board;
(d)   U.S.C. Medical School Partnership Board;
(e)   S.C. Law Institute;
(f)   Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity;
(g)   Omega Psi Phi Fraternity.

Diane P. DeWitt
Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. DeWitt meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as Circuit Court judge.
Ms. DeWitt was born on August 25, 1955. She is 44 years old and a resident of Beaufort, South Carolina. Ms. DeWitt provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. DeWitt.
Ms. DeWitt demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has made $104.78 in campaign expenditures on printing and postage.
Ms. DeWitt testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. DeWitt testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. DeWitt to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. DeWitt described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
6-12-99   S.C. Bar Annual Meeting; Family Law Section/Misuse of Computers
05-14-99   How to Try a Wreck Case
01-22-99   S.C. Bar Mid Year Meeting
01-23-99   Employment & Labor Law Section; Family Law Section;

Solo & Small Firm Practitioners Business Valuation Seminar
11-07-98   Ethics for Family Law Practitioners
11-06-98   Family Court Bench/Bar
10-23-98   Persuasion & Communication in the Ctroom
10-02-98   Traffic/DUI: Confused About the Changes
08-28-98   Domestic Practice: Hot Tips
07-10-98   Child Protective Services Act
03-21-97   Hidden Issues in Cases Involving Children
12-06-96   1996 Family Court Bench/Bar Update
11-08-96   Auto Insurance Update
04-12-96   Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Rules
01-12-96   Worker's Compensation Practice in S.C.
11-17-95   Marital Litigation Update
08-24-95   The Proposed New S.C. Rules of Evidence
01-07-95   Civility in the Profession
03-18-94   DUI Defense
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
"(a)   "Hot Tips" Domestic Relations, S.C. Bar CLE, Columbia, Corroborating the Client's Story, Sept. 24, 1999. Discussion of Rule 11, ethical requirements and practice tips for obtaining corroborating evidence;
(b)   Beaufort Police Department Reserve Officer Training, Beaufort, Jun. 1999. Four 4-hour classes on constitutional law, law of arrest, search and seizure, and ethics;
(c)   Legal and Ethical Issues in Management, Webster University, Beaufort, MA/MBA program, Spring & Fall 1993, Fall 1992. Ethical issues involving defective products, false advertising, environmental hazards, contract negotiations and mergers, price fixing and union organization, as well as legal consequences and principles that applied to the situations studied;
(d)   Business Law. Webster University, Beaufort, MA/MBA program, Spring 1994. Forms of business organizations, contract law, negligence, Fair Labor Standards Act, Sherman Antitrust Act;
(e)   Criminal Evidence, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Fall 1993. S.C. and Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as some constitutional law. Used factual situations and court decisions to teach the hearsay rule and exceptions, Miranda rights and waiver, admissibility of statements of defendants and witnesses, competency of witnesses, admissibility of prior bad acts and prior record of defendant;
(f)   Family Law, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro, Summer 1987. S.C. statutory and case law on jurisdiction, venue, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, divorce grounds and defenses, annulment, adoptions, common law marriage, equitable division, custody factors. Also drafted pleadings;
(g)   Interviewing and Counseling, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro, Fall 1987. Interviewing techniques required to elicit information from clients and witnesses by paralegals assisting lawyers in case preparation, including financial information, history, present needs. Also counseling clients on services available through other agencies such as women's shelter, DSS. Examples used for social security cases, domestic relations and bankruptcy cases. Included lectures on confidentiality and ethics;
(h)   Criminal Law, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Walterboro, Spring 1988. Procedural law from arrest through appeal. Also elements and penalties of most common crimes, and law applicable in death penalty cases;
(i)   History of Beaufort Public Defender's Office, Port Royal Rotary Club, Port Royal, Sept. 1996. History, staffing, case load and funding from 1973 to present;
(j)   The Importance of Education for Women, Battery Creek High School, Beaufort, Feb. 1996. Educational and career opportunities and earning potential;
(k)   Careers in the Legal Profession, Career Focus Day, Technical College of the Lowcountry, Beaufort, Aug. 1995. Educational and career opportunities, earning potential and public service opportunities for lawyers;
(l)   Best Budget Proposals, S.C. Public Defender Association Conference, Myrtle Beach, Sept. 1994. Obtaining and managing funding, operating within budgets, documenting and presenting funding needs;
(m)   Insanity Defense, U.S. Law, WHHI-TV, Hilton Head Island, Feb. 1994. Elements of insanity defense in S.C., procedure after verdict;
(n)   Women and the Law, Women's Equality Day, Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, Aug. 1993. Opportunities in the legal profession for women;
(o)   Criminal Justice System, Panel Member, Leadership Beaufort, Feb. 1993, Jan. 1992, Jan. 1991. Procedures (arrest through trial) and role of defense counsel;
(p)   Pre-Trial Motions Practice, Public Defender Training Conference, Columbia, Aug. 1992. Suppression motions (procedure and law), search and seizure issues, eyewitness identification, admissibility of confessions;
(q)   Press Access to Juvenile Hearings, Public Defender Training Conference, Columbia, Apr. 1991. First Amendment v. Defendant's rights, procedure, burden of proof, factors;
(r)   Juvenile Transfer Hearings, S.C. Public Defender Association Conference, Myrtle Beach, Nov. 1990. Statutory requirements, case law, procedure, and evidence at transfer hearings."
Ms. DeWitt reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. DeWitt did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. DeWitt has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. DeWitt was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. DeWitt reported that she is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. DeWitt appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. DeWitt appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. DeWitt was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983. She described her legal experience as follows:
"Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Walterboro, S.C. (serving Hampton and Colleton Counties). Hired as staff attorney in Fall 1983, served as managing attorney from 1984 until June 1988.
Represented clients at social security, FmHa, employment security commission, VA and DSS administrative hearings, appeals of ALJ decisions to state and federal courts. Also represented tenants in Magistrate Court evictions, defendants in foreclosures in Federal Court, foreclosures, collection actions and claim and delivery actions in Common Pleas. Brought claims against landlords under S.C. Landlord Tenant Act, filed claims under Consumer Protection Code, Fair Debt Collection Act, and with Manufactured Housing Board. Filed an action in Probate Court on behalf of a deaf client seeking a redetermination of his competency, permission to handle his own funds and specific accounting. Some involvement with actions to quiet title and other real estate matters. Also represented clients in Family Court. Family Court and Probate Court appointments.
These files are not available to me for purposes of obtaining details on procedural history. I also supervised and trained staff attorneys and paralegals, maintained records required under federal regulations, and served as co-counsel on assistants' cases.
Beaufort County Public Defender Office, Beaufort, S.C. Hired as Deputy Public Defender in June 1988, served as Chief Public Defender from July 1988 until April 1993.
Represented defendants in General Sessions and juveniles in Family Court. Also represented adults in Magistrate Court on related charges, and at extradition hearings. Appointed as counsel for witnesses on occasion and in DSS abuse and neglect proceedings when connected to criminal charge. Served as counsel in civil commitment and/or release proceedings for defendants previously found not guilty by reason of insanity, and in criminal contempt proceedings. Investigated cases, negotiated pleas or tried cases as necessary.
I also hired, trained and supervised staff, served as co-counsel on assistant public defender cases. Prepared and presented budget requests, reported to Public Defender Board, and had other administrative duties. In five years as public defender, I represented clients on approximately 2,000 warrants. Defendants were represented by the Office of Appellate Defense on all appeals.
Private Practice, Law Office of Diane P. DeWitt, Beaufort, S.C. April 1993 - present.
Criminal trial practice includes representation of defendants in General Sessions and Magistrate Court, occasional appearances before U.S. Magistrate and military tribunals. Also representation of persons being investigated for criminal activity but not yet charged and have been retained at times to represent victim's interests, probation and parole hearing violations. Civil trial practice includes representation of persons injured in automobile accidents, claims for violation of civil rights, negligence actions, breach of contract; defense of collection actions and other actions for damages; have brought and defended contempt motions and applications for restraining orders; represent inmates on PCR actions as appointed or retained, defense of forfeitures, and in Magistrate Court appeals. Representation of landlords and tenants in eviction actions; serve as guardian in probate appointments for minors and incompetents; serve as guardian for John Does in quiet title actions. Also represent clients in every type of case in Family Court, represent persons at social security administrative hearings and through appeals process in U.S. District Court. Basic real estate work related to conclusion of property divisions in divorce cases. Draft leases, contracts, promissory notes, powers of attorney, prenuptial agreements, other documents. Have appealed denial of medical benefit payments through CHAMPUS and BC/BS administrative appeal process. All real estate closings, estate administrations, worker's compensation, employment discrimination/harassment, medical and attorney malpractice cases are referred to outside counsel due to limits on my time, resources and staff capabilities."
Ms. DeWitt provided the following description of her experience in criminal and civil matters:
"REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CRIMINAL CASES:
Criminal Cases as Chief Public Defender:
State v. Seabrook. 90-GS-07-933, 934. Distribution of Crack Cocaine/Possession with Intent to Distribute. Throw down case. Main issues at trial were identification of Defendant by Officer and CI, reliability, prior record of CI, motion to reveal the deal, alibi defense. Convicted.
State v. Chris Franklin. 425 S.E.2d 758 (S.C. App. 1992) Reh. Den., Cert. Den. 15-year-old charged with Murder (2 cts.) of father and stepmother and Grand Larceny. Transfer hearing in Family Court. Motion to quash indictments granted on grounds jurisdiction still in Family Court. Reindicted. Issues at trial were competency, argued a motion to change venue, motions to suppress statements, competency of two child witnesses, admissibility of statements made by deceased stepmother, admissibility of opinion evidence of defense expert, admissibility of Defendant's juvenile criminal record, requests to charge manslaughter, self-defense and battered child's defense. Convicted of Murder (2 cts.), acquitted of Grand Larceny.
State v. Antonnier Adolphe. 314 S.C. 89, 441 S.E.2d 832 (Ct.App. 1994). Defendant was tried on indictments for two counts trafficking in crack cocaine and sale of crack cocaine. Search warrant for stash house obtained based on information from street suspect who had been arrested after he assisted in a purchase of crack for a wired confidential informant at a separate location. Defendant Adolphe and others were at the stash house at time search warrant executed. Drugs and other evidence found in stereo speakers. Street suspect taken to stash house and identified Adolphe as seller of crack at first location. All defendants but Adolphe posted bond and fled prior to trial. Co-defendant cases were severed. Adolphe was tried on trafficking indictments only. At trial, motion to suppress testimony of crack sale as evidence of prior bad acts denied; motion to suppress eyewitness identification by street suspect of Adolphe as drug seller denied; motion to suppress all evidence on basis search warrant affidavit did not support probable cause denied; motion to suppress evidence on grounds inventory and officers' testimony not specific as to location individual items of evidence were found denied; motion to suppress all evidence and testimony mentioning Defendant's nationality as Haitian was denied. Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction on grounds the search warrant should not have been issued because the affidavit coupled with the Johnson hearing failed to supply facts creating probable cause. There was no showing of the confidential informant's reliability and the informant's allegations were never corroborated by any identifiable individuals. Good faith exception inapplicable if the underlying affidavit does not include sufficient information to allow a magistrate to determine probable cause. Evidence seized must be suppressed. Other issues raised, not addressed by Court of Appeals.
State v. Hutson. 91-GS-07-443. Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor 1st Degree. Motions to exclude witness testimony of child's statements as being hearsay/bolstering outside scope of res gestae exception to hearsay rule. Cross examination of medical experts. Request to charge lesser included offenses and ABHAN.
State v. Frazier. 92-GS-07-2015. Armed Robbery. Hearing on motion to suppress eyewitness identification based on improper police procedures denied. Alibi defense. Request to charge common law/strong armed robbery denied. Acquitted.
State v. Rhoe. 92-GS-07-1381. Armed Robbery. Hearing on motion to suppress witness identification denied. Expert testimony on witness identification presented. Alibi defense. Convicted of Common Law Robbery.
State v. Smalls. Trafficking in Crack Cocaine. Motion for State to produce CI/provide additional information of whereabouts pursuant to State v. Diamond and other cases. Motion to continue so defense could find CI as potential defense witness. Denied. Motion to suppress tape and testimony received from CI who was not present to testify was granted. Convicted. Distribution of Crack dismissed because CI could not be found.
State v. Brown. 92-GS-07-991. Armed Robbery. Motion to suppress witness identification denied. Alibi defense. Convicted of Common Law Robbery.
State v. Tyrone Jenkins. 322 S.C. 414, 472 S.E.2d 251 (1996), reversing State v. Tyrone Jenkins, 317 S.C. 183, 452 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App. 1994), rehearing denied. Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, acquitted on the related grand larceny indictment. Motion to suppress Defendant's oral statements to officer was made on three grounds. First, the Defendant's Miranda waiver was not voluntarily or knowingly made because he was under the influence of crack cocaine at the time warnings, waiver and statement given as shown by officer's own testimony and by Defendant's testimony at Jackson v. Denno hearing. Second, the Defendant's statement that he did not commit the burglary, he just ran a school for burglars was not admissible under the Lyle "bad acts" exception because there was no evidence this burglary was connected to any other burglary. Third, the introduction of Defendant's burglary school statement was unduly prejudicial. Motion to suppress was denied. Court of Appeals upheld conviction and admissibility of statement as evidence of common scheme or plan. Supreme Court reversed. No evidence of similarity of burglaries, or common scheme or plan. Testimony clearly prejudicial as other evidence of guilt far from overwhelming.
State v. Swinton. Burglary 1st and Grand Larceny. Motion for directed verdict denied. Acquitted. Numerous indictments. Tried on one case. Multiple other indictments dismissed.
State v. Albany. Sale of Crack Cocaine. Credibility of CI in question. Motion to produce CI's complete criminal record granted. Acquitted.
State v. Howard. 92-GS-07-2168. Pointing a Firearm. Conflict in Complainant/Defendant versions of facts. Convicted.
State v. Gilbert. 91-GS-07-1239. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Throw down case. Acquitted.
State v. Heyward. Burglary 2nd Degree, Armed Robbery. Motion to suppress witness identification. Motion to suppress evidence seized on grounds of invalid search warrant. Denied. Alibi defense and expert witness presented by defense on eyewitness ID problems. Convicted.
State v. Priester. 93-UP-280 (S.C. Ct. App. dated Nov. 2, 1998). Distribution of Crack Cocaine. Motion to suppress identification. Alibi defense. Objection to reply testimony by jailhouse informant that he had bought drugs from Defendant on previous occasions for which Defendant was not charged. Prior to reply testimony, Court granted defense motions for witness record and motion to reveal the deal. Conviction reversed on appeal. Reply testimony not admissible.
State v. Yarrington. 92-GS-07-0002. CSC 1st Degree. Strictly facts. Consent defense. Not guilty.
State v. Anderson. 91-GS-07-412, 413, 414. Kidnapping, CSC 1st Degree, Armed Robbery. Motion to suppress statements, motion to suppress witness identification of Defendant. Alibi defense. Presented experts on eye witness identification and chemist to refute State's experts on clothing analysis and hair samples. Directed verdict on Armed Robbery. Allen charge. Hung Jury. Mistrial. Retried. Convicted.
State v. Prince. 90-GS-07-2216. Decedent's body found in young mother's mobile home while she was incarcerated on unrelated charges. Pre-trial motion to suppress testimony of four-year-old son as State's witness on grounds that he was not competent to testify. Reputable psychologist testified for defense that child was not competent. Child had been tested and interviewed on four different occasions and was functioning on about a two-year-old age level. Also testified that child had been improperly questioned repeatedly by police, social workers and lawyers. Judge denied motion. Also motion to suppress Defendant's statement due to violation of 6th Amendment granted. Defendant acquitted.
State v. Jenkins. 88-GS-07-835. Murder. Motion to disclose criminal record of Co-Defendant testifying as State's witness and to reveal the deal. Duress defense. Acquitted.
State v. Williams. 90-GS-07-2046. Voluntary Manslaughter. Motion for criminal records on all State's witnesses granted. Defense of others presented. Acquitted.
State v. Singleton. 91-GS-07-701. Murder. Motion to suppress statement, suppress evidence obtained as a result of statement, motion to exclude photographs of body as being unduly prejudicial. Request for instruction on self-defense denied. Convicted.
State v. Allen. 91-GS-07-1700, 1701. Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill (2 cts.). Numerous witnesses to fight testified for State and defense. Evidence of Defendant's good character introduced. Self-defense case. Convicted.
State v. Bostick. 86-GS-07-812, 813. Forgery (2 cts.). Eyewitness ID and handwriting expert case. Pled after State's case concluded.
State v. Manigault. Murder, Armed Robbery and Conspiracy. Two Co-Defendants, one testifying for State. Motion for redaction of Co-Defendant' statements under Bruton. Motion for severance on grounds 2nd Co-Defendant's testimony in her own defense concerned other bad acts of my client for which he had never been charged and were not similar or related in any way to Murder charge. Her testimony would have been unduly prejudicial and was not admissible. Severance motion granted. Indictment dismissed after Co-Defendant acquitted. Plea on unrelated charges.
State v. Woods. 91-GS-07-654. Murder. Battered Woman's Defense. Alford plea to Manslaughter, suspended sentence.
State v. Evans. 90-GS-07-1512, 1511, 1513. Kidnapping, Armed Robbery, and CSC 1st (2 cts.). Insanity defense. Found not guilty by reason of insanity. Civil Commitment Hearing.
State v. Johnson. 92-GS-07-1354. Murder. Found not competent at first hearing. Later determined not guilty by reason of insanity. Confined to State Hospital at civil commitment hearing.
Criminal Cases While in Private Practice - Last 5-6 Years:
State v. Russell. 88-GS-07-1397. Retrial of Defendant previously convicted of Manslaughter at trial on Murder indictment. Was granted new trial on PCR. Second trial issues: motions to suppress statement, admissibility of State's witness' criminal record and character evidence of other bad acts, admissibility of Defendant's prior record, request for self-defense instructions. Defendant acquitted. Co-Counsel on this case.
State v. Livingston. 327 S.C. 17, 488 S.E.2d 313 (1997). Client arrested and indicted for Reckless Homicide. Later indicted for Felony DUI. Trial on both indictments. Motion to continue denied, motion to limit police presence in courtroom denied. Motion to suppress Defendant's statement granted. Objection to coroner's lay testimony on Defendant being "under the influence" denied. Motion to suppress drug analysis on basis BA not offered or refused denied. Objection to Solicitor's introduction of victim impact testimony by victim's husband and photograph denied. Motion to require State to elect which indictment to proceed on denied. Motion for directed verdict on Felony DUI denied. Convicted of Felony DUI, acquitted of Reckless Homicide. Supreme Court reversed. Admission of victim's husband's testimony to effect they were both police officers, newlyweds and wedding photo was irrelevant, highly inflammatory and prejudicial. Not harmless error as urinalysis inconclusive as to whether Defendant was driving under influence of marijuana.
State v. Heyward. 94-GS-15-380, 381. CSC with Minor 1st, Lewd Act on Minor. Motion to require State to elect which indictment to proceed on denied. Motion to suppress identification as tainted by improper photo lineup identification. Motion to suppress testimony of victim from prior case alleging CSC with Minor wherein Defendant pled to ABHAN. Motion to suppress and objection made on grounds no similarity in crimes or evidence of common scheme or plan. Denied. Motions to determine competency of State's witness and for criminal record of State's witness granted. Alibi defense presented. Motion for directed verdict denied. Acquitted.
State v. Wright. 98-GS-07-1083, 1085, 1084. Possession of Pistol by Felon, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Sale of Marijuana. Client was present in trailer with 8 others when search warrant was executed. Only he and one Co-Defendant arrested. Marijuana and gun in bathroom near Defendant. Sale from trailer at prior time one reason for search warrant. Filed motions to disclose CI record, motion to reveal the deal. Prepared for trial instructions on mere presence, simple possession, voir dire, motion to suppress search warrant on staleness grounds, lack of credibility of CI. Prior to call of case, motion to quash gun charge granted on ground facts set forth in indictment did not meet elements of 16-23-30. Defendant's prior conviction for possession of crack not a violent offense. Sale of Marijuana dismissed by Solicitor. CI could not be found and Defendant obviously did not meet detailed description of drug seller as set forth in report. Plea to Possession WITD Marijuana. At sentencing, motion to sentence Defendant as a first offender due to Baldazar argument was granted. Defendant had no attorney on plea to simple possession of crack which was entered on day after release from mental hospital. Although he did not get time at original plea, Defendant was on probation and facing imposition of suspended sentence since the new plea to Possession WITD Marijuana was a violation of probation. Documentation provided to Court, plus evidence that the crack case was weak. If Defendant had counsel in that case, he would not have pled. Based on facts of case ("Defendant in wrong place at wrong time"), weight of marijuana and recommendation of continued probation by agent, Defendant received suspended sentence. Would have filed PCR application on crack conviction but statute of limitations had run.
State v. Miller. 95-GS-27-0088. Murder. Shootout at night club. Motion to change venue denied. Motion to suppress Defendant's statement on 5th and 6th Amendment grounds, motion to suppress gun and ballistics evidence as being "fruit of poisonous tree" - obtained as a result of illegally obtained confession. Denied. Other issues/objections on admissibility of prior bad acts/character of State's witness. Request to charge self-defense denied. Convicted.
State v. Hardy. 94-GS-07-2108. Failure to Stop for Blue Light, Possession of Crack Cocaine, Possession within 1/2 Mile of a Park. Tried on all indictments. Suppression motion on grounds no probable cause to stop vehicle. Motion to suppress evidence/testimony of other bad acts for which Defendant had not been charged granted. Motion for directed verdict granted as to Possession and Possession within 1/2 Mile of Park. Necessity defense on Failure to Stop. Convicted.
State v. Blake. 99-GS-07-602. Indicted for Kidnapping, CSC 1st. Consent defense. Prepared for trial, including cross of DNA expert - motion to determine Defendant's competency based on mental retardation report, motion to suppress Defendant's statements, motion to disclose victim's criminal record. Indictments dismissed. Client reindicted for Violation of S.C. Code Section 44-23-1150 Unlawful for a Correctional Officer to Have Sex with an Inmate. Plea, suspended sentence.
State v. Patton. 94-GS-07-660. DUI 2nd, DUS, Open Container. Acquitted of DUS at Mag. bench trial. Acquitted of Open Container at Mag. jury trial. Jury trial on DUI 2nd.   State v. Tapley. Warrant Nos. E132237, 40, 41, 42. Unlawful Carrying of Pistol (4 cts.). Plea for suspended sentence after jury selection and opening arguments.
State v. Lingard. Warrant Nos. D725578, 77. Armed Robbery, Grand Larceny Motor Vehicle. Ran client on polygraph. Prepared for trial. Plea to Accessory After Fact. YOA suspended. Agreement to testify for State against Co-Defendants.
State v. Lucas. 97-GS-07-1874,1875,1876. Kidnapping, Spousal Sexual Battery, CDVHAN and Probation Violation. Several bond hearings. Prepared for trial. Probation revoked. Plea to Mag. level CDV, 30 days concurrent with probation revocation. Kidnapping/Marital Rape dismissed.
State v. Carter. 96-GS-07-1874, 1875. Kidnapping, ABIK. Unusual facts. Prepared for trial. After jury selection, client entered negotiated Alford plea to ABHAN. Suspended sentence and restitution for medical bills. Kidnapping charge dismissed.
State v. Heflin. 94-GS-07-2086. ABIK. Knife fight with self-defense. Jury trial. After several of State's witnesses testified, Defendant was offered plea to ABHAN, no restitution. Five years concurrent with parole revocation.
State v. Patton. 95-GS-07-0044. DUI 2nd. Jury trial. No BA. Usual cross examination on field sobriety tests. Mistrial - hung jury. Nolle prossed.
State v. Barnwell. Failure to Stop for Blue Light, DUI. PTI on Blue Light/Jury trial on DUI.
State v. David M. Juvenile. Violation of School Safety Act (2 cts.). Threats to teachers. Trial on one charge, guilty. Plea on other petition.
State v. Wagner. Burglary 1st, GL, CDV. No probable cause. Dismissed at preliminary. CDV dismissed. Husband accused of breaking in his own house and taking property of the marriage.
State v. Simmons. Dist. Crack Cocaine, Poss. WITD Crack Cocaine. Dismissed at prelim. Mere presence defense. Indicted and nolle prossed.
State v. Reynolds. DUI. Client acting pro se had been convicted by jury of DUI. Filed motion for new trial based on inadmissibilty of evidence. Motion granted. At second trial jury deadlocked, mistrial granted. At third trial, Defendant acquitted. Issues on chain of custody, admissibility of blood test results.
State v. Brinson. DUS 4th, Probation Violation. Plea for time served. Probation terminated.
State v. Evans. Accused of being part of a shoplifting ring. Receiving Stolen Goods and GL. PTI.
State v. Stegall. DUS 1st and DUI 2nd. Motion to dismiss DUS on grounds Defendant was a Georgia resident, with valid Georgia driver's license. S.C. suspension period had ended. Granted. Jury trial on DUI. Credibility of witnesses at issue. Convicted.
State v. Simmons. Distribution of Marijuana. Motion to disclose CI. Credibility of CI at issue. Entrapment defense. Plea for suspended sentence.
State v. Bunton. DUI. Plea.
State v. C.L. Client being investigated for embezzlement. Resolved through negotiation with employer. Not charged.
State v. Simmons. Harassing Telephone Call. Dismissed at preliminary hearing.
State v. Parsons. Assault and Battery. Dismissed by Complainant prior to trial.
State v. Chandler. Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. Dismissed at preliminary hearing, no probable cause. Mag. Court bench trial on Malicious Injury to Personal Property. Not guilty.
State v. Dudley. Armed Robbery (4 cts.), Probation Violation. Plea to one count Common Law Robbery, 8 years concurrent with probation violation.
State v. Galloway. Speeding Ticket. Mag. Court bench trial.
State v. Baker. Alleged embezzlement of fines from Mag. office. Inconclusive audit report. Defense required knowledge of Mag. Court administrative reporting, division of fines, accounting and auditing principles. PTI with some restitution.
State v. Pendel. Petit Larceny. Restitution. Charge dismissed.
State v. Osborne. Unlawful Possession of Pistol - Under 21. Plea. Intimidation of a witness. Dismissed. Mag. Court - Discharging Firearm in City, Receiving Stolen Goods. Dismissed.
State v. Reese. Possession of THC with Intent to Distribute, Possession with Intent to Distribute Mushrooms. Bond hearing. Analysis showed no illegal substance. No billed.
State v. Capers. Unlawful Telephone, Stalking. PTI.
State v. Halker. Pointing a Firearm. Dismissed at preliminary hearing.
State v. Stafford. Parole hearing. Serving time for probation revocation CSC with Minor, which had involved consensual sex with teenage girlfriend. Obtained affidavits from victim and her mother for parole hearing.
State v. Mosley. Conspiracy to Traffic in Counterfeit Cocaine. Indicted as Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws. Client riding in car with numerous people after passenger sold fake dope to undercover officer for large sum. Dismissed.
State v. Evans. GL Auto. Charge changed to Use Without Permission at preliminary hearing. Dismissed by victim.
State v. Pruitt. Distribution of Crack Cocaine. Mere presence defense. Dismissed.
State v. G.S. Represented Marine in base investigation of alleged Florida rape. Private polygraph and NIS polygraph run. Cleared by military police. Obtained co-counsel in Florida who represented client at bond hearing and preliminary hearing wherein charge was dismissed based on S.C. NIS investigation provided to Florida law enforcement.
State v. Manbeck. DUI. Attended BA refusal hearing - favorable ruling. DUI trial. Convicted.
State v. Peter P. Florida probationer in S.C. in violation of probation to care for children who were here. Requested and coordinated transfer of probation from Florida to South Carolina by obtaining necessary verification of circumstances. Dismissed Florida violation citation through agency cooperation.
State v. Davis. DUI/DUS 3rd. Convicted in Mag. Court on DUI. Plea to DUS 2nd, fined.
State v. Osborne. Possession of Alcohol by a Minor, DUS. Bench trial. Not guilty DUS. Guilty alcohol possession.
State v. Hall. Bench warrant on DUS 3rd. Vacated bench warrant. Plea to DUS 2nd.
State v. Mullins. CDV. Mag. trial. Acquitted.
State v. Smith. DUI, DUS, Open Container. Jury trial. Directed verdict DUI. Plea to other charges.
State v. Ward. Possession of Crack with Intent to Distribute. Throw down case. Entered drug treatment program. Plea, suspended sentence.
State v. Jackson. DUI. Trial in Mag. Court. Convicted.
State v. Yates. Assault and Battery. Bench trial. Not guilty.
State v. McKinnon. DUS 3rd, Possession of Cocaine. Search issue. Lab report negative for drugs. Plea to DUS 2nd.
State v. Washington. Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. No evidence client involved. Dismissed by Complainant.
State v. Smalls. Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill. No evidence client involved. Dismissed by Complainant.
State v. Goodsen. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Plea to Possession of Cocaine.
State v. Heflin. Indecent Exposure (4 cts.). PTI.
State v. Frioux. Trespassing, Unlawful Possession of Firearm. Distraught father arrested after going to retrieve daughter from her boyfriend's house. Bench trial on Trespassing. Not guilty. Gun charge dismissed.
State v. Jansen. Possession of Beer by a Minor, False Information to Police, Fake ID. College student. PTI.
State v. Hucker. Possession of Beer by a Minor, False Information to Police, Fake ID. College student. PTI.
State v. Seaver. Assault and Battery, Simple Possession of Marijuana, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Plea to A&B, 1 day time served. PTI on drug charges.
State v. Buckner. CSC 1st. Dismissed by Complainant.
State v. Buckner. Distribution of Crack Cocaine (2 cts.), Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Dismissed when client pled to other charges.
State v. Housey. Sale and Distribution of Crack Cocaine, Sale of Marijuana (2 cts.). Plea to Sale of Crack Cocaine, marijuana charges dismissed. Imperfect entrapment defense. Defendant with psychiatric problems acted as unwitting CI for undercover cop in accommodation crack sale. Suspended sentence.
State v. Goodson. DUS 3rd. Reduced to DUS 2nd. Plea.
State v. Ladson. Distribution of Crack Cocaine, Grand Larceny. GL dismissed, no p.c. Prepared for trial on drug charge. Informant could not be found.
State v. Slagel. Grand Larceny. Lack of evidence to convict, possible fraudulent claim by victim. Dismissed.
State v. Seaver. ABHAN (2 cts.). Resolved one case through Complainant's attorney - paid medical bills, charge dismissed. Other Complainant failed to appear when case called for trial. Dismissed.
State v. McCaleb. CDV. Dismissed upon conclusion of custody litigation.
State v. Osborne. Shoplifting, Trespassing. Restitution. Charges dismissed by store owner.
State v. Randalls. Unlawful Possession Pistol/Under 21. PTI.
State v. Patilla. Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, Unlawful Possession of Liquor, Simple Possession of Marijuana. Plea to Possession of Cocaine, suspended sentence. Time served on Mag. charges. Consent search of vehicle.
State v. Washington. Breach of Trust with Fraud. Intent/Obtaining Goods under False Pretense. Restitution paid. Dismissed.
State v. Simmons. Criminal Sexual Conduct with Minor 2nd Degree. Problems with medical evidence and credibility of Complainant. PTI.
State v. Steven G. Indecent Exposure. Petition dismissed . Child urinating in yard while playing. Neighbor called police.
State v. Bazemore. Burglary 2nd (3 cts.), GL (3 cts.). Plea to Burglary 2nd, Petit Larceny. Other indictments dismissed.
State v. O'Hara. Leaving Scene of Accident, Improper Backing. Dismissed on basis of witness affidavits obtained.
State v. Brian R. Juvenile. Burglary 2nd, Grand Larceny, Receiving Stolen Goods, Indecent Exposure. Extensive mental health problems and treatment record. R&E and probation.
State v. Hollman. CDV, ABHAN. Convicted of CDV on bench trial. ABHAN dismissed by Complainant.
State v. Mullins. CDV. Not guilty at bench trial.
State v. Desai. Contributing to Delinquency of Minors (3 cts.), Sale of Cigarettes to Minors. PTI
State v. Fields. B&E Auto, P/L. Motion to suppress eyewitness ID. Alibi defense. B&E dismissed. Plea to P/L.
State v. Priest. CDV. PTI
State v. Ruth. Forgery, P/L. Restitution paid. Charges dismissed.
State v. Dangerfield. DUI trial. Hung jury, mistrial. Motion to dismiss based on testimony at first trial granted.
State v. Desai. Speeding ticket. Bench Trial-Not Guilty.
State v. Wright. Armed Robbery. Eyewitness ID case. Perfect alibi. Obtained verification Defendant was in prison in Delaware at time this armed robbery occurred in S.C. Charge dismissed. Vacated bench warrant on old crack sale indictment which was dismissed.
State v. Harvey. Assault and Battery. Ex-wife/new wife fight. Jury trial. Convicted.
State v. Russell. DUI 2nd. Plea.
State v. Angela S. Juvenile probation violation.
State v. Ferguson. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Client a passenger in vehicle stopped for speeding. Mere presence defense. Dismissed at preliminary hearing.
State v. Dashi. Possession of Sawed-Off Shotgun, Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Distribute within 1/2 Mile of School, Carrying a Concealed Weapon. Police called to house in reference to domestic dispute. Told Defendant and friend to leave, put on jeans girlfriend handed him, grabbed bags belonging to him and friend. Searched as leaving. Crack in jeans. Claimed lack of knowledge, not his pants or bag. Petition for PTI denied. Plea to 2 indictments. Others dismissed.
State v. Client. Insurance Fraud investigation. Resolved with restitution and civil penalty. Memorandum of Understanding entered. No criminal action pursued.
State v. Fennell. CSC with Minor. Grand jury requested victim and parent appearance. Failed to appear 3 times. No billed.
State v. Shelton P. Juvenile. Bomb threat (2 cts.). Client a resident of Kentucky. Not wanted back in state to try case. Petitions dismissed.
State v. Hill. Transfer of alcohol to a minor. Pending.
State v. Gadson. Trafficking Crack Cocaine, Conspiracy to Traffic, Possession of Crack, Unlawful Possession Pistol, Assaulting Police Officer, Resisting Arrest. Three different cases involving probable cause to stop vehicles, consent to search, validity of search warrant. Negotiated plea to Possession with Intent to Distribute, 18 years. Other indictments dismissed.
State v. Greene. Possession Cocaine, Simple Possession Marijuana, Resisting Arrest. Cocaine lab report negative, charge dismissed. Validity search warrant and legality of search procedures in question. Co-Defendant claimed marijuana. Resisting Arrest dismissed since Defendant was shot by police during arrest and lost his civil suit.
State v. Baughman. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. Lab report negative for crack cocaine. No probable cause for search warrant. Dismissed.
State v. Harrell. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. Lab report negative for crack cocaine. No probable cause for search warrant. Dismissed.
State v. Boyles. ABHAN. Dismissed by Complainant upon resolution of custody case.
State v. Suzanne A. Juvenile. Assault and Battery. Girl fight. Plea, probation, essay and apology.
State v. Roger C. Juvenile. Burglary 2nd, Grand Larceny. R&E, evaluation, probation, restitution.
State v. Corley. Conspiracy to Commit Grand Larceny. Vacated bench warrant. Indictment dismissed upon review of case with Solicitor.
State v. Robert W. Juvenile. GAL Appointment for fifteen-year-old accused of CSC 1st on younger sister. Approved plea to Lewd Act. Sexual offender treatment.
State v. Burns. CDV. Dismissed by Complainant.
State v. Kari T. Juvenile. Possession Weapon on School Grounds. EH student. Suspended R&E, probation.
State v. Granet. CDVHAN. Complainant moved to California. Dismissed.
State v. Skipper. Indecent Exposure. PTI.
State v. Jamar S. Juvenile. Grand Larceny. Plea R&E, evaluation and probation.
State v. Sparta. Contributing to Delinquency of a Minor-Attempted CSC with a Minor. Pending.
State v. Chaplin. Resisting Arrest, Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine, Probation Violation. Videotape case. Negotiated plea concurrent with probation violation. Client fled. Bench warrant issued.
State v. Charleton. Petit Larceny. Pending.
State v. Singleton. DUS 3rd. Reduced to DUS 2nd per driving record. Plea, fined.
State v. Scott. Hindering an Officer, Threatening Public Official, Possession of Cocaine, Crack Cocaine and Marijuana. PTI.
State v. Ezell. DUI. Acquitted at Magistrate jury trial. Unusual facts.
State v. Riebold. Simple Possession of Marijuana. Florida college student forfeited bond on Simple Possession. Driver's license suspended. Consent Order vacating conviction and granting new trial. Enrolled in PTI.
US v. Gestwicki. DUI trial before US Magistrate. Motion to suppress client's statements.
State v. Ferguson. Possession of Crack Cocaine. Mere presence defense. Dismissed at preliminary hearing.
State vs. MacArthur. DUI trial. Convicted. Appeal to Circuit Court. Upheld.
State v. McBride. DUI. Jury trial. Not guilty.
State v. Jenkins. Probation Violation. Restitution paid. Terminated.
State v. George H. Larceny of Vehicle. Juvenile trial. Found guilty.
State v. Scott. Possession Crack Cocaine, Possession Cocaine, Simple Possession Marijuana. Search warrant executed at residence where Defendant was roommate. Convicted at Mag. bench trial without counsel on marijuana charge. Filed motion for new trial which was granted. PTI all charges.
State v. Driggers. Assault and Battery. Blind man accused of fondling co-worker. Jury Trial. Directed verdict, not guilty at conclusion of State's case.
State v. Scott. Assault and Battery. Dismissed by Complainant day of trial.
State v. Kinlaw. Burglary 1st. Bond hearing. Dismissed at preliminary hearing. Should have been charged with Magistrate level Receiving Stolen Goods. State's witness against person he purchased items from.
State v. Sanders. Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. Imperfect entrapment defense. Plea, suspended sentence.
State v. Sparta. CDV. Not guilty, bench trial.
State v. Jenkins. Simple Possession Marijuana, Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Questionable probable cause for stop of vehicle. PTI.
State v. Galloway. Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. Probable cause for investigative stop and consent to search vehicle an issue. Negotiated plea.
State v. Simmons. Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana. Search warrant validity in question. Plea, suspended sentence.
State v. Buckner. Trafficking Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Possession Weapon by Felon. Validity of search warrant an issue. Plea to package deal with new charges, some indictments dismissed.
State v. Gainey. Represented Defendant during investigation of CSC with Minor. Defendant passed polygraph, not arrested.
State v. Samuels. Conspiracy to Violate S.C. Drug Laws, Conspiracy to Violate S.C. Drug Laws within 1/2 Mile of School. Defendant present at residence when search warrant executed based on prior drug sales from home he was visiting. No evidence of conspiracy as set forth in State v. Mouzon. Indictment dismissed.
State v. McCollough. ABIK. Fight with husband's girlfriend. PTI with restitution for medicals.
State v. Chris L. Grand Larceny, B&E Auto (4 cts.). Juvenile. Plea in Family Court.
State v. Moultrie. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Mere presence defense. PTI.
State v. Todd. DUI. Jury trial, convicted. Cross-examination on field tests. Handicapped client.
State v. Mitchell. Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature. PTI.
State v. Simmons. DUS. Convicted. Appeal to Circuit Court. Reversed. No Valid S.C. Driver's License.
State v. Robertson. DUI. Defendant not competent to be tried. Committed to State Hospital.
State v. Witter. Sale Crack Cocaine, Sale within 1/2 Mile, Conspiracy. Bond hearing. Direct indictment by grand jury. Turned client in. Problems with CI, undercover officer and chain of custody of evidence. Negotiated plea to sale indictment, suspended sentence. Others dismissed.
State v. Themins. CDVHAN. PTI.
State v. Williams. CDV (2 cts.). Motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, alleged facts don't meet elements of offense denied. Pending trial.
State v. Jenkins. Possession of Crack. Dismissed. No probable cause for arrest.
State v. Taylor. CDVHAN, Child Endangerment. Pending.
State v. Steve. Sale of Crack Cocaine. Videotape case. Pending.
State v. Byson. DUS 2nd, Failure to Stop for Blue Light, Open Container, Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Problem with identification of vehicle driver, who ran from police. DUS dismissed. PTI on other charges.
State v. Pruitt. Possession Cocaine. Mere presence defense. PTI.
State v. Glasner. DUI. Hired to enter plea in Defendant's absence and pay fine.
State v. Finley. Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, Distribution of Marijuana (11 cts.), Distribution within 1/2 Mile of School (11 cts.). Some sales were accommodation sales. Imperfect entrapment defense. Plea to one sale, Possession with Intent to Distribute.
State v. Spaulding. Fraudulent Check. Dismissed by Solicitor. Pre-existing debt.
State v. Jenkins. DUI, Open Container. Pending, waiting on jury trial. Represented Defendant at administrative hearing. Waiting on decision.
State v. Bulock. Eavesdropping/Peeping Tom. PTI.
State v. Pellam. Conspiracy to Trawl for Shrimp, Conspiracy to Trawl in Closed Waters. Dismissed.
State v. Baker. Conspiracy to Trawl for Shrimp, Conspiracy to Trawl in Closed Waters.
State v. Baker. Conspiracy to Trawl for Shrimp, Conspiracy to Trawl in Closed Waters. Plea to one charge, other dismissed.
State v. Ladson. Threatening to Use Incendiary Device. Remanded to Magistrate Court as Disorderly Conduct.
State v. Nicole B. Juvenile. CDVHAN. Plea, probation and mental health counseling.
State v. Bobby U. Juvenile. Trial in Family Court. Main issue eye witness identification of Defendant as perpetrator. Found guilty. R&E, evaluation, probation.
State v. Francis. Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine. Mere presence defense. Dismissed.
State v. Ferguson. Sale & Distribution Crack Cocaine (3 cts.). Three incidents alleged sale to confidential informant accompanied by an undercover officer. Negotiated plea to one sale, others dismissed - 7 years.
State v. Setzler. DUI. Trial in Magistrate Court. Accident. No witness to driving, .09 BA. First trial - hung jury, mistrial. Second trial - acquitted.
State v.. Antoine S. Juvenile. Carrying Gun in Public Building. R&E, suspended probation.
U.S. v. Skierski. General Court Martial. 8 cts. Assault (CDV), 1 ct. False Statement. Preliminary hearing. Negotiated pre-trial agreement. Entered plea to 6 cts. Assault and False Statement. Sentencing trial. Beat the plea agreement, 7 months, no bad conduct discharge, reduced in rank.
SC v. Client. Represented client under investigation by A.G. for failure to file tax returns. Returns filed and proof of mitigating circumstances, including medical evidence submitted. Criminal action not pursued.
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CIVIL CASES HANDLED IN LAST 5 YEARS:
Terrence Greene v. Jeffrey Palkowski, Civil Action No. 9:95-2603-19. Plaintiff was shot by law enforcement officer during execution of a search warrant. Procedural history: Filed complaint in common pleas as Terrence Greene v. Beaufort County 95-CP-07-1162 alleging assault & battery, negligence and violation of federal civil rights. Procedural history: Case removed to Federal Court by Defendant. Complaint amended with consent of Defendant to correct clerical error. Parties filed their Statements Concerning Establishment of Scheduling Order. Scheduling Order issued. Motions to Strike and for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant on grounds Beaufort County exercises no authority over Sheriff's Department. Defendant's summary judgment motion granted. Plaintiff filed Motion for New Trial, Amendment of Judgment and Motion for Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication or for Amendment of Pleadings. Motion for Joinder and Amendment of Complaint granted. Filed Second Amended Complaint as Terrence Greene v. Carl McLeod, Sheriff of Beaufort County Sheriff's Department, in his official capacity, Beaufort County Sheriff's Department, and Jeffrey J. Palkowski, individually and in his official capacity. Defendant filed new Motion to Strike request for punitive damages from amended Complaint on grounds punitive damages not recoverable under S. C. Tort Claims Act, and 11th Amendment protects state agents from damage suits. Defendant also filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed Response in Opposition to Motions. Trial Judge granted motion for summary judgment against Carl McLeod, Sheriff, and Palkowski in his official capacity on basis of 11th amendment immunity from damages and suits brought in federal court. In opposition had argued that Plaintiff filed case in state court and Defendant removed case, creating the circumstances for the 11th Amendment immunity. Summary judgment granted to Beaufort County Sheriff's Department on basis it is not a separate legal entity. Motion to strike punitive damages as to Palkowski in his individual capacity was denied. Pretrial Motions included arguments on Plaintiff's objections to introduction of portions of depositions, motion to exclude testimony of Plaintiff's arrest on drug charges on which he had not yet been tried, hearsay testimony of information from confidential informant used to obtain search warrant for Plaintiff's home. Objection to jury selection procedure whereby names of jurors selected to juries in cases already picked were not returned to jury box. Direct and cross examination of experts. Verdict for Defendant who presented accidental discharge defense. Motion for New Trial made on grounds hearsay testimony of defense witnesses that Plaintiff and one of Plaintiff's witnesses were involved in illegal activities was irrelevant to shooting and highly prejudicial. Motion for new trial denied. Client did not want to appeal.
Peggy Bailey v. Sirloin Family Steakhouse. 95-CP-15-281. Represented Plaintiff in slip and fall. Original Complaint amended to reflect correct name of steakhouse. Had also named as a Defendant Rent-a-Mat. After discovery completed, Rent-a-Mat's motion for summary judgment was granted. Defendant Steakhouse motion for summary judgment was argued and denied. Case settled prior to trial.

KZ v. Singleton. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Knee injury that required surgery. Liability clear. Hit from behind by driver charged with DUI. Case settled without filing suit.
Smith v. Singleton. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Reinjured knee. Liability clear. Hit from behind by driver charged with DUI. Settled without filing suit.
Butler v. Appleby. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Minor personal injuries. Liability clear. Settled without filing suit.
Hunt v. Schwartz. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Relatively minor neck and back injuries. Liability clear. Settled without filing suit.
Griffin v. Port Royal Seafood. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled without filing suit.
Rivers v. Port Royal Seafood. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled without filing suit.
Reising v. Casper. Defense of Rule to Show Cause in Magistrate Court that alleged violation of restraining order issued pursuant to harassment statute. Bench trial, conflicting testimony.
BCSD v. Pruitt. Forfeiture. Represented Defendant. Filed Answer and Counterclaim. Settled by consent order.
BCSD v. Dudley. Forfeiture. Represented Defendant. Filed Answer and Counterclaim. Settled by consent order.
Ward v. Garrett. Represent Plaintiff in automobile accident. Significant injury to shoulder requiring surgery. Other driver's liability clear.
Moreland v. City of Beaufort, Durangos and others. Client assaulted in nightclub restroom by two women, all women ordered off premises where assault continued, police arrested client and others for disorderly conduct. During assault or arrest client's wrist broken requiring several surgeries. Preparing Complaint. Excessive use of force, civil rights violation by police officer, premises liability claim against nightclub and assault & battery claims against other defendants.
Ladys Pointe Apts. v. Leadingham. Represented landlord in eviction. Knowledge of Section 8 regulations required.
Parkview Apts. v. Reid. Represented landlord in eviction based on criminal activity.
Parkview Apts. v. Green. Represented landlord in eviction based on criminal activity.
Spellman v. Bostick. Defended Magistrate suit requesting restraining order filed pursuant to harassment statute. Request for R/O denied.
Coverly v. Ortega. Auto accident. Liability clear. Case settled without filing complaint.
Witter v. Powell. 95-CP-07-1710. Defendant injured in automobile accident. He was sued by other driver. I represented the Defendant on his counterclaim against the Plaintiff for negligence. Client also represented by attorney for his insurer. After discovery and depositions, counterclaim settled.
Coker v. Asnip. 95-0854. Client sued in Magistrate Court by ex-wife for reimbursement of income taxes she paid. Filed Answer and moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Divorce Decree required payment of taxes by client) and on basis of res judicata - client already found in contempt at family court hearing and sentenced, ordered to reimburse ex-wife. Consent order of dismissal entered.
BCSC v. Gadson. Forfeiture. Consent order entered.
Brown v. Kjos, Enterprise Rental Car & Heflin. 95-CP-07-1835. Represented Defendant Heflin in personal injury action that alleged negligent entrustment of his rented vehicle to a minor. Forwarded pleadings to Helfin's insurer but his policy had lapsed. Filed Motion to vacate Heflin's appointment as guardian for minor in litigation as he had no relation to her. Order appointing minor's mother as guardian. Filed Answer denying minor had permission to use his vehicle. Some discovery. Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Enterprise argued and granted. Parties unable to locate Defendant Kjos or mother for service of pleadings and discovery requests. Case stricken pursuant to Rule 40(j).
Watson v. Buckles. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled without filing complaint.
Bostick v. Hilton. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled without filing complaint.
LaSanta Perry v. State of South Carolina. Represented inmate in action for Post Conviction Relief. Alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and talk with alibi witnesses. Re-investigated case and talked with witnesses for client. PCR denied after hearing.
Casper v. Newton. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled prior to filing complaint.
BCSD v. Chisolm. Forfeiture. Filed Answer. Consent order.
McLeod & Washington v. Smith. Represented Plaintiff in auto accident. Liability clear. Settled without filing complaint.
Washington v. Bi-Lo. 94-CP-07-1760. Represented Plaintiff in slip and fall. Had to file and argue motion to compel production of documents which was granted. Case tried by substitute counsel. Verdict for Plaintiff.
Washington v. Firestone, et al., 93-CP-15-856. Represented one of several persons injured in automobile accident believed to have been caused by defective product. Confidentiality provision contained in settlement agreement.
Jones as GAL for Cook v. Port Royal Department of Public Safety and Roy Fife. 95-CP-07-341. Represented minor who had been assaulted by police officer crossing guard. Filed Complaint alleging causes for assault & battery, negligence, civil rights violation. Filed motion to amend Complaint to correct typographical error, granted. Filed amended Complaint. After discovery completed Defendants filed motion for summary judgment on second and third causes of action. Plaintiff's second cause of action was dismissed as to all defendants. Third cause of action dismissed as to original Defendants Town of Port Royal and Port Royal Police Department. No causes of action were remaining against the Town or Police Dept. The Complaint against those defendants was dismissed. Jury trial at which most of witnesses were children who had seen the assault. Verdict for Plaintiff on assault & battery, found not liable on civil rights act claims. Filed Motion for New Trial or in alternative New Trial Nisi Additur, with memorandum which was denied.
Probate Court Case No. 94GCO70022. Appointed GAL for minor on petition for appointment of conservator. Criminal records check and interview with child's mother to ensure she could handle funds, reconcile bank statements and file required accountings. Attendance at hearing.
Brown v. City of Beaufort. 93-CP-07-1936 and 93-CP-07-1937. Consolidated for trial. Represented Plaintiff in cases alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, defamation, negligence. Defendant filed motion for summary judgment which was argued and denied. Plaintiff filed motion for continuance and motion to compel discovery. Jury Trial. Defendant's motion for directed verdict was granted at conclusion of Plaintiff's case. Filed Motion for New Trial and to Reconsider which was granted as to cause of action for slander. Defendant filed another Motion for Summary Judgment on the cause of action for slander which was argued and granted. Client did not want to appeal.
Jones v. Beaufort County. 94-CP-07-989. Jones as GAL for J. Cook v. Beaufort County, 94CP-07-990. Jones as GAL for J. A. Cook v. Beaufort County, 94-CP-07-991. Represented mother falsely accused of shoplifting. Detained, searched, had purse dumped out in front of her children and others. Police had been searching for shoplifter. Only similarity between client and suspected shoplifter was they were both black females. Mother's Complaint set forth causes of action for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, assault & battery, defamation, negligence and civil rights violations. Filed Complaints on behalf of children for emotional distress. Cases settled after discovery completed.
HR v. GA. Client leased building for use as store that still contained refrigeration equipment, shelving belonging to prior evicted tenant. Dispute over removal of equipment and whether landlord had authority to lease building inclusive of equipment belonging to prior tenant. Negotiated purchase of equipment by client and renegotiated lease with landlord. Prior tenant resolved his conflict with landlord through separate counsel.
Don Young dba Southland Properties v. Fosnight, Kegler & Wade. 94-CP-07-1330. Represented Defendant Fosnight in action that alleged Fosnight cut down neighbor's trees without permission and sold the timber. Kegler & Wade were Plaintiff's tenants. Complaint set forth causes of action against Fosnight for trespass, conversion, malicious injury to trees. Fosnight filed an Answer & Counterclaim asserting tenants gave him permission and had implied authority to give permission. His Counterclaim alleged action for malicious prosecution as a result of his arrest on a related criminal warrant taken out by Plaintiff, Cross-Claim against tenants for indemnification. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Counterclaim denied. Kegler dismissed from suit. Wade in default. All settlement offers rejected by Plaintiff. Main issue was dispute over measure of damages. Malicious prosecution claim dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff against Def. Fosnight of $9500 actual and $100 punitive. Fosnight entitled to indemnity against Wade to extent he pays Plaintiff.
Jackson v. Hanna. 94-CP-07-543. Represented Plaintiff in automobile accident. Filed Complaint. Defendant moved to change venue to Aiken, Defendant's county of residence. Motion granted. After some discovery Plaintiff filed motion to change venue back to Beaufort County on grounds Aiken not a convenient forum, all witnesses in Beaufort and Defendant no longer in Aiken. Consent order entered sending case back to Beaufort County. Filed motion to compel discovery responses. Several motions for continuance by Defendant were granted because he was in college out of state. Substitute counsel tried case.
Martin v. Preventor Security. 93-CP-07-1037. Represented Plaintiff in suit for malicious prosecution. Settled after depositions.
Teacher v. Bft. Co. School District. Represented teacher whose contract was not being renewed due to letter she wrote to newspaper. Resolved by way of settlement agreement containing confidentiality provision.
Employee v. RG. Represented discharged employee on appeal of denial of unemployment benefits.
Employee v. DSS. Represented employee being investigated on sexual harassment charges. Negotiated transfer of employee.
Smith v. USAA. Client's driver's license has been indefinitely suspended for many years due to outstanding Georgia judgment for damages caused by client when he previously drove uninsured vehicle. Located judgment and insurer, negotiated settlement, satisfied judgment. Client obtained S.C. license.
Sears v. Feise. 97-CP-07-1774. Represented Defendant in collection action. Prepared Answer and cross-claim, motion to add client's wife as Defendant or necessary third party for purposes of asserting cross-claim against her for use of credit card without permission. Also represented Defendant in divorce though so settled property division by using Sears debt as offset and client assuming responsibility for payment. Payment plan on debt approved by Sears.
IRS v. Feise. Negotiated reduction in wage garnishment for back taxes upon verification of client financial situation and custody of three children.
Johnson v. Simmons. 93-0835 and 93-CP-07-1944. Represented defendant sued in Magistrate Court for damages on claims alleging assault & battery and injury to personal property. Bench trial. Verdict for Defendant and award of $500 attorneys fees under Frivolous Claims Act. Pro se Plaintiff appealed. Magistrate decision upheld.
DR v. Ladies Workout Express. Disputed debt collection. Canceled client's contract and resolved dispute.
In the Interest of R.R. Appointed to represent client on petition for involuntary commitment for chemical dependency. Client fled, later voluntarily committed to alcohol rehab.
Lewis v. Watson & Randall. Defense of magistrate collection action. Resolved by settlement and payment plan.
Cunningham v. U-Haul. Accident caused by defective U-Haul caused substantial damages to client's personal property, other expenses. Settled without filing suit.
Morrall v. Hooters. Represented car owner. Vehicle left with mechanic to have engine replaced. Without vehicle several months and work defective. Resolved by settlement when mechanic obtained counsel.
Moore v. Beaufort County. 95CP-07-1169. Represented woman arrested by deputy at concert for disorderly conduct. Acquitted by jury in Magistrate Court. Filed Complaint alleging false imprisonment, assault & battery, negligence. Defendant filed motion to strike claim for punitive damages under SC Tort Claims act, and motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed motion to amend Complaint to correct name and add necessary parties was granted. Summary judgment denied. Motion for reconsideration and/or amendment of order denying summary judgment which was denied. Notice of appeal filed on order denying summary judgment. Filed Amended Complaint with additional defendants added. Defendant's counsel refused to accept service. Personally served all defendants. Case settled after depositions taken. Appeal dismissed - interlocutory.
Raino v. Raino. 93-CP-07-1916. Defended Plaintiff's ex-husband on claims for unjust enrichment, and breach of contract alleging that after the divorce ex-wife loaned ex-husband $20,000 which he was to pay back to her upon receipt of monies on a loss of consortium law suit then pending as a result of wife's personal injuries in an automobile accident/defective tire case. In answer, pled statute of frauds, unjust enrichment to wife, lack of jurisdiction. Filed motion in Family Court to set aside and complete property division in Decree. No mention of personal injury action or equitable division of these claims in divorce decree. Plaintiff filed motion to strike defenses. After hearing, order issued by Master-in-Equity denied motion, suggested Plaintiff take voluntary non-suit or parties settle. Order entered settling case.
State v. Means. Represented Defendant at hearing on Rule to Show Cause. Client had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity, committed to State Hospital for many years, then released under an order that required him to abstain from illicit drug use. Client tested positive for marijuana. Solicitor issued Rule. State wanted Defendant re-committed. Bench trial. Defendant fined, continued under terms of order.
98-CP-07-1512/99-DR-07-117. 10 year relationship in which man and woman lived and worked together in establishing a business, substantial properties and funds in his name. She received no salary. Substituted as counsel in action transferred from Common Pleas to Family Court for determination as to whether a common law marriage exists. If so, equitable division of property to be made in Family Court. If the parties do not have a common law marriage, the case is to be transferred back to Common Pleas for a hearing on Defendant's motion for a more definite statement and/or amendment of Complaint filed by prior counsel that alleges breach of contract, breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Defendant had moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because last cause of action alleged common law marriage. Pending in Family Court at this time. All original counsel relieved due to conflicts of interest.
OTHER CIVIL:
I have also argued for and against many motions in Family Court, applied the rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence in that court and argued equitable doctrines, including laches, "unclean hands", res judicata, judicial and equitable estoppel. A domestic relations case list can be provided.
I have not had the opportunity to serve as counsel on a death penalty case but was in charge of organizing the mitigation/sentencing evidence in the one death penalty case handled by the Beaufort Public Defender Office while I was Public Defender. A plea was negotiated based on the mitigating evidence, and the client received a life sentence. As a law clerk at the Richland County Public Defender Office, I worked on two death penalty cases by assisting the mitigation/sentencing team in investigating and putting together this evidence. I was the investigator at the Beaufort Public Defender Office when John Plath and John Arnold were arrested. I worked on the case in chief. I also assisted in compilation of juror information used to challenge the Beaufort County grand and petit jury selection process in State v. Clemmie Moultrie, a Colleton County death penalty case transferred to Beaufort for trial around 1975. Mr. Moultrie was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I am very familiar with the procedural history and facts of State v. Linder, a Colleton County death penalty case in which the Defendant's death sentence was overturned and he was acquitted at his retrial.
I would want to review and study the current case law prior to presiding at a death penalty trial.
I would like to have tried more civil cases. I am familiar with issues ordinarily raised in civil cases, know the rules of evidence, court rules and legal principles that apply. I also acquired knowledge of civil areas in which I have not practiced by teaching graduate classes in business law. To compensate for any shortcomings, I would read the court files prior to hearing motions and/or beginning trials, familiarize myself with the law that applies, and hold pre-trial conferences in an effort to determine what issues may arise during the trial."
Ms. DeWitt reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   One completed jury trial; pretrial motion on that case; one criminal trial before U.S. Magistrate; one court martial before military judge advocate; Social Security Administration four hearings and two appeals to SSA Appeals Council.
(b)   State:   Until April 1993, she appeared approximately two weeks per month in the Court of General Sessions; several times per week before Magistrates for preliminary and bond hearings; two days per month in Family Court, plus detention and transfer hearings as scheduled. In the last five years, she has had 10-20 appearances in Family Court per month; Magistrate's Court bench or jury trials an average of five times per month; General Sessions Court an average of four times per month for pleas or motions, eight completed jury trials; Master-In-Equity motions average six per year, one trial; Common Pleas motions six times per year, two completed trials, roster meetings and pre-trial conferences.
Ms. DeWitt reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     20%
(b)   Criminal:   30%
(c)   Domestic:   50%
Ms. DeWitt reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     20%
(b)   Non-jury:   80%
Ms. DeWitt provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. DeWitt's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Christopher Lee Franklin, 425 S.E.2d 758 (S.C. App. 1992) Reh. Den., Cert. Denied. Fifteen-year-old troubled youth killed father and stepmother. Competency evaluation ordered. Ten hour transfer hearing in Family Court. Testimony on child's competency, history and culpability presented by both sides. Motion to quash first indictments was granted on grounds jurisdiction was still in the Family Court. A motion to reconsider had not been ruled on. Defendant indicted again. Trial in General Sessions Court. Defense presented some evidence of physical and emotional abuse but insufficient for battered child's defense or self-defense instructions. Convicted of two counts of murder. Concurrent life sentences. Motions at trial - request for venue change, voluntariness of Defendant's confessions and sufficiency of evidence to give manslaughter or self-defense instructions. Also competency of two child witnesses was an issue. Court of Appeals affirmed conviction and held Defendant not entitled to manslaughter instruction that was given by trial court; also defended media requests for access to transfer hearing. Ex Parte: The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette, Appellants In Re: Christopher F., a minor, Defendant. 417 S.E.2d 575 (S.C. 1992) Both appeals handled by S.C. Office of Appellate Defense;
(b)   State v. Prince, 90-GS-07-2216. Decedent's body found in young mother's mobile home while she was incarcerated on unrelated charges. Pre-trial motion to suppress testimony of four-year-old son as State's witness on grounds that he was not competent to testify. Reputable psychologist testified for defense that child was not competent. Child had been tested and interviewed on four different occasions and was functioning on about a two-year-old age level. Also testified that child had been improperly questioned repeatedly by police, social workers and lawyers. Judge denied motion. Also motion to suppress Defendant's statement due to violation of 6th Amendment granted. Defendant acquitted;
(c)   State v. Antonnier Adolphe, 314 S.C. 89, 441 S.E.2d 832 (Ct.App. 1994) Defendant was tried on indictments for two counts trafficking in crack cocaine and sale of crack cocaine. Search warrant for stash house obtained based on information from street suspect who had been arrested after he assisted in a purchase of crack for a wired confidential informant at a separate location. Defendant Adolphe and others were at the stash house at time search warrant executed. Drugs and other evidence found in stereo speakers. Street suspect taken to stash house and identified Adolphe as seller of crack at first location. All defendants but Adolphe posted bond and fled prior to trial. Co-defendant cases were severed. Adolphe was tried on trafficking indictments only. At trial, motion to suppress testimony of crack sale as evidence of prior bad acts denied; motion to suppress eyewitness identification by street suspect of Adolphe as drug seller denied; motion to suppress all evidence on basis search warrant affidavit did not support probable cause denied; motion to suppress evidence on grounds inventory and officers' testimony not specific as to location individual items of evidence were found denied; motion to suppress all evidence and testimony mentioning Defendant's nationality as Haitian was denied. Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction on grounds the search warrant should not have been issued because the affidavit coupled with the Johnson hearing failed to supply facts creating probable cause. There was no showing of the confidential informant's reliability and the informant's allegations were never corroborated by any identifiable individuals. Good faith exception inapplicable if the underlying affidavit does not include sufficient information to allow a magistrate to determine probable cause. Evidence seized must be suppressed. Other issues raised, not addressed by Court of Appeals;
(d)   State v. Tyrone Jenkins, 322 S.C. 414, 472 S.E.2d 251 (1996), reversing State v. Tyrone Jenkins, 317 S.C. 183, 452 S.E.2d 612 (Ct.App. 1994), rehearing denied. Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, acquitted on the related grand larceny indictment. Motion to suppress Defendant's oral statements to officer was made on three grounds. First, the Defendant's Miranda waiver was not voluntarily or knowingly made because he was under the influence of crack cocaine at the time warnings, waiver and statement given as shown by officer's own testimony and by Defendant's testimony at Jackson v. Denno hearing. Second, the Defendant's statement that he did not commit the burglary, he just ran a school for burglars was not admissible under the "bad acts" exception because there was no evidence this burglary was connected to any other burglary. Third, the introduction of Defendant's burglary school statement was unduly prejudicial. Motion to suppress was denied. Court of Appeals upheld conviction and admissibility of statement as evidence of common scheme or plan. Supreme Court reversed. No evidence of similarity of burglaries, or common scheme or plan. Testimony clearly prejudicial as other evidence of guilt far from overwhelming;
(e)   Terrence Greene v. Jeffrey Palkowski, Civil Action No. 9:95-2603-19. Represented Plaintiff who was shot by law enforcement officer during execution of a search warrant. Initial Complaint alleged assault and battery, negligence and federal civil rights violations, was originally filed in Common Pleas as Terrence Greene v. Beaufort County, 95-CP-07-1162. Defendant removed case to federal court and was granted summary judgment, but Plaintiff's motion to amend and for joinder of necessary parties was granted. Some joined party defendants were later granted summary judgment. Lengthy procedural history of amendments and motions. Pre-trial motions on objections to exhibits, objection to defense introduction of selected portions of witness depositions and objection and request for pretrial ruling on admissibility of testimony regarding Plaintiff's pending drug charges arising from execution of search warrant. Significant issues related to expert witness testimony on police practices and procedures, safety features of weapon, forensic evidence and opinion testimony on distance between Plaintiff and Defendant at time of shooting, at trial related to the relevance and prejudicial effect of defense witness testimony of hearsay information from confidential informant that Plaintiff was an armed, dangerous, drug dealer and introduction of search warrant affidavit itself as exhibit in Defendant's case. Verdict for Defendant who put up accidental discharge defense. Same issues argued in motion for new trial, which was denied. No appeal."
The following is Ms. DeWitt's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"(a)   Hess v. Hess. Court of Appeals, Unpublished Opinion No. 96-UP-468, submitted December 3, 1996, filed December 16, 1996. Represented respondent/mother. Father appealed award of custody to mother, and property division. Custody award affirmed. Equitable distribution award to mother vacated and remanded."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. DeWitt's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Lowcountry Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Ms. DeWitt meets the constitutional qualifications and is possessed of the requisite character, reputation, ability, fitness, experience, and temperament. Ms. Dewitt is recommended for Seat 1 of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit with one observation -- the Committee noted that Ms. Dewitt has limited civil trial experience."
Ms. DeWitt has three children: Jenny P. Sopshier (26, sales/supervisor); Gregory M. Piazza (23, U.S. Navy); and James Tyler DeWitt (10, student).
Ms. DeWitt reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1983 - present), Family Law Council (1998-2000);
(b)   Beaufort County Bar Association;
(c)   Beaufort County Family Court Bar Association, secretary;
(d)   American Bar Association;
(e)   S.C. Women's Law Association;
(f)   S.C. Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association.
Ms. DeWitt provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Equal Employment Opportunity Certificate of Appreciation for significant contributions to the Federal Women's Program, MCAS/Beaufort, S.C., 1993;
(b)   S.C. Bar Certificate of Appreciation, Mock Trial Competition Coach, 1985;
(c)   Boys & Girls Club Certificate of Appreciation, Support of Basketball Intramurals, 1998;
(d)   Beaufort Chamber of Commerce;
(e)   Hendersonville Baptist Church, Walterboro, S.C.;
(f)   Shell Point Elementary School PTO & Booster Club, Burton, S.C.;
(g)   Battery Creek High School PTO & Booster Club, Burton, S.C.
Ms. DeWitt additionally provided, "My professional and personal experiences have provided me with the knowledge, organizational skills, common sense and objective fairness required of a Circuit Court judge."

Donna Earls Elder
Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Ms. Elder meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Ms. Elder was born on October 5, 1966. She is 33 years old. Ms. Elder provided in her application and during her testimony that she is a resident of Union, South Carolina, and has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years. Further, she provided that she has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1991.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Ms. Elder.
Ms. Elder demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Ms. Elder reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Ms. Elder testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Ms. Elder testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Ms. Elder to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Ms. Elder described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: She has attended numerous CLE training programs focusing primarily on the area of Family Law, Ethics and Juvenile Law. She has maintained the required hours plus additional carry over hours
Ms. Elder reported that she has been an instructor at Limestone College, Gaffney, S.C., for the Block Program and Day program for law related classes (i.e. Business Law I and II, American Government, State and Local Government).
Ms. Elder reported that she has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Ms. Elder did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Ms. Elder did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Ms. Elder has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Ms. Elder was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Ms. Elder reported that her Martindale-Hubbell rating is "CV."
Ms. Elder reported she has held the following public offices:
a)   S.C. Juvenile Parole Board- September 1994 to present, Appointed; Board Chairman- 1995, 1997, currently.
(6)   Physical Health:
Ms. Elder appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Ms. Elder appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Ms. Elder was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1991. She described her legal experience as follows:
"Ken Holland, Attorney, Gaffney, S.C., 1991-1992, Associate. Assisted with civil caseload to include personal injury and workers compensation. Prepared pleadings, interviewed clients, prepared discovery, assisted with deposition and trial prep.
1992-Current-Solo Practice-Primarily domestic caseload, approximately %85, to include litigation in custody, divorce, equitable division and support areas. Remaining %15 of caseload is contractual, corporate and work for the local school district as their retained attorney.   My current practice consists of primarily all domestic work. I would estimate that per term of Family Court in Cherokee County I would average at least four cases per term. Those cases would include contested and uncontested divorces, equitable division of property and child custody. I have had an opportunity to litigate divorce cases which have exposed me to all of the fault grounds and no fault grounds allowed in South Carolina. Most of the contested divorce cases I do also have some property issues at dispute, which include the determination and evaluation of marital assets, retirement, alimony, military benefits and debt. I have had numerous divorces that require preparation of QUADRO's. I do an average of five adoptions per year and have had several adoptions that were contested for various reasons (capacity of parent to sign relinquishment, lack of parental support and/or visitation). I will normally not take abuse and neglect cases unless they stem from a current domestic case or I am appointed in a DSS action. I do, however, try to attend the annual conference on abuse and neglect that most of the volunteer guardians and DSS caseworkers attend. I currently sit on the Juvenile Parole Board, which does not allow me to represent juvenile cases in Family Court; however, by and through my service on the Parole Board, I am confronted with the entire juvenile history from the initial Court proceeding until his release from DJJ and am uniquely aware of the process."
Ms. Elder reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   N/A
(b)   State:     At least one appearance per term of Family Court and one appearance in Circuit Court every four months (on average)
Ms. Elder reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     13 %
(b)   Criminal:   2 %
(c)   Domestic:   85 %
Ms. Elder reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     30 %
(b)   Non-jury:   70 %
Ms. Elder provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Ms. Elder's account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Newton v. Greenville Hospital System. (Trial and Appellate) This matter involved a 20-year-old sexual assault. There were numerous issues regarding the Statute of limitations, the ability to have numerous pretrial summary judgement motions heard and the scope of discovery. This case provided me with a view of how discovery can be used to extend a party's ability to file pretrial motions;
(b)   DSS v. Lewis and Lacy Lewis, a minor. (Trial) I was appointed to represent the minor child as the Guardian ad Litem in this matter. It was a DSS removal case and ultimately an adoption. DSS attempted to intervene in the foster family's adoption of the minor child because of invalid reasons and contrary to the best interest of the minor child. This matter lasted more than 2 years. It was the first case I had been involved with that the Guardian ad Litem served as primary litigator;
(c)   Smith v. Adams/Adams v. Adams. (Trial) This matter initially stemmed from Smith v. Adams, where Ms. Smith alleged that Mr. Adams broke a promise to marry her by marrying Ms. Adams, the plaintiff of the second action. The first trial dealt with unique issues regarding premarital promises to marry and reliance on said promises. The trial was held in Circuit Court. The second case filed by the actual wife of Mr. Adams was held in Family Court and involved several issues (extensive equitable division, alimony, fault ground divorce, domestic violence, protective orders). It was an unusual trial experience to have two actions in two separate courts dealing with identical assets;
(d)   Marshburn v. Drake. (Trial) This matter was held in Family Court and involved an adoption by the plaintiffs of the minor defendant. The mother had signed an appropriate relinquishment. Seven months later and two days before the adoption hearing, the defendant mother filed an emergency motion attempting to have the relinquishment withdrawn, claiming incapacity and undue influence. As the attorney for the plaintiff's, I had to do an extensive amount of research dealing with the ability to withdraw a properly signed and executed relinquishment. The Court ruled in favor of the Marshburns and granted the adoption several months and several hearings later;
(e)   Hyatt v. Broad River Electric Company. (Trial and Appellate) This matter deals with the issues of adverse possession, laches and prescriptive easements. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. After a full day of arguments, the Court granted the defendants motion. As plaintiff's counsel, I filed an appeal. The Court of Appeals heard arguments, reversed and remanded the case for retrial. Through research, trial and appeal preparation, I have gained a better ability to interpret statutes, previous Court precedent and how to apply them to current factual situations."
The following is Ms. Elder's account of a civil appeal she has personally handled:
"DSS v. Gerald Hamlett. (Trial Court/Court of Appeals)-98-UP-114, February 24, 1998. I tried this matter, without co-counsel, in the Family Court, and was successful for my client. DSS appealed and I had co-counsel assist with the Appeal."
Ms. Elder reported she served as Summary Court Judge for Cherokee County in July through September 1994 in an appointed position. The court's civil jurisdiction was up to $2,500 and its criminal jurisdiction was limited to misdemeanors. As Summary Court Judge, Ms. Elder reported she held traffic court and criminal court, issued bench, arrest, and search warrants, and conducted preliminary hearings.
In 1996, Ms. Elder ran for the House District 30 seat unsuccessfully.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Ms. Elder's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "We found Ms. Elder acceptable. She was most cordial to the Committee. Although she has limited Family Court experience in Union, her experience in Cherokee County Family Court is a large portion of her practice. The Committee expressed some concern that she may not live or practice in Union County but just leases a house there. At least two Committee members tried to get in touch with her references, but only one reference returned a phone call. Repeated attempts to reach the others were fruitless."
Ms. Elder is married to Donald Ray Elder. She does not have any children.
Ms. Elder reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Phi Delta Phi;
(c)   Cherokee County Bar-Treasurer;
(d)   American Bar Association.
Ms. Elder provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
a)   Altrusa International-current president, charter president;
b)   American Red Cross Board, chairman;
c)   Palmetto Girl Scouts Board;
d)   Baptist Hospital Pastoral Advisory Board;
e)   American Cancer Society-Cherokee County Relay for Life Chairman;
f)   Gaffney Main Street Corporation-Taste of Gaffney-Event Chairman;
g)   Cherokee County Business Woman of the Year;
h)   S.C. Business Woman of the Year.
Ms. Elder also reported the following information which reflects positively on her candidacy:
"I have worked diligently in the area of domestic law for the past seven years. I have served on various committees in an attempt to improve this area (Children's Law Committee, Attorney General's Gang Task Force, Juvenile Legislative Task Force). I believe it is important for those who practice in Family Law to be involved with the shaping of the laws and statutes. Although the learning process never truly ends I do believe that I have developed a keen grasp of the domestic statutes and juvenile procedures to competently serve as a member of the Bench."

John C. Few
Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Few meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Few was born on April 9, 1963. He is 36 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Few provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1988.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Few.
Mr. Few demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Few reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures, although he does indicate that he has made phone calls and incurred copying and postage expenses, for which he has not kept records of the amounts or dates.
Mr. Few testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Few testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Few to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Few described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years by stating that he has attended the annual convention of the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association every year except 1997. He has attended the SCTLA Auto Torts seminar every year. Additionally, Mr. Few stated that for many of those years he attended seminars of the Attorneys Information Exchange Group. Mr. Few has also attended selected seminars put on by the S.C. Bar. In 1997 he attended the five-day mediation certification school in Columbia. Finally, Mr. Few stated that he typically has many more than the required number of hours.
Mr. Few described the following law-related course he has taught:
(a)   Automobile Crashworthiness, S.C. Bar, Columbia (May 14, 1999);
(b)   Nuts and Bolts of Handling a Property Contamination Case, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, Hilton Head (Aug. 19, 1998);
(c)   Rules of Effective Cross-Examination, S.C. Bar, Columbia (Mar. 20, 1998);
(d)   Impeaching Expert Witnesses and Corporate Representatives Through Cross-Examination: Thorough Preparation Makes Easy Execution, S.C. Bar, Columbia (Oct. 11, 1996);
(e)   Discovery and Its Abuse, 1996 Annual Judicial Conference, Columbia (Aug. 22, 1996);
(f)   Documents/Demonstrative Evidence, S.C. Bar, Spartanburg and Greenville (Jun. 19, 1996);
(g)   Use of Patents in the Back-Up Alarm Case, ATLA Annual Convention, Chicago, Illinois (Jul. 24, 1994);
(h)   Japanese/Korean Manufacturers, Attorneys Information Exchange Group Discovery Seminar, Houston, Texas (Mar. 25-26, 1994);
(i)   Presentation of Evidence in a Groundwater Contamination Case, S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Annual Convention, Hilton Head (Aug. 19, 1993);
(j)   Discovery Involving Japanese Manufacturers, Attorneys Information Exchange Group Seminar, Atlanta, Georgia (May 14-15, 1993);
(k)   Insurance & Other Collateral Sources, S.C. Bar, Columbia (Jul. 14, 1992);
(l)   In addition to these continuing legal education seminars, I have been invited on several occasions to give legal education presentations to classes at the U.S.C. School of Law, classes in the paralegal program at Greenville Technical College, local professional organizations, and local schools.
Mr. Few reported that he has published the following:
(a)   "Products Liability" chapter of Litigation, to be published by S.C. Bar (1999);
(b)   "Citizens Participation in the Legal System," South Carolina Lawyer, July 1997;
(c)   Contributing Author, "Fraud" & "Libel and Slander" chapters, S.C. Jurisprudence;
(d)   Co-Author, "Recognizing, Developing and Presenting the Crashworthiness Case," South Carolina Trial Lawyer Bulletin, Spring 1993.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Few did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Few did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Few has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Few was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Few reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Few appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Few appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Few was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1988. He described his legal experience as follows:
"For the first year after law school and taking the Bar exam, August 1988-August 1989, I was a law clerk to the Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge, in Anderson, South Carolina. Since that time, I have been engaged in the private practice of complex civil litigation, with primary emphasis on Products Liability, Environmental Contamination, and Business Litigation. From August 1989 until December 31, 1997, I was an owner and employee of Few & Few, P.A. in Greenville. Since then I have been the sole owner of John C. Few, P.A."
Mr. Few provided the following description of his experience in criminal and civil matters:

"I have no experience in criminal matters as a practicing lawyer. As law clerk to Judge Anderson, I watched him preside over criminal trials and did considerable research on matters of criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. I also wrote jury charges for criminal trials. During my practice, my sole involvement with criminal law has been in reading the opinions of our State appellate courts. Since most evidentiary rulings that apply to civil cases come out of criminal cases, I have tried to pay attention to the development of the law on the criminal side.
I have already begun to compensate for this lack of experience. I have recently read and studied a hornbook of criminal procedure. I have studied more carefully than before the opinions of our appellate courts in criminal cases. I have visited with the Solicitor of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit to discuss his views on the administration of the criminal courts. I have been to court several times to observe different judges in the taking of guilty pleas. I plan to study carefully between now and the time I would take office the law of criminal procedure, the substantive criminal law of this State, and the practicalities of a criminal trial, as opposed to a civil trial. I have no doubt that I will be completely prepared to preside over criminal proceedings and trials by the time I take office if I am elected.
In civil matters, almost everything I have done in my law practice since its beginning has been either in preparation for or participation in a hearing or a trial. I have been heavily involved in all areas of civil practice, from screening cases and early case investigation, through discovery, trial, and appeal. I believe my understanding of civil litigation is very strong. In the last five years, and throughout my practice, I have handled primarily complex civil cases, including products liability, environmental contamination, business, and other litigation, including several class actions. I have also handled a limited number of small cases, from small car wrecks and personal injury cases to contract and property disputes involving a small amount of money. While I have been primarily a plaintiff's lawyer, I have developed what I think is a strong ability to see cases objectively."
Mr. Few reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   One to two court appearances per month
(b)   State:     One to two court appearances per month
Mr. Few reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     100%
Mr. Few reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     95%
(b)   Non-jury:   5%
Mr. Few provided that he most often served as chief counsel, or co-counsel with his father and former law partner, J. Kendall Few.
The following is Mr. Few's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Duke Sandwich Company Salmonella Litigation, C/A 97-CP-23-2387; C/A 97-CP-23-3860; C/A 97-CP-23-3861; C/A 98-CP-23-322; C/A 98-CP-23-323; C/A 98-CP-23-3506; and C/A 99-CP-23-1870; This group of cases is significant because it involved hundred of claimants, and many complex issues. I represented the plaintiffs in the seven cases listed above, several of whom had some of the larger cases. In each case, the ingestion of mayonnaise in food served at Duke Sandwich Company caused the plaintiff to become seriously ill with salmonella poisoning. Many of the claims were brought as part of a class action. All of my clients opted out of the class and proceeded with their claims individually. In the Case Management Order, the Honorable Henry F. Floyd appointed me to be lead counsel for all opt-out plaintiffs. As such, I had primary responsibility for coordinating the preparation of the case. In cooperation with other counsel for plaintiffs, I was able to steer the cases to an early settlement and save the courts from months of trials;
(b)   Karr v. McGraw-Edison, Co. & American Laundry Machinery Co., C/A 7:97-3512-13; This case is typical of the product liability cases I have handled. The plaintiff, my client in the case, had his hand burned and had his shoulder severely injured when the hot head of a press came down on his hand while he was pressing shirts at the laundry he owned. I was able to compile evidence on over 100 similar claims from all over the country involving presses made by the same manufacturer;
(c)   Owens v. Marshall & Williams, C/A 91-CP-23-4851; Another typical products liability case, but one of those which was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for my client in the amount of $168,000, if my memory is correct. I tried the case along with my father;
(d)   Roshto and Willis v. Petroleum World, Inc., C/A 94-CP-30-447; An environmental contamination case in which I was hired by the owners of the former Clinton Holiday Inn, now a Ramada Inn. In the late 1970's, gasoline leaked from a pumping system at a service station across Highway 56, and migrated over the years in significant concentrations to the Holiday Inn property, causing the owners difficulty in getting financing on the hotel and in selling it. The case involved complex issues of groundwater hydrogeology, contaminant remediation, real estate valuation, and bank lending practices. I was able to settle the case in an amount satisfactory to my client;
(e)   Beasley v. Southland Life, C/A 92-UP-171 (Unpublished Opinion, S.C. Ct. App. The Circuit Court docket number could not be located); This case is significant because it was the first case I ever tried as lead counsel. I lost. I also lost the appeal."
The following is Mr. Few's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   William H. Ehlies, P.A. v. William L. Shirley, Wilton Miller, and Bryant, Miller & Olive, P.A., C/A 96-CP-23-585A (Not yet argued);
(b)   Kelly v. Para-Chem Southern, Inc., 311 S.C. 223, 428 S.E.2d 703 (1993);
(c)   Ravan v. Greenville County, 315 S.C. 447, 434 S.E.2d 296 (Ct. App. 1993);
(d)   Shockley v. Hoeschst Celanese, 92-1521(L) & 92-1543 (4th Cir.) (I had primary responsibility for the writing of the briefs in this case, but did not conduct the oral argument);
(e)   Beasley v. Southland Life, 92-UP-171 (S.C. Ct. App)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Few's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Few was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Few is married to Jane Ellen Scott Few. He has three children: Mary Reed Few, age 9; Anna Gillespie Few, age 7; and Cannon Mims Few, age 2.
Mr. Few reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   American Bar Association;
(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;
(d)   Greenville County Bar Association;
(e)   Association of Trial Lawyers of America;
(f)   Attorney's Information Exchange Group.
Mr. Few provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Buncombe Street U.M. Church;
(b)   Greenville Technical College Paralegal Advisory Board;
(c)   Greenville Chamber of Commerce;
(d)   Gower Estates Community Pool;
(e)   Friends of the Reedy River;
(f)   American Canoe Association;
(g)   Foothills Paddling Club;
(h)   Duke University Alumni Association;
(i)   U.S.C. Alumni Association.
Mr. Few also provided the following statements:
"My wife and I have made numerous charitable contributions over the years to many different organizations, and some of these organizations give 'memberships' for those contributions. This would include organizations such as the American Cancer Society, Muscular Dystrophy Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, the South Carolina ETV Endowment, and others. I have not listed all of these contributions.
I was the recipient of the 1996 American Bar Association's Edward R. Finch Law Day Speech Award, First Place, given annually for the best Law Day speech given in the country that year. I gave the speech at a "Town Meeting" sponsored by the Greenville County Bar Association in downtown Greenville. After winning the award, I was invited to the American Bar Association's mid-winter convention in San Antonio, Texas, to accept the award at the Joint Luncheon of the National Conference of Bar Presidents and National Association of Bar Executives. I was invited to present the speech to the Greenville County Bar Association at its Law Day Luncheon in May 1997. The speech was reprinted in South Carolina Lawyer Magazine in July 1997.
In law school, in addition to being on the editorial board of the South Carolina Law Review, I was inducted into the Order of the Coif and Order of Wig and Robe, academic honor societies. Since law school, I have tried to remain active in private community service. Some of my service activities include:
(a)   Greenville Technical College, Paralegal Advisory Board;
(b)   Volunteer Teacher, Junior Achievement of Greenville, Inc.;
(c)   Greenville Safe Kids Coalition Member;
(d)   Weekly Guest Reader, Head Start Program;
(e)   Volunteer Tutor, Save Our Sons (past)."

John D. Geathers
Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 4

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Geathers meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as an Administrative Law judge.
Judge Geathers was born on April 10, 1961. He is 38 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Geathers provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1986.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Geathers.
Judge Geathers demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Geathers reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Geathers testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Geathers testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Geathers to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Geathers reported that during the past five years he has satisfied all of the CLE requirements and has also attended a seminar at the National Judicial College.
Judge Geathers reported that he lectured on Appellate Practice before the Administrative Law Judge Division at a S.C. Bar Association program: "Appellate Practice in South Carolina." He also presented in-house lectures at orientation seminars for new judges in the Administrative Law Judge Division.
Judge Geathers reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Geathers did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Geathers has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Geathers was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Geathers reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Geathers appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Geathers appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Geathers was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1986. He described his legal experience as follows:
"I was employed for approximately eight months as the OSHA attorney for the South Carolina Department of Labor upon graduation from law school in 1986. I resigned from the Department of Labor to accept employment with the Office of Senate Research of the South Carolina Senate, where I became Senior Staff Counsel. Upon being elected to Administrative Law Judge Seat #4, I subsequently resigned employment with the Senate."
The following is Judge Geathers' account of his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Myrtle Beach Hospital, Inc. v. Horry County Assessor, 97-ALJ-17-0449-CC (addressed novel issue in S.C. of valuation of investor-owned hospital for tax purposes);
(b)   S.C. Dept. of Labor v. James E. MacDonald, 98-ALJ-11-0360-IJ (contempt order);
(c)   Gardener v. State Board of Dentistry, 98-ALJ-0316-AP. Greenville Metro Treatment Center v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 97-ALJ-07-0143;
(d)   Charleston Naval Shipyard v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ- 07-0264 (waiver of federal government's sovereign immunity);
(e)   Julius Murray and George Martin v. S.C. DHEC, Baptist Healthcare System of S.C., Inc. and Richland Memorial Hospital, 97-ALJ-07-0262 (extensive discussion on subject matter jurisdiction and standing)."
Judge Geathers has served as an Administrative Law judge since 1995. He provided, "Pursuant to Section 1-23-600, an Administrative Law judge is authorized to preside over all hearings of contested cases involving the departments of the executive branch of government in which a single hearing officer is permitted to hear and decide. Exempted, however, are cases brought under OSHA, matters arising under Title 56 of the S.C. Code of Laws, and hearings mandated by federal law. The Administrative Law Judge Division also has appellate jurisdiction over decisions from various boards and commissions. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge Division presides over regulation hearings during the promulgation of regulations by a department for which the governing authority is a single director. The Administrative Law Judge Division provides the General Assembly with written findings as to the need and reasonableness of the proposed regulations."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Geathers' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge John D. Geathers is a well-qualified judge. The committee wholeheartedly recommends his re-election to Seat 4, Administrative Law Judge Division."
Judge Geathers is married to Doris Williams. He has one child, Lydia Kaden Geathers, age 6.
Judge Geathers reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1986 -present);
(b)   N.C. Bar Association (1994- present).
Judge Geathers provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   NAACP.
When questioned about his membership in the NAACP, given its involvement with public interest litigation, Judge Geathers affirmed that he would not hear any case involving the NAACP and alerted the Commission to the precedent of Chief Justice Finney and Judge Matthew Perry maintaining life memberships with the NAACP.

Robert E. Guess
Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Guess meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. Guess was born on June 14, 1948. He is 51 years old and a resident of Union, South Carolina. Mr. Guess provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Guess.
Mr. Guess demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Guess reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. Guess testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Guess testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Guess to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Guess described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   S.C. Bar Estate Planning & Probate (1994);
(b)   AAEPA Estate Planning Summit (1994);
(c)   S.C. Bar Civility in the Profession (1994);
(d)   NBI Planning Opportunities with Living Trusts (1994);
(e)   AAEPA Estate Planning Summit (1995);
(f)   S.C. Bar Client Relations LEPR (1995);
(g)   Public Sector Labor Law in S.C. (1995);
(h)   AAEPA Estate Planning Summit (1996);
(i)   S.C. Bar Annual Fall Estate Planning and Probate Update (1996);
(j)   AAEPA Advanced Estate Planning and Office Management (1996);
(k)   AAEPA Estate Planning and Office Management (1997);
(l)   AAEPA Estate Planning (1997);
(m)   AAEPA Estate Planning and Office Management (1998);
(n)   S.C. Bar Working with Older Clients and Others (1998);
(o)   S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting (1998);
(p)   National Network Practicum 1, Estate Planning & Office Management (1999);
(q)   National Network Practicum 2, Estate Planning & Office Management (1999);
(r)   NBI Family Limited Partnerships in S.C. (1999);
(s)   S.C. Association of County Attorneys Annual Meeting (1999).
Mr. Guess reported that he has taught Business Law at U.S.C.-Union campus during 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years.
Mr. Guess reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Guess did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Guess did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Guess has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Guess was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Guess reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
Mr. Guess completed a six-year enlistment with the S.C. National Guard from January 20, 1970 to January 20, 1976. He was with the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 118th Infantry (Mech), Union, S.C. He received an Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Guess appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Guess appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Guess was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974. He described his legal experience as follows:
"March 1975 through November 1977: Private solo practice of law, Charleston, S.C.; Practice consisted of criminal, real estate, probate and commercial collections. While not associated in a formal partnership, during this period I shared office space with Paul W. Garfinkle, Esquire, and O. Benjamin Peeples, Esquire.
November 1977 through July 1979: Practiced law in Greenville, S.C., in a partnership with Paul E. Wilburn, III, Esquire; General civil and criminal practice, primarily real estate, wills and estate planning, commercial collections and domestic.
July 1979 through December 1986: Solo practice of law in Union, S.C.; General civil and criminal practice, including domestic and family court, wills, estate planning and probate, real estate, personal injury, social security disability, workman's compensation and business law. Extensive criminal trial experience as an associate to the Union County Public Defender from 1980-1984. As Associate Public Defender handled numerous juvenile criminal matters.
December 1986 through October 1988: Practice of law in Union, S.C. in partnership with Ralph Phillips, Jr., Esquire and Pete G. Diamaduros, Esquire; General practice of civil and criminal law, with emphasis for my individual practice on real estate, domestic and family court, wills and probate, with some limited criminal practice.
October 1988 through July 1996: Solo practice of law in Union, S.C.; General civil practice with criminal practice limited to court appointed cases. Emphasis in practice on real estate, family court and domestic, wills, probate and estate planning, including fiduciary litigation, business and commercial law including litigation; some personal injury, workman's compensation and social security disability. In 1993 I was retained as attorney for the town of Jonesville and as such handle issues of municipal law, prosecute criminal cases in the Recorder's Court, review contracts and handle litigation involving the Town. In August 1994 I was appointed Union County Attorney. A significant portion of my practice is devoted to government law, contracts, and litigation for Union County.
July 1996 to date: Solo practice of law in Union, S.C., with emphasis on transactional office-type practice, including estate planning, wills, trusts, and probate, issues involving aging and the elderly and commercial and business planning. Litigation primarily limited to fiduciary litigation including wills contests and construction, etc. in both probate court and circuit court, litigation involving real estate and criminal trial practice limited to court appointed defendants. During this period family court work was de-emphasized and limited to my established client base, resulting in a large reduction in family court related cases and court appearances. I continue to serve as Union County Attorney and as attorney for the Town of Jonesville."
Mr. Guess provided the following description of his Family Court experience:
"Divorce and equitable division of property: My principle involvement in the Family Court has been in the area of divorce and related issues. Fully 75% of the divorce cases have been either default-type cases where there were no property or other ancillary issues or where the ancillary issues had been settled by negotiation and agreement. Where negotiation and agreement were undertaken, my cases would typically include a property settlement of some type, child custody, child support and visitation, all of which had to be negotiated and then approved by the trial court.
Of the cases which had to be litigated, I have handled numerous divorces where the grounds for divorce were at issue. In contested cases which were tried, I have proved adultery, drunkenness, and physical cruelty on numerous occasions, using both the testimony of the parties, corroborating witnesses and private detectives. I am thoroughly familiar with the elements of these various grounds for divorce and in representing my clients I advise them on the facts necessary to prove the various grounds, identify the appropriate witnesses and present their testimony to the court.
The cases which I have taken to trial have covered issues of equitable division of property including marital residences, rental and other real estate, retirement accounts and benefits, life insurance policies and cash values, household goods, tools, furniture, automobiles, and other personal property, and business interests. Particular issues in marital distribution have included the transmutation of property brought into a marriage by one spouse from a status of separate property to a status of marital property, the percentage of ownership of each party and the facts necessary to establish or defend such percentages. I have also litigated cases where alimony was an issue and have advised my clients and presented evidence to support awards of alimony and to successfully defend against claims for alimony. I have litigated cases where the primary issue was the division of retirement accounts and have successfully proved facts which supported division of retirement accounts and prepared Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, for filing with the trustees of the various retirement accounts as necessary.
Child custody: Child custody is an element of the majority of divorce cases; but one which is typically settled without litigation. Where necessary, I have litigated a number of child custody cases and was successful in obtaining custody for the father of an adopted child as against the mother when the mother was involved in a homosexual relationship with another woman. Proof of elements supporting custody other than that of the sexual orientation of the mother were presented to the court, became a part of the ruling and withstood an attack when the ruling was appealed in grounds that the court relied solely or unduly on the sexual orientation of the mother. I successfully obtained custody of eight year old twins, a boy and a girl, for the father through the use of expert testimony that supported father's contention that the best interests of the children would be served by awarding custody to him. In litigation for change of custody, I succeeded in obtaining custody of an eight year old girl for the father upon proof of misconduct and instability of the mother which included investigation and interview of numerous witnesses by a private detective and interviews in my office. When presented with the list of witnesses and subpoenas, the mother failed to appear for the trial on the merits and custody was changed to the father after an offer of proof to the court. I succeeded in obtaining in a contested case a termination of parental rights of the absent father and the adoption of the mother's children by the stepfather. This case required extensive testimony as to the father's failure to support the children and the father's failure to exercise visitation with the children. I have handled a contested adoption case where a transsexual (male to female) sought adoption of the illegitimate child of a prostitute. The defendant/mother initially consented, then withdrew consent and contested the adoption. Court gave custody of the child, on its own motion, to the Department of Social Services. I have handled a number of uncontested adoptions where the child was placed with the adoptive parents by agencies or where grandparents were adopting the illegitimate child of their own child. I have also handled adult adoptions, undertaken by the consent of the parties to ensure inheritance rights.
Abuse and Neglect: The vast majority of my experience in abuse and neglect cases has come as either appointed counsel or appointed guardian ad litem for indigent parties. In the course of these cases I have been involved in the investigation process, interviewing Department of Social Services case workers and psychologists, interviewing other witnesses and advocating the positions of accused parents or stepparents and advocating the position and protecting the interests of the abused or neglected children. In one case, lasting in excess of one year, as guardian ad litem for the defendant mother (alleged to be mentally ill) with appointed counsel, succeeded in having three children returned to the mother after numerous attempts by Department of Social Services to terminate mother's parental rights. I represented the stepfather in a sexual abuse case and succeeded in having the case sealed upon its conclusion. The case was later unsealed upon application of a newspaper when the issue of the alleged abuse became a matter of widespread public interest.
Juvenile Justice: In the period from 1980 to 1983 I had extensive experience in juvenile justice as an associate to the Public Defender in Union County. I handled cases which were settled with the prosecutor, after an investigation and favorable recommendation and also handled cases that were tried in front of the judge with witnesses when the juvenile denied delinquency. Since 1983, the vast majority of my experience with juvenile justice has been as an appointed attorney for indigent defendants. However, in the course of these appointments, I have represented defendants charged with all types of criminal offenses and status offenses, have investigated the cases, interviewed witnesses and Department of Juvenile Justice case workers and the Solicitors, negotiated agreements and tried cases where the proof was inadequate or where the juvenile refused to admit delinquency. I have occasionally, but infrequently, been retained to represent juveniles. It has been until recently the practice in Union County for the family court to appoint attorneys for all juvenile defendants, on the theory that all juveniles are indigent. Because of this there has been little or no motivation for the parents of juvenile defendants to retain attorneys to represent their children."
Mr. Guess reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   none
(b)   State:     30 per year
Mr. Guess reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     20%
(b)   Criminal:   1%
(c)   Domestic:   10% (1995) and 20% (1996)
Mr. Guess reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     25%
(b)   Non-jury:   75%
Mr. Guess provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Guess' account of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Plemmons I. 286 S.C. 78. Death penalty case created issues which resulted in death sentence being vacated by U.S. Supreme Court. 476 US 102. Appeals handled by S.C. Office of Appellate Defense;
(b)   State v. Plemmons II. 296 S.C. 76. Re-trial of death penalty case created issues which resulted in reversal of death sentence by the S.C. Supreme Court. Appeal handled by S.C. Office of Appellate Defense. As associate counsel in State v. Plemmons III. Defendant sentenced to life in prison;
(c)   McDaniel v. Gregory. 303 S.C. 500, 401 S.E.2d 864 (1990). Lawsuit which interpreted the effective date provisions of the S.C. Probate Code has been criticized as being result oriented. See 44 S.C. Law Review 287 at page 335. Associate counsel handled appeal affirming trial court;
(d)   Hughes v. Hughes. Unpublished opinion. 92-UP-161. (S.C. Court of Appeals). Represented father in child custody case against homosexual wife/mother. Custody to father not based solely on sexual orientation. Appeal handled by other counsel;
(e)   Triangle v. Woodbridge. Not reported. Represented retailer against manufacturer of defective carpet cushion. Case included over 400 defective installations. Litigation resulted in favorable settlement with damages to both retailer and to customers."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Guess' temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "We found Mr. Guess was qualified. He was most cordial to the Committee. The comments were positive in nature. He paused before he answered questions. One of his references suggested that he often weighs thoughts before he answers. The committee found him professional, cool, collected and, at times, distant. One of the members who checked his references was impressed with Mr. Guess and wanted to rate him imminently qualified but several members were equally adamant that he only be given a qualified by this Committee."
Mr. Guess is married to Vanda Lee McLeod. He has two children: Carolyn Hunter Guess, age 14; and Julia McLeod Guess, age 12.
Mr. Guess reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Union County Bar Association;
(c)   American Bar Association.
Mr. Guess provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Union Rotary Club for 17 years. Director, Vice President, President elect; President for the year 1997-1998; Paul Harris Fellow;
(b)   Board of Directors of the Union County YMCA from 1986 through 1996. Performed legal work to incorporate the YMCA; Vice President for a number of years, and President for the year 1996. During his years of service on YMCA board, the YMCA grew from a start-up organization meeting in a store front and using borrowed facilities to a full-fledged organization with 1,000 dues-paying members, a full-time professionally trained director and a modern facility consisting of gymnasium, outdoor swimming pool, shower and locker rooms and fully equipped weight room and fitness center; Co-Chairman of the 1998 "YMCA Partners with Youth" fundraising campaign.
Mr. Guess additionally provided, "I am 51 years old, have practiced law for 25 years and possess the health and maturity to serve effectively as a Family Court judge. I have been extensively involved in the affairs of the community and believe I possess the respect and credibility required of the Family Court as an institution."

B. Hicks Harwell, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Harwell meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Harwell was born on February 27, 1933. He is 66 years old and a resident of Florence, South Carolina. Judge Harwell provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1961.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Harwell.
Judge Harwell demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Harwell reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Harwell testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Harwell testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Harwell to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Harwell stated that every year for the past five years, he has more than exceeded the required continuing legal and judicial education hours.
Judge Harwell reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
However, Judge Harwell stated that at the 1997 Judicial Conference, Judge Henry Floyd referenced a case Judge Harwell decided, Creech v. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, 328 S.C. 24, 491 S.E.2d 571 (1997). Judge Henry Floyd recommended to the judiciary use of the charge and verdict form in that case as a model in comparative negligence cases where there are multiple defendants.
Judge Harwell reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Harwell did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Harwell did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Harwell has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Harwell was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Harwell reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
From 1954 to 1956, Judge Harwell served in the U.S. Army, P.F.C., US 5322234. He received an Honorable Discharge.
Judge Harwell was elected to the S.C. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1980 and again elected to the S.C. House of Representatives from 1989 to 1994. He was appointed to U.S. Congressional Ad-Hoc Committee for Expansion of Florence National Cemetery. He was also appointed Chairman by U.S. Congressman John Napier. He was appointed by Florence County Council to Florence City County Complex Jail Commission. He was elected Chairman by Commission Members from the City and County. He was appointed by Governor West as charter member to the State Commission on Aging and served two terms. He was elected by members of the House of Representatives in 1992 and 1994 to serve as one of five Representatives on the State Reorganization Commission. He was the Chairman of the Florence County Delegation.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Harwell appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Harwell appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Harwell was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1961. He described his legal experience as follows:
"Harwell & Harwell (later became Harwell, Ballenger & DeBerry Law Firm) April 1961 to June 1995; Senior Law Partner of six-member law firm. General Practice."
Judge Harwell reported that his most significant orders are as follows:
"(a)   Creech v. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, 491 S.E.2d 571, 328 S.C. 24 (1997);
(b)   State v. Jerry Pruitt, Opinion No. 98-UP-248 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998);
(c)   Dale Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Opinion No. 3012 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999);
(d)   The State-Record Co., Inc. v. Richland County School District No. 2, Trial Court Case No. 94-CP-40-1911 (Richland County, March 1997) (Appeal Dismissed September 22, 1997);
(e)   John Cox, et al. v. Pauline Frierson, et al., Opinion No. 99-UP-129 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Harwell's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Committee is of the opinion that Judge Harwell is qualified for the position of Circuit Court judge. As a result of its investigation of and interview with Judge Harwell, the Committee recommends/approves this candidate for re-election as a Circuit Court judge."
Judge Harwell is married to Nancy Crum Cockfield Harwell. He has three children: Jennie Harwell-Lee, 39, Promotional Advertising Salesperson; Rankin Harwell-Hammond, 35, Social Services Coordinator, Pines Nursing and Convalescent Home; and Ashley Harwell-Beach, 30, Assistant Research Director, House Judiciary Committee.
Judge Harwell reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   Florence County Bar;
(b)   S.C. Bar;
(c)   American Bar Association.
Judge Harwell provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   First Presbyterian Church, Florence, S.C.;
(b)   Life Member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars;
(c)   American Legion;
(d)   Masons;
(e)   Omar Shrine.
Judge Harwell additionally provided "I feel that my previous experience as a member of the judiciary where I have handled both civil and criminal litigation has been invaluable in further preparing me to continue judicial service. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to serve in this capacity."

Thomas E. Huff
Court of Appeals, Seat 8

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Huff meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge of the Court of Appeals.
Judge Huff was born on June 5, 1949. He is 50 years old and a resident of North Augusta, South Carolina. Judge Huff provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Huff.
Judge Huff demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Huff reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Huff testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Huff testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Huff to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Huff described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows: "I have attended numerous CLE and JCLE programs offered by the South Carolina Bar, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association and Defense Lawyers. I delivered a review of judicial opinions in the area of workers' compensation at the 1997 South Carolina Bar Convention in Charleston, South Carolina. I accumulated 44.50 JCLE/CLE hours in 1998 and carried forward 19.75 JCLE/CLE hours from 1997."
Judge Huff reported that he delivered an overview of recent judicial opinions in the area of workers' compensation at the 1997 S.C. Bar Association Winter Meeting in Charleston, S.C.
Judge Huff reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Huff did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Huff did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Huff has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Huff was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Huff reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
Judge Huff reported that he was elected to the S.C. House of Representatives in 1978 and served until 1996, when he was elected to the S.C. Court of Appeals. While serving in the S.C. House of Representatives, he chaired the Rules Committee and the General Laws Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Huff appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Huff appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Huff was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976. He described his legal experience as follows:
"After graduation from law school I started a practice in North Augusta, South Carolina in 1977. I maintained a general civil practice with primary emphasis in domestic litigation, tort litigation, limited criminal defense and real estate. My practice also included appellate work. I also served as chief legal counsel to Aiken Electric Cooperative for approximately 6 years immediately preceding my election to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. At the time I was elected, my practice would reflect the following distribution: Real estate-21%; Criminal-12%; Probate/Wills/Trusts-14%; Domestic-37%; Civil/Personal Injury-12%; Other-4%."
Judge Huff reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:       12%
(b)   Criminal:     12%
(c)   Domestic:     37%
(d)   Real Estate:     21%
(e)   Probate/Wills/Trusts:   14%
(f)   Other:       4%
The following is Judge Huff's account of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Mullinax v. J.M. Brown Amusement Co., Inc., 326 S.C. 453, 485 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 1997), affirmed, 333 S.C. 89, 508 S.E.2d 848 (1998);
(b)   State v. Kerr, 330 S.C. 132, 498 S.E.2d 212 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied, (Feb. 5, 1999);
(c)   Hawkins v. Pathology Associates of Greenville, P.A., 330 S.C. 92, 498 S.E.2d 395 (Ct. App. 1998);
(d)   Crosby v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 330 S.C. 489, 489 S.E.2d 253 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied, (March 3, 1999);
(e)   O'Cain v. O'Cain, 322 S.C. 551, 473 S.E.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1996)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Huff's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Huff is a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends his re-election to Seat 8, Court of Appeals."
Judge Huff is married to Patricia Dale Huff. He has one child: Tiffany Dale Faugl, housewife and part-time secretary (age 22).
Judge Huff reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Aiken County Bar Association.

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.
Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Jenkins meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Jenkins was born on August 8, 1947. He is 52 years old and a resident of Travelers Rest, South Carolina. Judge Jenkins provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Jenkins.
Judge Jenkins demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Jenkins reported that he has made $40 in campaign expenditures for stationery and postage for sending letters announcing his candidacy.
Judge Jenkins testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Jenkins testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Jenkins to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Jenkins described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Orientation for new Family Court Judges (1996);
(b)   Annual Judicial Conference (1996-1999);
(c)   Annual Family Court Judges Conference (1996-1999);
(d)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Annual Conference (1998);
(e)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Evidence in Juvenile and Family Court (1998);
(f)   National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Advanced Family Law (1997).
Judge Jenkins reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Juvenile Law/Pre-Trial Diversion Course through the sponsorship of the Department of Youth Services and the local Solicitor's Office. A ten-week course designed to teach juveniles between ages 13 and 16 responsible civil conduct under the law; giving them exposure through site visits and guest presenters on law enforcement functions (1986-88);
(b)   Presenter for the SBA Committee for Indigent Representation on Judicial Responses to pro se Representation (1998);
(c)   Presenter for the Family Court Judges Conference on Judicial Ethics (1998).
Judge Jenkins reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Jenkins did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Jenkins has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Jenkins was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Jenkins reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Jenkins served in the Air Force from August 1966 to May 1969 and in the active Reserves from June 1969 to August 1972, receiving an Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Jenkins appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Jenkins appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Jenkins was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1976-79: Engaged in the active practice of law as a Staff Attorney/Managing Attorney at Legal Services Agency headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina (NLAP, Inc.).
Provided direct legal assistance to indigent clients in the areas of Family Law (50%), State/Federal Housing Law (20%), State/Federal Public Benefit Laws (15%), and State/Federal Consumer Law involved in Claim & Delivery and Deficiency Suits (10)%). Other areas of service provided included the preparation of wills and deeds; powers of attorney for clients financial affairs. Yearly caseload exceeded 300 cases. In this position, I also coordinated the expansion of offices to Georgetown, Kingstree and Beaufort Counties.
In addition, coordinated the attorneys' weekly office schedule for client intake and served as the office liaison with the local courts. The office yearly caseload exceeded 5,000 cases.
1979-95: Engaged in the active practice of law as Attorney/Administrator titled: Director/General Counsel for Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc., in Greenville South Carolina. Fifty percent of time was devoted to client practice in association with 13 staff attorneys in the areas of: Family Law Practice (50%), Federal Consumer Law (10%) and other legal services associated with the practice of Poverty Law.
I was responsible for the legal services provided through offices located in Greenville, Anderson, and Greenwood, serving those areas and the adjoining counties of Edgefield, McCormick, Abbeville, Oconee, and Pickens. The yearly total caseload exceeded 4,000 cases.
Served as legal counsel for numerous local community organizations whose mission are to improve the lives of people in poverty. Examples include: Greenville's Child, Inc., Save Our Sons, Neighborhoods In Action, The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation, and Brockwood Senior Housing Corporation.
Served as an attorney member on the Kellogg Bar & Bench Sub-Committee of Judicial Administrative Policy, recommending Family Court Rule changes affecting disposition of cases where the State is involved in establishing permanent placement for Foster Care children (1993-on-going).
I was responsible for the hiring and training of all staff attorneys. I was responsible for public relations with the court system and the community. I served as liaison to the local state and national bar associations.
I was responsible for managing a yearly operating budget of over one million dollars and served as the general counsel for the corporation's financial affairs with state/federal government and other regulating bodies.
I reported to a fifteen-member board of directors appointed by bar associations and community groups."
Judge Jenkins provided the following description of his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"My initial experience in Criminal Law Practice began through the Law School's Corrections Clinic Program where, in my senior year, under special court rule for supervised appearances, I represented inmates in Post Conviction Relief proceedings. This essentially involved challenging their convictions based on legal defects in either the proceeding or the quality of the representation given during the prosecution of the case. This involved conducting extensive interviews with the inmates at the Central Correction Institute location, interviewing other pertinent witnesses, reviewing transcripts of the trial, and drafting pleadings and motions to challenge the convictions at the Circuit Court level.
In the past four years, as a Family Court Judge, I have presided over proceedings involving the full range of Criminal Law and Procedure in Juvenile Court. These have included taking various forms of guilty pleas, conducting Waiver hearings, Detention hearings, Adjudicatory and Dispositional hearings and full- blown trials involving the full range of charges from misdemeanors to more serious felonies by juveniles. In these proceedings the judge acts without a jury to "find facts" and impose an appropriate sentence after receiving a history on the juvenile and his family circumstances. I have had to apply the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence in these proceedings in the same manner as applicable in the Circuit Court. During the past four years I have conducted no less than 500 cases in this area of court practice.
In the Fall of 1998 I received 40 hours of Continuing Legal Education Instructions in a four-day course entitled "Evidence In Juvenile and Family Court Proceedings" at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges School at the University of Nevada at Reno. I believe my learning curve in Criminal Law Practice will be no greater or less than others who have come to the Circuit Court bench and that I can quickly get current to a greater degree by attending targeted Criminal Law CLEs and by the actual experience of presiding over criminal proceedings with juries. I am a very hard worker at self-improvement in whatever I do. My approach to Circuit Court Judicial Practice will be consistent with my current judicial record in Family Court. I will attend selected Criminal Law CLEs this fall and winter of 1999 before the election date of this campaign in 2000.
My past experience at Circuit Court in civil practice is very broad and varied. In the past eighteen years of my practice prior to becoming a Family Court Judge, I served as a Staff Attorney, Managing Attorney and Director of Legal Services Programs in Charleston and Greenville Counties. The description of my practice experience is outlined hereinbelow and above."
Judge Jenkins reported the frequency of his court appearances prior to serving on the bench as follows:
(a)   Federal:   infrequent appearances by written motions in social security cases
(b)   State:     frequent
Judge Jenkins reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters prior to serving on the bench as follows:
(a)   Civil:     65%
(b)   Criminal:   0%
(c)   Domestic:   35%
Judge Jenkins reported the percentage of his practice in trial court prior to serving on the bench as follows:
(a)   Jury:     2%
(b)   Non-jury:   98%
Judge Jenkins provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Jenkins' account of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. v. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. Dist. Ct., Greenville, 1980. This case involved the prosecution of Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments for maintenance repairs and causing wide spread evictions for improper reasons. Prosecuted as a class action, the matter was successfully resolved by court consent in favor of all families living in Greenville Public Housing. It resulted in better management practices which gave proper respect for the leasehold rights of public tenants;
(b)   John Plumley, et al. v. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, U.S. 4th Cir. (Unpublished 1982, #81-1894). This case was important because right to attorneys fees by staff lawyers were permitted at reasonable levels where prosecution is successful under Section 1983 of the federal civil statute;
(c)   Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E.2d. 718 (S.C. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 64 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control;
(d)   Jenkins, et al. v. American Modern Homes, et al., 90-10-5549 (Cir. Ct. - Charleston County). This case involved seeking to enforce proper hazard insurance coverage for Hugo related damages against a claim of exclusion due to alleged flood damages. The issues were successfully resolved in clients favor after extensive discovery and trial preparation, thus preventing a homeless outcome for clients. (1990);
(e)   Hatchcock and Shuly v. Tammy McKensie, 94-CP-23-1336 (Cir. Ct. Greenville) on Supersedeas to S.C. Supreme Court. This case involved the enforcement of client's right to continue possession of premises under the HUD Section 8 Housing Subsidy Program against improper ejectment proceeding brought by landlord. The client's mental condition complicated resolution of the issues (client is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Case resolved favorable to interest of client. (1994)."
The following is Judge Jenkins' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Creel v. Miles, In re: Dianne Mary Miles, Supreme Court unpublished memorandum #79-179, September 1979. This case involved an unsuccessful attempt to get practical compliance with the ten day hearing rule in cases where a minor has been taken into protective custody through DSS and law enforcement to protect rights of the parent;
(b)   Fieldcrest Tenants Association, et al. v. Housing Authority of Greenville, U.S. Dist. Ct., Greenville, 1980. This case involved the prosecution of Due Process rights of public housing tenants against irregular conduct and practices of public housing management in setting improper rent, improper assessments for maintenance repairs and causing wide spread evictions for improper reasons. Prosecuted as a class action, the matter was successfully resolved by court consent in favor of all families living in Greenville Public Housing. It resulted in better management practices which gave proper respect for the leasehold rights of public tenants;
(c)   John Plumley, et al. v. School District of Greenville and State Board of Education, U.S. 4th Cir. (Unpublished 1982, #81-1894). This case was important because right to attorneys' fees by staff lawyers were permitted at reasonable levels where prosecution is successful under Section 1983 of the federal civil statute;
(d)   Greenville Housing Auth. v. Jessie Salters, 316 S.E.2d. 718 (S.C. 1984). This case is important because it involved preventing a 64 year old lady who lived in public housing all her life from being made homeless by ejectment action of the housing authority based on circumstances beyond her control."
Judge Jenkins currently serves as Family Court Judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 5. Since January 1999, he has served as Chief Administrative Judge for Family Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit (Greenville and Pickens Counties).
Judge Jenkins has held the following public offices prior to serving as a judge:
(a)   1979-1996 - Director, Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc., appointed through selection by quasi-public Board of Directors;
(b)   1984-86 - State Advisory Committee on Workers' Compensation Law, appointed by the Governor;
(c)   1990-1996 - Board of Directors, S.C. Protection and Advocacy System for the Handicapped, Inc., appointed by Board of Directors;
(d)   1991-1996 - The Citadel Board of Visitors, by designation for the State Superintendent of Education;
(e)   1993-1996 - Board of Directors, S.C. Families for Kids, appointment by Board of Directors.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Jenkins' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Jenkins was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Judge Jenkins is married to Margaret Helen (Rivers) Jenkins. He has two children: Robert Nathaniel Jenkins, Jr., 26, employed at Data Stream, Administration, Greenville, S.C.; and Jason Matthew Jenkins, 18, student at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama.
Judge Jenkins reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association, Economics of Law Practice Division;
(b)   S.C. Black Lawyers Association, Treasurer 1976-1980;
(c)   Greenville Bar Association;
(d)   American Bar Association, Economics of Law Practice Group;
(e)   S.C. Legal Services Advisory Group; Chairman 1983-1996;
(f)   National Project Advisory Group for Legal Services; S.C. representative (1983/96).
Judge Jenkins provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Allen Temple A.M.E. Church-Board of Trustees; Assist. Superintendent of Sunday School; Finance Commission;
(b)   Association of Citadel Men;
(c)   Northwest (Travelers Rest) YMCA-Board member (1996 to present).
Judge Jenkins reported the following additional information regarding his candidacy:
(a)   Concurrent Resolution S698 from the State Legislature for Outstanding Service as a Governor Appointee to the State Committee for Improvement of Workers' Compensation Law (1987);
(b)   Certification of Appreciation Award from the State Department of Youth Services for teaching the Pre-Trial Diversion Class for Juveniles (1985);
(c)   Columbia University School of Law - Completed two weeks course in Civil Procedure taught by Judge J. Weinstein (1982);
(d)   Leadership South Carolina (1983 Graduate);
(e)   Leadership Greenville (1982 Graduate);
(f)   Executive Leadership Course, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, N.C. (1989);
(g)   Received Board Member of the Year Award for board and legal services work for Greenville's Child, Inc. (1993);
(h)   Received Outstanding Attorney Award for legal services rendered to the Save Our Sons, Inc. (S.O.S.), 1994. Save Our Sons is a non-profit community-based organization dedicated to reducing the rate of incarceration of African-American male juveniles by working with the Family Court System and judges as an alternative placement for structured mentoring and development;
(i)   Coordinated the establishment of the Libra Society, a local volunteer organization for lawyers to give pro-bono service to indigent clients through Legal Services of Western Carolina, Inc. and the State Bar Pro-Bono Program. This has resulted in more than 115 lawyers from Greenville and Pickens counties serving on referral panels to serve the Family and Probate Courts in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit;
(j)   Judicial member appointed by the Chief Justice to serve on the Commission of Judicial Conduct (1996-present);
(k)   Member - Family Court Judges Advisory Committee (1996-present).

James W. Johnson, Jr.
Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Johnson meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Johnson was born on August 16, 1951. He is 48 years old and a resident of Clinton, South Carolina. Judge Johnson provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1976.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Johnson.
Judge Johnson demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Johnson reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Johnson testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Johnson testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Johnson to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Johnson provided that he has complied with the continuing legal and judicial education requirements for a judge in this State during the past five years. He has accumulated the maximum number of carry-forward hours annually. He reported that he attends seminars sponsored by the S.C. Bar Association and the Judicial Department.
Judge Johnson reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Speaker, New Judges School (1996 - Ethics);
(b)   Speaker, New Judges School (1999 - Common Pleas);
(c)   Bridge the Gap (March and May 1999 - Essential tips for Practice in Circuit Court);
(d)   Speaker, Solicitors' Annual Meeting (Recent Court Decisions).
Judge Johnson reported that he has published a number of Attorney General opinions as an Assistant Attorney General on a variety of topics.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Johnson did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Johnson has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Johnson was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Johnson reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Johnson appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Johnson appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Johnson was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1976. He described his legal experience as follows:
"August 1976-November 1981: Assistant Attorney General, State of S.C.; consumer fraud, representation of various state agencies; civil litigation, including tort claims and highway condemnation throughout the state.
November 1981-February 1983: Sole practice, Clinton, S.C.; general practice, both civil and criminal, in all state courts.
February 1983-December 1988: Partner in firm of Blalock & Johnson, Clinton, S.C.; general practice in all state and federal courts.
December 1988-March 1992: Sole practice, Clinton, S.C.; general practice
March 1992-present: Circuit Court Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Johnson reported that his most significant orders or opinions are:
"(a)   State v. Patrick, 457 S.E.2d 632, 318 S.C. 352 (1995);
(b)   Taylor v. Medenica, 479 S.E.2d 35, 324 S.C. 200 (1996) Acting Associate Justice;
(c)   State v. Barton, 481 S.E.2d 439, 325 S.C. 522 (1997);
(d)   Shelton v. Oscar Mayer, 481 S.E.2d 706, 325 S.C. 248 (1997);
(e)   State v. Robinson, 99-UP-285, Court of Appeals filed 5-3-99. The court later decided to publish the opinion."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Johnson's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "We found Judge Johnson extremely qualified. He was most cordial to the Committee. The comments received were positive in nature."
Judge Johnson is married to Jean Katherine Mangum Johnson. He has four children: Ryan William Johnson (age 22); Austin Michael Johnson (age 19); Katherine Marie Johnson (age 17); and Elizabeth Leigh Johnson (age 15).
Judge Johnson reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1976 - present);
(b)   Commission on Judicial Conduct (1994 - present);
(c)   Circuit Judges Advisory Committee (1995 - present);
(d)   Laurens County Bar Association (President, January - May 1991; Vice-President, 1990).
Judge Johnson additionally provided that he is an Elder at First Presbyterian Church.

William Paul Keesley
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Keesley meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Keesley was born on May 10, 1953. He is 46 years old and a resident of Edgefield, South Carolina. Judge Keesley provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Keesley.
Judge Keesley demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Keesley reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Keesley testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Keesley testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Keesley to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Keesley described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Judicial training at Spring Conference of the S.C. Association of Circuit Judges each year;
(b)   Judicial training at annual meeting of the judiciary in August of each year;
(c)   Criminal law seminar at S.C. Bar meeting each January;
(d)   Seminars at ABA convention in Chicago;
(e)   Drug court training at numerous sites.
Judge Keesley reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   He spoke about drug courts at the following:

two meetings of the S.C. Solicitors' Association;

two meetings of the S.C. Association of Circuit Judges;

the Medical College of S.C., Charleston, seminar on addiction;

Greenville Technical College;

a meeting of the Pre-Trial Intervention group;

training sessions of Leadership Columbia;

S.C. Drug and Other Abuse Services (DAODAS) training;

S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals annual meeting;

National Association of Drug Court Professionals;
(b)   He spoke about sentencing guidelines at training sessions of the S.C. Department of Corrections;
(c)   He presented a seminar session on the S.C. Rules of Evidence at the U.S.C. School of Law.
Judge Keesley reported that he has published an article on Drug Courts published in the July/August 1998 issue of South Carolina Lawyer.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Keesley did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Keesley did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Keesley has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Keesley was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Keesley reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Keesley was a member of the House of Representatives, District 82, from November 1988 - August 12, 1991.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Keesley appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Keesley appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Keesley was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1978-1980     Associate, John F. Byrd, Jr., Esq., Edgefield, S.C., General practice primarily involving real estate.
1980-1983     Associate, J. Roy Berry, Esq., Johnston, S.C., General practice primarily domestic relations.
1983-1991     Sole practitioner, Johnston, S.C., General practice.
From 1983-1987, part-time Public Defender for four counties.
From 1983-1989, part-time Town Attorney for Johnston, S.C.
From 1988-1989, part-time Assistant Solicitor, 11th Judicial Circuit."
Judge Keesley has held the judicial office of resident judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit since August 13, 1991. The position is elected by the General Assembly.
The following is Judge Keesley's account of his most significant orders:
"(a)   S.C. Tax Comm. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., et al. Case No. 92 CP-32-0503: 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (1994). This case held that documents were available for release under the Freedom of Information Act requests and dealt with the impact of the defendant's actions on the disclosure;
(b)   Orangeburg Sausage Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., et al. Case No. 90-CP-38-480; 316 S.C. 331, 450 S.E.2d 66 (Ct. App.1994) A multi-million dollar verdict on a bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits for damages arising from Hurricane Hugo. Case was appealed to U.S. Supreme Court, which denied cert.;
(c)   Calcaterra v. City of Columbia. 90-CP-32-3000; 315 S.C. 196, 432 S.E.2d 498 (1993) Challenge by property owners to the right of the City of Columbia to charge higher water rates outside the city limits. Affirmed on appeal;
(d)   Parrish v. Koontz. Case No. 92-CP-23-209 & 210 Appealed to the S.C. Supreme Court as Ex Parte: The S.C. Farm Bureau 13 S.E.2d 252 (1993) Novel issue in S.C. concerning whether a statute was a notice statute or a statute of limitations;
(e)   State v. Michael Rian Torrence. Case No. 87-GS-32-1429; 322 S.C. 475, 473 S.E.2d 703 (1996). Death penalty case involving whether the defendant was competent to waive his rights on automatic appeal and be put to death. The order is about 30 pages long. In summary, it involved novel issues in this state and required the court to develop a procedural mechanism to reach the conclusions necessary. The order is a detailed analysis of the testimony about the defendant's mental state and his decision to accept the death penalty."
Judge Keesley reported that he has not been employed as a judge other than his elected judicial office.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Keesley's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Keesley is a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends his re-election to Seat 1, Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit."
Judge Keesley is married to Linda Faye Black Keesley. He has one child, Kyliene Lee Keesley, who is a college student.
Judge Keesley reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1978 - present);
(b)   Edgefield County Bar Association - President, 1985. Treasurer for many years;
(c)   Tri-County (Edgefield, Saluda, McCormick) Bar Association;
(d)   S.C. Association of Circuit Judges, Secretary, 1992-present;
(e)   S.C. Association of Drug Court Professionals, President, 1997-present;
(f)   National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Judge Keesley provided that he was a Mason, Concordia Lodge #50, in Edgefield, S.C., and that he holds no office.
Judge Keesley provided that he has had eight years of experience as a Circuit Court judge.

Howard P. King
Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge King meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge King was born on April 13, 1939. He is 60 years old and a resident of Sumter, South Carolina. Judge King provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1966.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge King.
Judge King demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge King reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge King testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge King testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge King to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge King described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Seminars sponsored by S.C. Bar and other providers, including all mandatory JCLE seminars;
(b)   Completed General Jurisdiction course at National Judicial College;
(c)   Usually carries over hours on MCLE each year.
Judge King reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Business Law, Sumter Area Technical College;
(b)   Program Moderator, S.C. Bar CLE;
(c)   Lecturer, Mechanics Liens, Stewart Title Co. Seminar.
Judge King reported that he has published the following:
(a)   Comment: Cohabitation as a Denial of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 17 SCLR 292 (1965);
(b)   Comment: Search and Seizure - A Constitutional Standard for South Carolina, 17 SCLR 687 (1965).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge King did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge King did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge King has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge King was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge King reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
Judge King reported that he was in the U.S. Army (Artillery) - November 1961 - November 1963, 1st Lieutenant; and in the S.C. Army National Guard - September 1964 - September 1966, 1st Lieutenant, Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge King appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge King appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge King was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1966. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1966-1969   Associate, Bryan & Bahnmuller, Sumter, S.C.
1969-1996   Partner (including 17 years as Managing Partner), Bryan, Bahnmuller, King, Goldman & McElveen
Originally had a general civil and criminal practice, including family. Gradually got out of criminal and family practice and into a more general civil practice with emphasis on business, employment, real estate, corporate, contract, banking law, and civil litigation.
March 1966-Present - Resident Circuit Judge; Third Judicial Circuit."
The following is Judge King's account of his most significant orders:
"(a)   Beaufort County Board of Education v. Lighthouse Charter School Committee, Civil Action No. 97-CP-07-794; aff'd and remanded, Supreme Court Opinion No. 24950 (June 1, 1999). Supreme Court Opinion No. 24950;
(b)   Hall v. Sumter School District #2, Civil Action No. 96-CP-43-580; aff'd, Opinion No. 2811 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. denied, 99-OR-0014 (January 12, 1999). Court of Appeals Opinion No. 2811;
(c)   Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, Civil Action No. 95-CP-43-529; rev'd and remanded, 330 S.C. 115, 498 S.E.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1998), cert. granted April 8, 1999. 498 S.E.2d 408;
(d)   Small v. Pioneer Machinery, Civil Action No. 91-CP-21-1749; aff'd, 330 S.C. 62, 496 S.E.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1998). Jury verdict also aff'd, 329 S.C. 448, 494 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1997). 496 S.E.2d 884 and 494 S.E.2d 835;
(e)   McKenzie v. Readen v. Sosnowski, Civil Action No. 96-CP-10-645; aff'd, 98-UP-264 (Ct. App. 1998) 98-UP-264."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge King's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge King is qualified for the position of Circuit Court judge. As a result of its investigation of and interview with Judge King, the Committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge King is married to Nancy Leslie Ariail King. He has two children: Nancy Leslie King Ducey (32, teacher); and Ariail Elizabeth King (28, attorney at law, private practice).
Judge King reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1966 - present)
Chairman - House of Delegates 1980-1982, Secretary 1987-1988, Treasurer 1988-1989, President-Elect 1989-1990, President 1990-1991, Immediate Past-President 1991-1992, Member - House of Delegates 1976-1988, 1992-Present;
(b)   American Bar Association: House of Delegates, 1992-1996;
(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association (former member);
(d)   Southern Conference of Bar Presidents;
(e)   National Conference of Bar Presidents (former member);
(f)   Sumter County Bar Association (President, 1995);
(g)   American Association of Trial Lawyers (former member).
Judge King provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Sunset Country Club;
(b)   Sumter County Library Board (1982-1987);
(c)   Woodmen of the World;
(d)   U.S.C.-Sumter Educational Foundation;
(e)   Trinity Methodist Church-former Trustee (1984-1988) and former Chairman Administrative Board (1994-1997);
(f)   Mac Boykin Trust Fund-former Trustee;
(g)   Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity;
(h)   Citadel Alumni Association;
(i)   The Citadel Brigadier Club;
(j)   Sumter Jaycees (1966-1973);
(k)   Sumter Lions Club (former member-president 1982);
(l)   Sumter County OEO Board (1970-1975).
Judge King additionally provided, "At a term of the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, a case came before me where one of the parties, Craig Stoneburner, had been the landlord for my daughter when she was a student at USC some eight (8) years earlier. We had some problems regarding this landlord-tenant relationship and I disclosed this before the case began and offered to recuse myself. All parties agreed that it was not necessary that I recuse myself and the case went forward. Mr. Stoneburner was unhappy with the result and sent a letter to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. I responded and the Commission summarily dismissed the complaint."

Alexander S. Macaulay
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Macaulay meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Macaulay was born on January 18, 1942. He is 58 years old and a resident of West Union, South Carolina. Judge Macaulay provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1970.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Macaulay.
Judge Macaulay demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Macaulay reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Macaulay testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Macaulay testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Macaulay to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Macaulay described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as meeting or exceeding annual requirements. Judge Macaulay reported that he has attended seminars approved or sponsored by the South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division and Supreme Court. He additionally reported that he has completed the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada-Reno.
Judge Macaulay reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Macaulay reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Macaulay did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Macaulay did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Macaulay has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Macaulay was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Macaulay reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Macaulay appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Macaulay appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Macaulay was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1970. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1970-72:   Assistant Attorney General of South Carolina, civil and criminal, trial and appellate, and counsel for various State agencies (Department of Social Services, Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, State Highway Department).
1973-1994: Private practice, civil and criminal, trial and appellate, plaintiff and defense, including torts, eminent domain, contracts, property, domestic and estate.
Miley and Macaulay         1973-1976
Miley, Macaulay & Boggs       1976-1980
Miley, Macaulay, Day & Agnew, P.A.   1981-1984
Miley, Macaulay & Cain, P.A.     1986-1988
Miley & Macaulay, P.A.       1988-1994."

The following is Judge Macaulay's account of his most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   Rogers v. South Carolina Dept. of Parole & Community Corrections, 320 S.C. 253, 258, 464 S.E.2d 330, 333 (S.C. 1996) (Alexander S. Macaulay, A.A.J., separate opinion concurring in dissent of Toal, A.J.);
(b)   Liberty Life Insurance Co. v. Policy Management Systems Corp., C.A. No. 96-CP-23-171, Petition for Certiorari denied (S.C. June 20, 1996);
(c)   John Doe, M.D. v. South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability J.U.A., C.A. No. 97-CP-10-3071 (filed August 18, 1998, appeal pending);
(d)   Commander v. Karampournioti, C.A. Nos. 97-CP-16-279 and 281 (Two Cases) (filed April 9, 1999, no appeal);
(e)   State ex rel. Condon v. City of Charleston, C.A. No. 97-CP-10-375, affirmed, 334 S.C. 246, 513 S.E.2d 97 (S.C. 1999)."
Judge Macaulay reported that he served as a captain in the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps from 1964 to 1975. Judge Macaulay retired with an Honorable Discharge on February 4, 1975.
Judge Macaulay was appointed to the State Board of Education from the Tenth Judicial Circuit during the years of 1979-1980.
Judge Macaulay was also elected to the S.C. Senate from District One, Seat Three, from 1981-1984, 1985-1992, and 1993-1994.
Judge Macaulay reported that he unsuccessfully ran in the Democratic Primary for nomination to be a candidate for the S.C. House of Representatives from Richland County in June 1970.
Judge Macaulay reported that he was elected as Circuit Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial Circuit in 1994.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Macaulay's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Macaulay was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Judge Macaulay is married to the former Maria Locke Boineau. He has two children: Maria Locke Macaulay Sellers, a teacher of hearing impaired students & a mother, age 29; and Alexander Stephens Macaulay, a doctoral candidate in history at the University of Georgia, age 26.
Judge Macaulay reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1970 - present);
(b)   Oconee County Bar Association, President 1980;
(c)   American Bar Association.
Judge Macaulay additionally provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Walhalla Presbyterian Church (Deacon and Elder);
(b)   Walhalla Rotary Club (former president);
(c)   Tri-State Trout Club;
(d)   S.C. Society of the Cincinnati;
(e)   St. Andrew's Societies of Columbia and Upper S.C.;
(f)   Societies of the High Hills of Santee and Lower Richland;
(g)   S.C. Society of the Sword and Mace;
(h)   South Caroliniana Society;
(i)   S.C. Historical Society;
(j)   Tarantella Club of Columbia;
(k)   Oconee Assembly;
(l)   Columbia Cotillion Club.
Judge Macaulay additionally provided, "I was actively engaged in the practice of law from 1970 to 1994, representing individuals and the State, plaintiffs and defendants, in civil and criminal matters in trials and on appeals, with cases tried, or ultimate disposition being made on appeal, in all levels of Courts of this State and the United States. More importantly, my life has been one of representation of people and public service requiring an appreciation for, and the maintenance of, a mutual respect between individuals, the public and their institutions, regardless of the matters involved.
Since June 1994, I have presided over terms of Circuit Court, jury and non-jury, civil and criminal, to include capital cases, trials and appeals, throughout our State, and on occasion I have served as an acting associate justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court."

L. Casey Manning
Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Manning meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Manning was born on December 7, 1950. He is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Manning provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1977.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Manning.
Judge Manning demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Manning reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Manning testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Manning testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Manning to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Manning described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Orientation School for Circuit Court Judges (S.C. Court Administration, 1994);
(b)   Circuit Judges' Seminar (1994);
(c)   Judicial Conference (S.C. Court Administration, 1994);
(d)   Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar (S.C. Bar, 1994);
(e)   General Jurisdiction (1994);
(f)   Advanced Evidence Course (1994);
(g)   Mid-Year Meeting- Tenth Annual Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar, 1995);
(h)   Circuit Judges' Spring Conference (S.C. Association of Circuit Judges, 1995);
(i)   Judicial Conference (S.C. Court Administration, 1995);
(j)   S.C. Tort Law Update: A Circuit Court Bench/Bar Seminar (S.C. Bar, 1995);
(k)   Fall Seminar (S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 1995);
(l)   Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar, 1996);
(m)   Alternative Dispute Resolution for Advocates: Just Do It (S.C. Bar, 1996);
(n)   Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Offenses & Penalties for "Serious" (S.C. Bar, 1996);
(o)   Circuit Judges' Spring Conference (S.C. Office of Indigent Defense, 1996);
(p)   1996 Annual Convention (S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1996);
(q)   Judicial Conference (S.C. Court Administration, 1996);
(r)   Twelfth Annual Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar, 1997);
(s)   ADR Pilot Program Workshop (Judicial Conference Alternative Dispute Resolution, 1997);
(t)   Circuit Judges' Spring Conference (1997);
(u)   Seminar of Chief Judges for Circuit and Family Courts (S.C. Court Administration, 1997);
(v)   Judicial Conference (S.C. Court Administration, 1997);
(w)   Group Facilitator in General Jurisdiction Course (Reno, Nevada, 1997);
(x)   Thirteenth Annual Criminal Law Update (S.C. Bar, 1998);
(y)   Circuit Judges Association Meeting (S.C. Bar, 1998);
(z)   1998 Orientation School for New Circuit Court Judges (S.C. Court Administration, 1998);
(aa)   Bureau of Justice Assistance Faculty Development Workshop (Reno, Nevada, 1998);
(bb)   1998 Annual Conference (S.C. Trial Lawyers Association, 1998);
(cc)   Judicial Conference (S.C. Court Administration, 1998);
(dd)   Group Facilitator in Essential Judicial Skills Course (Reno, Nevada, 1998).
Judge Manning reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Group Facilitator in General Jurisdiction Course, Reno, Nevada (1997);
(b)   Group Facilitator in Essential Judicial Skills Course, Reno, Nevada (1998).
Judge Manning reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Manning did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Manning has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Manning was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Manning reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Manning appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Manning appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Manning was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1977.
Judge Manning was elected Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit on February 21, 1994
Judge Manning reported he has held the following public offices:
(a)   S.C. Assistant Attorney General, 1983 to 1989;
(b)   Bar Examiner, 1992.
Judge Manning describes his most significant orders as follows:
"(a)   Michael & Lisa Strebler as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jacob Strebler v. Milner Super Gas, Inc., Stephen Mark Jones, Pulliam Motor Company, Heathwood Episcopal School, J. Robert Shirley, and Mary Stuart Dargan James, 94-CP-40-4582.Complex litigation involving wreck of school van. Mediated twice by Alex Sanders. Finally able to resolve;
(b)   State of South Carolina v. Edgar Thomas, 98-GS-21-395. Death penalty case in Florence County. From date of assignment until resolution, case lasted about 90 days;
(c)   Arant v. Kressler, M.D., 489 S.E.2d 206, 327 S.C. 225 (1997)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Manning's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Manning is a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends his re-election to Seat 2, Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit."
Judge Manning is married to LaVerne Hunter Manning. He has three children: Charlotte (Age 19), Casey, Jr. (Age 18), and Morgan (Age 9).
Judge Manning reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association, 1977 - Present;
(b)   S.C. Bar- Criminal Law Secretary; Chairman, 1987 - 1988;
(c)   American Bar Association;
(d)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association- National Minority Delegate;
(e)   Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Sports Committee, 1973-1974;
(f)   Richland County Bar Association;
(g)   S.C. Bar Board of Law Examiners, 1992;
(h)   S.C. Bar Special Committee on the Judiciary, 1991-1992;
(i)   S.C. Commission on Judicial Conduct;
(j)   S.C. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1996-Present;
(k)   Hearing Masters, Rules on Judicial Discipline & Standards, 1994-1998.
Judge Manning provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Columbia Tip-Off Club, 1989-Present; President, 1991-1992;
(b)   S.C. Athletic Hall of Fame, 1989-Present;
(c)   S.C. Special Olympics, 1989-1996;
(d)   Children's Justice Task Force Committee;
(e)   Citizens Summit Steering Committee;
(f)   U.S.C. Bi-Centennial Committee, 1998-Present.
Additionally, since 1993, Judge Manning has provided play-by-play for basketball games for the University of South Carolina Network.

Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge Division, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Matthews meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as an Administrative Law judge.
Judge Matthews was born on November 8, 1950. She is 49 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Matthews provided in her application that she has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Matthews.
Judge Matthews demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Matthews reported that she has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Matthews testified she has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Matthews testified that she is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Matthews to be intelligent and knowledgeable. Her performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Matthews described her continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
06/03/94   S.C. Bar Natural Resources Section;
10/14/94   S.C. Bar - What Every S.C. Lawyer Should Know About Environmental Law;
04/21/95   CLE Seminar at U.S.C. Law School in Columbia;
06/30/95   The New Circuit Court Arbitration Rules;
08/10/95   S.C. Trial Lawyers Annual Convention Environmental Law Seminar;
08/11/95   Ethics & Civility;
08/12/95   General Session & Legislative Update;
08/24/95   S.C. Bench/Bar Statewide Video; CLE Seminar: The New S.C. Rules of Evidence;
01/26/96   S.C. Bar - Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update;
04/26/96   S.C. Bar - The Woman Advocate in South;
01/24/97   S.C. Bar - Alternative Dispute Resolution;
01/25/97   S.C. Bar - Government Law;
03/06/97   SCCFP - Governor's Conference on Youth;
04/18/97   S.C. Bar 1997 - Women Lawyers Assoc.;
11/09/97   Richland Bar 3rd Annual Ethics Seminar;
01/24/98   S.C. Bar Trial & Appellate Advocacy;
05/29/98   S.C. Bar S.C. Woman Advocate: Making Practice;
01/23/98   S.C. Bar Government/Construction Law.
Judge Matthews reported that she has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Lecture to Annual Meeting of S.C. Bar, June 3, 1994;
(b)   Legislative Update for Natural Resource Section, 1994;
(c)   Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel: 4-hour seminar presentation to S.C. Attorney General, Assistant Attorneys General, and Solicitors, 1986;
(d)   Presentation to S.C. Circuit Court Judges on Appellate Practice, Fall 1982.
Judge Matthews reported that she has published the following:
(a)   Editor, S.C. Bar Natural Resources Newsletter 1992-1994;
(b)   South Carolina Business Journal, Busy Year for Environmental Issues, S.C. Chamber of Commerce, July 1994;
(c)   Legislative Year in Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, June 1994;
(d)   Legislative Review, S.C. Bar Annual Conference, June 1993;
(e)   South Carolina State Government Restructured: The Private Sector Impact, September 1993.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against her. The Commission's investigation of Judge Matthews did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Matthews has handled her financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Matthews was punctual and attentive in her dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with her diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Matthews reported that her last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Matthews appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Matthews appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office she seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Matthews was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978. She described her legal experience as follows:
"Staff Attorney, South Carolina Supreme Court (1978-1981): Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals; recommended disposition by the Court; supervised junior Staff Attorneys. Assisted at settlement conferences; Drafted Court Rules.
Law Clerk, South Carolina Supreme Court, Justice George T, Gregory, Jr. (1981 to 1982): Reviewed and researched civil and criminal appeals and Motions; Drafted opinions, rules and orders for Justice Gregory; Assisted at Hearings on Extraordinary Writs, such as Mandamus, Supersedeas, and Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings.
Assistant Attorney General, State of South Carolina (1982-1986): Researched and wrote more than 200 briefs and argued more than 80 appeals before the S.C. Supreme Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court; Coordinated appeals with Solicitors; Prosecuted Medical Board and other licensing board cases; Wrote opinions as directed by the Attorney General; Represented State Agencies pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act; Coordinated Continuing Education Legal Seminars; Chaired first Law Enforcement Leadership Conference
Counsel, South Carolina House of Representatives Judiciary Committee David H. Wilkins, Committee Chairman (1986 to 1988): Managed research and drafting of legislation and amendments on all legislation referred to Judiciary Committee. Coordinated legislative efforts with Governor's office, Legislative staff, and state agencies; Managed staff attorneys and law clerks
Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley& Scarborough (1988 to 1996): Administrative Law and Governmental Relations
Partner, Woodward Cothran & Herndon (1996 to December 1998): Commercial Litigation, and Appellate, and Administrative Law Practice before State Agencies, including Department of Health and Environmental Control, Insurance Commission, and Public Service Commission State and Federal Governmental Relations: Clients included Sprint, NAII (National Association of Independent Insurers), and Grand Stand Water and Sewer Authority
Carolyn C. Matthews, Attorney and Counselor at Law (December 1998 to June 9, 1999): Administrative Law Practice; State and Federal Governmental Relations
Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3 (June 9, 1999-present)."
Judge Matthews reported the frequency of her court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   6-8 times per year
(b)   State:     6-8 times per year
Judge Matthews reported that the percentage of her practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     85%
(b)   Criminal:   10%
(c)   Domestic:   5%
Judge Matthews reported the percentage of her practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%
(b)   Non-jury:   95%
Judge Matthews provided that she most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Matthews' account of her five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Donald Henry Pee Wee Gaskins, 284 SC 105, 326 S.E.2d 132 (1985), Sole Counsel representing State of South Carolina in death penalty appeal to S.C. Supreme Court. The case involved a 10,000-page transcript, more than 200 pages of briefs, and issues of first impression under South Carolina's Death Penalty statue. In Favorem Vitae review required that counsel be prepared at oral argument not only on the briefed issues, but also any other issues which might be raised by the Supreme Court. Affirmed, with certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court;
(b)   State v. Kiser, 288 SC 441, 343 S.E.2d 292 (1986): Sole Counsel representing State in case of first impression: the constitutionality of South Carolina's newly-enacted Drug Trafficking Statute, which imposed the strictest penalties in the United States. Affirmed per curiam after oral argument;
(c)   State v. Brantley, 279 SC 215, S.E.2d (1983): Sole Counsel for the State in briefing and arguing the constitutional issue of the scope of Circuit Judge's contempt power. Affirmed;
(d)   Alexander S., et al. v. Flora Brooks Boyd, et al., U.S.D.C., District of S.C., Civil Action No. 3:90-3062-17: [1990-present] Eight-year long complex federal litigation involving numerous alleged violations of constitutional rights of juveniles incarcerated at DJJ; landmark national case regarding prison overcrowding: numerous federal mediations, orders, opinions, and appeals;
(e)   In Re: Stucco Litigation, U.S. District Court; Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern Division: Civil Action No. 5:96-CV-287-BR(2): Numerous individual cases and preliminary orders and opinions. Plaintiffs have moved to Certify and Class."
The following is Judge Matthews' account of civil appeals she has personally handled:
"(a)   Watford v. Byers, S.C. Court of Appeals, 1/7/99, No. 99-UP-003;
(b)   Alexander S. v. Boyd, et al., 113 F.3d 1373, (4th Circuit 1997), cert denied, 118 S. Ct. 880, 139 L.E. 2d 869 (1998): Sole Counsel on brief and oral argument on case of first impression: Retroactive application of Prison Litigation Reform Act's limitations on attorney's fee awards in Juvenile Prison Litigation under Section 1983."
Judge Matthews was elected to her current position as Administrative Law Judge, Seat 3, on June 2, 1999.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Matthews' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Carolyn C. Matthews is a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends her re-election to Seat 3, Administrative Law Judge Division."
Judge Matthews is married to John A. McAllister, Jr. She has three children: Martha Austin Adams (full-time student at the University of the South, age 20); and two stepchildren: Anne Leigh McAllister, age 9; and Sarah Elizabeth McAllister, age 4.
Judge Matthews reported that she was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar;
(b)   S.C. District Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court;
(c)   S.C. Bar House of Delegates (1998-present);
(d)   S.C. Bar Legislative Counsel Committee (1991-1996);
(e)   S.C. Bar Committee on Continuing Legal Education;
(f)   American Bar Association;
(g)   Chair, Richland County Bar Legal Services Committee (1996-present);
(h)   Chair, Richland County Bar Programs Committee (1991-92);
(i)   Mentor, S.C. Young Lawyers Division (1996-present);
(j)   Board of Directors, S.C. Women Lawyers Association (1995-present).
Judge Matthews provided that she was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Board of Directors, S.C. Chapter, Leukemia Society of America (1990-present);
(b)   Member, Hammond School Board of Trustees (1990-1996);
(c)   1993 Graduate, Leadership South Carolina;
(d)   Board of Directors, Parents Anonymous of S.C.;
(e)   Governing Board, Trenholm Road U.M. Church;
(f)   City of Columbia Chamber of Commerce Issues Committee;
(g)   Volunteer, Hope for Kids: Vice-Chair, 1999 Annual Fund-raiser;
(h)   Furman University National Development Council.

Edward W. "Ned" Miller
Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Miller meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Mr. Miller was born on September 24, 1952. He is 47 years old and a resident of Greenville, South Carolina. Mr. Miller provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Miller reported that he has made $125.28 in campaign expenditures for resumé printing costs.
Mr. Miller testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Miller testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Miller to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Miller described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
1998   S.C. Public Defender Conference;
1997   Advanced Federal Sentencing Guidelines, S.C. Public Defender Conference;
1996   Understanding the New S.C. Criminal Laws, Greenville County Bar Seminar, Powerful Witness Preparation;
1995   Greenville County Bar Seminar, Everyday Ethics, Family Law and Ethics;
1994   Counseling Negotiation, Advanced Federal Sentencing Guidelines, The Year That Was.
Mr. Miller reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Mr. Miller reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Miller did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Miller did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Miller has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Miller was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Miller reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Miller appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Miller appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Miller was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978. He described his legal experience as follows:
"November 1978 - April 1980   Southern Bank and Trust Company, Federal Regulations Compliance Officer
April 1980 - June 1981   Assistant Public Defender for Greenville County
July 1981 - June 1982   Sole Practitioner in the General Practice of Law in Greenville, South Carolina
July 1982 - Present     Miller and Paschal, Attorneys at Law, General Practice with concentration in Criminal and Civil litigation."
Mr. Miller provided the following description of his experience in criminal and civil matters:
"My private law practice includes a significant amount of criminal work in the Court of General Sessions. Additionally, I have worked as a part time Assistant Public Defender for Greenville County for fourteen years. I have handled thousands of criminal cases. These cases have involved a wide variety of matters including: offenses against the person (murder and all other degrees of homicide, all levels of assault and battery, all degrees of criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping and all degrees of robbery); offenses against property (all degrees of burglary and larceny, arson, forgery, breach of trust, shoplifting, and all types of financial transaction crimes); drug offenses (all types of illegal drugs and all degrees of involvement including possession, possession with intent to distribute, distribution and trafficking); traffic offenses (all degrees of driving under the influence including accidents resulting in injury and death, driving under suspension, and failure to stop for police vehicles); crimes against morality (prostitution, indecent exposure, and lewd acts); prison offenses (escape and contraband possession); and violation of probation cases.
I have defended one death penalty case which resulted in a plea to a life sentence.
I have practiced criminal law in the United States District Court for South Carolina since 1982. I have handled all types of federal offenses including drug offenses, weapons offenses, economic offenses, securities fraud, and bank robberies.
My experience in the above listed cases includes bond hearings, motion hearings, guilty pleas, and jury trials to verdict.
Over the course of my career I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in civil matters. Recently, my civil practice has included personal injury cases and other torts. I have spent a significant amount of time on a federal securities fraud case which involved a shareholder class action and a claim under an officers' and directors' errors and omissions insurance policy. The securities class action case has recently been remanded from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to District Court for further factual determination concerning the parties excluded from the class, including my client.
I am currently representing two death sentenced inmates in Post Conviction Relief proceedings. The first case has been fully litigated and is in the post-trial briefing stage, and the other is in the pre-trial discovery stage.
Early in my career in private practice, I handled litigation for Southern Bank and Trust Company, including general litigation and collection work.
I have handled automobile accident cases, libel and slander cases, contract disputes, water drainage damage cases, defective products cases, matters in the probate court, social security disability cases, and real estate proceedings including closings and disputes over real estate."
Mr. Miller reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Bi-monthly
(b)   State:     Bi-weekly
Mr. Miller reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     25%
(b)   Criminal:   50%
(c)   Domestic:   25%
Mr. Miller reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%
(b)   Non-jury:   5%
Mr. Miller provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. Miller's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   McCall by Andrews v. Batson, 329 S.E.2d 741, 285 S.C. 243. This case was an appeal from a Demurrer which was decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 1985. This case abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity as it applied to the State and all local subdivisions of government, excepting discretionary authority of the three branches of government. This case has been considered a landmark decision;
(b)   State v. Anthony Caruso. This case involved the murder and armed robbery of a grocery store clerk making a night deposit. Caruso, along with two co-defendants, was charged with murder and armed robbery, and the State sought the death penalty. The case involved issues related to physical evidence, voluntariness of a confession, implicating statements of co-defendants, and the development of a mitigation defense in anticipation of a conviction. On the eve of trial the State offered a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, which the defendant accepted;
(c)   U.S. v. Ross Cosmetics Distribution Center, Ross Freitas, et al. This multi-defendant case involved complicated international trade agreements, corporate buyouts, and business dealings which resulted in securities fraud and the resultant loss of millions of dollars by shareholders. When the fraud was revealed, the stock price plummeted from $55 per share to $4 per share. This publicly-owned company, which traded on NASDAQ, was supplied by a manufacturer in England and financed by a Swiss factor. Both the manufacturer and the factor were owned, through seven Panamanian holding corporations, by the same group of investors located in Dubai. The Dubai investors gradually obtained control of Ross Cosmetics through ˇstock for inventoryˇ trades. The investors illegally failed to reveal their controlling interest by using the seven holding companies to acquire the stock shares of Ross Cosmetics. The investors artificially inflated the value of the Ross Cosmetics stock by selling the English manufactured goods to Ross Cosmetics below cost, thus making Ross Cosmetics appear to have a superior profit margin and thereby driving up the value of the stock. The government returned a twenty-count indictment alleging conspiracy, securities fraud, false statement, mail fraud, and customs fraud. I represented the lead defendant, Ross Freitas, who the government originally alleged to be the mastermind of this scheme. While this case resulted in the largest criminal fine in South Carolina history, Mr. Freitas plead Nolo Contendere to a misdemeanor and received six months probation;
(d)   Richard Longworth v. State. Pending Post Conviction Relief action involving a death-sentenced inmate. Richard Longworth was convicted in 1991 of armed robbery and two murders at the Westgate Cinemas in Spartanburg. He received the death penalty. The PCR has been fully litigated from the initial pleadings through a week of trial. Post trial briefing is complete, and the parties are awaiting the Judge's Order. The issues raised by the Applicant at trial included: ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel laboring under an actual conflict of interest by representing dual clients with divergent interests; prosecutorial use of false or inaccurate testimony; failure by the prosecution to disclose discoverable Brady material; failure of trial counsel and the trial court to inform applicant of his right to testify at the penalty phase of his trial; failure of trial counsel to object to the trial court's improper and misleading instruction to the applicant concerning the scope of cross examination; and other general ineffective assistance of counsel claims;
(e)   Federal Insurance Company v. Ross Cosmetics Distribution Center, et al. Numerous class action lawsuits were initiated against Ross Cosmetics' successor and various of its officers and directors alleging federal securities laws violations. Federal Insurance Company had issued an Executive Liability and Indemnification Policy, owned by Ross Cosmetics, to insure its officers and directors against errors and omissions. Federal Insurance Company initiated an interpleader action in the South Carolina District Court to determine if it should be required to pay the policy proceeds and which "insureds" would be entitled to the proceeds. The policy proceeds were paid into the registry of the Court and Federal Insurance was relieved of further liability. I represented two former officers and directors of Ross Cosmetics in their claims to the policy proceeds. Other former officers and directors had assigned their rights under the policy to Ross Cosmetics' successor corporation which strongly contested my clients' claims to the proceeds. Various Orders were filed in the District Court with respect to proceeds distribution, which resulted in Motions to Alter and Amend, and Judicial Stays imposed due to related matters before the Securities and Exchange Commission. This action was also related to a federal criminal action and shareholder class action lawsuits. Ultimately, the case was settled on the eve of the trial before the United States District Court."
The following is Mr. Miller's account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   McCall by Andrews v. Batson, 329 S.E.2d 741, 285 S.C. 243, (1985);
(b)   Ro-Lo Enterprises v. Hicks Enterprises, Inc., 362 S.E.2d 888, 294 S.C. 111 (1987);
(c)   Robbins v. First Federal Savings Bank, 363 S.E.2d 418, 294 S.C. 219 (1987);
(d)   McCarter v. Willis, 383 S.E.2d 252, 299 S.C. 198 (1989)."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Miller's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Miller was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Mr. Miller is married to Martha Albrecht Miller. He has two children: Elizabeth L. Miller (age 16); and E. Walker Miller (age 14).
Mr. Miller reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (Nov. 8, 1978 - present);
(b)   Greenville County Bar Association (1993 Board of Directors);
(c)   S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(d)   National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
(e)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association;
(f)   American Trial Lawyers Association.
Mr. Miller provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   President of Downtown Soccer Association (1998 - present);
(b)   Board of Directors of Downtown Soccer Association (1996 - present).
Mr. Miller further provided that he and his family are active communicants at Christ Church Episcopal in Greenville. In the early 1990's, Mr. Miller served three years as treasurer for St. James Episcopal Church, also in Greenville.
Mr. Miller reported that he is currently the President of the Downtown Soccer Association and has been so since 1998; his term will expire at the end of this calendar year. Mr. Miller has served as a volunteer youth soccer coach throughout the last five years, and has been on the Board of Directors since 1996. Mr. Miller has supervised the construction of and fund raising for a four field soccer complex, and has played a pivotal role in negotiating a "public-private" partnership with the City of Greenville related to its contemplated construction of ten additional soccer fields. Mr. Miller's participation has included dealing with the head of the City Recreation Department, the City Manager, and making a presentation to City Council and various other committees.

Daniel F. Pieper
Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pieper meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Pieper was born on October 8, 1961. He is 38 years old and a resident of North Charleston, South Carolina. Judge Pieper provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1985.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Pieper.
Judge Pieper demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Pieper reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Pieper testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pieper testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Pieper to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pieper stated that he keeps current on the law. Generally, each year he goes to the Judicial Conference, the Circuit Judges Association meetings, the S.C. Bar Convention, the Annual Criminal Law Update Seminar, and either or both of the Trial Lawyers Convention or the Defense Trial Lawyers Meeting. At all of these conferences, continuing education is offered and he attends as much as possible. Last year, he attended the three-week general jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College in Nevada. He states that each year he usually exceeds the continuing education hours required by the Supreme Court.
Judge Pieper reported that he spoke at a CLE for Masters-In-Equity on civil procedure. He is currently working on a program with the S.C. Bar that will cover practice pointers for all the courts in the State.
Judge Pieper reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Pieper did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pieper has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Pieper was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Pieper reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Pieper appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Pieper appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Pieper was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1985. He described legal experience as follows:
"March 1985 - August 1985; Lawclerk, U.S. District Court, for United States Magistrate Judge Robert Carr. I was responsible for researching the law and writing reports and recommendations for disposition of various cases such as employment and civil rights cases, social security, habeas corpus and other prisoner litigation, and all other civil cases referred to the office. Also, I attended and prepared for all criminal proceedings before Judge Carr. In August, I left to attend N.Y.U. For a few weeks after I returned from N.Y.U., I worked with the Joye law firm handling foreclosures, estate planning and civil matters.
Fall 1986 - Fall 1988; Senior Lawclerk, U.S. District Court for Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. I worked on a wide variety of civil and criminal matters involving issues of statutory and constitutional law, including habeas corpus review of decisions of the S.C. Supreme Court. Essentially, I received training and exposure to all aspects of trial, including complex litigation.
August 1988 - December 1990. During part of this time, I was associated with a lawyer under the name of Pieper & Stokes (Mark); six months thereafter, we associated with another lawyer (Kinard) but chose to operate as separate entities. Character of practice - real estate, probate, estate planning and general civil matters.
Summer 1990 - Summer 1993; Summer 1993 - Summer 1995; returned to U.S. District Court at request of Judge Blatt, because of my class action experience, to assist with the complicated bankruptcy class action for Patriots Point. After the case was completed, I was asked to stay in a career position. [The first six months of this period overlaps with my private practice time above because I was technically "of counsel" to the Court]. From Summer 1993 - Summer 1995, I assisted the court one day a week since I was appointed Master-in-Equity.
April 1989 - October 1991, part-time Berkeley County Magistrate (chronologically - this overlaps with the federal court position as I worked at night). Presided over all cases assigned to my office. Eventually, I was appointed Chief Magistrate.
June 1993 - June 1996; Berkeley County Master-in-Equity and Special Circuit Judge. Duties - I presided over all circuit court nonjury trials and proceedings referred to my office for disposition; in addition, as Special Circuit Judge, I presided over most pretrial proceedings and motions in civil jury and nonjury cases; minor settlements; civil or criminal appeals from magistrate, municipal and probate courts, as well as judicial review of state agency cases such as workers' compensation appeals, and grand jury proceedings. I gained a wide variety of circuit court judicial experience.
June 1996 - present. Resident Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit. Preside over all civil and criminal matters and appeals within the jurisdiction of the circuit court."
Judge Pieper describes his most significant orders as follows:
"(a)   Wadford v. Pipkin; Civil Action Nos. 92-CP-08-695 and 696. (Not reported or appealed, circuit court). I found this case to be interesting because it involved two persons that apparently veered off the main roadway and ended up on or about the premises of the defendant, who held the two at gunpoint and threatened to kill the plaintiffs. The case was tried on issues of false arrest, trespassing, malicious prosecution, and outrage. I would particularly note that the case involved the scope of a citizen's arrest, an area of the law in which there was not much appellate guidance at the time;
(b)   State of South Carolina v. Paul Winn; 93-CP-08-1770 (unreported and not appealed) [Circuit Court] This case was an appeal from a lower court that I heard as Special Circuit judge. This opinion contains a good discussion of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Based on the facts of the case and the applicable law, I concluded that the magistrate correctly denied a motion to dismiss based on an alleged 31-month delay;
(c)   Dennis v. Murphy, 93-CP-08-382 (unreported and not appealed) [Circuit Court] Plaintiffs alleged that they entered into an oral agreement with the defendant whereby the plaintiffs would convey to the defendant their undivided interest in a parcel of property so that the defendant could manage the property and operate a railway to avoid having to get signatures each time he transacted business involving the property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had agreed to reconvey the property at the appropriate time. Upon breach of this agreement, the plaintiffs sued. The order issued has a good discussion of the law of constructive trusts;
(d)   Clark v. Rabens, et al.; Unpublished Opinion No. 98-UP-517 (S.C. Court of Appeals; 11/23/98) (affirmed decision of Circuit Court) This was a will contest case that was tried in the probate court and appealed to the Circuit Court. I found it interesting because it was one of the few Probate Court jury trials that had been up on appeal to the Circuit Court. The case presented interesting issues about the requisite mental capacity and undue influence and the Probate Court's jury charges in this regard;
(e)   Smith v. S.C. Retirement System; Op. No. 3025 (S.C. Court of Appeals, 7/6/99) (Affirmed in part, reversed in part) This case presented some interesting questions about qualified domestic relations orders and the assignment of retirement benefits. I found the case interesting due to the overlap with domestic relations litigation and also the area of constructive trusts."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Pieper's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Low Country Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Pieper meets the constitutional qualifications and is possessed of the requisite character, reputation, ability, fitness, experience, and temperament. Judge Pieper is recommended with two reservations - The Committee noted that Judge Pieper lacks experience as a trial lawyer and that his temperament (arrogance) is a concern with lawyers and court personnel that were interviewed by Committee members. Judge Pieper seems to be a fair and impartial judge who is knowledgeable in the law and its application."
Judge Pieper is not married. He does not have any children.
Judge Pieper reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1985-present);
(b)   Honorary Member, Berkeley and Charleston County Bar Associations.
Judge Pieper additionally reported: "I have always been innovative, diligent and imaginative. I am also technology oriented in the operation of my office. I feel these qualities are very useful as the judiciary strives to adjust to increasing caseloads. I feel that I have been raised in the courtroom, having spent much of my career time working for, or presiding over court."

Costa M. Pleicones
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Pleicones meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Judge Pleicones was born on February 29, 1944. He is 56 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Pleicones provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1968.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Pleicones.
Judge Pleicones demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Pleicones reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Pleicones testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Pleicones testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Pleicones to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Pleicones described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association Meetings, 1994 - 1998;
(b)   S.C. DTA Meetings, 1994 - 1998;
(c)   Bench/Bar Seminar, 1994;
(d)   Tenth Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(e)   The Woman Advocate in S.C., 1995 (as speaker);
(f)   Circuit Judges' Spring Conference, 1995;
(g)   Orientation School for Magistrates, 1995 (as speaker);
(h)   S.C. Judicial Conference, 1995;
(i)   S.C. Tort Law Update, 1995;
(j)   Eleventh Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(k)   S.C. Judicial Conference, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(l)   Twelfth Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar, 1997;
(m)   S.C. Judicial Conference, 1997;
(n)   University of Kansas, Law and Organizational Economics Center, Lawrence, Kansas, 1997 (1 week course);
(o)   Seminar for Chief Judges, 1998;
(p)   Thirteenth Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(q)   S.C. Evidence Workshop, S.C. Bar, 1998 (as speaker);
(r)   University of Kansas, Law and Organizational Economics Center, Snowbird, Utah, 1998 (1 week course);
(s)   SCTLA Annual Convention, 1998;
(t)   S.C. Judicial Conference, 1998;
(u)   Circuit Judges' Conference, 1998;
(v)   Fourteenth Annual Criminal Law Update, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(w)   Circuit Judges' Conference, 1999.
Judge Pleicones reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Bridge the Gap for many years through 1996;
(b)   S.C. Association of Legal Secretaries, 1994;
(c)   The Woman Advocate in South Carolina, S.C. Bar, 1995;
(d)   Orientation for S.C. Magistrates, 1995;
(e)   Panelist at SCDTAA meeting, 1995;
(f)   Trial and Appellate Advocacy, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(g)   Alternative Dispute Resolution, S.C. Bar, 1996;
(h)   S.C. Young Lawyers "School for Non-Lawyers," 1996;
(i)   Criminal Practice in S.C., S.C. Bar, 1997;
(j)   Trial and Appellate Advocacy, S.C. Bar, 1998;
(k)   Criminal Practice in S.C., S.C. Bar, 1998.
Judge Pleicones reported that he has not published any books or articles since he wrote for a literary magazine in college.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Pleicones did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Pleicones did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Pleicones has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Pleicones was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Pleicones reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "AV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Pleicones appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Pleicones appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Pleicones was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1968. He described his legal experience as follows:
"June 1968-November 1968: Preparation of course materials for proposed South Carolina Bar Course.
November 1968-March 1973: Active Duty United States Army.
Legal experience included: Student, The Judge Advocate General's School, Charlottesville, VA; Chief of Military Justice and Trial Counsel (Prosecutor).
March 1973-February 1975: Assistant Public Defender for Richland County, S.C. Duties entailed defense preparation for and trial of indigent persons accused of criminal offenses. Cases ranged from murder charges through Magistrate and Municipal Court offenses.
February 1975-February 1976: Private practice with law offices of N. Welch Morrisette, and independent contractor with Richland County Public Defender Agency. Private practice duties entailed preparation and trial of federal and state civil matters. Independent contractor duties continued Public Defender duties.
February 1976-March 1977: Chief Deputy Public Defender, Richland County, S.C. Duties included supervision of personnel, in addition to the preparation and trial of major criminal charges such as murder, armed robbery, etc.
March 1977-January 1981: Private practitioner in general civil and criminal practice with the firm of Harrison and Pleicones, Columbia, S.C. Additionally served as Assistant County Attorney for Richland County (August 1977-December 1978) and as County Attorney for Richland County (January 1979-January 1981). Duties included representing Richland County in litigation matters, advising County Council and supervising staff of twelve.
January 1981-June 1991: Sole General Practitioner (January 1981-October 1984). Partner in Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones & Hawkins (formerly Lewis, Babcock, Gregory & Pleicones) of Columbia, SC (October 1984-June 1991). The firm grew in that time from four to thirteen lawyers and engaged in major civil litigation (both plaintiff and defense litigation). Served as member of three person executive committee of the firm. Other responsibilities included legislative monitoring and liaison work with the South Carolina General Assembly for two large trade associations. Additional duties as Municipal Judge for the City of Columbia from September 1982-March 1988.
At all times during my years as a lawyer my emphasis was heavily on trial practice.
July 1991-Present: Resident Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina."
Judge Pleicones reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   5%
(b)   State:     85%
(c)   Other:     10%
Judge Pleicones reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     70%
(b)   Criminal:   10%
(c)   Domestic:   20%
Judge Pleicones reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     5%
(b)   Non-jury:   10 % (Does not include cases that settled or were plead prior to trial)
Judge Pleicones provided that he most often served as sole and/or chief counsel.
The following is Judge Pleicones' account of his most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Southern Bell v. Steven W. Hamm, 306 S.C. 70, 409 S.E.2d 775 (1991), 60 USLW 2294, 126 P.U.R. 4th 535, 9 ALR 5th 1131. I believe this case was the first in the United States to judicially approve "caller ID" telephone service. Important constitutional questions were implicated, e.g., right to privacy. I argued and won the case in the trial court, and was the principal author of the brief to the South Carolina Supreme Court. I did not argue this case in the Supreme Court, as I was pending swearing in to the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court affirmed;
(b)   Funderburk v. Funderburk, 281 S.C. 246, 315 S.E.2d 126 (Ct. App. 1984) on cert to S.C. Supreme Court 286 S.C. 129, 332 S.E.2d 205 (1985). The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction of the question of a property settlement agreement's voluntary nature was properly before the Family Court, and not the Circuit Court. I did not handle the trial, where my client did not prevail, but did handle the appellate stage with co-counsel. Our client prevailed, and the decision was helpful to the bench and bar in clarifying jurisdictional matters;
(c)   Barnwell v. Barber-Coleman Co., 301 S.C. 534, 393 S.E.2d (1989). The Supreme Court held in a case of novel impression that punitive damages are not recoverable in a cause of action based solely upon the theory of strict liability. This question was certified to the Court by the United States District Court. I was involved only at the state court as the author and proponent of an amicus brief filed on behalf of my client, a trade association of property and casualty writers;
(d)   Russo v. Sutton, ___S.C. ___, 422 S.E.2d 750 (1992). In December of 1990, I tried this case in Common Pleas Court in Richland County and secured a verdict for the plaintiff. The case is significant because on appeal the defendant's argument as to the non-viability of the cause of action (alienation of affections) was accepted by the Supreme Court, which prospectively did away with the cause of action;
(e)   State v. Motes, 264 S.C. 317, 215 S.E.2d 190 (1975). I represented Mr. Motes at trial and on appeal. He was convicted of murder largely upon the testimony of his estranged wife, who was allowed to testify over our objection. The case is significant because in interpreting our statute on first impression, the Supreme Court (and of course the trial judge) ruled that the marital privilege belonged to the testifying spouse, not the one testified against."
The following is Judge Pleicones' account of civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Funderburk v. Funderburk, 281 S.C. 246, 315 S.E.2d 126, (Ct. App. 1984); quashed by S.C. Supreme Court after grant of certiorari. 286 S.C. 129, 332 S.E.2d 205 (1985);
(b)   Hamm v. Southern Bell, 305 S.C. 1, 406 S.E.2d 157 (1991);
(c)   Peoples Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Myrtle Beach Retirement Group, Inc., et al., 300 S.C. 277, 387 S.E.2d 672 (1989);
(d)   Dale v. South Carolina Tax Commission, et al., 276 S.C. 110, 276 S.E.2d 293 (1981). I appeared on behalf of Richland County, another party to the suit;
(e)   Truett v. Georgeson, ___S.C. ___, 258 S.E.2d 499 (1979)."
The following in Judge Pleicones' account of his five most significant criminal appeals:
"(a)   State v. Monroe, 262 S.C. 346, 204 S.E.2d 433 (1974);
(b)   State v. Thomas, 264 S.C. 159, 213 S.E.2d 452 (1975);
(c)   State v. Motes, 264 S.C. 317, 215 S.E.2d 190 (1975);
(d)   State v. Sweet, 270 S.C. 97, 240 S.E.2d 648 (1978);
(e)   State v. Watson, 81-MO-232, (S.C. 1981); cert. denied 454 U.S. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 301 (1982)."
Judge Pleicones reported that he has served as a Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina from July 1991 to the present. From September 1982 to March 1988, Judge Pleicones was a part-time Municipal Judge in the City of Columbia.
Judge Pleicones identified the following cases as his five most significant orders or opinions:
"(a)   State of South Carolina ex rel. Michael Carter v. The State of South Carolina, et al., 94-CP-40-1566;
(b)   Town of Hilton Head Island, et al. v. Earle E. Morris, Jr., et al., 94-CP-40-4442;
(c)   Byerly Hospital, et al. v. South Carolina State Health and Human Services Finance Commission, 319 S.C. 225, 460 S.E.2d 383 (1995);
(d)   Neese v. Michelin, et al., 324 S.C. 465, 478 S.E.2d 91 (1996);
(e)   State v. Jackson was a spousal sexual criminal jury trial over which I presided."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Pleicones' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Costa M. Pleicones is a highly respected and well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends Judge Pleicones for the position he seeks."
Judge Pleicones is married to Donna Singletary Pleicones. He has two children, Sara Venetia Pleicones Norrell, clerical staff member with Companion Life (age 29); and Laura Suzanne Pleicones, law student (age 26).
Judge Pleicones reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1968 - present);
(b)   S.C. Bar, prior service as member of the House of Delegates;
(c)   Richland County Bar;
(d)   S.C. Woman Lawyers Association;
(e)   S.C. Circuit Judge's Association;
(f)   American Bar Association, served as Delegate from S.C. Circuit Judges Association.
Judge Pleicones provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Charter member (Master of the Bench), John Belton O'Neall Chapter, American Inns of Court;
(b)   Board of Commissioners, Columbia Housing Authority;
(c)   Board Member, Richland County DSS;
(d)   Board Chairperson, Richland County Public Defender Agency;
(e)   United Way Palmetto Society;
(f)   Order of AHEPA;
(g)   WildeWood Country Club.
Judge Pleicones additionally provided, "I do not avoid tough or thankless assignments. I do not exhibit or indulge in favoritism. I am sometimes impatient and abrupt."

Joseph D. Shine
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. Shine meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Shine was born on December 15, 1949. He is 50 years old and a resident of Columbia, South Carolina. Mr. Shine provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1974.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. Shine.
Mr. Shine demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. Shine reported that he has made $20.70 in campaign expenditures for office supplies and copying.
Mr. Shine testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. Shine testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.

(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. Shine to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. Shine reported that he has met all continuing legal education requirements during the past five years. He has taken continuing legal education seminars focusing on trial and appellate advocacy, administrative law, and employment law.
(a)   02/07/98 - 10/23/98   Total of 55.50 hours including 10.00 ethics;
(b)   01/24/97 - 10/03/97   Total of 43.75 hours including 8.00 ethics;
(c)   03/11/96 - 11/08/96   Total of 27.75 hours including 3.00 ethics;
(d)   03/03/95 - 08/24/95   Total of 36.00 hours including 7.50 ethics;
(e)   02/14/94 - 10/28/94   Total of 26.75 hours including 2.00 ethics.
Mr. Shine reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
Mr. Shine has been a moderator at several government law section seminars of the S.C. Bar. He has also conducted agency-wide training on federal standards of conduct and conflicts of interest laws for the U.S. General Services Administration.
Mr. Shine reported that he has published the following:
"A perspective on Title 18 U.S.C. Section 207(g)", in the Ethics Newsgram of the United States Office of Government Ethics (vol.3, no.4, August 1986).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. Shine did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. Shine did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. Shine has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. Shine was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. Shine reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "AV."
Mr. Shine was on active duty as Captain with the U.S. Air Force from August 13, 1974, to May 15, 1976. Upon expiration of his reserve commitment, he received an Honorable Discharge.
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. Shine appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. Shine appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. Shine was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1974. He described his legal experience as follows:
"Employment: 1974 to 1976 - Office of General Counsel (Honors Program), United States Department of Air Force, specialized in administrative law, and procurement law related matters;
1976 to 1977 - City of Charleston, South Carolina, served as Deputy Corporation Counsel, provided day-to-day legal advice to the Mayor and city department heads, served as principal prosecutor in Municipal Court and police legal advisor;
1977 to 1978 - Walter Bilbro and Associates, P. A., litigated personal injury, commercial and criminal cases in State and Federal courts;
1978 to 1979 - Chapman and Shine, P. A. (formerly Chapman, Sink, and Shine), litigated various civil matters including personal injury, commercial, construction contract claims in State and Federal courts;
1979 to 1980 - Washington, District of Columbia, served as Assistant Corporation Counsel, prosecuted "District of Columbia cases" in the Superior Court, reviewed and recommended welfare fraud cases for Federal prosecution;
1980-1987 - United States General Services Administration; served as Special Counsel to the Administrator and Director of Ethics (Designated Agency Ethics Official), provided legal advice to Administrator of General Services and senior management officials concerning Federal conflicts of interests laws and standards of conduct, reviewed financial disclosure reports of all senior management officials for conflicts of interests, established agency-wide policy on standards of conduct;
1987 to 1993 - State of South Carolina, served as Chief Deputy Attorney General, managed and directed attorneys and support staff of a major civil litigation group, represented the Governor and other members of the State Budget and Control Board in civil litigation matters, directed and participated in post-conviction relief litigation, directed and participated in civil litigation concerning various public interest areas as education, social services, mental health, higher education, voting rights, natural resources, and Federal Civil Rights Acts involving state agencies, institutions, and commissions;
1993 to present - serves as General Counsel to the State Budget and Control Board, represents and advises the Governor and other members of the Budget and Control Board, represents the Budget and Control Board in civil litigation matters, directs legal staff in support of the administrative operations of the Budget and Control Board in diverse areas such as public finance, personnel law, real estate, procurement law, administrative procedures and appeals, constitutional law, and civil defense litigation involving the South Carolina Tort Claims Act."
Mr. Shine reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Two to three times per year
(b)   State:     Eight to ten times per year
(c)   Other:     None specified
Mr. Shine reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     100%
Mr. Shine reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Non-jury:   100%
Mr. Shine provided that he most often served as chief counsel.
The following is Mr. Shine's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Gilstrap, et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 310 S.C. 210, 423 S.E.2d 101 (1992), argued landmark case before the South Carolina Supreme Court concerning the legality of a proposed plan by the State Budget and Control Board to reduce the budget based on growth of individual agency budgets;
(b)   Belton v. The State of South Carolina, et al., 313 S.C. 549, 443 S.E.2d 554 (1994), argued case before the South Carolina Supreme Court concerning the application of the State's Whistleblower Statute involving alleged facts of retaliation by the employing state agency;
(c)   Coble, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al., argued unprecedented case before the South Carolina Supreme Court (November 15, 1994) on behalf of the Director of General Services concerning the legality of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown above the State House dome;
(d)   Myers, et al. v. Patterson, et al., 315 S.C. 248, 433 S.E.2d 841 (1993), participated in landmark case before the South Carolina Supreme Court concerning the authority of the South Carolina General Assembly to apply prospectively the collection of state gasoline tax to pay bond indebtedness from Hurricane Hugo;
(e)   Brown v. South Carolina State Board of Education, et al., 301 S.C. 326, 91 S.E.2d 866 (1990), participated in South Carolina Supreme Court case involving the application of administrative due process to the revocation of a teaching certificate."
The following is Mr. Shine's account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Gilstrap, et al. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 310 S.C. 210, 423 S.E.2d 101 (September 15, 1993), The S.C. Supreme Court;
(b)   Belton v. The State of South Carolina, et al., 313 S.C. 549, 443 S.E.2d 554 (May 9, 1994), The S.C. Supreme Court;
(c)   Coble, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al., (unreported, argued on November 15, 1994, dismissed by the S.C. Supreme Court;
(d)   Myers, et al. v. Patterson, et al., 315 S.C. 248, 433 S.E.2d 841 (August 17, 1993), The S.C. Supreme Court;
(e)   Kennedy, et al. v. South Carolina Retirement System and the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, C.A. No.:95-CP-36-268 (argued before the S.C. Supreme Court on May 26, 1999). No opinion has been issued."
Mr. Shine has not handled any direct criminal appeals. However, he has been personally involved in several post-conviction relief (PCR) matters along with his staff that proceeded to appellate review. PCR cases are civil collateral attacks on criminal convictions. The issues argued usually involved the application of federal and state constitutional laws to substantive criminal law matters. The PCR cases Mr. Shine reported being involved with included:
"(a)   Cartrette v. State, 323 S.C. 15, 448 S.E.2d 553 (August 15,1994), submitted to the S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument;
(b)   Ford v. State, 314 S.C. 245, 442 S.E.2d 604 (March 21, 1994), submitted to the S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument;
(c)   Langford v. State, 310 S.C. 357, 426 S.E.2d 793 (February 1, 1993), submitted to the S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument;
(d)   Clark v. State, 315 S.C. 385, 434 S.E.2d 266 (July 12, 1993), submitted to the S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument;
(e)   Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 426 S.E.2d 795 (February 1, 1993), submitted to the S.C. Supreme Court without oral argument."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. Shine's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Joseph D. Shine well qualified for the position he seeks. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends Mr. Shine for a judgeship on the Court of Appeals."
Mr. Shine is married to Margaret Louise Beane Seymour. He has two children: Eric Dawson Shine (age 7); and Craig Allen Seymour, II (Graduate student, age 30).
Mr. Shine reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1998 - present);
(b)   Board of Directors, S.C. Bar Foundation (1992 to 1996);
(c)   President of the Board of the S.C. Bar Foundation (1995 to 1996);
(d)   Board of Directors for Trustus Theater (1992 to 1995);
(e)   Secretary to the Board of Trustus Theater (1993 to 1995);
(f)   Past Chairman of the Government Law Section of the S.C. Bar (1993 to 1994);
(g)   Delegate to the House of Delegates, S.C. Bar (1998 to present).
Mr. Shine provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Board of Stewards (Rear Commodore, 1994 to 1995), Lake Murray Sailing Club;
(b)   Board of Directors S.C. Orchestra Association (Philharmonic);
(c)   S.C. Cultural Coordinating Council (rural economic development, 1993 to present).
Mr. Shine received the following honors:
(a)   Order of the Palmetto from Governor Carroll A. Campbell (January 10, 1995);
(b)   Meritorious Service Award (1987) from the Administrator of General Services (United States);
(c)   Community Service Award from Trident United Way (Charleston, S.C., 1980);
(d)   President's Honorary Scholarship and the United States Air Force ROTC Scholarship while attending the Citadel;
(e)   Distinguished Air Force Graduate (1971);
(f)   Earl Warren Scholarship (NAACP Legal Defense Fund) and Harvard University General Scholarship for Financial Assistance while attending Harvard Law School.

M. Duane Shuler
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Shuler meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge of the Court of Appeals.
Judge Shuler was born on May 9, 1948. He is 51 years old and a resident of Kingstree, South Carolina. Judge Shuler provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Shuler.
Judge Shuler demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Shuler reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Shuler testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Shuler testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Shuler to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Shuler described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as having attended all mandatory seminars for Circuit Court judges.
Judge Shuler reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Spoke at CLEs on two occasions, most recently in January 1999, on the topic of jury selection;
(b)   Spoke at the May 1999 Judicial Conference on the topic of death penalty (penalty phase of trial).
Judge Shuler reported that he wrote a chapter on jury selection in Judge Ralph K. Anderson's book, Trial Techniques.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Shuler did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Shuler has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission noted that Judge Shuler was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Shuler reported that his last available Martindale-Hubbell rating was "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Shuler appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Shuler appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Shuler was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1973-1974, general practice associated with Leonard B. Burgess, Kingstree, S.C.
1974-1980, general practice, criminal defense, plaintiff's, family, etc., Connor, Connor & Shuler, Kingstree, S.C.
1980-1988, co-public defender for Williamsburg County
1989-1990, deputy solicitor, Williamsburg County
1983-1990, Brown & Shuler, general practice."
Judge Shuler provided that he has served as Circuit Court Judge, At Large Seat No. 3, since 1990.
Judge Shuler reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years of his practice, prior to serving on the bench, as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Very rarely practiced in Federal Court
(b)   State:     Very frequently, primarily in General Sessions Court, but frequently in common pleas as well
Judge Shuler reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     60%
(b)   Criminal:   25%
(c)   Domestic:   15%
Judge Shuler reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years of his practice, prior to serving on the bench, as follows:
(a)   Jury:     70%
(b)   Non-jury:   30%
Judge Shuler provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Shuler's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (S.C. 1987). Significant decision regarding search and seizure. Argued in Supreme Court;
(b)   State v. Nathaniel Williams, death penalty defense, complete trial. (Appeal handled by appellate defense, although no citation can be found and the defendant may not have perfected any appeal.);
(c)   State v. Silas Cooper, death penalty defense, no appeal;
(d)   State v. Eddie Dean Wilson, no appeal;
(e)   State v. Benedad White, prosecution of major drug dealer in Williamsburg County."
The following is Judge Shuler's account of the civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Scott v. Boyle, 271 S.C. 252, 246 S.E.2d 887 (S.C. 1978). (Unable to locate briefs, case was argued in early 1970s);
(b)   Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Floyd, 823 F.2d 546 (4th Cir. 1987);
(c)   Norwood v. American Tobacco Co., 296 S.C. 415, 373 S.E.2d 694 (Ct. App. 1988);
(d)   Carl P. Baker v. Coastal States Life Insurance Co., S.C. Supreme Court Memorandum No. 85-MO-55, filed March 20, 1985."
The following is Judge Shuler's account of a criminal appeal he has personally handled:
"(a)   State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (S.C. 1987)."
Judge Shuler lists the following significant cases and orders that he has issued while serving as a Circuit Court judge:
"(a)   State v. Ellis Franklin, Appeal from Williamsburg County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge. Supreme Court of S.C. on September 21, 1994 (Opinion No. 24190). Affirmed;
(b)   State v. Gene Raffaldt, Appeal from Kershaw County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge. Supreme Court of S.C. on January 17, 1995 (Opinion No. 24218). Affirmed;
(c)   State v. Ernest Roy Trotter, Appeal from Saluda County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge. Supreme Court of S.C. on November 2, 1994 (Opinion No. 2289). Affirmed;
(d)   City of North Charleston v. Janie M. Claxton and William L. Claxton, Appeal from Charleston County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge. S.C. Court of Appeals on March 23, 1993 (Opinion No. 2113). Affirmed;
(e)   Oree B. Crosby, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leroy Crosby, Jr., v. Santee Electric Cooperative, Appellant, and Sumter Builders, Inc., Respondent, Appeal from Williamsburg County, M. Duane Shuler, Judge. S.C. Court of Appeals on December 9, 1993 (Opinion No. 94-UP-036)."
Judge Shuler indicated that he has previously served for eight years as the City Recorder for the Town of Kingstree, South Carolina, from 1980 to 1988.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Shuler's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Pee Dee Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Committee is of the opinion that Judge Shuler is qualified for the position of Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. As a result of its investigation of and interview with Judge Shuler, the Committee recommends/approves this candidate without reservation."
Judge Shuler is married to Glenda Brown Shuler. He has two children: Jonathan Duane Shuler, age 26, employed by Santee Electric Cooperative, Inc., Kingstree, S.C.; and Elizabeth Brown Shuler, age 23, recent graduate of Clemson University (August 6, 1999).
Judge Shuler reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association.

R. Scott Sprouse
Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Sprouse meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Judge Sprouse was born on July 5, 1964. He is 35 years old and a resident of West Union, South Carolina. Judge Sprouse provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1990.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Sprouse.
Judge Sprouse demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Sprouse reported that he has made minimal campaign expenditures for gasoline and meals.
Judge Sprouse testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Sprouse testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Sprouse to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Sprouse described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
1994   Prof. Ed Systems, Medicine Made Easy for Lawyers;

ATLA Annual Convention;

SCTLA Auto Torts XVII;
1995   S.C. Bar-The Proposed Criminal Rules of Evidence;

SCTLA Auto Torts XVIII;
1996   S.C. Court Administration Orientation School;

SCLTLA Auto Torts XIX;
1997   Oconee Bar, The Case of the Silent Alarm;

SCTLA Auto Torts XX;

S.C. Bar Criminal Procedure (video-Tri County Tech);

S.C. Bar Masters in Trial;
1998   Circuit Court Arbitration Training (Judge Sprouse was certified as a Circuit Court arbitrator and has renewed his certification for 1999);

S.C. Bar, Masters in Trial;

S.C. Bar, Professionalism in Practice;

SCTLA Auto Torts XXI.
Judge Sprouse reported that he has not taught or lectured at any bar association conferences, educational institutions, or continuing legal or judicial education programs.
Judge Sprouse reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Sprouse did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Sprouse did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Sprouse has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Sprouse was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Sprouse reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
Judge Sprouse reported that he was a City Attorney for the City of Westminister. He was appointed by the City Council in February 1992 as co-attorney, and has been sole City Attorney since December 1994.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Sprouse appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Sprouse appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Sprouse was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1990. He described his legal experience as follows:
"Aug 1989-Mar 1990   Barnes & Smith, P.A., Beaufort, SC-Associate for an insurance defense firm. I primarily did research and file management. This involved a large amount of discovery documents and briefs prepared for the partners.
Apr 1990-Aug 1991   Morgan Law Firm, Seneca, SC - Partner in a general practice. I began handling various general practice cases including domestic, criminal, real estate, bankruptcy and general litigation.
Aug 1991-Jul 1992   R. Scott Sprouse, Attorney at Law, Seneca, SC - I was a sole proprietor. I continued to handle the same types of cases but added social security and personal injury to my caseload. I also began sharing the City Attorney position for the City of Westminster in February of 1992.
Jul 1992-Dec 1994     Ross, Stoudemire, Ballenger & Sprouse, P.A., Seneca, SC - Partner in general practice firm. My practice primarily involved domestic litigation, criminal cases, personal injury cases and City Attorney work for the City of Westminster. From the Fall of 1993 until early 1994, I served as a Hearing Officer for the ABC Commission.
Jan 1995-Jan 1997   Ross, Stoudemire & Sprouse, P.A., Seneca, SC - My practice stayed virtually the same, but the name of the firm changed. I became the sole City Attorney for Westminster in January of 1995.
Jan 1997 to present   Stoudemire & Sprouse, P.A., Seneca, SC - My practice is the same, but the name of the firm changed again."

Judge Sprouse provided the following description of his experience in Family Court matters:

"I began handling domestic cases almost immediately after starting my practice in Oconee County in the Spring of 1990. I began by handling cases involving litigants with limited resources, but my practice grew. My domestic practice now compiles approximately fifty percent (50%) of my practice.
Divorce and equitable division of property: I have numerous cases on both contested and uncontested matters. I have represented clients ranging from negative marital equity to approximately one million dollars' worth of assets. I have tried many of these cases, the longest of these trials lasting almost three days.
Child Custody: I have been involved in numerous custody cases and have tried many of them. A significant portion of the divorce/separate maintenance actions that I have filed have involved a custody issue, at least initially. I have also served on many occasions as Guardian ad Litem in contested custody cases. In dealing with children's issues, I have dealt with many different facets of these types of cases, involving psychologists, law enforcement, teachers and doctors.
Adoption: Until 1995, I did not handle many adoptions, as another lawyer in our firm did them for several years. I have done several since she left the firm, although it does not compile a large part of my domestic practice.
Abuse & Neglect: I have represented Defendants in contested abuse and neglect cases. These have been situations where the Defendant was charged criminally in General Sessions Court and I undertook simultaneous representation. I have tried a sexual abuse case. I have also represented the Guardian ad Litem Program, although in a substitute role since 1992. I still represent the Guardian ad Litem Program as needed and did so as recently as August 1999 in three hearings. I have never represented the Department of Social Services.
Juvenile Justice: My experience in cases in the Department of Juvenile Justice cases has been limited, as I have never tried a juvenile case. The matters that I have handled were settled out of Court.

The nature of my domestic practice has prepared me well for a role as a Family Court Judge. My domestic practice has been well rounded, giving me insight on many levels. My civil court practice has also given me good experience in other aspects of law. Additionally, I feel as though my background as a Municipal Judge prepares me well to hear Family Court matters, as most Municipal Court matters are non-jury. My role as Municipal Judge requires me to be the trier of fact as well as the judge of the law. I have to listen to witnesses and come to an opinion as to where the truth lies. I also have learned how to deal with attorneys, some of whom are not in agreement with my rulings, and how to keep order in the courtroom."
Judge Sprouse reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   0
(b)   State:     10 - 15 hearings per month in Family Court

0 - 3 cases on Common Pleas trial roster (high of 7)

1 - 4 cases on General Sessions list (5 during the last term).
Judge Sprouse reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     10%
(b)   Criminal:   25%
(c)   Domestic:   50%
Judge Sprouse reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     15%
(b)   Non-jury:   85%
Judge Sprouse provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Sprouse's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Steven Ray Hammond v. Ruia Boggs & Garland Brewer, d/b/a B & B Mobile Home Park. 93-CP-37-61. I represented the Plaintiff in an action for personal injuries brought under the South Carolina Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. My client's leg was amputated as a result of the injuries that he sustained. I was able to settle this case for $600,000 after mediation by Retired Justice Bruce Littlejohn;
(b)   Vicki W. Miller v. Mark S. Miller. 96-DR-37-136. I represented the Plaintiff in a divorce action. The assets, depending on valuation approached one million dollars. After extensive discovery and negotiations, I was able to settle this case prior to trial;
(c)   Jackie L. Hunt v. Alfred Hunt. 97-DR-37-708. I represented the Plaintiff initially in a separate maintenance action and the subsequent divorce. The parties had approximately one million in assets (over $750,000 in undisputed marital property). The case also involved the issue of periodic alimony, which I was able to secure for my client, along with forty-five (45%) percent of the marital property and attorney's fees. The Defendant filed a notice of intent to appeal, but dismissed the appeal after reviewing the transcript;
(d)   The State v. Robert McClure. 94-DR-37-663, 94-GS-37-0986, 95-GS-37-0429. My client was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor First Degree. I tried the accompanying DSS case in the Oconee Family Court. The DSS case uncovered evidence that led the Oconee County Solicitor's Office to re-evaluate the case. After extensive negotiations, a plea to Lewd Act on a Minor was entered in General Sessions Court for a probationary sentence;
(e)   The State v. Dwight Littleton. 94-GS-37-0594. My client was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor First Degree. I was able to attain a probationary sentence in a negotiated plea."
Judge Sprouse provided that he has filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal only once, with his client deciding to drop the matter after reviewing the transcript. Judge Sprouse has appealed no other domestic cases.
Judge Sprouse reported that has never had a case in which his ruling was appealed to the S.C. Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. He has been ordered one time by the Circuit Court to grant a new trial as a result of errors made by the court clerk.
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Sprouse's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Upstate Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Mr. Sprouse was found to be qualified pursuant to the evaluative criteria."
Judge Sprouse is married to Mary Roddey Stoudemire Sprouse. He has one child: Robert Ward Sprouse (age 2).
Judge Sprouse reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1990 - present);
(b)   Oconee County Bar Association (1990 - present);
(c)   S.C. Trial Lawyers Association (1993 - present);
(d)   Association of Trial Lawyers of America (1993 - present);
(e)   Summary Court Judges' Association (1998 - present).
Judge Sprouse provided that he is a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Seneca Sertoma Club (1990 - present); Secretary 1991 - 1992, Board member 1995 - 1997;
(b)   St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church (1997 - present); Church Council 1998 - present;
(c)   Joseph J. Norton Camp, SV (1995 - present); camp commander, 1997;
(d)   IPTAY (1986 - present); IPTAY Representative, 1994 - present;
(e)   The Oconee Assembly, 1994 - present.
Judge Sprouse additionally reported that he is an Eagle Scout, and was a member of Troop 312, Boy Scouts of America, in Piedmont, S.C.
Judge Sprouse provided that he is involved in coaching 13 and 14 year old boys' basketball for the City of Walhalla. Judge Sprouse has coached a team since 1996. Several of the players come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Judge Sprouse reported he feels strongly that youth basketball has helped instill good values in these young men.

Ray N. Stevens
Court of Appeals, Seat 3

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Stevens meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a judge on the Court of Appeals.
Judge Stevens was born on October 7, 1949. He is 50 years old and a resident of Irmo, South Carolina. Judge Stevens provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1978.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Stevens.
Judge Stevens demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Stevens reported that he has made $17 in campaign expenditures on postage, envelopes, and copying.
Judge Stevens testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Stevens testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Stevens to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Stevens described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   State and Local Tax Seminar, January 1994;
(b)   State and Local Tax Seminar, May 1994;
(c)   Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum, August 1994;
(d)   Ethical Issues for Leg. Attorneys, December 1994;
(e)   Corporate, Business and Tax, September 1995;
(f)   NJC: Law Practice Technology, March 1996;
(g)   NJC: Logic and Writing for Judges, July 1996;
(h)   NJC: Computers in the Court Room, October 1996;
(i)   State and Local Tax Seminar, October 1997;
(j)   Decisional Composition, April 1998;
(k)   NJC: Advanced Evidence, October 1998;
(l)   Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum, October 1998.
Judge Stevens has taught or lectured the following law-related courses:
(a)   Fundamentals of Federal Taxation of partnerships, corporations, and estates at Midlands Technical College;
(b)   Guest lectures at U.S.C. Law School, State and Local Tax classes including duties and functions of county officials in property taxation and taxation of railroads under the Federal 4-R Act;
(c)   S.C. Bar: Bridge the Gap, March 1999;
(d)   S.C. Bar: Bridge the Gap, May 1999;
(e)   S.C. Bar: Annual Convention, Governmental Section, Litigating before the ALJD, Summer 1999;
(f)   S.C. Bar: 1999 - That Was the Year That Was - Review of Changes in Administrative Law;
(g)   Greenville County Tax Bar -- Remedies and Procedures for Suits Against State Officials and Administrative Procedures before the S.C. Department of Revenue;
(h)   Columbia Tax Study Group - Tax Practice under the Revenue Procedures Act;
(i)   Federation of Tax Administrators - 42 USC Section 1983 in State Court Tax Disputes;
(j)   SE Association of Tax Attorneys -- Collecting Taxes under an Automatic Stay Due to Bankruptcy and Nexus and Jurisdiction for Taxation of Delaware Holding Companies;
(k)   Vanderbilt University's Paul J. Hartman Tax Forum -- Moot Court Presentation on Taxation of Intangibles and Geoffrey v. South Carolina: Is the Camel's Nose under the Tent?;
(l)   Ohio Tax Conference - Intangibles and the Creation of Nexus for Income Tax Purposes;
(m)   S.C. Chamber of Commerce - Taxes and the Bottom Line: New Tax Appeal Process.
Judge Stevens has published the following:
(a)   "Unwanted Assets Spun Off Prior to Acquisition of Wanted Assets," 1980, S.C. Bar publication;
(b)   "The Use of Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in State Tax Litigation" 1988, Revenue Administration;
(c)   "Delaware Subsidiaries Can Still Reduce Tax But More Planning Needed," March/April 1992, The Journal of Multistate Taxation;
(d)   "Geoffrey v. South Carolina Tax Commission: Is the Camel's Nose Under the Tent?," Tax Management, Multistate Tax Report, December 22, 1995.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Stevens did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Stevens has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Stevens was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Stevens reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell since he is currently sitting as a judge. Judge Stevens also reported he was not rated prior to his election to the Administrative Law Judge Division because he was in public service with the S.C. Attorney General's Office.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Stevens appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Stevens appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Stevens was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1978. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1978-79   Stophel, Caldwell & Heggie;

General corporate practice with emphasis on taxation
1979-80   U.S. Internal Revenue Service;

Federal estate and gift tax return examiner
1980-95   S.C. Attorney General;

Chief Dep. Atty Gen and Dir. of Tax Division; issued Atty. Gen. Opinions and responsible for all tax litigation as well as defense of State at all levels from adm. hearings to trials in the state and federal courts.
1995-present-Adm. Law Judge Division;

Judge presiding over contested cases, appeals and regulation reviews."
Judge Stevens reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years of his practice as follows:
(a)   Federal:   Federal District Court twice and U.S. Supreme Court 3 times - once on brief in chief, twice on brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari;
(b)   State:     Trial Court 21 times; 10 appearances with case settled before trial, and 11 appearances conducting trial as lead counsel; S.C. Court of Appeals 3 times; one as lead counsel having written the briefs and making oral argument and two as assisting counsel; and the S.C. Supreme Court 12 times; 8 appearances having written the briefs and making oral argument and 4 as assisting counsel.
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years of his practice as follows:
(a)   Civil:     100 %
Judge Stevens reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years of his practice as follows:
(a)   Non-jury:   100 %
Judge Stevens provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Judge Stevens' account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 281 S.C. 492, 316 S.E.2d 386 (May 15, 1984), Certiorari Granted by 469 U.S. 879, 105 S.Ct. 242, (Oct. 1984), Judgment Affirmed by Spencer v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 471 U.S. 82, 105 S.Ct. 1859 (Mar 27, 1985), Rehearing Denied by 471 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 2349 (May 13, 1985). This case established that 42 USC Section 1983 could not be used in state court to recover taxes paid and correspondingly established that attorney fees could not be obtained against the State under the companion federal statute of 42 USC Section 1988;
(b)   Reyelt v. State of South Carolina, U.S. District Court, 6:93-1491-3 (Nov. 15, 1993). This decision determined that South Carolina's initial Video Game Machines Act was constitutional in light of challenges that the Act violated free speech, constituted an involuntary taking, created an impairment of contract, failed to grant equal protection, infringed rights under the commerce clause, and denied individual's their rights to privileges and immunities. While upholding the Act in general, the decision did find S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-21-2804's use of the phrase "the primary and substantial portion of the establishment's gross proceeds" to be unconstitutionally vague;
(c)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), certiorari denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993). This decision established that due process is not violated by taxing an entity that utilizes an intangible (i.e. a trademark) in South Carolina to produce income even when the entity has no employees, no office, and no physical presence in the State;
(d)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989). This decision determined that due process is not violated by taxing the interest income of a taxpayer so long as the interest income is part of the taxpayer's unitary business and so long as a portion of the unitary business is carried on in South Carolina;
(e)   South Carolina Tax Commission v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 316 S.C. 163, 447 S.E.2d 843 (Jul 18, 1994). This case decided that the Freedom of Information Act does not prevent an agency from disclosing allegedly confidential contract documents and pollution investigation documents when those documents were voluntarily given to the state agency in an effort to lower a tax assessment."
The following is Judge Stevens' account of five civil appeals he has personally handled:
"(a)   Geoffrey, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 313 S.C. 15, 437 S.E.2d 13 (Jul 06, 1993), Certiorari Denied by 510 U.S. 992, 114 S.Ct. 550, (Nov 29, 1993);
(b)   South Carolina Tax Commission v. South Carolina Tax Board. of Review, 305 S.C. 183, 407 S.E.2d 627 (May 06, 1991), Certiorari Denied by Collins Music Co., Inc. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 502 U.S. 1034, 112 S.Ct. 878, (Jan 13, 1992);
(c)   Thayer v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 307 S.C. 6, 413 S.E.2d 810 (Jan 13, 1992), rehearing denied (Feb 20, 1992);
(d)   NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 304 S.C. 1, 402 S.E.2d 666 (Feb 04, 1991), Appeal After Remand, NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 312 S.C. 52, 439 S.E.2d 254 (Dec 13, 1993), Certiorari Denied by NCR Corp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 512 U.S. 1245, 114, S.Ct. 2763, (Jun 27, 1994);
(e)   M. Lowenstein Corp. v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 298 S.C. 93, 378 S.E.2d 272 (Ct. App. Mar 13, 1989)."
Judge Stevens reported he has not handled any criminal appeals.
Judge Stevens reported his five most significant orders as follows:
"(a)   D. Michael Woodward, M.D. v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation - Division of Professional and Occupational Licensing, Board of Medical Examiners, 98-ALJ-11-0587-AP, June 1, 1999. Allegations of improper sexual conduct by a physician required an appellate review which examined constitutional and statutory challenges to an alleged "unfair hearing" held by the Medical Board. While errors were committed by the Board, a harmless error analysis found the mistakes insufficient to form a basis for reversal of the Board's decision;
(b)   Gaffney Properties as an affiliate of Boyd Management v. Lee S. Harmon, Cherokee County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0265-CC, decided November 8, 1995. This case established an innovative method for valuing subsidized housing projects for property tax purposes. The fair market value is based upon adding the value of the rental income stream, the value of the Government's "interest subsidy," and the value of the federal income tax credits granted to owners of subsidized housing;
(c)   Oncology Therapies of Greenville, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenville Cancer Center, and Greenville Hospital System, 96-ALJ-07-0205-CC, decided June 6, 1997. This case established that the standard of proof in a Certificate of Need (CON) case is that of the preponderance of the evidence with the Administrative Law Judge acting as the fact-finder and the DHEC Board as the appellate review authority. Further, the case established that an ALJ hearing a CON controversy does not act as a mere "reviewer" of the DHEC staff decision. Rather, the ALJ conducts a contested case in which evidence is weighed to determine whether granting or denying a CON is warranted;
(d)   Medstar Ambulance Service, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 96-ALJ-07-0498-CC, decided May 6, 1997. This case revoked an ambulance license for numerous violations of DHEC statutes and regulations and required examining dozens of licensing procedures, highway safety statutes, and rules for training, certification and personnel requirements of emergency medical technicians. The case also held the revocation proceeding need not examine evidence under the stringent clear and convincing standard but under the less demanding standard of preponderance of the evidence;
(e)   Dennison A. Royal v. Charleston County Assessor, 95-ALJ-17-0522-CC, decided December 12, 1995. This case found the county's property value methodology discriminated against the taxpayer in violation of the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Constitution. The assessor subjected the taxpayer to a different valuation method than other similarly situated taxpayers. This practice caused a higher value to inherently attach to the taxpayer's property and thus violated his rights to equal treatment and uniformity."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Stevens' temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "Judge Ray N. Stevens is a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends Judge Stevens for a judgeship on the Court of Appeals."
Judge Stevens is married to Janice Louise Shapiro Stevens. He has three children: Ryan Nelson Stevens, 21, college student; Alan Austin Stevens, 18, high school student; and Leah Suzanne Stevens, 10.
Judge Stevens reported that he is a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1978 - present);
(b)   Richland County Bar.
Judge Stevens stated that he is currently Publicity Chairman for the Chapin High School Band Booster Club
Judge Stevens additionally provided that he is the Deacon at First Baptist Church of Columbia, a Sunday school teacher of an adult class, and a Bible study teacher at a senior citizens retirement center.

Marc H. Westbrook
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat 2

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Judge Westbrook meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Circuit Court judge.
Judge Westbrook was born on October 3, 1946. He is 53 years old and a resident of West Columbia, South Carolina. Judge Westbrook provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1973.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Judge Westbrook.
Judge Westbrook demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Judge Westbrook reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Judge Westbrook testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Judge Westbrook testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report.
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Judge Westbrook to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Judge Westbrook described his continuing legal or judicial education during the past five years as follows:
(a)   Attended all required CLE seminars in South Carolina;
(b)   National Judicial College, General Jurisdiction Course (3 weeks);
(c)   National Judicial College, Death Penalty Course (1 week);
(d)   National Judicial College, Advanced Evidence (1 week).
Judge Westbrook reported that he has taught the following law-related courses:
(a)   Domestic Abuse Seminar, General Discussion of New Law, November 1985;
(b)   S.C. Social Workers' Seminar, Update on Children's Rights, September 1989;
(c)   "Cocaine Babies" Seminar, Rights of "Cocaine Baby" Mothers, December 1991;
(d)   Family Court Judges Association, "Mediation/Administrative Duties," May 1993;
(e)   S.C. Bar-Bridge the Gap, "Practice in Circuit Courts," March 1997;
(f)   S.C. Bar-Bridge the Gap, "Practice in Circuit Courts," May 1997;
(g)   S.C. Bar-Bridge the Gap, "Practice in Circuit Courts," March 1998;
(h)   S.C. Bar-Bridge the Gap, "Practice in Circuit Courts," May 1998;
(i)   "Ethics in General Practice," September 1998;
(j)   Lecture to Russian Officers, "Overview of S.C. Courts," September 1998;
(k)   Criminal Law CLE, "Ethics for Criminal Law Practice," November 1998;
(l)   Administrative Judges Seminar, "Cooperation Between Family Court and Circuit Court," December 1998;
(m)   S.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, "Expert Witnesses," December 1998;
(n)   Circuit Judges Association, Voir Dire in Capital Cases," May 12, 1999;
(o)   Annual Judicial Conference, "Drug Courts in South Carolina," August 19, 1999
(p)   Annual Criminal Law Seminar, S.C. Bar, "Criminal Law Update for Judges," January 2000. (Committed to this seminar; preparing written background for presentation in January.)
(Numerous other speeches and addresses to civic, school and church groups.)
Judge Westbrook reported that he has published the following:
(a)   South Carolina Lawyer, "Balancing the Scales: Victims' Rights in South Carolina's Justice System," May/June 1999;
(b)   S.C. Bar, Bridge the Gap, "Practice in Circuit Courts," March1998/1999;
(c)   Article for Circuit Judges, "Handling Voir Dire in Capital Cases," May 1999;
(d)   Article for 2000 Criminal Law Seminar. "Update--Appellate Instructions to Judges in 1999," January 2000 (Now in preparation).
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Judge Westbrook did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Judge Westbrook did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Judge Westbrook has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Judge Westbrook was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Judge Westbrook reported that he is not rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
Judge Westbrook has held the following public offices:
1976-78   Chairman, Lexington County Council - Elected;
1978-83   S.C. House of Representatives - Elected.
(6)   Physical Health:
Judge Westbrook appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Judge Westbrook appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Judge Westbrook was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1973. He described his legal experience as follows:
"1973-79   Bryan, Crosby & Bates     General & Trial Practice
1979-80   Turnipseed, Westbrook & Dew   Trial Practice
1980-83   Solo Practitioner       General & Trial Practice
1983-94   Family Court Judge       Domestic Cases
1994-Now   Circuit Court Judge       General Jurisdiction."
Judge Westbrook has held the following judicial offices:
1974-1975     Municipal Judge, Springdale, S.C., Summary, Appointed;
1983-1994     Family Court Judge, Domestic, Elected by Legislature;
1994-Present   Circuit Court Judge, General, Elected by Legislature.
Judge Westbrook listed his five most significant orders or opinions as follows:
"(a)   K.L.G. v. G.A.G., (Initials used to protect privacy of parties.) Significant case in Family Court involving whether "second-hand" smoke affected a child in a custody issue. Doctor testified child's breathing problems were substantially aggravated by the mother's smoking habit, even to the point of endangering his health. Mother testified, however, that she had tried to quit smoking, but could not do so. With other factors being equal, I awarded custody to the father based on health problems created by mother's smoking;
(b)   American Heart Association, et al. v. County of Greenville, et al., 489 S.E.2d 921, 331 S.C. 498 (1997) This case centered around the will of deceased baseball player, "Shoeless Joe" Jackson. Jackson was a member of the 1919 Chicago White Sox baseball team which was charged with having "fixed" the World Series. Even though he was the most famous player of the eight who were banned from baseball, he could neither read nor write. Recent attention has been given to efforts to put Jackson in the Baseball Hall of Fame, however; and with this attention, it was discovered that his original signature was worth approximately $100,000. On learning that fact, the American Heart Association and Cancer Society, heirs of Mrs. Jackson's estate, brought an action to obtain his will, which bore his original signature. (He had no children.) The issue was whether to allow private citizens or groups to obtain original copies of documents filed with public agencies. I ruled that the original will of Mr. Jackson was public record, and not part of the estate. The Supreme Court affirmed;
(c)   The State v. Levar Bryant. (Now under appeal on the guilt issue.) Capital Case. Defendant was found guilty of the murder of a DHEC employee in a parking lot during his lunch break. His defense in the sentencing phase was that he had suffered brain damage by eating asbestos as a child. Numerous expert witnesses testified to the medical and psychological effects of asbestos on children. Jury sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment;
(d)   Delton R. Munn v. Nucor Steel, Division of Nucor Corp., Employer, and Wausau Insurance Companies, Court of Appeals, Opinion # 2997 (May 24, 1999) A novel issue in workers' compensation cases. The claimant was awarded permanent disability and lifetime medical treatment. He later had a heart attack -- which he admitted was not causally related to his injuries - and claimed that the lifetime medical treatment award should include his heart treatment. The issue was whether the term "reasonable and necessary" included medical treatment for unrelated conditions. I ruled that the heart condition was not covered by the term "reasonable and necessary." The Court of Appeals affirmed;
(e)   The State v. Joseph Kelsey, 502 S.E.2d 63, 331 S.C. 50 (1998) A murder case in which two co-defendants were charged with killing a young woman by putting a pipe bomb in her mouth. The co-defendants employed antagonistic defenses, and severance was a major legal issue. A major factual issue was whether the victim was dead or alive at the time the pipe bomb was used. The case required extremely delicate and precise rulings because of the possibility of severance if either defendant was allowed to prejudice the other. In the opinion, the Supreme Court addressed twelve different issues of substance, attesting to the heightened atmosphere and contentiousness of the case. The Supreme Court affirmed."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Judge Westbrook's temperament has been and would continue to be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Midlands Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "The Midlands Advisory Committee finds Judge Marc H. Westbrook to be a well-qualified judge. The Committee wholeheartedly recommends his re-election to Seat 2, Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit."
Judge Westbrook is married to Linda Louise Lawhon Westbrook. He has two children: Thadeous Herbert Westbrook III (Judicial Law Clerk for Hon. G. Ross Anderson, District Court Judge, age 24); and Richard Neal Westbrook (Student, age 21).
Judge Westbrook reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association (1973 - present);
(b)   Lexington County Bar (1973 - present);
(c)   S.C. Circuit Judges' Association (1994 - present);
(d)   American Judicature Society (1995 - present).
Judge Westbrook provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   Dixie Boys Baseball, President;
(b)   Lexington Baptist Association, Member, Executive Committee;
(c)   Congaree Baptist Church, Music Director;
(d)   Springdale Baptist Church, Deacon, Teacher, Moderator;
(e)   Palmetto Master Singers;
(f)   Woodmen of the World;
(g)   Masons.
Judge Westbrook additionally reported he is involved with a number of bar-related and law-related activities:
(a)   Joint Commission on Alternative Dispute Resolution. Judge Westbrook is one of two circuit judges appointed to this Commission by the Chief Justice. They have been assigned the task of developing a statewide alternative dispute resolution program in South Carolina, particularly mediation and arbitration. Judge Westbrook provided that he also began the first long-term successful mediation program in Lexington County;
(b)   Drug Court. Judge Westbrook presides weekly, along with another judge in his circuit, over sessions of "Drug Court." This is a two-track program. The other judge deals with individuals who are in Drug Court as a condition of their bond (Pre-Trial Diversion) and Judge Westbrook presides over the portion dealing with individuals who have been convicted or have pled guilty and are in Drug Court as a condition of their probation;
(c)   High-School Mock Trial. Judge Westbrook is Chairman of the Mock Trial sub-committee of the L.R.E. Division. He has been involved in this program for 12 years, and has presided over the state finals five to six times. Judge Westbrook has presided over national Mock Trial Competitions four times, including once in the final round of the National Championship. Additionally, he has presided over a number of school-related mock trials in elementary and high schools, and at the law school;
(d)   Judge Westbrook currently sits on the Mock Trial 2000 Committee, which is handling the National Finals in Columbia, in May 2000. He was also involved in the effort, along with bar representatives, to secure this program for Columbia;
(e)   New Lexington County Courthouse. Judge Westbrook serves as informal "chairman" of a committee appointed by Lexington County Council to plan and develop a new courthouse for Lexington County;
(f)   Court Web-Site. Judge Westbrook is working with the county to develop a web-site for the court system in Lexington County. He provided that he hopes to include the civil docket, mediation and arbitration information, information about the courts and judges, and frequently asked questions.

Thomas H. White, IV
Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat 1

Commission's Findings:   QUALIFIED
(1)   Constitutional Qualifications:
Based on the Commission's investigation, Mr. White meets the qualifications prescribed by law for judicial service as a Family Court judge.
Mr. White was born on June 16, 1957. He is 42 years old and a resident of Union, South Carolina. Mr. White provided in his application that he has been a resident of South Carolina for at least the immediate past five years and has been a licensed attorney in South Carolina since 1983.
(2)   Ethical Fitness:
The Commission's investigation did not reveal any evidence of unethical conduct by Mr. White.
Mr. White demonstrated an understanding of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and other ethical considerations important to judges, particularly in the areas of ex parte communications, acceptance of gifts and ordinary hospitality, and recusal.
Mr. White reported that he has not made any campaign expenditures.
Mr. White testified he has not:
(a)   sought or received the pledge of any legislator prior to screening;
(b)   sought or been offered a conditional pledge of support by a legislator;
(c)   asked third persons to contact members of the General Assembly prior to screening.
Mr. White testified that he is aware of the Commission's 48-hour rule regarding the formal and informal release of the Screening Report
(3)   Professional and Academic Ability:
The Commission found Mr. White to be intelligent and knowledgeable. His performance on the Commission's practice and procedure questions met expectations.
Mr. White described his continuing legal or judicial education during the last five years by stating he has attended numerous continuing legal education seminars sanctioned by the S.C. Bar Association. He believes that he has exceeded the minimum requirements for continuing legal education in the last five years.
Mr. White stated that on May 14, 1999, he presented a CLE lecture for the S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers entitled "Don't Overlook the Obvious" which examined fundamental aspects of trial preparation.
Mr. White reported that he has not published any books and/or articles.
(4)   Character:
The Commission's investigation of Mr. White did not reveal evidence of any founded grievances or criminal allegations made against him. The Commission's investigation of Mr. White did not indicate any evidence of a troubled financial status. Mr. White has handled his financial affairs responsibly.
The Commission also noted that Mr. White was punctual and attentive in his dealings with the Commission, and the Commission's investigation did not reveal any problems with his diligence and industry.
(5)   Reputation:
Mr. White reported that his Martindale-Hubbell rating is "BV."
(6)   Physical Health:
Mr. White appears to be physically capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(7)   Mental Stability:
Mr. White appears to be mentally capable of performing the duties of the office he seeks.
(8)   Experience:
Mr. White was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1983. He described his legal experience as follows:
"I began practicing law in my hometown of Union, S.C., with William E. Whitney, Jr., in November 1983. I have practiced with this firm exclusively for almost sixteen years now. We now have four attorneys in this firm and the firm name is now Whitney, White, Diamaduros & Diamaduros. I would describe my practice as a general trial practice with emphasis in Plaintiff's litigation, workers' compensation, real estate loan closings, criminal defense and domestic practice."
Mr. White provided the following description of his experience in Family Court matters:
"I would estimate that 30% of my practice is involved with Family Court work. In the areas of divorce, equitable division of property and child custody, I would estimate that I open approximately sixty new cases per year. The majority of divorce actions that I handle involve the equitable division of marital property and debt. Obviously, the amount of property and debt involved in each of these cases varies. Though custody of children is not a contested issue in the majority of the divorce cases that I have handled over the years, I have handled at least fifteen contested custody cases.
In the area of adoption, I have handled approximately ten adoptions during my sixteen years of practice.
In the area of abuse and neglect, I have served as appointed counsel for both individuals accused of abuse and neglect and as attorney and guardian ad litem for children victim of such abuse and neglect. I would estimate that I have been appointed in these areas involving cases of this type on an average of at least twice per year throughout the course of my practice.
In the area of juvenile justice, I have served as both appointed counsel and retained counsel in matters for Defendants in juvenile justice proceedings on an average of approximately four times per year over the course of my practice."
Mr. White reported the frequency of his court appearances during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Federal:   0
(b)   State:     60 times per year
Mr. White reported that the percentage of his practice involving civil, criminal, and domestic matters during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Civil:     40%
(b)   Criminal:   30%
(c)   Domestic:   30%
Mr. White reported the percentage of his practice in trial court during the last five years as follows:
(a)   Jury:     30%
(b)   Non-jury:   70%
Mr. White provided that he most often served as sole counsel.
The following is Mr. White's account of his five most significant litigated matters:
"(a)   State v. Wilbur Thompson, 90-GS-44-135. I was lead defense counsel in this death penalty murder trial. My client was a 43-year-old black male with a previous record for voluntary manslaughter. He was accused of the brutal murder of an elderly white peddler in Union County. I was appointed to represent Mr. Thompson and I utilized an alibi defense. Mr. Thompson was acquitted;
(b)   State v. Gerald Dean Canupp, 90-GS-44-550. I was retained counsel for Mr. Canupp in this murder trial. I utilized an accident defense, resulting in an acquittal for Mr. Canupp;
(c)   Robertha Davis v. Harold J. Booker and Terry Jeter, 93-CP-44-74; This personal injury trial in Union County Common Pleas Court was not significant for the amount of the verdict obtained; however, this litigation was somewhat unique in that the Defendants held liable for my client's damages had no one of impact with my client's vehicle or any of the other vehicles involved in the accident;
(d)   Karl D. Pendergrass v. Dorothea B. Pendergrass, 91-DR-44-128: This domestic action was a bitterly contested matter, particularly in the area of equitable distribution of property and debt. This case was significant in that it afforded an opportunity to utilize and consider practically every factor to be considered in the equitable distribution of property, including relative income of the parties, the property brought into the marriage, contributions to the accumulation of property, and misconduct affecting marital property. This case even involved an allegation of destruction of marital property by arson, even though this element was never fully developed;
(e)   James Garner v. Julie Adams, 98-DR-44-392. I served as a guardian ad litem in this change of custody action brought by father against mother. This case was significant in that it involved practically every factor that could be considered in determining what was in the best interest of the children. This case included questions of moral fitness of the mother, educational consideration of the children, medical considerations for the children, disciplinary considerations with respect to the children and social environment considerations for the sake of children."
Mr. White reported that he has never filed an appeal in a Family Court case;
Mr. White stated that he has personally handled the following four appeals to the S.C. Court of Appeals:
"(a)   Walker, et al. v. Harris, (291 S.C. 454, 354 S.E.2d 56) S.C. Ct. of Appeals, March 2, 1987;
(b)   Davis v. G.E. Haltiwanger Trucking, Inc., Mem. Op. 90-MO-163, S.C. Ct. of Appeals, 10/31/90;
(c)   Knox v. Bogan, 322 S.C. 64, 472 S.E.2d 43, S.C. Ct. of Appeals, May 28, 1996;
(d)   State v. Kimbrell, 326 S.C. 344, 481 S.E.2d 456, S.C. Ct. of Appeals, February 10, 1997."
(9)   Judicial Temperament:
The Commission believes that Mr. White's temperament would be excellent.
(10)   Miscellaneous:
The Piedmont Citizens Advisory Committee reported: "We found Mr. White extremely qualified. He was most cordial to the Committee. The comments received were positive in nature. His enthusiasm for the community at large and children was infectious. The Committee was pleased that his references included people of color. References called him an outstanding young man, a good citizen. One retired coach and now city councilman fondly remembered him from high school."
Mr. White is married to Ann Brueckner White. He has two children: Kelsey Ann White, age 11; and Caitlin Thomas White, age 8.
Mr. White reported that he was a member of the following bar associations and professional associations:
(a)   S.C. Bar Association;
(b)   Union County Bar Association;
(c)   Union County Defender Corporation Board of Directors, (Treasurer 1986 - 1998; current Vice Chairman);
(d)   S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, (Current member of Board of Directors from 16th Judicial Circuit);
(e)   Association of S.C. Claimant Attorneys for Workers' Compensation;
(f)   Former member of American Bar Association;
(g)   S.C. Bar Foundation.
Mr. White provided that he was a member of the following civic, charitable, education, social, or fraternal organizations:
(a)   First Presbyterian Church (Elder, Deacon, Treasurer, Finance Chairman, Sunday School Teacher, Choir member);
(b)   Union County Disabilities and Special Needs Board (Current Board Member and Vice Chairman);
(c)   Union County Literacy Council (Board Member and former Chairman);
(d)   Providence Presbytery Bethelwoods Camp and Conference Center Division Board Member (currently serving);
(e)   Providence Presbytery Central American Traveler, June 1999;
(f)   Former member of Union County United Way Board (former Chairman and Vice Chairman).
Mr. White additionally provided: "In my professional practice and in my life, I have endeavored to be of service to my fellow man and my community. This position would provide me with a unique opportunity to continue this service."

C O N C L U S I O N

The following persons were found qualified:
Judge Gary E. Clary         Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Seat 2
Judge Jasper M. Cureton     Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Seat 2
Judge Costa M. Pleicones     Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Seat 2
Judge E.C. Burnett, III       Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Seat 5
Judge Mary E. Buchan       Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Joseph D. Shine             Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Judge M. Duane Shuler       Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Judge Ray N. Stevens         Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 3
Judge Thomas E. Huff       Judge, Court of Appeals, Seat 8
Judge Howard P. King       Circuit Court for the Third Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
J. Michael Baxley           Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge L. Casey Manning     Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge Donald W. Beatty     Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge James W. Johnson, Jr. .Circuit Court for the Eighth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge Daniel F. Pieper.       Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge Alexander S. Macaulay   Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial

Circuit Seat 2
Judge William Paul Keesley   Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Judge Marc H. Westbrook     Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge B. Hicks Harwell, Jr.   Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
John C. Few               Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge Robert N. Jenkins, Sr.   Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Edward W. "Ned" Miller     Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Perry M. Buckner           Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Diane M. DeWitt           Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Karen F. Ballenger           Family Court for the Tenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Timothy M. Cain           Family Court for the Tenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Judge R. Scott Sprouse       Family Court for the Tenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 2
Donna Earls Elder           Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Robert E. Guess             Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Thomas H. White, IV         Family Court for the Sixteenth Judicial

Circuit, Seat 1
Judge Carolyn C. Matthews   Admin. Law Judge Division, Seat                         3
Judge John D. Geathers       Admin. Law Judge Division, Seat 4

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Senator Glenn F. McConnell       /s/ Rep. F. G. Delleney, Jr.
/s/ Senator Edward E. Saleeby       /s/ Rep. Wm. Douglas Smith
/s/ Senator Thomas L. Moore         /s/ Rep. Ralph W. Canty
/s/ Harry M. Lightsey, Jr.           /s/ Judge Curtis G. Shaw
/s/ Amy Johnson McLester         /s/ Richard S. Fisher

MOTION ADOPTED

On motion of Senators COURSON and WILSON, with unanimous consent, the Senate stood adjourned out of respect to the memory of former Senator Heyward Elliott McDonald of Columbia, S.C., friend, colleague, and dedicated public servant.

ADJOURNMENT

At 11:20 A.M., on motion of Senator COURSON, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:35 A.M.