Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The House assembled at 10:00 A.M.
Deliberations were opened with the song, "God Bless America," sung by Major Arnold Fields, Lt. Colonel Select, U.S. Marine Corps.
The following was received.
June 18, 1986
The Honorable Lois T. Shealy
Clerk of the South Carolina
House of Representatives (Doc. No. 740)
Dear Mrs. Shealy:
Pursuant to Act 176 of 1977, I have received on June 16, 1986 regulations concerning Prepaid Dental Service from the South Carolina Department of Insurance.
They are hereby referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry for consideration.
Sincerely,
Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 20, 1986
Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Dear Ramon:
Effective today I am resigning from the House of Representatives for business reasons.
Yours truly,
Palmer Freeman
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 25, 1986
THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN JR.
MEMBER SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
1035 Dominion Drive
Hanahan S.C. 29406
Dear Henry:
You have expressed an interest in being on the Judiciary Committee. Since Palmer Freeman has resigned from the House effective June 20, 1986 and no lawyers serving on a committee other than Judiciary have expressed an interest in this committee, I am pleased to appoint you to replace Palmer.
I recognize that your background is in business, but I feel that you will bring an added strength to represent that view on this committee. I wish you well in this assignement.
Sincerely,
Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 5, 1986
The Honorable Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Speaker of the House
The State House
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Mr. Speaker:
It is with severe mixed feelings that I leave this Honorable Body. I hope that my future service on the Workers Compensation Commission will reflect credit on this body. I do hereby resign my House Seat Number 119 upon passage of the 1986/1987 Budget Bill.
Thank you for all of your kindness and understanding.
A. Victor Rawl
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 5, 1986
The Honorable Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Speaker of the House
The State House
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am resigning my seat on the House Education and Public Works Committee, effective today, to be reassigned to the House Judiciary Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to continue my work in the House of Representatives on this Committee. I have enjoyed the past years on the Education Committee and look forward to this new effort.
Sincerely,
John W. Tucker, Jr.
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 5, 1986
The Honorable John W. Tucker, Jr.
Member, South Carolina House of
Representatives
Route 1
Highway 81 North
Anderson, SC 29621
Dear Johnny:
It is with pleasure that I am today appointing you to serve on the Judiciary Committee. You will replace Representative A. Victor Rawl.
I am most appreciative of your interest in this committee and willingness to serve in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 19, 1986
The Honorable Robert O. Kay
Member, South Carolina House of
Representatives
R-2
Iva, SC 29655
Dear Robert:
It is with pleasure that I am today appointing you to serve on the Education and Public Works Committee. You will replace Representative John W. Tucker, Jr.
Thank you for your interest in serving in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Received as information.
The following was introduced:
H. 4013 -- Rep. Nettles: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. MACE, FORMER MAYOR OF JOHNSONVILLE, FLORENCE COUNTY, FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF UNSELFISH AND DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AND TO EXTEND HIM BEST WISHES.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4014 -- Rep. Nettles: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH E. WILLIS ON HIS RECENT ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OF JOHNSONVILLE, FLORENCE COUNTY, AND TO WISH HIM WELL IN HIS NEW OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4015 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE BART COX ON BEING NAMED 1986 ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4016 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE AGENT CARLISLE LAVENDER OF CLARENDON COUNTY FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION AND TO WISH HIM WELL UPON HIS RETIREMENT.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4017 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Aydlette, Dangerfield, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Rawl, Washington, Winstead, G. Bailey, Day, Limehouse, H. Brown, Helmly and Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON'S SAILING TEAM ON BEING AWARDED THE INTERCOLLEGIATE YACHT RACING ASSOCIATION'S PRESTIGIOUS LEONARD M. FOWLE MEMORIAL TROPHY, AWARDED ANNUALLY TO THE NATION'S ALL-AROUND SAILING PROGRAM.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1379 -- Senators McConnell, Applegate, Fielding, McLeod, Ravenel, Branton, Dennis and Matthews: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON'S SAILING TEAM ON BEING AWARDED THE INTERCOLLEGIATE YACHT RACING ASSOCIATION'S PRESTIGIOUS LEONARD M. FOWLE MEMORIAL TROPHY, AWARDED ANNUALLY TO THE NATION'S ALL-AROUND SAILING PROGRAM.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The following was introduced:
H. 4018 -- Rep. Dangerfield: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MRS. TWEEDIE GARDNER DURST OF GREENWOOD COUNTY UPON HER DEATH.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4019 -- Reps. Dangerfield, Aydlette, J. Bradley, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Washington and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF ALLEN C. DRIGGERS OF CHARLESTON UPON HIS DEATH.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4020 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Kohn and Foxworth: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE COLONEL D. D. NICHOLSON, JR., OF CHARLESTON, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS VICE-PRESIDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITADEL.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4021 -- Reps. Ogburn, Evatt, Hearn, Blackwell, Mattos, L. Martin, Harvin, P. Bradley, Sheheen, M.D. Burriss and Hawkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MR. ROBERT D. FLOYD OF COLUMBIA FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES UPON HIS RETIREMENT.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The following was introduced:
H. 4022 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND OUR GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND, JOHN G. "JERRY" BEASLEY OF COLUMBIA, FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF EXCEPTIONAL AND UNSELFISH SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered sent to the Senate.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1384 -- Senators Drummond, Macaulay and McConnell: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WISHING AMELIA A. "MAMA" SIOKOS A SPEEDY AND COMPLETE RECOVERY AND AN EARLY RETURN TO "THE CAPITOL".
The Concurrent Resolution was agreed to and ordered returned to the Senate with concurrence.
The roll call of the House of Representatives was taken resulting as follows.
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Faber Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Keyserling Kirsh Koon Lake Lewis Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McEachin McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Ogburn Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rawl Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Toal Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wilkins Williams Winstead
I came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on June 19, 1986.
Woody McKay Juanita White Robert A. Kohn Joe F. Anderson, Jr. John H. Burriss Charles L. Griffin III Ralph Davenport Jarvis Klapman Lenoir Sturkie William H. Jones Mike Fair Tom G. Woodruff, Jr. Robert B. Brown John Bradley
STATEMENT OF ATTENDANCE
Rep. SHORT signed a statement with the Clerk that he came in after the roll call and was present for the Session on Thursday, June 19, 1986.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. L. HENDRICKS a leave of absence for the day.
The following Bill was read the third time, passed and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
S. 1375 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: A BILL TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ACT 271 OF 1985, WHICH RELATE TO THE TAX MILLAGE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRE DISTRICTS IN FLORENCE COUNTY, DO NOT APPLY TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE SARDIS-TIMMONSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE HOWE SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
On motion of Rep. LOCKEMY, with unanimous consent, the House stood in silent prayer in memory of Rep. ROBERT N. McLELLAN'S brother, Felix McLellan of Dillon.
The following was received.
June 18, 1986
The Honorable Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Speaker
House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am returning H. 3283 relating to the issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds with my vetoes. I have exercised my veto on forty-nine items totalling over $107 million.
Over the past eight years, we have worked together to reduce the burden of the State's long term indebtedness. Through the reduction of the constitutional limit on bonded indebtedness and the creation of the Capital Expenditure Fund, we have reinforced our long standing fiscal policy of living within our means.
This conservative approach to spending recognizes that capital improvement can not only burden the State with additional debt, but also stimulate the growth of future State budgets through the additional costs of personnel, operation, and maintenance required by new facilities. These facts underscore the need for caution and conservatism when approving capital improvement bonds.
There are no easy choices when determining items for vetoes. In order to maintain some level of consistency I established criteria to review the Bond Bill. I have given priority to those items deemed an emergency or a critical need threatening public health or safety, those items funded from some source other than state revenue, and those which will enhance the economic development of the State or preserve unique assets.
Unfortunately, these criteria eliminated many desirable projects, including a number of renovation projects. However, I believe that if we act prudently now, these worthwhile projects can be undertaken in the future. With this in mind, I will urge the Budget and Control Board and the Joint Bond Review Committee to develop a priority schedule for renovations and facilities based on the financing capability of the Capital Expenditure Fund.
Since we have come so close to achieving our goal of pay-as-you-go, future capital improvement projects should be financed on that basis.
I urge the members of the General Assembly to take a united stand in sustaining these vetoes and reaffirming our commitment to a stronger future for all South Carolinians through conservative management of State government.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard W. Riley
Rep. SHEHEEN: "The Clerk is reading the Bond Bill vetoes. Were not the Appropriations Bill vetoes received first by the Clerk?"
SPEAKER: "Yes, sir. I think by design, and about ten or fifteen minutes early. Under the Rules, Rule 2.10, the Clerk reads that which the Speaker directs him to read, and I have directed that the Bond Bill be taken up at this time."
Rep. SHEHEEN: "So it doesn't matter, if we had received the vetoes a day earlier on the Appropriations Bill, you still have the right to direct which one is received first?"
SPEAKER: "Until the House changes the rules, we operate under those rules, and under Rule 2.10, I feel that discretion is mine. The Clerk will continue to read."
Rep. FELDER: "I know that I don't want to tilt with a windmill at all, and I'm going to be very brief. I had really planned to raise a Point of Order and spend a good hour on it, but I'm not, because I think by design you appropriately have said that the Governor, working through his staff, has put us in a time problem. So I'm not going to take unusual time, but for the record, and I think it's a legitimate, important point for the record, I'd like to outline my Point of Order in regard to the right of the Governor to line item veto matters in the Bond Bill. And I would suggest to you, sir, there are several quick points I'd like to point out. First of all, I want to commend you for standing up for this body, and for not subverting the will of the House, and allowing us to, in deed and in fact, attempt to address, in a very limited time, the Bond Bill. I commend you, and I think you deserve, as our presiding officer, a vote of thanks to the majority of will of this House that voted for this particular Bill. Secondly, I'd like to commend the Governor for doing his job, as he is an excellent Governor, and my remarks are in no way intended against him personally. I bear him no ill will, and I hope he bears me none. And I realize that making this Point of Order is not going to make me popular with certain powers that be, but I can't worry about that, Mr. Speaker, just like you, as the presiding officer, have to do what you think is right, I've got to do what I think is right to represent the people that I represent. Mr. Speaker, the Governor has line item vetoed matters in this Bond Bill instead of vetoing the Bill as a whole. As you are aware, the pertinent Constitutional section is Article IV, Subsection 21. In Section 21, sir, it says that the Chief Executive of this State has the right to veto a Bill or Resolution, a Bill or Resolution in whole, unless it is a Bill that appropriates funds out of the Treasury. Now, Bills that appropriate money out of the Treasury would be Bills that appropriate funds out of the General Fund, Treasury being General Fund in my judgment. The word 'appropriate' gets its Latin derivative to mean 'to set aside a specific sum', in this case, sum from the Treasury, sum from the General Fund. Now the Bond Bill came in 1968, I'm sure you're aware of that, and it has been said that is to authorize certain projects for which we will expend funds later. Now, when you get to the words 'authorize' and 'appropriate', that is where the Attorney General, in my judgment, took great license with the law. If the Constitutional framers, sir, had wanted the Governor to line item veto a Bill like the Bond Bill, then they would have not used the word 'appropriate', they would have used the word 'authorize'. Now, I know that you can't rule on constitutionality of things like a court, but, after all, Mr. Speaker, you are our presiding officer, and you have to protect us and make sure what is done or things that are presented to us, are constitutionally correct. And whether it's an error made by the Governor, or by me as a member of this body, or by a Senator, or by whomever, you have to correct that error. Now, if you don't correct this error that was made, let me tell you the effect of this. It clearly violates the doctrine of separation of powers, because the Chief Executive of this state becomes a super-legislator, doing a job he was not elected to do. He can write a Bond Bill. And, I submit to you, he has done this. And he did it in 1980. What happens is, he picks the projects that he wants, that he feels are necessary. He leaves out certain projects. The projects that are funded are traded for pledges to vote or traded for anything he wants to trade it for, and that's his prerogative. If I were Governor, I would like that authority, too, because what that, in effect, would do would say that I would write the Bond Bill. Now, sir, that is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution clearly says that unless it's a Bill appropriating money out of the Treasury, he has to veto the entire Bill to protect the Legislature, to protect the legislative process. Now, to allow him to line item veto a Bond Bill, gives us no protection. What it, in effect, says is what we do is superfluous. Now, the point here is the Attorney General in his opinion in 1978, 1979, 1980, said that it was a continuing appropriation process. He rationalized this whole thing by saying there's a continuing appropriation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's ludicrous, because if you will look at this year's Bond Bill, there is no appropriation of money. The only appropriation of money that can be in a Bond Bill, or would be, would have to be for debt service. To be in a debt service situation it would have to be three or four years from now, when these bonds are issued. The money that is appropriated in the Appropriations Bill for this year for debt service is not for debt service on bonds that are authorized under this year's Bond Bill, they are to pay for bonds that have been authorized in the past. Clearly, there is no immediate appropriation in here. Now, what if the General Assembly, this year, had done what it did back in 1979, and that is, combined the Bond Bill in the Appropriation Bill, and had designated a specific amount, being $170 million plus, and it was in the Appropriation Bill -- then you have a problem. But that is not the case this year, but, it was the case when Speaker Carter was looking at this matter. We are now in a different posture than he was in, because we have a Bond Bill over here, and we have an Appropriations Bill over here. I appreciate your patience, Mr. Speaker. Now, the last thing I would like to say is, the opinion that was rendered by the Attorney General certainly is an important opinion, but it is not clear, because it admits that there is authority in other states that is against his position. But they don't let us see those cases. Speaker Blatt, when he was arguing this point before Speaker Carter, referred to a California case, I've read that. I've read the case of State vs. Durer. All of these cases tend to look at this problem and say the key is that phraseology, 'a bill appropriating money out of the Treasury'. I submit to you that error was made in 1980, and even though we want to respect our former colleagues, and I do respect Speaker Carter, he's a brilliant Speaker, nothing against him, I simply ask you to correct his error today, and rule that the Governor of this state cannot line item veto things in a Bond Bill, because it does not appropriate money out of the Treasury."
SPEAKER: "Thank you, Mr. Felder, you have very ably pointed out the import of the 1980 Bond Bill, the fact that we had the Bond Bill attached to the Appropriation Bill. You have further pointed out that a decision was made at that time. I am bound by the precedence of that decision, and I am prepared to rule on the matter at this time. I am going to overrule your Point of Order, but in so doing I would like to state two things. First, I do so out of no disrespect for the Governor, of course, this supports his position; I disagree with what the Governor has done, and I disagree respectfully. I think that this is the biggest usurpation of legislative powers that I have ever seen. I feel compelled to state to the body in ruling on this, the first point of order that is raised, that in the eighteen years I have been here, I have never seen the will of this General Assembly thwarted as it is in this instant case, that I would vote to override all of the vetoes except for one that has been conceded by the State Fair Association, I believe, on the livestock arena here in Columbia. But that does not change my ruling on the Point of Order that you raised. I feel that we have a point that has been considered by a previous Speaker, I feel that he delved into the matter well and ably. He may well have been right. However, I feel that the matter is of such great import, that I would urge this veto, coming on the dying day of our session when we are obviously not going to have an opportunity to consider all of the vetoes that are before us, I would urge that those agencies that may be aggrieved by the line item vetoes give every consideration to bringing this matter before the courts, which I feel is the proper tribunal to determine whether or not the Governor truly has the authority to line item veto. Now, let me address specifically the fact that in the 1980 Bond Bill, it was attached to the Appropriations Bill and it is not now. In the 1980 situation, had Speaker Carter predicated his rulings upon the fact that the Bond Bill was a part of the Appropriation Bill, which obviously the Governor can line item veto, I would probably have virgin territory to explore today, and I may well agree with you, Mr. Felder, because you've made a very able argument on the situation. However, that was not the case, he did not address that point, he took the matter front-endedly, and he said in that decision that the General Assembly had nothing more to do to appropriate funds, that the 1968 Bond Act said that the General Assembly would pay, that the State would pay from the Treasurer of the State those funds necessary to retire the indebtedness of bonds issued and pledged the full faith and credit of the state and, accordingly, there having been no definitive ruling on that point at that time, and it having been based solely on the merits of whether or not a Bond Bill may be line item vetoed, I am bound by precedents, and I overrule your Point of Order and suggest to you, sir, that we proceed to go on and try to get to the issues."
Rep. FELDER: "One more point, Mr. Speaker, and just for the record, as it will not change your ruling, could I also say, sir, that the Bond Bill did not have a Fiscal Impact Statement on it. In 1980, the Appropriations Bill did. That would indicate that the Appropriations Bill was appropriating funds, the Bond Bill was not. That's just for the record."
SPEAKER: "Thank you."
Rep. McABEE moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.
Rep. TOAL raised the Point of Order that the motion was improper as each veto item is a separate message and must be considered separately.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the motion out of order.
Rep. BLANDING insisted that Rule 10.1 be enforced. The SPEAKER ordered the House cleared of unauthorized persons.
Rep. ALEXANDER inquired whether each veto item would be open for debate.
The SPEAKER replied in the affirmative.
Rep. ALEXANDER then inquired whether 5:00 p.m. was the deadline for Sine Die adjournment.
SPEAKER: "At 5:00 p.m. we have no alternative. My interpretation of the Rules is, this is advisory so we don't get into this parliamentary maneuver later, statutorily we should have adjourned on the first Thursday of June, at 5:00 p.m. We extended the session for certain limited purposes. There was not included among those limited purposes the capability of further extension of the session. I do understand that a petition may be circulated, if it's not already, that would petition the Governor to call us back into special session, without any remuneration or pay of any type, to further consider the veto messages that he has presented to us that we do not have an opportunity to consider today. The ball would then be in the Governor's court and what his feeling would be, I do not know."
Rep. ALEXANDER: "If we adjourn at 5:00 p.m., and we haven't considered all of the items..."
The SPEAKER: "Those items, they having been presented to us while we are still in session, those items not considered are deemed to become law because we have not overridden the Governor's veto."
Rep. ALEXANDER: "They will become law?"
The SPEAKER: "Yes, sir. That's why I'm asking your cooperation to expedite the matter as much as possible."
Section 1, Subsection 1, Item #2, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Page 2, reads as follows:
2. Renovations $300,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
These renovations are not of a critical nature affecting the operations and duties of SLED. While these renovations may be desirable, deferring them will not pose an immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Rep. McABEE moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.
Rep. TOAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
Immediate cloture was then ordered by a division vote of 54 to 17.
Rep. FELDER: "It's really a Parliamentary Inquiry that will become a Point of Order very hurriedly. Under Rule 8.6, subsection (a), in immediate cloture, as I understand it, when an amendment is upon the desk, and is considered, the time limit is two minutes."
SPEAKER: "No, sir. We have many rulings, most of which I have made in the past, that each veto item is a separate issue, in and of its own."
Rep. FELDER: "I understand that, but the point I'm making is that the veto is an executive amendment, because he has not vetoed the whole Bill, he has selectively amended the Bond Bill by taking it section by section, therefore it would qualify as an amendment, and it would be limited to two minutes."
The SPEAKER overruled the Point of Order.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke in favor of the veto.
Rep. FELDER spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Kay Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McKay McLeod McTeer Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Snow Stoddard Townsend Tucker Washington Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Dangerfield Day Faber Freeman Huff Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Koon Lewis Lockemy Marchant Mattos McEachin McLellan Mitchell Neilson Nettles Ogburn Pearce Rogers, J. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Simpson Thrailkill Toal Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
I was mistakenly voted No on veto #1. It should have reflected a yes vote on veto #1.
Rep. THOMAS E. HUFF
Section I, Subsection 2, Adjutant General's Office, Page 2, lines 38-43, and Page 3, lines 1-8, reads as follows:
2) Adjutant General's Office
1) Armory Improvements $ 500,000
2) Major Renovations to Armories 357,750
TOTAL, Adjutant General $ 857,750
Provided, that the funds authorized above for "armory improvements" are allocated to specific projects and then scheduled in the statewide capital improvement priority groups by the Joint Bond Review Committee.
Provided, further, that the issuance of bonds for Major Renovations to Armories provided for in this sub-item is conditioned upon the State receiving matching federal funds in the amount of $478,250.
This section is vetoed for the following reason:
Over the past few years we have provided significant funds for armory construction, renovation and improvement, matched by federal funds. However, in this year when we are attempting to set very stringent priorities and reduce the burden long-term debt places on our state's operation, I am asking the General Assembly to defer these projects to some future date.
Rep. S. ANDERSON spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.
The veto of the Governor was sustained by a division vote of 59 to 39.
Section 1, Subsection 3, Item #2, Budget and Control Board, Page 3, reads as follows:
2. Parking Garage $4,500,000
This item and the items in vetoes 4 and 5 are vetoed for the following reason:
This facility and the facilities in vetoes 4 and 5 do not meet the criteria of an emergency or critical need. We must set an example in controlling the growth of government. In addition to vetoing these items, I am asking the Budget and Control Board and the Joint Bond Review Committee to establish a uniform policy regarding fees for use of State parking facilities.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.
The veto of the Governor was sustained by a division vote of 21 to 60.
Section 1, Subsection 3, Item #3, Budget and Control Board, Page 3 reads as follows:
Brown Building Renovations $300,000
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.
The veto of the Governor was sustained by a division vote of 14 to 62.
Section 1, Subsection 3, Item #4, Budget and Control Board, Page 3, reads as follows:
Robert Mills Building $600,000
parking/fixtures
Rep. McABEE spoke against the veto.
The SPEAKER granted Rep. STODDARD a temporary leave of absence to attend a Highway Commission Meeting.
Reps. TOAL and KLAPMAN spoke in favor of the veto.
Rep. McEACHIN spoke upon the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Blackwell Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Carnell Dangerfield Davenport Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Helmly Holt Jones Kay Mangum Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLeod McTeer Moss Pearce Phillips, O. Rhoad Sharpe Short Snow Waldrop Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Barfield Beasley Bennett Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Day Derrick Faber Freeman Gilbert Gregory Harris, J. Hayes Hearn Hendricks, B. Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Lewis Marchant Martin, D. McBride McEachin McLellan Mitchell Neilson Nettles Ogburn Petty Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Simpson Sturkie Thrailkill Toal Townsend Tucker Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
VETO #6--OVERRIDDEN
Section 1, Subsection 4, Item #1, The Citadel, Page 3, reads as follows:
1. Alumni Hall renovate or replace $4,566,000
This item and the item in veto 7 are vetoed for the following reason:
This item and the item in veto number 7 are not an emergency or critical need directly related to the continued operation of the college. Deferring these two facilities will not pose an immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Reps. FOXWORTH, J. BRADLEY and B.L. HENDRICKS spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Short Simpson Snow Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Faber Freeman Huff Kirsh Lewis Lockemy McBride McEachin Mitchell Rogers, T. Toal
PAIRED
Rep. SHELTON (Present) No;
Rep. STODDARD (Absent) Yes.
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 4, Item #3, The Citadel, Pages 3 and 4, reads as follows:
3. McAlister Field House Conversion $4,252,789
& Renovation
Rep. FOXWORTH spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lewis Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rice Rogers, J. Russell Short Simpson Snow Sturkie Taylor Townsend Tucker Washington Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Beasley Bennett Blackwell Brown, J. Faber Freeman Gregory Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh McBride McEachin Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Thrailkill Toal Wilkins
PAIRED
Rep. SHELTON (Present) No;
Rep. STODDARD (Absent) Yes.
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 5, Item #2, Clemson University, Page 4, reads as follows:
2. Electrical Distribution $1,000,000
system expansion
This item and the items in vetoes 9 and 10 are vetoed for the following reason:
This item and the items in vetoes number 9 and 10 represent an expansion or the initiation of new facilities. These new projects will, no doubt, require direct operational support through general appropriations in the future. It is our responsibility to scrutinize closely those items which will cause new personnel, operating monies and other general appropriations in future years.
Rep. T.M. BURRISS spoke against the veto.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Altman Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Freeman Harris, J. Hayes Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy Mattos McEachin Mitchell Neilson Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Toal Wilkins
PAIRED
Rep. SHELTON (Present) No;
Rep. STODDARD (Absent) Yes.
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 5, Item #3, Clemson University, Page 4, reads as follows:
3. Jordan Hall Completion $350,000
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Day Faber Freeman Gilbert Hayes Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lewis Lockemy Mattos McEachin Mitchell Neilson Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 5, Item #4, Clemson University, Page 4, reads as follows:
4. Strom Thurmond Center Project- $5,000,000
Continuing Education Facility
Reps. T.M. BURRISS and McABEE spoke against the veto.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Mangum Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Brown, R. Faber Ferguson Freeman Keyserling Kirsh Lewis Lockemy McEachin Neilson Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Short Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Reps. KLAPMAN and KIRSH objected to taking up the motion to reconsider the vote whereby the Conference Report on H. 2002 was adopted.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 12:00 Noon today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 80
On motion of Rep. TOAL the invitation was accepted.
Section 1, Subsection 6, Item #1, College of Charleston, Page 4, reads as follows:
1. Expand Utilities $750,000
This item and the items in vetoes 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are vetoed for the following reason:
This item and the items in vetoes 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 do not meet the criteria of an emergency or critical need threatening immediate or potential danger to public health or safety.
Rep. HOLT spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Short Simpson Snow Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Brown, R. Faber Freeman Hearn Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Lewis Lockemy Marchant McEachin McLellan Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 6, Item #2, College of Charleston, Page 4, reads as follows:
2. Renovations $700,000
Rep. HOLT spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, M.D. Faber Fair Hearn Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Lewis Lockemy Marchant McEachin McLellan Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Short Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 6, Item #5, College of Charleston, Page 4, reads as follows:
5. Purchase 9 Liberty Street Building $2,250,000
Rep. LIMEHOUSE spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLellan McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sharpe Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Faber Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy Marchant Mattos McBride McEachin Neilson Ogburn Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Short Simpson Toal Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 6, Item #6, College of Charleston, Page 4, reads as follows:
6. Craig Union Cafeteria $300,000
Rep. HOLT spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Faber Freeman Hearn Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Lewis Lockemy McBride McEachin Neilson Ogburn Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Short Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 6, College of Charleston, Page 4, lines 42-44, and page 5, lines 1-27, reads as follows:
Provided, authorization is granted to the State College Board of Trustees, as a governing body of the College of Charleston, to borrow from one or more banking institutions not exceeding $300,000 for a period of time not exceeding ten years and upon terms and conditions as the board, with the approval of the State Budget and Control Board, agrees upon, to issue its notes evidencing the borrowing, and to use the proceeds to defray the cost of issuing the notes and the cost of the renovation and expansion of the College of Charleston's cafeteria facilities. For the payment of the loan and the interest on the loan, there must be pledged certain revenues derived by the board from the sale of meals at the cafeteria facilities at the College of Charleston which, in the proceedings providing for the issuance of the notes, the board shall impose, or require the imposition of, charges for meals at the College of Charleston's cafeteria facilities adequate to defray the cost of the meals and to meet the payment of principal and interest on the notes as they become due. The borrowing must be evidenced by one or more notes of the board payable as to principal and interest solely from the revenues to be pledged for the authorized notes. The notes and the interest to become due on the notes have the tax-exempt status prescribed in Section 12-1-60 of the 1976 Code.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Faber Freeman Hearn Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy McBride McEachin McLellan Neilson Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Short Simpson Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 6, College of Charleston, Page 6, lines 17-20, reads as follows:
Provided, that the $300,000 authorized for Craig Union Cafeteria Renovation and Expansion is conditioned on the receipt of $300,000 from cafeteria revenues for completion of the project.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bradley, P. Brown, J. Brown, R. Faber Fair Hearn Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin McLellan Neilson Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 7, Francis Marion College, Page 6, reads as follows:
7) Francis Marion College
1) Computer Center $1,080,000
2) Library Expansion $2,392,000
TOTAL, Francis Marion College $3,472,000
This section is vetoed for the following reason:
These items represent new or the expansion of existing facilities. Deferring these new structures and facilities will not pose an immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Rep. McLEOD spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McEachin McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Ogburn Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sharpe Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Faber Freeman Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Marchant McBride Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
I was called out of the chamber by a colleague and was not able to return in time for the roll call vote on Veto 17 relative to Francis Marion College. Please let the record reflect that I would have voted to override the Governor's veto.
Rep. E. LEROY NETTLES
Section 1, Subsection 8, Lander College, Page 6, reads as follows:
8) Lander College
1. Physical Education Complex $10,027,000
TOTAL, Lander College $10,027,000
This section is vetoed for the following reason:
This item is a new facility which would require substantial new general appropriations to operate in the future. Given our current debt position and the uncertain nature of revenue growth over the next few years, this project, though desirable for the community and the college, should not be considered a priority at this time.
Reps. J.C. JOHNSON and CARNELL spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Short Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Boan Brown, J. Derrick Faber Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Ogburn Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 9a, USC Columbia, Page 6, reads as follows:
9a) USC Columbia
1. Renovations $6,000,000
TOTAL, USC Columbia $6,000,000
This section and the sections or items vetoed in vetoes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are vetoed for the following reason:
Vetoes numbered 19-26 include many items which are new projects and would require substantial additional general appropriations for personnel and operating expenses in the future. These items also include renovations. In all cases we want to encourage renovation instead of new construction where possible. However, the renovations proposed in vetoes 19-26 do not meet the criteria of an emergency or critical need. I urge the General Assembly to defer these items and consider renovations as a priority item as we move to a pay-as-you-go basis.
Rep. EVATT spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Edwards Elliott Evatt Faber Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Toal Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Mattos McEachin Neilson Ogburn Sheheen Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 9c, USC Coastal, Page 6, reads as follows:
9c) USC Coastal
1. Renovation $1,800,000
TOTAL, USC Coastal $1,800,000
Rep. THRAILKILL spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Faber Gregory Hearn Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy McBride McEachin Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. ALTMAN moved to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 2 was sustained and the motion was noted.
Section 1, Subsection 9d, Item #1, USC Spartanburg, Page 6, reads as follows:
1. Classroom Building $5,500,000
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Petty Phillips, O. Rawl Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Taylor Townsend Tucker Waldrop White Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Faber Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lewis Lockemy McEachin Neilson Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Simpson Sturkie
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 9e, Item #2, USC Beaufort, Page 6, reads as follows:
2. Campus Development $300,000
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Kay Keyserling Kohn Lake Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLeod McTeer Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Aydlette Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, M.D. Day Faber Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Klapman Lockemy Mattos McBride McEachin Neilson Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Simpson Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 9g, USC Salkehatchie, Page 7, reads as follows:
9g) USC Salkehatchie
1. Library/
classroom renovations $195,000
TOTAL, USC Salkehatchie $195,000
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gordon Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, M.D. Faber Gregory Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lewis Lockemy Marchant Mattos McBride McEachin Neilson Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
On Veto #23 USC-Salkehatchie I mistakenly voted to sustain the Governor's Veto. I intended to vote to override the Governor's Veto on Item #23.
Rep. JACK GREGORY
Section 1, Subsection 9h, USC Sumter, Page 7, reads as follows:
9h) USC Sumter
1. Administration Building
Addition $2,000,000
TOTAL, USC Sumter $2,000,000
Rep. SCHWARTZ spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Bradley, P. Faber Hearn Kirsh McEachin Rogers, T. Sheheen
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 9i, USC Union, Page 7, reads as follows:
9i) USC Union
1. Renovations $ 500,000
TOTAL, USC Union $ 500,000
Provided USC Union is granted authorization to acquire the Dawkins Court #1 with private funds in the amount of $33,000.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Stoddard Taylor Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, R. Faber Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin Neilson Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 10, Items #2 and #3, Winthrop College, Page 7, reads as follows:
2. McFeat Renovations $ 100,000
3. Withers Renovations $2,158,000
These items are vetoed for the following reason:
While renovations are preferable to new construction, these items do not meet the criteria of an emergency or critical need. They can be deferred without immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Rep. FREEMAN spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Short Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Aydlette Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Brown, R. Davenport Faber Gregory Harris, J. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 11, Medical University, Page 7, reads as follows:
11) Medical University
1. Multipurpose Student
Center $8,500,000
TOTAL, Medical University $8,500,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
This item is a new facility which does not meet the criteria as an emergency or critical need. Given the many other pressing needs this project should not be awarded priority status.
Rep. HAWKINS spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Brown, R. Faber Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lewis Marchant McEachin Ogburn Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #1, Technical Education, Page 7, reads as follows:
1. Orangeburg/Calhoun Allied
Health Center $2,808,892
This item and the items vetoed in vetoes 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 are vetoed for the following reason:
The facilities under Technical Education in veto items 29-35 represent both new facilities and renovations not of an emergency or critical nature. Deferring these items will not impede TEC in the performance of its responsibilities and functions in training workers for jobs in South Carolina. Further, the proviso in veto item #35 represents a significant change in policy regarding state-local cost sharing for Technical Education facilities.
Rep. FELDER spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, R. Faber Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sharpe Sheheen Shelton Simpson Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Further proceedings were interrupted by the Ratification of Acts, the pending question being consideration of the Governor's Veto.
At 12:00 Noon the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts and Joint Resolution were duly ratified.
(R626) S. 1327 -- Senators Branton and Matthews: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR TWO ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATES IN DORCHESTER COUNTY.
(R627) S. 1375 -- Senator Thomas E. Smith, Jr.: AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ACT 271 OF 1985, WHICH RELATE TO THE TAX MILLAGE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRE DISTRICTS IN FLORENCE COUNTY, DO NOT APPLY TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE SARDIS-TIMMONSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE HOWE SPRINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
(R628) H. 3480 -- Reps. Hearn, McBride, Koon, Klapman, T.M. Burriss, Barfield and G. Brown: AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-110, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR THE CRIME OF PROSTITUTION SO AS TO INCREASE THESE PENALTIES.
(R629) H. 3975 -- Reps. Koon, Klapman, Derrick and Sturkie: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY PUBLIC HOSPITAL FROM CLOSING ANY SATELLITE MEDICAL FACILITY OPERATED BY IT WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER 1975, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF THE RESIDENT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN WHICH THIS SATELLITE FACILITY IS LOCATED.
(R630) H. 4012 -- Rep. McTeer: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD TO ALLOW THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO CONSTRUCT A WATER TANK ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE HAMPTON NATIONAL GUARD IS LOCATED.
At 12:15 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #2, Technical Education, Page 7, reads as follows:
2. Midlands Multipurpose Resource Center $5,920,000
Reps. STURKIE and EVATT spoke against the veto.
Rep. TOAL spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lewis Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Ogburn Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, P. Brown, J. Faber Freeman Hearn Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lockemy McBride McEachin Neilson Nettles Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Simpson Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. SCHWARTZ appointed Reps. S. ANDERSON, SHEHEEN, T.M. BURRISS, BLANDING and NETTLES as the Adjournment Committee and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Rep. BLACKWELL moved to waive Rule 6.1, which was agreed to.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #3, Technical Education, Page 7, reads as follows:
3. Tri-County Learning Resource/
Administration Building $3,200,000
Rep. L. MARTIN spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McTeer Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop White Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Faber Freeman Harris, J. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin McKay Neilson Nettles Ogburn Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #4, Technical Education, Page 7, reads as follows:
4. Piedmont Engineer Technology Buildings $1,080,000
Rep. J.C. JOHNSON spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McLellan McTeer Mitchell Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Boan Freeman Harris, J. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lewis Lockemy McEachin Nettles Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The ACTING SPEAKER MARCHANT granted Rep. LIMEHOUSE a temporary leave of absence.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #5, Technical Education, Pages 7 and 8, reads as follows:
5. Sumter Area Technical College
a) Building 400--Roof replacement $100,000
b) Building 100--Class renovations $170,000
c) Building 200--Renovations $ 30,000
b) Building 300--Renovation damage $ 10,000
Rep. SCHWARTZ spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Lockemy Martin, D. Martin, L. McEachin McLellan McTeer Mitchell Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Sheheen Simpson Snow Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Kirsh Marchant
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Item #6, Technical Education, Page 8, reads as follows:
6. Horry-Georgetown Technical College/
Charles Hodges Tourism Center $ 300,000
Rep. ELLIOTT spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Altman Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Harris, P. Hawkins Hayes Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Lewis Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McTeer Mitchell Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop White Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Faber Freeman Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin Neilson Ogburn Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Simpson Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 12, Technical Education, Page 8, lines 12-26, reads as follows:
Provided, that prior to the withdrawal from the State Treasurer of any of the funds authorized for the Orangeburg/Calhoun Allied Health Center, Midlands Multipurpose Resource Center, Tri-County Learning Resource/Administration Building, and Piedmont Engineer Technology Buildings, the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education shall obtain and transmit to the Budget and Control Board a certificate from the appropriate official at such technical institutions stating that, as required by Section 6 of Act 654 of 1976, a minimum of twenty percent of the cost of each of the projects authorized in this sub-item has been provided by the local support area.
Rep. FELDER spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Koon Lake Lockemy Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sheheen Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Freeman Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lewis Marchant Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 14, Vocational Rehabilitation, Page 8, reads as follows:
1. Rock Hill Center $ 775,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
This is a new facility which should be deferred until a later date.
Reps. D. MARTIN and DAY spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McKay McLellan McTeer Mitchell Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Thrailkill Toal Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Brown, J. Faber Hearn Kirsh Lewis Marchant Sheheen Simpson Sturkie
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 15, Item #1, School for Deaf/Blind, Page 8, reads as follows:
1. Vocational Education Facility $ 600,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
This new facility should be deferred since its completion is not critical to continue operation of the agency.
Rep. EDWARDS spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Faber Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lewis Lockemy Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Kirsh Marchant Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 18, Item #2, John de la Howe School, Page 9, reads as follows:
2. Repairs/Improvements $200,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
While renovations are preferable to new construction, these items do not meet the criteria of an emergency or critical need. They can be deferred without immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Rep. McABEE spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Davenport Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Fair Felder Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lewis Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McBride McEachin McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Kirsh Marchant Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 20, Item #3, Youth Services, Page 9, reads as follows:
3. Greenville/Reg. Detention Center $850,000
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
While I have been supportive of efforts to remove juvenile offenders from the adult jails of the State, I feel that this expenditure of funds would not be a wise move at this time. The Greenville Detention Center would be the type of regional facility which has been proposed as a way to effectuate the removal of juveniles from adult jails. However, a comprehensive plan for all regions of the State which identifies the funding responsibilities to be shared by the counties and State government has yet to be developed. For the State to assume the complete financial responsibility for this center in the absence of a statewide jail removal strategy would represent a major policy change which needs further deliberation.
Rep. McABEE spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Anderson, J. Arthur, J. Bailey, K. Bennett Blanding Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Dangerfield Edwards Evatt Felder Ferguson Gentry Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hayes Hearn Jones Kay Lewis Martin, L. McAbee McLeod McTeer Pearce Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Sharpe Stoddard Taylor Tucker Waldrop White Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Altman Aydlette Bailey, G. Beasley Blackwell Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Cooper Cork Davenport Faber Fair Foxworth Freeman Harris, J. Hawkins Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Koon Lockemy Mangum Marchant Martin, D. Mattos McBride McEachin McKay McLellan Mitchell Moss Nettles Ogburn Petty Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Russell Sheheen Shelton Simpson Snow Sturkie Toal Washington Wilkins Winstead
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Section 1, Subsection 21, Law Enforcement Training Council, Pages 9 and 10, reads as follows:
21) Law Enforcement Training Council
1.New Cafeteria Construction $2,810,000
2.Renovate Existing Cafeteria
to Classroom $ 160,000
3.Renovate Kitchen to Print Shop $ 95,500
4.Service Road and Parking $ 339,500
TOTAL, Law Enforcement Training
Council $3,405,000
These items are vetoed for the following reason:
While the capacity of the Criminal Justice Academy kitchen and cafeteria has been taxed way beyond its design with the increases in trainees utilizing the facilities, the impending withdrawal of the corrections trainees should provide substantial relief to all of the facilities, i.e., cafeteria, classrooms, and dorms. The justification for the new cafeteria and kitchen was based, to a large extent, upon the already taxed status of the existing facility and the projected substantial increases in numbers of correctional officer trainees in the near future. With the removal of the correctional officer trainees from the Academy, the existing cafeteria and kitchen should be sufficient to meet the demands of the remainder of the criminal justice trainees until such time as a comprehensive demand analysis can be undertaken. Funding for a new cafeteria and kitchen and renovation of the existing facility is, therefore, not recommended.
The parking facility at the Criminal Justice Academy is likewise inadequate; $339,000 is included in the bond bill for resurfacing the parking lot and service road. This item, while sorely needed to improve the site, could be delayed if necessary.
Finally, the source of funding for the Law Enforcement Training Council, as established by law, is revenues from fines and forfeitures levied on criminal and traffic violations. Although not prohibited by law, any appropriation from the General Fund or bond authorization would be a departure from the intent of the law and would entail a significant policy change.
Reps. J. ROGERS, TOAL and McLELLAN spoke in favor of the veto.
Reps. McABEE and T. ROGERS spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Barfield Blanding Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Burriss, M.D. Carnell Chamblee Derrick Edwards Evatt Felder Gentry Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Martin, L. McAbee McLeod McTeer Pearce Phillips, O. Rogers, T. Stoddard Taylor Tucker Waldrop
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Beasley Bennett Blackwell Boan Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Cleveland Cooper Day Faber Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gilbert Harris, J. Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.W. Jones Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Kohn Koon Lewis Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin McKay McLellan Mitchell Neilson Nettles Ogburn Petty Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sheheen Shelton Simpson Snow Sturkie Thrailkill Toal Townsend Washington White Williams Woodruff
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Section 1, Subsection 22, Forestry Commission, Page 10, reads as follows:
22) Forestry Commission
l. Newberry Office $416,586
TOTAL, Forestry Commission $416,586
This item is vetoed for the following reason:
This is not a pressing priority and its deferral will not pose an immediate or potential threat to public health or safety.
Rep. WALDROP spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Carnell Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Nettles Ogburn Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Sheheen Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Toal Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Blackwell Burriss, M.D. Freeman Hearn Keyserling Kirsh Lewis Lockemy McEachin McLellan Neilson Rogers, T. Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 23, Clemson PSA, Page 10, reads as follows:
23) Clemson PSA
1.Lehotsky Hall Renovation $1,140,000
2.Hobcaw Barony Renovation $ 415,000
3.Pendleton Road Insectary $ 337,000
4.Show and Sale Arena $4,400,000
5.South Carolina Agricultural
and Mechanical Society $ 750,000
TOTAL, Clemson PSA $7,042,000
These items and the items vetoed in vetoes 43, 44 and 50 are vetoed for the following reason:
I am concerned about the plight of farmers in South Carolina, especially small and family farms. And although the facilities referenced in vetoes 42, 43, 44 and 50 may be perceived as having some benefit to our overall agricultural economy, I am more concerned about our long-range ability to offer assistance programs to farmers and continue research already underway. I believe new facilities in these uncertain budget times will only further hamper that ability in the future.
Rep. FREEMAN inquired whether it was proper to divide the question on the items contained in Veto No. 41.
Rep. TOAL stated that each veto item must be considered as a whole.
The SPEAKER Pro Tempore stated that it was not proper to divide the question.
Reps. P. HARRIS and McABEE spoke against the veto.
Rep. TOAL spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Dangerfield Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Lake Lewis Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Short Simpson Snow Stoddard Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Boan Brown, J. Brown, R. Day Derrick Faber Freeman Harris, J. Hearn Huff Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lockemy Mangum McBride McEachin McKay Neilson Nettles Rogers, J. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Toal
So, the veto by the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 23, Clemson PSA, Page 10, lines 22-25, reads as follows:
Provided, further, that funds authorized above for the South Carolina Agricultural and Mechanical Society must be used to improve and enlarge the livestock facility of the Society.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cooper Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Gentry Gregory Griffin Harris, P. Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Jones Kay Lake Lewis McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Russell Short Simpson Snow Stoddard Townsend Tucker Waldrop Williams
Those who voted in the negative are:
Alexander Aydlette Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Dangerfield Day Derrick Faber Freeman Harris, J. Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lockemy Mangum Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McEachin Neilson Nettles Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Sturkie Thrailkill Toal Washington White Wilkins Winstead Woodruff
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Section 1, Subsection 23, Clemson PSA, Page 10, Lines 26-30, reads as follows:
Provided, further, that all bonds authorized for the Show and Sale Arena and the South Carolina Agricultural and Mechanical Society by the provisions of this sub-item must be issued at the same time.
Rep. McABEE spoke in favor of the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Bailey, K. Blanding Boan Klapman Koon McEachin McKay Sharpe Shelton Sturkie
Those who voted in the negative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Faber Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Keyserling Kirsh Kohn Lake Lewis Lockemy Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rice Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Russell Sheheen Short Simpson Snow Stoddard Thrailkill Toal Townsend Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Winstead Woodruff
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Section 1, Subsection 24, Wildlife and Marine Resources, Page 10, reads as follows:
24) Wildlife and Marine Resources
1.Renovations/Improvements $ 400,000
2.Communications Systems $3,900,000
TOTAL, Wildlife and Marine Resources $4,300,000
These sections and the sections or items vetoed in vetoes 46, 47, 48 and 49 are vetoed for the following reason:
These projects and the projects in vetoes 46, 47, 48, and 49 are not pressing priorities, and their deferral will not pose an immediate or potential threat to public health and safety.
Reps. BENNETT and FOXWORTH spoke against the veto.
The SPEAKER Pro Tempore granted Rep. LEWIS a leave of absence for the remainder of the day.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Kohn Koon Lake Lewis Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Pearce Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Short Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Toal Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Brown, J. Faber Hearn Kirsh Klapman Marchant McBride McEachin Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Shelton Simpson
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 25, Item #1 and Item #4, Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Pages 10 and 11, reads as follows:
l. Renovations/Improvements $6,000,000
4. Welcome Center Orangeburg $ 35,000
Rep. McTEER spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Blanding Boan Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Keyserling Klapman Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Marchant Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McEachin McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sharpe Sheheen Short Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Toal Townsend Washington White Wilkins Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Hearn Kirsh Shelton Simpson Williams
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 25, Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Page 10, lines 42-44, and Page 11, lines 1-2, reads as follows:
Provided, that the funds authorized above for "Renovations/Improvements" must be allocated to specific projects and then scheduled in the statewide capital improvements priority group schedule by the Joint Bond Review Committee.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Fair Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kohn Koon Limehouse Lockemy Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McEachin McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sheheen Short Simpson Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Toal White Wilkins Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 29, Aeronautics Commission, Page 11, lines 42-44, and Page 12, lines 1-9, reads as follows:
29) Aeronautics Commission
1. Airport Improvements $3,000,000
TOTAL, Aeronautics Commission $3,000,000
Provided, that funds authorized above for "Airport Improvements" must be allocated to specific projects and then scheduled in the statewide capital improvements priority group schedule by the Joint Bond Review Committee.
Provided, further, that of the funds authorized above for the Aeronautics Commission, $40,000 must be allocated for the construction of hangars at the East Cooper Airport.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Kay Kohn Koon Lake Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Nettles Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Washington White Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Boan Brown, J. Brown, R. Burriss, M.D. Faber Fair Hearn Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Lockemy Marchant McBride McEachin Petty Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Simpson Toal Wilkins
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 1, Subsection 30, State Election Commission, Page 12, lines 10-19, reads as follows:
30) State Election Commission
1. Uniform Electronic Voting Systems
Pilot Project $ 984,810
TOTAL, State Election Commission $ 984,810
Provided, that the plans for the Uniform Electronic Voting Systems Pilot Project authorized above must be approved by the Budget and Control Board and the Joint Bond Review Committee prior to the issuance of any bonds for this project.
Rep. EDWARDS spoke against the veto.
Rep. J. ROGERS spoke in favor of the veto.
Reps. EDWARDS, J. HARRIS and FREEMAN spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Cleveland Cooper Cork Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Evatt Faber Felder Ferguson Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Kay Keyserling Kohn Lake Limehouse Mangum Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McBride McEachin McKay McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Nettles Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, T. Russell Snow Stoddard Taylor Toal Townsend Tucker Waldrop Washington Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, G. Brown, R. Elliott Fair Huff Kirsh Lockemy Marchant Neilson Rogers, J. Sharpe Sheheen Short Simpson Thrailkill
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
Section 8, Page 15, lines 21-24, reads as follows:
None of the proceeds of the issuance of bonds for a Show and Sale Agri-business Arena, or any other state money, shall be used to purchase land for this facility.
Rep. P. BRADLEY spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, K. Barfield Beasley Bennett Blackwell Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Cleveland Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Fair Felder Ferguson Freeman Gentry Gilbert Gordon Gregory Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Hearn Helmly Hendricks, B. Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Kay Koon Limehouse Lockemy Martin, D. Martin, L. McAbee McEachin McLellan McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Rogers, J. Russell Snow Stoddard Sturkie Townsend Tucker Waldrop White Williams Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Huff Shelton
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The motion of Rep. ALTMAN to reconsider the vote whereby Veto No. 2 was sustained was taken up.
Rep. WINSTEAD inquired whether it was proper to reconsider the vote on a veto message.
ACTING SPEAKER L. MARTIN replied in the affirmative.
Rep. S. ANDERSON spoke in favor of the motion to reconsider.
Rep. SHEHEEN spoke against the motion to reconsider and moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. S. ANDERSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Beasley Blackwell Bradley, P. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Cork Derrick Faber Freeman Gregory Hearn Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman McEachin McLellan Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Short Simpson Sturkie Toal
Those who voted in the negative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Dangerfield Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gordon Griffin Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Jones Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Lockemy Martin, L. McAbee McLeod McTeer Moss Neilson Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Snow Stoddard Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop Wilkins Winstead Woodruff
So, the House refused to table the motion to reconsider.
The question then recurred to the motion to reconsider, which was agreed to.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Altman Anderson, J. Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Barfield Bennett Blanding Boan Bradley, J. Brown, G. Brown, H. Brown, R. Burriss, T.M. Carnell Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Dangerfield Day Derrick Edwards Elliott Evatt Felder Ferguson Foxworth Gentry Gordon Griffin Harris, J. Harris, P. Harvin Hawkins Hayes Helmly Hendricks, B. Holt Huff Jones Kohn Koon Lake Limehouse Lockemy Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McAbee McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Petty Phillips, O. Rhoad Rice Russell Sharpe Snow Stoddard Sturkie Taylor Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Waldrop White Wilkins Williams Winstead Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Beasley Blackwell Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, M.D. Cork Faber Freeman Gregory Hearn Johnson, J.C. Keyserling Kirsh Klapman McBride McEachin McLellan Rogers, J. Rogers, T. Sheheen Shelton Short Simpson Toal
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
June 16, 1986
Mr. Speaker and the Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 2279, R-618, an Act:
TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-10, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF COUNTY COUNCILS TO CONDUCT REFERENDA TO DETERMINE A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, NUMBER OF COUNTY MEMBERS, OR METHODS OF ELECTION, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE REFERENDA TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATE METHODS OF ELECTION LIMITED TO AT-LARGE FROM THE COUNTY, FROM DEFINED SINGLE MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICT, ANY OTHER METHOD IN EFFECT WHEN THE REFERENDUM IS HELD, WITH QUALIFICATIONS, AND ANY OTHER METHOD OF ELECTION IN EXISTENCE IN ANY COUNTY OF THIS STATE AS OF JULY 1, 1986, IF THE COUNTY ON JUNE 25, 1975, HAD AN AT-LARGE METHOD AND HAS THIS METHOD AS OF JULY 1, 1986, AND A POPULATION OF AT LEAST TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND; AND TO REQUIRE COUNTIES WHOSE POPULATION EXCEEDS ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND OR WHICH COUNTY CONTAINS TWO OR MORE MUNICIPALITIES WITH A POPULATION OF AT LEAST THIRTY THOUSAND EACH AND WHICH ELECT MEMBERS OF THEIR GOVERNING BODY AT LARGE FROM THE COUNTY TO APPORTION THESE DISTRICTS AS TO POPULATION AND TO REAPPORTION AS TO POPULATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME PRIOR TO THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION WHICH FOLLOWS THE ADOPTION BY THE STATE OF EACH FEDERAL DECENNIAL CENSUS AND TO REQUIRE THOSE COUNTIES WHICH HAD AT-LARGE VOTING WITH RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 1980 WHICH HAVE NOT REAPPORTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1980 DECENNIAL CENSUS TO DO SO BY JULY 1, 1988.
This veto is based upon the attached opinion of the Attorney General's Office which concludes that "even though the act is general in form, it is actually special in substance and application", and is, therefore, of doubtful constitutionality.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
June 16, 1986
Helen T. Zeigler, Legal Counsel
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11450
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mrs. Zeigler:
You have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of H. 2279, R-618, which act would add certain provisions to Section 4-9-10, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976, as amended). For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that certain portions of the act are of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly, it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas V. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E.2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
The act would amend Section 4-9-10 of the Code to authorize county councils to conduct referenda to change the method of election of county council members. In addition, a portion of section 1 of the act would add subsection (f) (4), which would permit, as a method of election (a)ny other method of election in existence in any county of this State as of July 1, 1986, if the county on June 25, 1975 had an at-large from the county method of election and has this same method of election as of July 1, 1986, and a population of at least two hundred twenty-five thousand persons.
Furthermore, section 2 of the act would add subsection (g) to Section 4-9-10, as follows:
All counties whose population exceeds one hundred thousand or which county contains two or more municipalities with a population of at least thirty thousand each and which elect members of their governing body at large from the county, but require members to be residents of districts, shall apportion the residency requirement districts as to population and must be reapportioned as to population by the county council within a reasonable time prior to the next general election which follows the adoption by the State of each federal decennial census. The population variance between defined residency districts shall not exceed ten percent. Those counties which had at-large voting with residency requirements prior to 1980 as outlined above which have not reapportioned in accordance with the 1980 decennial census to do so by July 1, 1988. (Sic.)
Article III, Section 34 (IX) of the State Constitution provides that "where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." The provisions of the act cited above are general in form; indeed, it would be difficult to draft the provisions in a more general form. Even though an act is general in form, however, it may be special in operation, which act would violate the prohibition of special legislation as much as an act special in form. Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake, 226 S.C. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192 (1954). Thus, it is necessary to look at the practical application of the act.
Due to the restricted application of subsection (f) (4) to counties with a population of at least two hundred thousand meeting the other specified requirements, that portion of the act could be applicable only to Richland County. Similarly, while several counties meet the population requirement of exceeding one hundred thousand, only Charleston County meets the additional specified requirements as to method of election.
Further, only Charleston County has two municipalities of the specified population. Thus, even though the act is general in form, it is actually special in substance and application.
To uphold such an act general in form but special in application, it must be shown that the act "is based on a rational difference of situation or condition found in the counties placed in a different class." Elliott v. Sligh, 233 S.C. 161, 166, 103 S.E.2d 923 (1958). Justification could be shown to a court as to why these counties should require special treatment, though no such justification appears within the body of the act and we can identify no reason, based on the language of the act, why these provisions should be restricted to only those counties with large populations. For example, as to subsection (g), while counties with large urban populations may have experienced shifts in population which justify reapportionment, which is not presently required in those counties which have the specified method of election, there may be smaller counties using the specified method of election which have experienced population shifts on a smaller scale but for which reapportionment is equally justified. Further, as to subsection (f) (4), other counties might also desire to be able to change to any other method of election which was in existence on June 25, 1975, though such counties do not meet the population or other requirements.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has held unconstitutional a variety of statutes which were based on population but for which population had no natural or logical relation to the purpose of the act. See, for example, Elliott v. Sligh, supra; Town of Forest Acres v. Town of Forest Lake, States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. City of Columbia, 252 S.C. 55, 165 S.E.2d 272 (1969); State v. Ferri, 111 S.C. 219, 97 S.E. 512 (1918); State v. Hammond, 66 S.C. 219, 44 S.E. 797 (1903). But see Timmons v. South Carolina Tricentennial Commission, 254 S.C. 378, 175 S.E.2d 805 (1970). We believe that a court considering the constitutionality of the act in question would find the reasoning of these cases persuasive, providing a basis for holding these two subsections unconstitutional.
Section 3 of the act provides for separability of any provisions of the act found to be unconstitutional, thus permitting other portions of the act to stand. With the exception of the portions which would be codified as (f) (4) and (g), the other portions appear to be constitutionally firm and thus would be permitted to remain in force and effect if the other two provisions should be struck down by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In conclusion, it is the opinion of this Office that portions of the act are of doubtful constitutionality. However, if a court struck those portions as unconstitutional, the remaining portions of the act appear to pass constitutional muster and thus would be permitted to stand. As stated above, while this Office may point out constitutional difficulties, only a court may actually declare an act unconstitutional.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions
Rep. HOLT moved immediate cloture on the entire matter.
Rep. TOAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Alexander Blackwell Burriss, M.D. Fair Hearn Holt Limehouse Martin, D. Mattos Rhoad Sharpe Williams Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bailey, G. Bailey, K. Boan Brown, G. Brown, J. Burriss, J.H. Burriss, T.M. Chamblee Cleveland Cooper Cork Derrick Edwards Evatt Faber Foxworth Freeman Gregory Griffin Harris, J. Harvin Hayes Hendricks, B. Huff Johnson, J.C. Johnson, J.W. Jones Keyserling Kirsh Klapman Koon Lockemy Martin, L. McBride McEachin McLeod McTeer Mitchell Moss Neilson Petty Rice Rogers, T. Russell Sheheen Shelton Simpson Toal Townsend Wilkins
So, the motion for immediate cloture was not agreed to.
Rep. TOAL spoke in favor of the veto.
Reps. HOLT, J. BRADLEY and FOXWORTH spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Anderson, S. Arthur, J. Aydlette Bennett Blackwell Bradley, J. Bradley, P. Burriss, M.D. Cork Dangerfield Gordon Harris, P. Hawkins Hearn Holt Limehouse Martin, D. Martin, L. Mattos McEachin Moss Phillips, O. Rice Russell Tucker Washington White Winstead
Those who voted in the negative are:
Anderson, J. Barfield Brown, J. Cooper Derrick Evatt Faber Fair Foxworth Freeman Gentry Gregory Harvin Huff Johnson, J.C. Kirsh Klapman Lockemy McBride Mitchell Rogers, T. Sheheen Taylor Toal Townsend
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the vetoes by the Governor on the following items:
H. 3283 -- Ways and Means Committee: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 1377 OF 1968, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL BONDS, TO INCREASE THE LIMITATION ON THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL INDEBTEDNESS OF THE STATE; TO REQUIRE MONIES PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM BE EXPENDED ON IMPROVEMENTS AT MYRTLE BEACH INSTEAD OF ON A SWIMMING POOL; TO REALLOCATE MONIES PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FOR THE MUSEUM COMMISSION TO THE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD FOR THE MOUNT VERNON MILL SITE DEVELOPMENT; TO AMEND ACT 518 OF 1980, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF STATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH TO FINANCE VARIOUS PROJECTS FROM SURPLUS PAYING PATIENT FEE DEBT SERVICE FUNDS; TO REQUIRE THE JOINT BOND REVIEW COMMITTEE TO SCHEDULE THE AUTHORIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, INTO THE STATEWIDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY SCHEDULE; AND TO AMEND ACT 194 OF 1979, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF STATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF WINTHROP COLLEGE TO DEFINE PAID ADMISSIONS BY WRITTEN POLICY WITH AN EXCEPTION, AND TO DELETE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COLLEGE TO LEVY AN ADMISSIONS FEE.
VETO AGENCY AMOUNT SENATE
# ACTION
____________________________________________________
# 2 Adjutant General 857,750 Overridden
# 6 Citadel-
Alumni Hall 4,566,000 Overridden
# 7 Citadel-McAlister 4,252,789 Overridden
# 8 Clemson-Elec. Dist. 1,000,000 Overridden
# 9 Clemson-Jordan Hall 350,000 Overridden
#10 Clemson-
Thurmond
Center 5,000,000 Overridden
#11 Coll. of Chas.-
Utilities 750,000 Overridden
#12 Coll. of Chas.-
Renovations 700,000 Overridden
#13 Coll. of Chas.-
Liberty Bldg. 2,250,000 Overridden
#14 Coll. of Chas.-
Cafeteria 300,000 Overridden
#15 Coll. of Chas.-
Proviso Overridden
#16 Coll. of Chas.-
Proviso Overridden
#17 Francis Marion 3,472,000 Overridden
#18 Lander College 10,027,000 Overridden
#19 USC-Cola. 6,000,000 Overridden
#20 USC-Coastal 1,800,000 Overridden
#21 USC-Spartanburg 5,500,000 Overridden
#22 USC-Beaufort 300,000 Overridden
#23 USC-Salkehatchie 195,000 Overridden
#24 USC-Sumter 2,000,000 Overridden
#25 USC-Union 500,000 Overridden
#26 Winthrop 2,258,000 Overridden
#27 Medical Univ. 8,500,000 Overridden
#28 TEC-Orangeburg/
Calhoun 2,808,892 Overridden
#29 TEC-Midlands 5,920,000 Overridden
#30 TEC-Tri-County
Learning 3,200,000 Overridden
#31 TEC-Piedmont 1,080,000 Overridden
#32 TEC-Sumter 310,000 Overridden
#33 TEC-Horry/Georgetown 300,000 Overridden
#34 TEC-Proviso Overridden
#35 Voc. Rehab.-
Rock Hill 775,000 Overridden
#36 Sch. Deaf/Blind 600,000 Overridden
#37 John de la Howe 200,000 Overridden
#40 Forestry Commn. 416,586 Overridden
#41 Clemson PSA 7,042,000 Overridden
#44 Wildlife/Marine
Resources 4,300,000 Overridden
#45 PRT 6,035,000 Overridden
#46 PRT-Proviso Overridden
#47 Aeronautics Commn. 3,000,000 Overridden
#48 Election Commn. 984,810 Overridden
#49 Arena Proviso Overridden
Very respectfully,
President
No. 84
Received as information.
The Senate sent to the House the following:
S. 1382 -- Senator Lindsay: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MUST ADJOURN ON THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1986, NOT LATER THAN 12:00 MIDNIGHT RATHER THAN NOT LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., AND THAT WHEN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADJOURNS NOT LATER THAN 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON JUNE 19, 1986, IT SHALL STAND ADJOURNED SINE DIE.
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:
That the General Assembly must adjourn on Thursday, June 19, 1986, not later than 12:00 midnight rather than not later than 5:00 p.m., and that when the General Assembly adjourns not later than 12:00 midnight on June 19, 1986, it shall stand adjourned sine die.
Rep. TOAL raised the Point of Order that the Resolution was out of order as there was no provision in the Sine Die Resolution for consideration of Concurrent Resolutions, except those expressing congratulations and sympathy.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order and ruled the Resolution out of order.
The following was received.
June 10, 1986
Mr. Speaker and the Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 3697, R-592, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 69 OF 1963, RELATING TO THE RICHLAND COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE APPOINTED.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office which states in concluding that the Act relates solely to Richland County and is, therefore, of doubtful constitutionality:
...[T]he Act relative to the Richland County Historic Preservation Commission changes the manner in which commission members are appointed....
Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to the two discussed herein have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E. 2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E. 2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974). See also Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 S.C. 67, 321 S.E. 2d 258 (1984) (construing Article VIII, Section 7 in the context of legislation for a special purpose district, directing that "the constitutional mandate of Article VIII, Section 7 that the General Assembly can modify legislation regarding special purpose districts only through the enactment of general law" be followed).
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
June 9, 1986
Helen T. Zeigler, Legal Counsel
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11450
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Ms. Zeigler:
You have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of two acts of the General Assembly, H. 3698, R-593 concerning the Columbia Music Festival Association, and H. 3697, R-592, concerning the Richland County Historic Preservation Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the acts are of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E. 2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an act unconstitutional.
The act relative to the Columbia Music Festival Association revises the manner in which the members of the Association are appointed and increases the number of commission members. Similarly, the act relative to the Richland County Historic Preservation Commission changes the manner in which commission members are appointed. Both of these acts relate solely to Richland County.
Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to the two discussed herein have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E. 2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E. 2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974). See also Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 S.C. 67, 321 S.E. 2d 258 (1984) (construing Article VIII, Section 7 in the context of legislation for a special purpose district, directing that "the constitutional mandate of Article VIII, Section 7 that the General Assembly can modify legislation regarding special purpose districts only through the enactment of general law" be followed).
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 3698, R-593 and H. 3697, R-592 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Reviewed and approved by:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Toal
Those who voted in the negative are:
Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Evatt Faber Hearn McBride Rogers, T.
So, the veto of the Governor was sustained and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 10, 1986
Mr. Speaker and the Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 3698, R-593, an Act:
TO AMEND ACT 366 OF 1965, RELATING TO THE COLUMBIA MUSIC FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION ARE APPOINTED.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office which states in concluding that the act relates solely to Richland County and is, therefore, of doubtful constitutionality:
The act relative to the Columbia Music Festival Association revises the manner in which the members of the Association are appointed and increases the number of commission members....
Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to the two discussed herein have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E. 2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E. 2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974). See also Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 S.C. 67, 321 S.E. 2d 258 (1984) (construing Article VIII, Section 7 in the context of legislation for a special purpose district, directing that "the constitutional mandate of Article VIII, Section 7 that the General Assembly can modify legislation regarding special purpose districts only through the enactment of general law" be followed).
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
June 9, 1986
Helen T. Zeigler, Legal Counsel
Office of the Governor
Post Office Box 11450
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Ms. Zeigler:
You have asked for the opinion of this Office as to the constitutionality of two acts of the General Assembly, H. 3698, R-593 concerning the Columbia Music Festival Association, and H. 3697, R-592, concerning the Richland County Historic Preservation Commission. For the reasons following, it is the opinion of this Office that the acts are of doubtful constitutionality.
In considering the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly it is presumed that the act is constitutional in all respects. Moreover, such an act will not be considered void unless its unconstitutionality is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. Thomas v. Macklen, 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539 (1937); Townsend v. Richland County, 190 S.C. 270, 2 S.E. 2d 777 (1939). All doubts of constitutionality are generally resolved in favor of constitutionality. While this Office may comment upon potential constitutional problems, it is solely within the province of the courts of this State to declare an Act unconstitutional.
The act relative to the Columbia Music Festival Association revises the manner in which the members of the Association are appointed and increases the number of commission members. Similarly, the act relative to the Richland County Historic Preservation Commission changes the manner in which commission members are appointed. Both of these acts relate solely to Richland County.
Article VIII, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of South Carolina provides that "[n]o laws for a specific county shall be enacted." Acts similar to the two discussed herein have been struck down by the South Carolina Supreme Court as violative of Article VIII, Section 7. See Cooper River Parks and Playground Commission v. City of North Charleston, 273 S.C. 639, 259 S.E. 2d 107 (1979); Torgerson v. Craver, 267 S.C. 558, 230 S.E. 2d 228 (1976); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E. 2d 875 (1974). See also Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. City of Spartanburg, 283 S.C. 67, 321 S.E. 2d 258 (1984) (construing Article VIII, Section 7 in the context of legislation for a special purpose district, directing that "the constitutional mandate of Article VIII, Section 7 that the General Assembly can modify legislation regarding special purpose districts only through the enactment of general law" be followed).
Based on the foregoing, we would advise that H. 3698, R-593 and H. 3697, R-592 would be of doubtful constitutionality. Of course, this Office possesses no authority to declare an act of the General Assembly invalid; only a court would have such authority.
Sincerely,
Patricia D. Petway
Assistant Attorney General
Reviewed and approved by:
Robert D. Cook
Executive Assistant for Opinions
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Brown, J. Burriss, M.D. Burriss, T.M. Evatt Faber Hearn McBride Rogers, T. Toal
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and the Members of the House:
I am hereby returning without my approval H. 3975, R629, an Act:
TO PROHIBIT THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY PUBLIC HOSPITAL FROM CLOSING ANY SATELLITE MEDICAL FACILITY OPERATED BY IT WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER 1975, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF THE RESIDENT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS IN WHICH THIS SATELLITE FACILITY IS LOCATED.
This veto is based upon an opinion of the Attorney General's Office which states in concluding that the act is of doubtful constitutionality:
Article III, Section 34 (IX) and (X) of the State Constitution provide that where a general law can be made applicable, general laws uniform in operation, rather than special laws, shall be enacted. The operation of the act is restricted to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and satellite medical facilities located therein. Where there is no peculiar local condition requiring special treatment, then our Supreme Court has indicated that laws of general applicability should be enacted. McElveen v. Stokes, 240 S.C. 1, 124 S.E. 2d 592 (1962). We have not been made aware of any peculiar local conditions within the Eleventh Judicial Circuit which would require special treatment; thus, the bill appears to be a special law where a general law could be enacted.
Operation of satellite facilities by a hospital would most likely involve contractual matters and relations. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o...state shall...pass any...law impairing the obligation of contracts..." Similarly, the State Constitution, in Article I, Section 4, provides that "[n]o law impairing the obligation of contracts...shall be passed..." The rights and relationships of parties to a contract are discussed thoroughly in G-H Insurance Agency v. Continental Insurance Company, 278 S.C. 241, 294 S.E. 2d 336 (1982); both the state and federal prohibitions against impairing contractual obligations discussed therein would be applicable to the bill under consideration herein. Thus, it is very likely that this bill would impair contracts entered into by a hospital relative to operation of satellite facilities.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley
Rep. KOON spoke against the veto.
The question was put, shall the Act become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Anderson, S. Bennett Burriss, J.H. Cork Derrick Felder Gentry Hawkins Koon Limehouse Mitchell Sharpe Sturkie Toal
Those who voted in the negative are:
So, the veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
The following was received.
Columbia, S. C., June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it refuses to return S. 1354.
S. 1354 -- Senators Powell, Macaulay, Drummond and Garrison: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN HIGHWAYS EXTENDING FROM OCONEE COUNTY TO THE GEORGIA STATE LINE IN MCCORMICK COUNTY THE "SAVANNAH RIVER SCENIC HIGHWAY".
Very respectfully,
President
No. 82
Received as information.
The motion of Rep. LIMEHOUSE to reconsider the vote whereby the Conference Report on the following Bill was adopted was taken up.
H. 2002--Rep. White: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS BY MAIL.
Rep. SHEHEEN moved to table the motion to reconsider.
Rep. FOXWORTH demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered.
The motion to table the motion to reconsider was agreed to by a division vote of 48 to 20.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H. 2002:
H. 2002 -- Rep. White: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS BY MAIL.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 81
The report of the Committee of Conference having been adopted by both Houses, and this Bill having been read three times in each House, it was ordered that the title thereof be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
The following was received.
Columbia, S.C., June 19, 1986
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
The Senate respectfully invites your Honorable Body to attend in the Senate Chamber at 4:00 P.M. today for the purpose of Ratifying Acts.
Very respectfully,
President
No. 83
On motion of Rep. FELDER the invitation was accepted.
On motion of Rep. KIRSH the House stood at ease subject to the call of the Chair.
At 3:59 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The Senate returned to the House with concurrence the following:
H. 4006 -- Reps. L. Martin, Edwards, Neilson, Klapman, Cork, Sharpe, P. Bradley, J.W. Johnson, Schwartz, Day, Limehouse, H. Brown, Petty, Kay, Dangerfield, J.C. Johnson, Townsend, Chamblee, Thrailkill, Harvin, Tucker, P. Harris, Lockemy and Mattos: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CRAFTED WITH PRIDE FLAG TO BE FLOWN FROM THE FLAGSTAFF ON THE DOME OF THE STATE HOUSE DURING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 18-26 WHICH IS PROCLAIMED BY GOVERNOR RICHARD W. RILEY AS TEXTILE WEEK 1986.
H. 4013 -- Rep. Nettles: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. MACE, FORMER MAYOR OF JOHNSONVILLE, FLORENCE COUNTY, FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF UNSELFISH AND DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AND TO EXTEND HIM BEST WISHES.
H. 4014 -- Rep. Nettles: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH E. WILLIS ON HIS RECENT ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OF JOHNSONVILLE, FLORENCE COUNTY, AND TO WISH HIM WELL IN HIS NEW OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
H. 4015 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE BART COX ON BEING NAMED 1986 ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES.
H. 4016 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND RECOGNIZE AGENT CARLISLE LAVENDER OF CLARENDON COUNTY FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION AND TO WISH HIM WELL UPON HIS RETIREMENT.
H. 4017 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Aydlette, Dangerfield, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Rawl, Washington, Winstead, G. Bailey, Day, Limehouse, H. Brown, Helmly, and Williams: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND AND CONGRATULATE THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON'S SAILING TEAM ON BEING AWARDED THE INTERCOLLEGIATE YACHT RACING ASSOCIATION'S PRESTIGIOUS LEONARD M. FOWLE MEMORIAL TROPHY, AWARDED ANNUALLY TO THE NATION'S ALL-AROUND SAILING PROGRAM.
H. 4018 -- Rep. Dangerfield: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF MRS. TWEEDIE GARDNER DURST OF GREENWOOD COUNTY UPON HER DEATH.
H. 4019 -- Reps. Dangerfield, Aydlette, J. Bradley, Foxworth, Holt, Kohn, D. Martin, Washington and Winstead: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE SYMPATHY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO THE FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF ALLEN C. DRIGGERS OF CHARLESTON UPON HIS DEATH.
H. 4020 -- Reps. J. Bradley, Kohn and Foxworth: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE COLONEL D. D. NICHOLSON, JR., OF CHARLESTON, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS VICE-PRESIDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITADEL.
H. 4021 -- Reps. Ogburn, Evatt, Hearn, Blackwell, Mattos, L. Martin, Harvin, P. Bradley, Sheheen, M.D. Burriss and Hawkins: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO COMMEND MR. ROBERT D. FLOYD OF COLUMBIA FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES UPON HIS RETIREMENT.
H. 4022 -- Rep. Harvin: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND OUR GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND, JOHN G. "JERRY" BEASLEY OF COLUMBIA, FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF EXCEPTIONAL AND UNSELFISH SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
The Senate returned to the House with amendments the following:
H. 4011 -- Reps. G. Bailey and Day: A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AND DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 INTO A SINGLE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4; TO PROVIDE FOR THE INITIAL COMPOSITION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE NEW DISTRICT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD; TO PROVIDE THAT ALL ATTENDANCE AREAS IN DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION; TO PROHIBIT THE CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 UNLESS APPROVED BY FAVORABLE REFERENDUM OF THE ELECTORS RESIDING IN EACH DISTRICT; TO REPEAL ACT 268 OF 1985 RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION UPON CONSOLIDATING THE THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, EXCEPT UPON PETITION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE DISTRICTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED AND APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED VOTING IN A REFERENDUM AND RATIFIED BY THE DORCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 3 SO THAT THE ROSINVILLE COMMUNITY IS INCORPORATED INTO DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TO PROVIDE FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA AND THE DATE THE ALTERATION IS EFFECTIVE.
The Senate amendments were agreed to, and the Bill, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act, and that it be enrolled for ratification.
At 4:00 P.M. the House attended in the Senate Chamber, where the following Acts were duly ratified.
(R631) H. 2002 -- Rep. White: AN ACT TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-5-155 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS BY MAIL.
(R632) H. 4011 -- Reps. G. Bailey and Day: AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AND DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 INTO A SINGLE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4; TO PROVIDE FOR THE INITIAL COMPOSITION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE NEW DISTRICT; TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION METHOD FOR MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY; TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS; TO PROVIDE FOR A TRANSITION PERIOD; TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD; TO PROVIDE THAT THE CONSOLIDATION TAKES EFFECT UPON APPROVAL BY THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT; TO PROVIDE THAT ALL ATTENDANCE AREAS IN DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS 1 AND 3 EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION; TO PROHIBIT THE CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 UNLESS APPROVED BY FAVORABLE REFERENDUM OF THE ELECTORS RESIDING IN EACH DISTRICT; TO REPEAL ACT 268 OF 1985 RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION UPON CONSOLIDATING THE THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, EXCEPT UPON PETITION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN THE DISTRICTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED AND APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED VOTING IN A REFERENDUM AND RATIFIED BY THE DORCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 3 SO THAT THE ROSINVILLE COMMUNITY IS INCORPORATED INTO DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TO PROVIDE FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA AND THE DATE THE ALTERATION IS EFFECTIVE; AND TO AMEND ACT 535 OF 1982, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SUMMERVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 OF DORCHESTER COUNTY MUST BE ELECTED RATHER THAN APPOINTED AND TO PROVIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE TRUSTEES MUST BE ELECTED, SO AS TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON WISHING TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD SHALL FILE A PETITION BEARING THE SIGNATURE OF THREE PERCENT OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT WITH THE COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION AND TO REQUIRE INSTEAD THAT CANDIDATES SHALL FILE A WRITTEN NOTICE OF CANDIDACY WITH THE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS MUST BE BORNE BY THE DISTRICT INSTEAD OF THE COUNTY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 7-7-230, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF VOTING PRECINCTS AND VOTING PLACES IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, SO AS TO CHANGE THE VOTING PLACE IN PRECINCT NO. 16 (CLEMSON) FROM THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, HIGHWAY 78, TO THE DUBOSE MIDDLE SCHOOL.
At 4:25 P.M. the House resumed, the SPEAKER in the Chair.
The question of a quorum was raised.
A quorum was later present.
Rep. S. ANDERSON, with unanimous consent, made a statement relative to Rep. LAKE.
The SPEAKER appointed Reps. FREEMAN, L. MITCHELL and LAKE as a committee to notify the Senate that the House had gone as far as possible in completing its work, and pursuant to S. 1376, the Sine Die Adjournment Resolution, the House was ready to adjourn Sine Die.
The SPEAKER appointed Reps. L. MARTIN, WINSTEAD and J. HARRIS as a committee to notify the Governor that the House had gone as far as possible in completing its work, and pursuant to S. 1376, the Sine Die Adjournment Resolution, the House was ready to adjourn Sine Die.
The following was received.
It has come to our attention that the line item for Aid to Entities-Rural Development under Section 16I of the General Appropriation Act contains an appropriation of $6,500,000. This is in error insofar as $500,000 of this amount was to be shown on a separate line as a special item. In view of this fact we wish the Journal to reflect this statement and, further, we would state that it was the intent that the provisions of the act relating to equal division of Aid to Entities funds does not apply to $500,000 of the funds contained on the line item.
James M. Waddell, Jr. Thomas G. Mangum On the Part of the Senate On the Part of the House Conferees Conferees
Received as information.
The following was received.
June 18, 1986
The Honorable Ramon Schwartz, Jr.
Speaker
House of Representatives
State House
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I am returning, with my objections, H. 3550 (R-624), the 1986-87 Appropriations Bill with vetoes. It is my understanding that the State's Board of Economic Advisors has reduced their revenue estimate for 1986-87 by an additional ten million dollars. I believe it is my responsibility as Governor to veto enough line items in the appropriations bill to bring the budget in balance. Enclosed is a package of vetoes totaling $10.3 million. These vetoes balance the budget and reduce the possibility of midyear budget cuts.
In general vetoes recommended equal one-half of one percent of an agency's budget. After reviewing overall budget needs, I did not veto any dollar amount in the state aid to local governments since local governments are facing revenue shortfalls due to federal budget cuts. In addition due to constraints felt by the Departments of Corrections and Mental Health, these two agencies were only vetoed one-fourth of one percent. Since education is also a top state priority and since the majority of the funds appropriated to the Department of Education pass through to local school districts, the Department of Education's appropriation was vetoed only four-tenths of one percent.
Since vetoes must address line-items, I have recommended vetoes for specific lines. However, it is my intent to reduce agencies by this overall percent, and I will encourage the Budget and Control Board to approve any necessary budget transfers.
I have also been concerned about the increase in state employees included in the 1986-87 Appropriations Bill. New employees include a number of positions to meet federal mandates at the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health as well as employees needed for public health and safety needs.
After studying the new employees included in the budget, I have vetoed a package of 500 employees. I believe that agencies can manage essential services with this reduction by either managing with existing employees or by contracting for needed services.
In addition the following package includes vetoes of three sections of Part II of the Appropriations Bill.
VETO 1 - Section 5B, State Law
Enforcement Division, Page 81,
Lines 14-15, Fixed Charges and
Contributions $63,421
This item and other vetoes regarding expenditures are vetoed for the previously stated reason concerning reduced revenue estimates.
VETO 2 - Section 5C, Governor's Office - Executive Policy and Programs, Page 85, Line 8, Temporary Positions
VETO 3 - Section 8, Comptroller General's Office, Page 95, Line 43, Equipment $25,275
VETO 4 - Section 9, State Treasurer's Office, Page 99, Line 35, Contractual Services $5,000
VETO 5 - Section 10, Attorney General's Office, Page 101, Line 16, Equipment $47,325
VETO 6 - Section 13, Adjutant General's Office, Page 108, Line 10, Supplies and Materials $21,400
VETO 7 - Section 15, Election Commission, Page 115, Line 10, Contractual Services $12,000
VETO 8 - Section 16A, Budget and Control Board, Office of Executive Director, Page 119, Line 27, Travel
VETO 9 - Section 16B, Budget and Control Board, Budget Division, Page 122, Line 16, Travel $10,106
VETO 10 - Section 16C, Budget and Control Board, Research and Statistical Services Division, Page 125, Line 1, Supplies and Materials $10,000
VETO 11 - Section 16D, Budget and Control Board, Information Resource Management, Page 127, Line 9, Contractual
Services $15,550
VETO 12 - Section 16D, Budget and Control Board, Information Resource Management, Page 128, Line 33, computer technicians (1)
This agency received a total of twelve new positions. This veto and the following three vetoes delete six of these new positions. Positions vetoed include positions which I believe can be handled through contractual arrangements or by managing with existing positions.
VETO 13 - Section 16D, Budget and Control Board, Information Resource Management, Page 128, Line 37, administrative specialist (1)
VETO 14 - Section 16D, Budget and Control Board, Information Resource Management, Page 128, Line 39, computer operator trainee (1)
VETO 15 - Section 16D, Budget and Control Board, Information Resource Management, Page 128, Line 43, computer operator (3)
VETO 16 - Section 16E, Budget and Control Board, General Services Division, Page 131, Line 6, Classified Positions $29,328
VETO 17 - Section 16E, Budget and Control Board, General Services, Page 134, Line 40, trades craftsman)
This agency received a total of twelve new positions. This veto reduces that total by six. Again I believe the agency can manage with this reduction.
VETO 18 - Section 16F, Budget and Control Board, State Fire Marshal, Page 141, Line 27, Contractural Services
VETO 19 - Section 16H, Budget and Control Board, Human Resources Management, Page 148, Line 7, Contractual
Services $14,938
VETO 20 - Section 16I, Budget and Control Board, Local Government Division, Page 151, Line 11, Contractual
Services $12,950
VETO 21 - Section 16J, Budget and Control Board, State Auditor, Page 152, Line 32, Equipment $12,000
VETO 22 - Section 16K, Budget and Control Board, Retirement System, Page 154, Line 33, administrative specialist (1)
This agency received a total of five new positions. This veto and the following veto reduce that total by two, leaving three new positions.
VETO 23 - Section 16K, Budget and Control Board, Retirement System, Page 154, Line 37, accounting technician)
VETO 24 - Section 17, Commission on Higher Education, Page 176, Line 18, Equipment $10,663
VETO 25 - Section 18, Higher Education Tuition Grants Committee, Page 179, Lines 13-14, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials
$26,410
$9,900
VETO 26 - Section 19, The Citadel, Page 184, Line 31,
Equipment $38,827
VETO 27 - Section 19, The Citadel, Page 185, Line 25, Unclassified Positions $31,698
VETO 28 - Section 20, Clemson University, Page 195, Line 28, Unclassified Positions $204,134
VETO 29 - Section 20, Clemson University, Page 196, Line 34, Supplies and Materials $123,665
VETO 30 - Section 21, College of Charleston, Page 204, Line 13, Contractual Services $85,922
VETO 31 - Section 22, Francis Marion College, Page 209, Line 37, Equipment $37,928
VETO 32 - Section 23, Lander College, Page 215, Line 1, Classified Positions $37,699
VETO 33 - Section 24, SC State College, Page 224, Line 20, Unclassified Positions $72,190
VETO 34 - Section 25A, University of South Carolina, Page 229, Line 45, classified positions (107.25)
The University of South Carolina system received an increase of 525 new positions. This represents a ten percent increase in overall positions. This veto and the following veto reduce the 525 new positions by 238.38, leaving a total of 286.62 positions.
VETO 35 - Section 25A, University of South Carolina, Page 230, Line 2, unclassified positions (131.13)
VETO 36 - Section 25A, University of South Carolina, Page 235, Line 10, unclassified positions $514,697
VETO 37 - Section 25B, University of South Carolina, Medical School, Page 244, Line 30-37, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials, Fixed Charges and Contributions, Contributions, Travel, Equipment, Library Books, Maps and Film
$55,784
$9,500
$10,500
$600
$10,500
$20,500
$25,429
This veto includes the reduction of one-half of one percent of approximately $70,000. In addition the two medical universities received new formula funds, and I have vetoed one-third of the increase.
VETO 38 - Section 25C, USC-Aiken Campus, Page 251, Line 9, Supplies and Materials $26,500
VETO 39 - Section 25D, USC-Coastal Carolina Campus, Page 257, Line 38, Classified Positions $42,681
VETO 40 - Section 25E, USC-Spartanburg Campus, Page 265, Line 39, Classified Positions $35,983
VETO 41 - Section 26, Winthrop College, Page 305, Lines 1-5, Fixed Charges and Contributions, Travel, Library Books, Maps and Film, Equipment
$5,559
$15,845
$3,249
$23,322
VETO 42 - Section 27A, Medical University of South Carolina, Page 311, Line 16, professors
(25.00) (25.00)
The Medical University of South Carolina and the MUSC Hospital received a total of 231 new positions. This veto and the following three vetoes reduce these new positions by 43, leaving MUSC with a total of 188 new positions.
VETO 43 - Section 27B, Medical University of South Carolina Hospital, Page 323, Line 15, administrative specialists (7)
VETO 44 - Section 27B, Medical University of South Carolina Hospital, Page 323, Line 17, custodial positions (6)
VETO 45 - Section 27B, Medical University of South Carolina Hospital, Page 323, Line 19, custodial positions (5)
VETO 46 - Section 27A, Medical University of South Carolina, Page 318, Lines 40-43, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials, Fixed Charges and Contributions
$339,015
$71,394
This veto includes the reduction of one-half of one percent. In addition I have vetoed one-third of new formula funds received by the Medical University.
VETO 47 - Section 27B, Medical University of South Carolina Hospital, Page 323, Line 38, Travel $27,888
VETO 48 - Section 27C, SC Consortium of Teaching Hospitals, Page 327, Line 12, Supplies and Materials $51,744
VETO 49 - Section 29, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, Page 332, Lines 16-17, Fixed Charges and Contributions $339,138
VETO 50 - Section 29, Technical and Comprehensive Education, Page 332, Line 42, instructors (35) (35)
This agency received a total of 85 new positions. This veto leaves 50 new positions.
VETO 51 - Section 30, State Education Department, Page 342, Lines 12-13, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 52 - Section 30, State Education Department, Page 342, Lines 22-25, Aid to School District, Contract Driver, Aid to School District, Transportation
$500,000
VETO 53 - Section 30, State Education Department, Page 339, Lines 31-32, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 54 - Section 30, Department of Education, Page 352, Line 36, senior budget analyst (1)
This veto and the following veto delete two positions at the Department of Education. I believe the Department by a combination of managing its vacancies or using contractual arrangements can handle this need.
VETO 55 - Section 30, Department of Education, Page 352, Line 38, accountant technician (1)
VETO 56 - Section 31, Educational Television Commission, Page 373, Line 25, Travel $68,225
VETO 57 - Section 32, Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School, Page 376, Lines 40-41, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 58 - Section 33, Vocational Rehabilitation, Page 378, Lines 16-19, Fixed Charges and Contributions, Travel,
Equipment $14,922
$7,200
$38,520
VETO 59 - Section 34, School for the Deaf and Blind, Page 383, Line 43, Supplies and Materials $44,763
VETO 60 - Section 35, Department of Archives and History, Page 389, Line 18, Travel $16,224
VETO 61 - Section 37, South Carolina State Library, Page 395, Lines 14-15, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials $14,287
$12,674
VETO 62 - Section 37, South Carolina State Library, Page 396, Line 34, library technician assistant
(1) (1)
This veto deletes one of two new positions received by the State Library.
VETO 63 - Section 38, South Carolina Arts Commission, Page 399, Line 37, Travel $14,962
VETO 64 - Section 39, State Museum Commission, Page 402, Line 9, staff assistant (1)
The Commission received six new positions. This veto and the following two vetoes delete three of these new positions which I believe can be handled through contracts.
VETO 65 - Section 39, State Museum Commission, Page 402, Line 15, carpenter (1)
VETO 66 - Section 39, State Museum Commission, Page 403, Line 6, cabinetmakers (1) (1)
VETO 67 - Section 39, State Museum Commission, Page 402, Lines 28-29, Travel, Equipment $18,782
$3,000
VETO 68 - Section 40, Health and Human Services Finance Commission, Page 406, Lines 22-23, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials $291,292
$182,901
VETO 69 - Section 41, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 417, Line 8, Unclassified Positions $167,887
VETO 70 - Section 41, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 418, Line 22, Classified Positions $207,837
VETO 71 - Section 41, Department of Health and Environmental Control, Page 430, Line 22, public health nurse (3) (3)
I believe these new positions can be handled through existing vacancies.
VETO 72 - Section 42, Department of Mental Health, Page 452, Line 4, Contractual Services $361,463
VETO 73 - Section 42, Mental Health Commission, Page 476, Line 42, psychologist (10)
The Commission received a total of 617 new positions. This veto and the following veto delete twenty of these positions which can be handled through contractual services.
VETO 74 - Section 42, Mental Health Commission, Page 477, Line 6, mental health specialist (10)
VETO 75 - Section 43, Department of Mental Retardation, Page 484, Line 19, Contractual Services $208,523
VETO 76 - Section 44, Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Page 492, Line 20, Contractual Services $38,708
VETO 77 - Section 45, Department of Social Services, Page 497, Line 10, Temporary Positions $440,913
VETO 78 - Section 45, Department of Social Services, Page 503, Line 22, Social Service Generalist)
The Department is currently handling this service with contractual services.
VETO 79 - Section 46, John De La Howe, Page 514, Line 4, Supplies and Materials $14,811
VETO 80 - Section 49, Commission for the Blind, Page 522, Lines 29-30, Supplies and Materials, Travel $10,000
VETO 81 - Section 55, Department of Corrections, Page 535, Line 3, Administrative Support Specialist (16) (16)
The Department received a total of 721 new positions. This veto and the following two vetoes delete 64 of these new positions which I believe the Department can handle through contractual services or management of existing positions.
VETO 82 - Section 55, Department of Corrections, Page 535, Line 15, Correctional Classification Caseworker (26) (26)
VETO 83 - Section 55, Department of Corrections, Page 535, Line 22, Correctional Officer Assistant Supervisor (22) (22)
VETO 84 - Section 55, Department of Corrections, Page 539, Lines 39-40, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials $236,821
$113,273
VETO 85 - Section 56, Paroles and Community Corrections, Page 547, Line 3, Travel $70,000
VETO 86 - Section 57, Department of Youth Services, Page 551, Line 13, Supplies and Materials $119,814
VETO 87 - Section 60, Water Resources Commission, Page 564, Line 34, Temporary Positions $15,000
VETO 88 - Section 61, State Land Resources Conservation Commission, Page 567, Line 34, Contractual Services $14,740
VETO 89 - Section 62, State Forestry Commission, Page 572, Lines 15-16, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 90 - Section 63, Department of Agriculture, Page 578, Lines 16-17, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 91 - Section 65, Clemson University - Public Service Activities, Page 586, Line 17, Travel $165,082
VETO 92 - Section 67, Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Page 593, Lines 37-38, Contractual Services, Supplies and Materials $45,050
$40,900
VETO 93 - Section 67, Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources, Page 599, Line 34, Custodial Worker (1) (1)
The Department received a total of eight new positions. This veto and the following veto delete two of these positions which can be handled through contractual services or managing existing positions.
VETO 94 - Section 67, Department of Wildlife and Marine Resources, Page 599, Line 38, Wildlife Biologist (1) (1)
VETO 95 - Section 70, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Page 608, Line 28, Administrative Assistant (1) (1)
The Department received 64 new positions including 63 park rangers needed to alleviate overtime problems. This veto eliminates the one additional administrative assistant position.
VETO 96 - Section 70, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Page 611, Line 15, Travel $58,218
VETO 97 - Section 71, State Development Board, Page 615, Line 37, Travel $25,000
VETO 98 - Section 77, Public Service Commission, Page 627, Line 27, Contractual Services $23,312
VETO 99 - Section 78, Industrial Commission, Page 633, Line 16, Travel $16,375
VETO 100 - Section 81, Department of Insurance, Page 642, Line 17, Travel $20,400
VETO 101 - Section 85, Department of Labor, Page 656, Line 24, Contractual Services $16,000
VETO 102 - Section 86, State Tax Commission, Page 662, Line 2, Temporary Positions $126,100
VETO 103 - Section 86, State Tax Commission, Page 663, Line 15, Administrative Specialist (5) (5)
The Commission received 40 new positions to enhance revenue. This veto eliminates five positions which can be managed through contractual services if necessary.
VETO 104 - Section 87, Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, Page 666, Line 19, Equipment $17,812
VETO 105 - Section 120, Aeronautics Commission, Page 706, Lines 16-17, Fixed Charges and Contributions
VETO 106 - Section 120, Aeronautics Commission, Page 707, Line 43, Administrative Specialist (1) (1)
This new position can be handled through contractual services if necessary.
VETO 107 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 723, Line 12, Accounting Technicians (4)
The Department received 176 new positions. This veto and the following 13 vetoes delete 18 of these new positions which can be handled through contracts or management of existing positions, if necessary.
VETO 108 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 723, Line 14, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 109 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 723, Line 16, Clerical Specialist (1)
VETO 110 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 6, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 111 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 8, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 112 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 10, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 113 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 12, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 114 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 16, Clerical Specialist (1)
VETO 115 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 19, Data Management and Research Analyst (1)
VETO 116 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 725, Line 34, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 117 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 726, Line 25, Administrative Assistant (1)
VETO 118 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 726, Line 27, Administrative Specialist (1)
VETO 119 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 726, Line 35, Custodial Worker (1)
VETO 120 - Section 126, Highway Department, Page 726, Line 37, Custodial Worker (2)
VETO 121 - Part II, Section 17, Page 773: South Carolina is for the first time being nationally recognized for our tougher educational standards and new initiatives to help students meet those higher standards. The combined tougher standards and new initiatives are having a very positive effect on student basic skills achievement, academic achievement, attendance and SAT scores. Any delay in such student standards would be a major setback. Equally important is the provision of extra help and assistance to assure that students meet those standards. The cost to make this reduction in the affected school districts will be generally roughly less than three tenths of 1 percent.
In the phase-in of the Education Improvement Act, the next major student standards to take effect are the higher promotion standards and exit exam for graduation. Students in South Carolina experience the greatest problems in language arts during their junior high and high school years. A reduction in class size in the language arts in junior high and high schools will help those students receive individual attention and assistance so that they can continue to progress. The reduction in class size is needed now, otherwise, students facing the exit exam will not have the opportunity to benefit from the class size reduction later.
VETO 122 - Part II, Section 30, Page 782: The provisions of this section are identical to the provisions of Section 9 of R622, H.3283 (the Capital Improvement Bond Bill). Since the purpose of this provision will be accomplished when that Act becomes effective, it is unnecessary and should be vetoed.
VETO 123 - Part II, Section 44, Page 798: Currently the Budget and Control Board is authorized to make certain exemptions to the requirement that all transactions involving real property made by a governmental body be approved by the Board. This authority has been exercised to exempt less important, more numerous, and routine lease transactions from specific Board approval, requiring only that they be reported and monitored by the office of Property Management. I have been informed that if all agencies had to obtain approval of every reported lease, the Board would be required to process over four hundred additional leases per year for such things as lands leased by the Highway Department for maintenance and construction purposes, and lands leased by the Wildlife and Marine Resources Department for game management areas; and that a strict reading of the statute, if so amended, could require thousands of currently unreported transactions involving dormitory rooms, student housing, parking spaces, lecture halls, theaters, athletic areas, and farmers' market space rentals, to be processed by the Board. It is simply not practical, cost efficient, or necessary to process and monitor these types of transactions and the law should remain flexible enough to allow for the kind of common sense exemptions that the Board currently has approved. Alternative ways of accomplishing the objectives sought by this amendment should be examined.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard W. Riley
Rep. BLACKWELL explained the veto.
Rep. BLACKWELL asked unanimous consent, to take up veto No. 121.
Rep. T. ROGERS objected.
Rep. LIMEHOUSE moved to adjourn debate upon vetoes No. 1 through 120.
Rep. TOAL raised the Point of Order that the motion to adjourn debate on vetoes 1-120 was out of order as each line item veto was considered a separate veto message, therefore the motion to adjourn debate must be made on each item.
The SPEAKER sustained the Point of Order.
Rep. LIMEHOUSE moved to adjourn debate upon veto No. 1.
Rep. TOAL demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken resulting as follows:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Schwartz Alexander Anderson, S. Bailey, G. Barfield Beasley Blackwell Blanding Brown, G. Brown, H. Burriss, M.D. Chamblee Dangerfield Davenport Evatt Harris, J. Harvin Hayes Hearn Helmly Kay Keyserling Lake Limehouse Lockemy Martin, L. Mattos Mitchell Neilson Nettles Petty Phillips, O. Rice Sharpe Thrailkill Townsend Tucker Woodruff
Those who voted in the negative are:
Boan Bradley, J. Brown, J. Faber Freeman Gentry Johnson, J.W. Kirsh Martin, D. McTeer Moss Rhoad Rogers, T. Sheheen Toal Waldrop Winstead
So, the motion to adjourn debate was agreed to.
Further proceedings were interrupted by Sine Die Adjournment.
Rep. S. ANDERSON moved that when the House adjourns, it adjourn in honor of the late SPEAKER EMERITUS SOLOMON BLATT, SPEAKER RAMON SCHWARTZ, JR., Rep. PALMER FREEMAN, JR., Rep. CHARLES L. GRIFFIN III, Rep. LLOYD I. HENDRICKS, Rep. A. VICTOR RAWL, Rep. ROBERT R. WOODS, Rep. TIMOTHY A. BRETT, Rep. THOMAS M. MARCHANT III, Rep. RICHARD L. RIGDON, Rep. EDWIN S. LAKE, and Rep. WARREN D. ARTHUR, IV, which was adopted.
Each day during this Legislative session, we have had the privilege, O Lord, to come into Your presence in prayer. We have sought Your guidance. Now at the close of this session, we humbly lay at the throne of Your judgment all that we have done. Overrule anything that might have been done contrary to Your will, and in Your wisdom make the wrong right. Multiply and increase the works done in keeping with Your Divine purposes, and cause them to bring an ever greater increase of benefits to the people of this great State.
Give us a safe journey home. And when we get there, may we find ourselves among friends.
"The Lord bless you and keep you;
The Lord make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace".
Amen.
At 5:00 P.M. the House in accordance with the motion of Rep. S. ANDERSON adjourned Sine Die, in honor of the late SPEAKER EMERITUS SOLOMON BLATT, SPEAKER RAMON SCHWARTZ, JR., Rep. PALMER FREEMAN, JR., Rep. CHARLES L. GRIFFIN III, Rep. LLOYD I. HENDRICKS, Rep. A. VICTOR RAWL, Rep. ROBERT R. WOODS, Rep. TIMOTHY A. BRETT, Rep. THOMAS M. MARCHANT III, Rep. RICHARD L. RIGDON, Rep. EDWIN S. LAKE, and Rep. WARREN D. ARTHUR, IV.
This web page was last updated on
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 1:41 P.M.